It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Sheriff Who Sold His County

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





As the OP requested, bring it back to topic and leave the Constituional argument out of it. He doesnt want us going back and forth over a constitutional argument that you dont understand with relation to slavery (Im guessing you are a denier of our history for some unknown reason, but if that works for you, go for it).


This stupid guess of yours now brings into question your ability to use "reasonable suspicion" when functioning as a police officer. Rather than make stupid guesses, it would be more prudent to pay attention to the facts. I am insisting that you stop calling your translations of actual text of the Constitution, a "plain reading of the text", and now you hopelessly attempt to deflect by foolishly framing me as some "denier" of history. Just cite the Constitution as it is written, and stop rewriting it to say something it does not say. Is that really too much to ask?

Ignoramuses screaming deny ignorance is clownish. Own up to your mistake so that you can be taken seriously.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Feel free to argue with yourself from this point on out and by all means keep using those big words in an effort to look smart to other people in the thread.. The OP requested a return to the topic at hand, which apparently is beyond your capabilities. Get over it and move on - we are not going to agree on this topic, so why keep going back and forth. You beleive what you want, Ill beleive what I want.

Case closed.
Now, can we move on to the topic?

Back on topic -

The Constitution of the State of Utah establishes the legal framework for their Government. That Government establishes the setup of subornidate entities and governments inside the State of Utah. All the other BS you are talking about is nice, but has nothing to do with the basic facts of what occured in the County. All actions taken were legal and in complaince with State Laws, which were passed by the peoples representatives they sent to represent them in State Government.

The Utah State Legisltaure retains the right to pass, repeal or modify laws so Salt Lake County can form a Unified Police Department.

The article says the County Sheruiff sold his county, when it was never his county to begin with. The County is not going anywhere, and as I pointed in out the links you ignore, the State Legislature prescribed the types of Governments that can be used for county administration.

The Sheriff position is still present, and people will still vote people in and out of that office. The Sheriff still maintains control over the Jail, civil process and certain court proceedings.

The Sheriff will also be the head of the Unified Police Department unless otherwise changed by the County Government and Mayors of the resopective cooperating cities.

All of this is fact, as opposed to the article, which is science fiction that is written in a manner to lead people who are unable to think for themseleves to a conclusion that is false. People hear something about the authority of a sheriff and cling to it without doing any research what so ever.

Deny ignroance, dont embrace it, and learn how your government works and operates. At ALL levels.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Feel free to argue with yourself from this point on out and by all means keep using those big words in an effort to look smart to other people in the thread.. The OP requested a return to the topic at hand, which apparently is beyond your capabilities. Get over it and move on - we are not going to agree on this topic, so why keep going back and forth. You beleive what you want, Ill beleive what I want. Case closed. Now, can we move on to the topic?


You have no authority to close the case! Clearly you are incapable of admitting your mistake. Take note how I have refrained from using "big words" so that you can relax a little.

Either language speaks us, or we speak language. This is essential in any debate, that we clarify the language being used. If you think it wise to keep on allowing language to speak you, then this is what you will do.

It matters not that you return to the topic at hand if you insist on being so sloppy in your use of language. Take for an example, on the topic of authority in Utah, your assertion that what I pointed out to under a plain reading of the Utah Constitution - that being that the people are the actual authority - is all just "BS". That is on topic, and yet another disturbing facet of your use of language. Your reading of constitutions is clearly reliant upon extremely liberal interpretations, and your attitude that the people are nothing more than "BS" in regards to their authority, is very much on topic.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ok, pay attention -

Originally posted by Hawkiye
You are off topic with you 3/5 argument and you brought it up not JPZ he corrected your error. I gave you a little leeway cause we all do at times but since you took a mile its time to get back on topic.

I also said it had nothing to do with the federal constitution, and you are wrong state constitutions do not grant sheriffs thier authority the county sheriff was around before any constitutions and the people on the counties are what created the sheriff, the state and federal constitutions. The county is a higher authority then the state or the feds in historical American jurisprudence. Of course it is backward now because of ignorance.

Now please keep it on topic or I'll be forced to ask the mods to monitor and correct you if necessary The topic is about the systematic dismantling of the office of the county sheriff.

In fact why don't you start a thread about people who want to get back to the constitution and your 3/5 argument etc. its an interesting topic just not germane here?


What part of the above do you not understand? I am not the one ending the argument on the 3/5 issue, the OP is, so take your "you dont have the authority" argument up with the person who said to stop, which is NOT me.


