Bill In Montana State Legislature To Keep Feds In Line
February 26, 2005
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
NewsWithViews.com
A new bill has been introduced in the Montanta State Legislature which require the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provides not only for pre-notification, but the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed.
Read more here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
6:26 PM
6 Comments:
The Supreme Clause to the U.S. Constitution would make this law a nullity from the outset, not that it has any chance of passing to begin with.
The Supreme Clause of common sense says that if someone steals from you, poisons you, brainwashes you, kills you, imprisons you and all-around shits on you, you should keep them away.
So did they ever pass this 2005 legislation then or in 2006, or are still working on it? And how many other County Sheriffs elsewhere have formatted Sheriff Dave Mattis' "SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT POLICY"?, found from over at www.uhuh dot com/action/govltd/govsmall dot htm see Chapter IV "Hierarchy of Enforcement / Sheriffs outrank Federal Agents" in this "Limited Federal Government, by Forrest Glen Durland, 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081 8th Edition, May 9, 2004.
The case report is totally bogus, just like so much else on this blog. But I'm not surprised that you retards fell for it.
Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
[link to www.ck10.uscourts.gov]
United States District Court
District of Wyoming
Our office has been receiving inquiries regarding the case of
Castaneda v. United States, No. 96-CV-099.
This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an
apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, alleged that the officials violated their civil rights. They filed an action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies.
The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court for the
District of Wyoming in May, 1996. The federal defendants were primarily represented by attorneys
with the Constitutional Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The
County defendants were represented by non-federal attorneys. The
case was settled following a settlement conference in 1997. The court did not rule on Plaintiffs' claims or any other legal issues in the case. After the settlement conference, Big Horn County
Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a "Policy." In the "Policy," the
Sheriff purports to impose
conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County.
We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the
court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.
This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming.
Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it
which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.
Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of
their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.
William F. Downes
Chief Judge, District of Wyoming
Thanks, That was in 1996-97 (past tense of a decade ago). The current is going on in Florida and Louisiana too over at www.freerepublic dot com/forum/a387ec3ea6413 dot htm in the highlight of my name.
This is an OutStanding Proposal by the Legislature, and is totally Justified by the Constitution. It in in Fact... their Obligation to make it so.
This is a Prime example of a State Government trying to Protect its People and their rights against "illegal search and seizure" etc.
An example of the STATE defending YOUR Constitutional Rights!
It's a damned shame that when some people in the Legislature do something like this, to Protect the Peoples Rights, They are persecuted by some of the very People who's Rights they are trying to Protect. How Ignorant and Selfish!
Those of you who disagree with the proposal of this Bill should be ashamed of yourselves. This is the kind of Law that every State in the Union should adopt. It would Protect People like Ed from Illegal Search and Seizure, Unlawful Detainment of Self