You can beleive what ever revisonist version of history you want to put together. I will beleive what actually happened. There is nothing more to discuss on this topic at all, so please, abide by the op request and drop it and move on to the topic at hand, which is the Bs article put out by paranoid sovereign citizen people who dont know how the government works.


Once again, since you dont seem to learn -

Back on topic -

The Constitution of the State of Utah establishes the legal framework for their Government. That Government establishes the setup of subornidate entities and governments inside the State of Utah. All the other BS you are talking about is nice, but has nothing to do with the basic facts of what occured in the County. All actions taken were legal and in complaince with State Laws, which were passed by the peoples representatives they sent to represent them in State Government.

The Utah State Legisltaure retains the right to pass, repeal or modify laws so Salt Lake County can form a Unified Police Department.

The article says the County Sheruiff sold his county, when it was never his county to begin with. The County is not going anywhere, and as I pointed in out the links you ignore, the State Legislature prescribed the types of Governments that can be used for county administration.

The Sheriff position is still present, and people will still vote people in and out of that office. The Sheriff still maintains control over the Jail, civil process and certain court proceedings.

The Sheriff will also be the head of the Unified Police Department unless otherwise changed by the County Government and Mayors of the resopective cooperating cities.

All of this is fact, as opposed to the article, which is science fiction that is written in a manner to lead people who are unable to think for themseleves to a conclusion that is false. People hear something about the authority of a sheriff and cling to it without doing any research what so ever.

Deny ignroance, dont embrace it, and learn how your government works and operates. At ALL levels.


This is the process in place that Utah used to form a Metro Police department. What, if anything, do you find objectionable that was done to create the department? The info above refutes all the claims from the op article, and I cited the links back to the Utah State Government website where people can access the State Laws.


Your thoughts?




edit on 14-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





What part of the above do you not understand? I am not the one ending the argument on the 3/5 issue, the OP is, so take your "you dont have the authority" argument up with the person who said to stop, which is NOT me.


Yet you keep bringing it up, don't you?




You can beleive what ever revisonist version of history you want to put together.


I have not revised any history at all, and instead have taken you to task for revising the language of the Constitution for the United States of America. Your continued deflections make it appear as if you are well aware of what you have done, but are convinced that people are just to stupid to see it. You are the one guilty of revision, and that revision was of a legal document that serves as the Supreme Law of the Land. I have made no assertions one way or the other in regards to history.




There is nothing more to discuss on this topic at all...


This sentence, amusingly follows your own insistence on arguing that of which you are now pretending to "drop".

Once you go back "on topic" you once again dismiss the inherent political power of the people as "BS". This is who you are, this is how you liberally construe the Utah Constitution, and this is your general attitude of the holders of the inherent political power.

Thoughts?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yup... anyways

Back on topic -

The Constitution of the State of Utah establishes the legal framework for their Government. That Government establishes the setup of subornidate entities and governments inside the State of Utah. All the other BS you are talking about is nice, but has nothing to do with the basic facts of what occured in the County. All actions taken were legal and in complaince with State Laws, which were passed by the peoples representatives they sent to represent them in State Government.

The Utah State Legisltaure retains the right to pass, repeal or modify laws so Salt Lake County can form a Unified Police Department.

The article says the County Sheruiff sold his county, when it was never his county to begin with. The County is not going anywhere, and as I pointed in out the links you ignore, the State Legislature prescribed the types of Governments that can be used for county administration.

The Sheriff position is still present, and people will still vote people in and out of that office. The Sheriff still maintains control over the Jail, civil process and certain court proceedings.

The Sheriff will also be the head of the Unified Police Department unless otherwise changed by the County Government and Mayors of the resopective cooperating cities.

All of this is fact, as opposed to the article, which is science fiction that is written in a manner to lead people who are unable to think for themseleves to a conclusion that is false. People hear something about the authority of a sheriff and cling to it without doing any research what so ever.

Deny ignroance, dont embrace it, and learn how your government works and operates. At ALL levels.


This is the process in place that Utah used to form a Metro Police department. What, if anything, do you find objectionable that was done to create the department? The info above refutes all the claims from the op article, and I cited the links back to the Utah State Government website where people can access the State Laws.


Your thoughts?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Clearly you believe that by continually copying and pasting the same reply over and over will some how clarify what it is you mean by "all the other BS" I am talking about. Particularly since this continued reply is in response to me pointing out that the people hold the inherent political power.

Yes,, I can see the word (as misspelled as it is) subordinate, but since all I addressed was the actual and original authority being the people, clarification on what you mean by "BS" would probably be a good idea.

Thoughts?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well, for starters sinking to the level of correcting spelling shows no class, but if thats your thing and it somehow makes you feel superior, why deviate from it. I guess you have to go with what works, and in your case thats a very short list.

Now, are we done with the back and forth personal jabs? Or shall we continue them?


My thought is the op article is way off base and does nothing but promote fear through ignorance. It does not discuss the Constitutional matters at the State level, nor does it take into account or even explain how a sheriff gets their authority in the State of Utah. It states the Sheriff sold the county, when in fact nothing like that ever occured.

The article does not address the fact that the Sheriff position is still in place and people will still be required to vote for the position of Sheriff. It fails to explain that the only responsibility of the Sheriff ius to maintain the jail, process service and special court security.

I think the article is off base and is nothing but a hastily put together in an effort to pull the wool over peoples eyes who dont want to take the time to research anything. I think groups are to quick to scream constitutional violation when their is no violation present.

I think the article is nothing more than a propoganda piece and nothing more.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Still, you refuse to address your "BS" remark. I get that you think the article posted by the O.P. is BS, but I am not the O.P., and I did not post that article you have such a contention with, and have not even spoken to the article myself. I have addressed the issue of Sheriff's being duly elected officials and directly accountable to the people. This appears to be the O.P.'s genuine concern. Your claims that the article posted is "bs" is your claims. You've engaged in enough insincerity, and flat out deceit to make it more than difficult to take your assertions seriously.

What about what I have said, would justify your "all the other BS" remark?

The article very well may be a propaganda piece, but fighting propaganda with propaganda is a dubious strategy, my friend.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The part people keep missing, including yourself, is how the Office of the Sheriff is created and how it gets its authority. State Constitutions are the documents that spell out how the government will work, including that of Sheriff.

There is a lack of knowledge when it comes to this area, and the argument people make is based on the misperception that the office of the Sheriff is an entity that is absolute and self contained. That it draws its authority not from the State Constitutions, but some other entity or document.

Utah State Law is where the Sheriffs in Utah get their authority from. The State legislature prescribes the manner and paremeters that defines a Sheriffs function.

In this case, the OP article makes several accusations that are based on that lack of knowledge about how the Sheriffs office works.

Claim -
The Sheriff dissolved the Sheriffs department and turned it over to a board of directors.

Fact -
The Office of the Sheriff has not changed or been disolved. The Sherrifs Office in Utah, per state law, requires the Sheriffs department to be responsible for civil process, maintaing the jail and providing security for court.

Claim -
The citizens of Salt Lake County were deceived / tricked into voting the Sheriff into office so he could dissolve the department.

Fact -
This has been an ongoing topic / discussion for th residents of Salt Lake County since 2007 if not earlier. The respective governments in Salt Lake County have engaged with the citizens through meetings and dialogue and have request feedback and input.


Claim -
The creation of the UPD removes the ability of the citizens to have the ability of redress of greivances.

Fact -
The citizens will not lose their ability to hold government accountable, and they do not lose their ability to hold law enforcement accountable.

Claim -
This entire process is illegal and unconstitutional.

Fact -
The Utah State legislature had to pass a new law and modify a few others to make a joint county police department legal. This was done after the citizens of Salt Lake County were in agreement to merge the departments into one. The Legislature passed the legislation sometime at the end of 2009.

Claim -
The newly created Police Department is a for profit corporation and militant.

Fact -
The new unified police department is not a corporation, is prohibited by State Law when it comes to "profits" and is not militant. There has been no change in the manner in which services will be provided.

Claim -
The authority of the Sheriff has been given away in terms of Law Enforcement functions.

Fact -
The UPD moves all municipal officers who used to enforce local city ordinances to that of defacto Sheriffs deputies. They lose their ability to enforce local ordinances (a few exceptions / code enforcement etc) and instead are required to enforce state statutes (which is a key argument for soveregn citizens).

I can continue but I will stop here as I beleive I have proven my point with regards to the validity of the OP article and its claims. I know you repsonded earlier with a comment about the Utah Constitution. The Utah consititution prescribes the manner of Government that Utah will use, including its legislative branch.

The legislative branch prescribes how county and municipal governments will operate, including the police departmens and Sheriffs departments.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about the merging of police departments in Utah, and all the claims made by the OP article are based solely on the lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the author.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The office of the Sheriff is established through the State Constitution


Perhaps you can point me to the where in the Utah constitution this occurs as I can't seem to find it?

Niether can I find where the legislature creates the office of sheriff for the counties in the Utah code. It defines what it deems certain duties of a sheriff but nowhere does it create the office. Most likely becuase it does not have the authority.

I did find that in order to create a new county it is left up to the people of the county as I said, albeit the legislature defines a few rules on how to go about it. So as I said it appears the people create their counties and the offices in it still just as they did historically.

le.utah.gov...

Of note is as I said before; Most of the counties were created before any constitutions were written or legislatures seated by the farmers that built this land. The people on the land in the distracts and counties were at the top of the pyramid and the state and federal governments answered to them. Of course it is the other way around today due to the abundance of ignorance.

Salt lake County was created in 1852 by the people. Utah did not become a state until 1896. So as I said the county and the sheriff existed before the state. However the counties in the colonies existed before the establishment of this nation the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution also.

www.slco.org...
www.media.utah.edu...


Please show me and everyone else where it says the Sheriff is done?




SALT LAKE COUNTY, Utah—
The details of a new metro police force for Salt Lake County, a feat that has taken several years to accomplish, have now been finalized. As of January 1, 2010, The Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office will be dissolved and will be replaced with a new metro police department. The new department will be run by mayors of participating cities.

"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 mayors," said Sheriff Winder of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office.


www.fox13now.com...


“It’s important that people recognize the agency, and they will no longer say ‘Sheriff’s Office.’  It’s anticipated they will say Unified Police Department…” Sheriff Winder told KCPW in August 2009.
(Source: kcpw.org...)


The State Legislature retains authority over how law enforcement works inside Utah - Always has, always will.


The supreme court disagrees with you! From the opinion of the SCOTUS in the landmark case brought by sheriffs Printz and Mack:


We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule...

("the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]"). As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]...

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

www.law.cornell.edu...


The State Legislature passed laws allowing for unified police departments.


State legislatures do not pass laws they decree corporate policy statutes that are not law. But the people do not know the difference and contract with this rogue agencies and their policy enforcers (police).

PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





The part people keep missing, including yourself, is how the Office of the Sheriff is created and how it gets its authority. State Constitutions are the documents that spell out how the government will work, including that of Sheriff.


Given that I have pointed to irrefutable evidence that the Sheriff gets its authority directly from the people, it is quite clearly you who is not getting it. Although, at this point I am inclined to believe you get it, but just have absolutely no respect for that authority. In fact, your yammering on about claims the O.P. makes in reply to my simple question of what it is I have said that would justify you calling it BS is the height of disingenuousness..

It doesn't take a genius to read your words and understand who you are and what you are advocating. While I have held out hope for you in the past, this hope is greatly diminished after this unacceptable refusal to answer a simple question, and to support your claim that things I have said is BS.

You have no credibility what-so-ever. You are willfully deceitful, and no where nearly as artful in your deceit as seem to think you are. You jumped into this thread and used it as an excuse to attack the "freeman movement", but even that is deceptive, because what you are really attacking is free people everywhere. You clearly despise freedom. You clearly have no regard for the authority of the people, nor understand why the inherent political power rests with the people. It does so because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power works best when it is distributed evenly. This natural fact clearly bothers you, and you are undeniably an advocate for the aggregation of power, and subjugation of the people.

You can waste your time replying to me about your problems with the O.P. and the article he linked as long as you like. People are not nearly as stupid as you think they are and most will see through your nonsense and understand fully who you are, and what you are advocating, and it sure as hell ain't freedom, pal.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!


It is highly unlikely the arrogant member who hurled that unacceptable insult at you would even consider retracting that remark, and offering up the apology you deserve. Allow me to apologize to you in his stead.

Your tireless efforts fighting for freedom on these boards are legendary. The sycophants of tyranny will use whatever means necessary to destroy such an effort, including childish and mean spirited insults. I proudly stand beside you as a peer...an equal, and I thank you heartily for your genuine and necessary effort in this fight for freedom.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Perhaps you can point me to the where in the Utah constitution this occurs as I can't seem to find it?

It would be the part where it establishes the Executive, Judicial and Executive branches of Government and empowers the legislative to pass laws for the State.



Originally posted by hawkiye
Niether can I find where the legislature creates the office of sheriff for the counties in the Utah code. It defines what it deems certain duties of a sheriff but nowhere does it create the office. Most likely becuase it does not have the authority.

It very much does have the authority, and that is even more evident in the fact the State Legislature can create and dissolve Counties within Utah. In addition it establishes the requirements for a person to be Sheriff. If it didnt have the authoirty as you state, it would not be possible for the law to exist and be legal, which it does and is.


Originally posted by hawkiye
I did find that in order to create a new county it is left up to the people of the county as I said, albeit the legislature defines a few rules on how to go about it. So as I said it appears the people create their counties and the offices in it still just as they did historically.

le.utah.gov...

Which again, is up to the State Legislature. The people can vote all they want, but until the State Legislature approves it doesnt make it so. Utah State Law reserves the creation and dissolution of a county to the Legislature.



Originally posted by hawkiye
Of note is as I said before; Most of the counties were created before any constitutions were written or legislatures seated by the farmers that built this land. The people on the land in the distracts and counties were at the top of the pyramid and the state and federal governments answered to them. Of course it is the other way around today due to the abundance of ignorance.

On the part of certain people I agree.



Originally posted by hawkiye
Salt lake County was created in 1852 by the people. Utah did not become a state until 1896. So as I said the county and the sheriff existed before the state. However the counties in the colonies existed before the establishment of this nation the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution also.

www.slco.org...
www.media.utah.edu...

It was hoewever an organized territory at one point, and prior to that cities could spring up and die out in a matter of weeks. Those cities that existed before being in a state or organized territory were unique, ill grant you that, but it doesnt change the fact that after they ended up inside territories that were organized. While I get what your saying about Sheriff, you are ignoring several key elements during that time and I would suggest that you actually understand how law enforcement worked then, compare it to now, and see the differences. Just because you dont agree with what goes on now, does not make the sheriff a God entitty that answers to no one.



Originally posted by hawkiye

Please show me and everyone else where it says the Sheriff is done?



SALT LAKE COUNTY, Utah—
The details of a new metro police force for Salt Lake County, a feat that has taken several years to accomplish, have now been finalized. As of January 1, 2010, The Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office will be dissolved and will be replaced with a new metro police department. The new department will be run by mayors of participating cities.

"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 mayors," said Sheriff Winder of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office.


www.fox13now.com...


“It’s important that people recognize the agency, and they will no longer say ‘Sheriff’s Office.’  It’s anticipated they will say Unified Police Department…” Sheriff Winder told KCPW in August 2009.
(Source: kcpw.org...)


And again you are missing information. The Office of the Sheriff is not dissolved, and nor is it going away. What is occuring is the removal of the Road Patrol from the duties of Sheriff. The Sheriffs department is not required to maintain a road partol. In Utah they are only required to maintain the Jail, courts and civil process, and if you do research you will find those services are still intact with the Sheriffs office. There is a reason I provided you a link to the Salt Lake County Sheriffs office and the new Unified Police Department.

The Office of the Sheriff is still an elected position, and as of right now the Sheriff is acting as the head of the UPD. Even if the current Sheriff is fired as head of the UPD, he is still the Sheriff and can only be voted out or refusing to run again when his term expires.



Originally posted by hawkiye

The State Legislature retains authority over how law enforcement works inside Utah - Always has, always will.


The supreme court disagrees with you! From the opinion of the SCOTUS in the landmark case brought by sheriffs Printz and Mack:


We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule...

("the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]"). As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]...

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

www.law.cornell.edu...



Right and as I pointed out when I destroyed this load of BS above a few pages back. What the Sheriff Mack issue was over dates back to 1997. What occured was the Federal Government placing a new system that required background checks on people who wanted to purchase a hand gun. While the Feds put it in place, they made it where the county Sheriff was the person who had to administer the program and all paperwork.

Sheriff Macks argument was that he is not there to enforce Federal Law, and noted that the Feds could not order him to act as an agent of the State and FEderal Government at the same time. The Supreme Court at the time ruled in favor of Sheriff Mack, agreeing that the Federal Government could not force Sheriffs to administer a Federal Program.

In addition to Sheriff Mack, there was also a Sheriff out of Idaho or Wyomming, I forget which, who went along for the journey as well.

What you and other people are doing is seizing on a ruling the Sjupreme Court made tat was limited in its scope, which is to say it only stated the Feds could not force the Sheriff to act as a FEderal Administrator. It did not create any new authority for the sheriff, but only affirmed the obvious.

Since 1997 the Federal Government has made changes to the way records are handled at the Federal level, and how those records are made available to the States. Back in the day when you ran a person through dispatch, you would get a local return and possible state return, and no federal return was guaranteed. Now days, the moment a person is run through dispatch, it hits local, state and then federal systems checking for warrants, driving history etc.

The only thing it does NOT do is provide a criminal history, which can be requested by the Officer and a reason is giuven for requesting that information. This is the SAME system gun sellers use to conduct background checks.

So while you guys cointinually invoke Sheriff Mack, you should really read what that case is about, know the area it affected, and understand that the ruling has since been rendered null by Congressional Legislation that made changes to the system, no longer requiring the Sheriff to adminster a fEderal Program, namely background checks for gun purchase.

Absent that, his court case has absolutely no bearing on anything occuring in UTAH.



Originally posted by hawkiye

The State Legislature passed laws allowing for unified police departments.


State legislatures do not pass laws they decree corporate policy statutes that are not law. But the people do not know the difference and contract with this rogue agencies and their policy enforcers (police).


Do you and the others really undestand just how rediculous and ignorant you look when you keep stating coroporation? I really think you guys just get the talking points and are told to jsut keep repeating it over and over and over, ignroing the fact that you are so wrong its not even funny.

Show us where the Police department is a Corporation, and the laws are illegal and the officeres are rogue. Please use an offical source, like state law, and not the talking points from the delusional and misinformed, ignorant tools who wrote the op article.



Originally posted by hawkiye
PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!


Your relationship with JPZ is irrelevant, nor does it make your argument or his any more wrong than they are now. You have no understanding of how laws work, let alone the Federal Constitution or the relationship between Stats and the FEderal Government. You spout the same talking points from post to post to post in an effort to obfuscate and not debate.

You ignore established case law, while invoking case law that supports your argument. You cherrypick your arguments, which is evidence enough that you dont know qht you are talking about.


As far as JPZ we disagree and we agree on things, it just depnds what that is. When it comes to the constitution, he takes a revisonist view point. This is never more apparent than making a BS argument that the 3/5 clause does not refer to slave, when in fact it does. At the time the majority of slaves were Black, which again is something he tries to obfuscate by using big words.

Its a simple argument, because its one that has already been waged, yet like the fringe Sovereign Citizen crowd who do not understand what the term Soverign Citizen even means, they refuse to acknowledge that at one time in our history, our government engaged in the slave business.

Its a part of our history, for better or worse, its our history.

To ignore that it ever occured not only is ignorant, but it dishonors those who were affcted by it.

As I ahve been saying, deny ignorance, dont embrace it. So far your enbtire repsonse is the same cookie cutter soverign citizen BS over and over and over. If you want to be taken seriously, then maybe you should learn about hbistory and how the laws work, instead of clinging to your failed argument that is designed to take people in cricles in hopes of wearing them down to the point they get tired of arguing with you and just leave.

Contrary to popular belief, it doesnt make your argument right.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Right.. again more circular argument. I have shown you the links where the Utah Legislature is repsonsible for the creations and dissolution of counties. I have pointed out the Utah State Constitution that sets the framework for the type of Government Utah has. I have shown you the legislation that prescribes the requirements for a person to be eligable to hold the office of sheriff.

The office of Sheriff is an elected position, and that comes from the Legisltaure of Utah, namely section 53 which estbalishes the criteria to become law enforcement. In addition to Titel 53, Chapter 13 section 102 which defines who is a law enforcement officer.
County Sheriff Qualifications
Duties of the Sheriff

The election of a Sheriff is an American creation, and varies from state to state. And again since it bears repeating, the authority of the Sheriff is through the State, as does every other law enforcement offier. The state sets criteria and that criteria must be met. Closing your eyes and pretending its 300 years ago doesnt change the fact you would be wrong.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
With this, you guys are more than welcome to continue arguing between yourselves. There is nothing left to debate in this thread as some people are just repeating what they are being told to say instead of exercising independant thought.

Sheriff - Office and authority is established through the State, up to and including on whether or not is an elected position.

For those of you who want to return to 300 years ago, maybe you should spend some time researching what the Office of Sheriff was at those times. Ill help you out - They were not qualified law enforcement, but were in fact the most popular politician in the county.

If you guys are going to argue, then please elarn what it is you are arguing for and about.

Have fun to your own conversations and see you guys in the next thread.,



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





As far as JPZ we disagree and we agree on things, it just depnds what that is. When it comes to the constitution, he takes a revisonist view point. This is never more apparent than making a BS argument that the 3/5 clause does not refer to slave, when in fact it does. At the time the majority of slaves were Black, which again is something he tries to obfuscate by using big words.


And yet, the "three fifths" Clause does not make any reference to slaves, slavery, or any other form of servitude. This is a simple fact! It is a significant fact! There is no prima facie evidence that the Constitution condones slavery in anyway shape or form. It is you who is revising the Constitution, not I. It would be one thing if you were honorable and honest enough to admit that you revised the language of the Constitution, and that it does not say what you claim it say's, but rather means what you say it is, but you cannot even do this. Instead you hurl insults, you obfuscate, and astoundingly accuse others of your own crimes.

You completely ignored my explanation of why it is significant that the language of the "three fifths" Clause remains decidedly vague. That significance lies in the fact that had the Constitution said what you dishonestly claim it say's - even in the face of that Clause being quoted in this thread, and even though that citation clearly demonstrates your dishonesty - this would mean that the Constitution did indeed condone slavery, which would have then made an Amendment such as the Thirteenth Amendment problematic at best. You ignore this explanation because it does not matter to you what the Constitution actually say's. It does not matter to you what the Constitution actually say's because that Constitution, as well as all state constitutions, come with explicit restraints on overzealous officials. You want to pretend these express restraints do not exist.

You brought the "three fifths" Clause into this thread for a reason. Ironically, as part of your pattern of deceit, you attempted to convince readers that it was I who brought it up, but it was you who brought this Clause into this thread, in spite of the fact that there is no correlation between the "three fifths" Clause and hawkiye's concerns. Your design in bringing the "three fifths' Clause into this thread was not innocuous, and was more than likely nefarious. While you are not willing to simply make a post demanding that people obey you and the government of which you desperately want to distinguish from the people you expect to obey, you may as well be making such posts, because this is clearly what you expect.

Your Orwellian doublespeak, where your own revision of language, when called on it, becomes an accusation that those calling you on this gross revisionism are guilty of revisionism would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that you claim to be a law enforcement officer. If we are to take you at your word on this matter, then your pretension that you alone understand the Constitution and how it works is more than just disturbing.

You pretend that the Constitution is some sort of imposition on the people, instead of acknowledging that it is a legal document establishing a limited government. You loathe to admit that the Constitution imposes clear and undeniable restraints upon government officials, and will either misquote the Constitution, or when that can no longer sustain your ill begotten arguments, you then hope to rely on gross misinterpretations of case law to continue your insidious propaganda.

You clearly hope to legitimize slavery, and this is not the only thread in which you have attempted to do so. It appears that you have a strong dislike for the Thirteenth Amendment and a genuine love for the "three-fifths" Clause, even if you grossly misquote that Clause. If you are not interested in legitimizing slavery, then why do you keep bringing it up in threads that have nothing at all to do with the issue of slavery?

You seem to want to purposely add to any confusion so that your own lamentations become self fulfilled prophecies. You have now a few times insisted that neither hawkiye, nor I understand "how the law works" but you engage in a sloppy use of language in order to make this assertion, because you surely do not mean law, you mean legislation. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law.

All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Law is self evident. When people have to actually explain the legislation, this is because the legislation is not describing law, it is doing something else altogether. What is self evident requires no explanation. What is self evident is that all people...every individual...has in their possession certain unalienable rights. These rights are law. These rights that are law require no legislation what-so-ever in order to be law. Rights exist with or without legislation.

All people have the right to life. It follows then that all people have the right to self defense. From that it follows that if people have the right to self defense, and they do, then these people have the right to form an organization towards the same end. This is the rational basis for all just government, that people have come together to form an organization tasked with the protection of rights, and in the event this fails a system by which to offer remedy for a redress of grievances in regards to rights that have been denied or disparaged.

This is law. It is just that simple and no amount of obfuscation by advocates of tyranny and suppression will ever change this law, because the law is not dependent upon agreement. Law is natural and non arbitrary.

What you are advocating is a supremacy of legislation that can arbitrarily and capriciously usurp the law and assert its own agenda in spite of the law.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



It would be the part where it establishes the Executive, Judicial and Executive branches of Government and empowers the legislative to pass laws for the State.


Please quote the specific language in the Utah constitution giving any branch authority over the county or sheriff? You can't because there is none! You suffer from lack of understanding. The state and federal constitutions restrict the government not the people. They are a list of operating parameters and restrictions, they do not give authority to run peoples lives on a local level they are mainly to protect rights and free trade period. You like many seem to think they have ultimate power to do anything they vote on.. The essence of a free republic is limited government not democracy to vote on every aspect of peoples lives. There is a reason democracy is not mentioned in the Constitutions.


Right and as I pointed out when I destroyed this load of BS above a few pages back.


You apparently think quite highly of yourself for your much speaking despite your lack of substance.


What the Sheriff Mack issue was over dates back to 1997. What occured was the Federal Government placing a new system that required background checks on people who wanted to purchase a hand gun. While the Feds put it in place, they made it where the county Sheriff was the person who had to administer the program and all paperwork.


If you had read the whole case which you obviously have not you would know it is much more then just a case about background checks. It defined the governments from local to federal as being independent and supreme in their spheres not subject to the others. In other words stay in you own damn box and don't meddle in the affairs of the people of whom all political power is inherent in!

What part of :

"The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, NO MORE SUBJECT , within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." www.law.cornell.edu...
do you not understand?


It did not create any new authority for the sheriff, but only affirmed the obvious.


That is true the sheriff is and always has been the highest LEO in the country answering to no one but those who elected him!


his court case has absolutely no bearing on anything occuring in UTAH.


It reaffirms the supremacy of the Sheriff over all other LE agencies local state and federal. The people elected him he is accountable to them and only them. To bad the people have forgotten who they are as the holders of all political power.


It very much does have the authority, and that is even more evident in the fact the State Legislature can create and dissolve Counties within Utah.


Please quote the specific language in the Utah constitution and or the Utah code granting such authority? Once again you can't! And to say they can dissolve a county created by the people... Sigh! Even the Utah code says THE PEOPLE can create a new county if they want and they need nothing from the legislature. Amazing you are just making this up as you go aren't you? There is an old saying; when you realize you are in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. You might want to avail yourself of such wisdom.


The people can vote all they want, but until the State Legislature approves it doesnt make it so. Utah State Law reserves the creation and dissolution of a county to the Legislature.


Perhaps if you actually read the links I cited you would not make such erroneous statements. Utah code on the creation of counties: le.utah.gov...


Whenever any number of the qualified electors of any portion of any county desire to have the territory within which they reside created into a new county they may file a petition for the creation of a new county with the county legislative body of the county in which they reside.


All they need to do is if enough people want it they file a petition proving there is enough interest and hold an election and let the people of the county decide. The do not need permission from anyone except the people of their area.


While I get what your saying about Sheriff, you are ignoring several key elements during that time and I would suggest that you actually understand how law enforcement worked then, compare it to now, and see the differences. Just because you dont agree with what goes on now, does not make the sheriff a God entitty that answers to no one.


I have said he answers to THE PEOPLE and never intimated he is a god entity. It is pretty clear that you do not get it despite the substantive proof I have shown you. You by your statements clearly see the people as subservient to government when it is supposed to be the other way around as you never even considered they are who the sheriff answers to and your assertion the legislature is all powerful. Government derives its power from the people. The people are the "creators" of government. The creation doe not have authority and power over its creator.


The Office of the Sheriff is not dissolved, and nor is it going away.


Your capacity for denial in the face of statements by the media and the Sheriff himself is amazing. You might be correct but it is not clear this is the case. Perhaps you could show us the official documents law or what ever that created this unified police entity where it states the sheriffs office will remain in tact? I could not find such as document. Until then we will have to take the former sheriffs word that we should not refer to it as the sheriffs office anymore. Now why would he say that if the Sheriffs office was to remain intact as it always has?


Do you and the others really undestand just how rediculous and ignorant you look when you keep stating coroporation?


Should I deny the truth because ignorant fools mock? No of course not! I have posted proof on this thread and others of all this yet fools will continue to mock rather then examine the facts.


Your relationship with JPZ is irrelevant, nor does it make your argument or his any more wrong than they are now.


What I have discovered from this conversation with you is that you are irrelevant. I also discovered you claim to be an LEO is that correct? If so that explains a lot about your behaviour on this thread and if true god help those in your sphere of influence as an LEO. JPZ who is a man of honor and integrity and valiant freedom fighter whom I am proud to stand next to, he and myself have thoroughly painted you into a corner and you do seem to display the unfortunate LEO behaviour of arrogance and Napoleon syndrome where in "to hell with the facts" you must always be right even if you have to beat it into whom ever is challenging you. Good thing this is just on a message board and not the street where I am sure you would no doubt try to assert your self righteous unjust authority if you are indeed an LEO.

Edited to add: PS I see you have bowed out of this thread. I must say that is the first wise thing I have seen you do. However I suspect after you read this post you may be back



edit on 16-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by hawkiye
 





PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!


It is highly unlikely the arrogant member who hurled that unacceptable insult at you would even consider retracting that remark, and offering up the apology you deserve. Allow me to apologize to you in his stead.

Your tireless efforts fighting for freedom on these boards are legendary. The sycophants of tyranny will use whatever means necessary to destroy such an effort, including childish and mean spirited insults. I proudly stand beside you as a peer...an equal, and I thank you heartily for your genuine and necessary effort in this fight for freedom.



Thank you Jean Paul for the kind words, no need for you to apologize. It is an honor to stand next to you in this fight for freedom. Your Valiant efforts on this board are the ones that are indeed legendary and it is a pleasure to read and soak in your eloquent defences of freedom and liberty! I Likewise thank you for all your tireless efforts in the fight and look forward to your continued efforts!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join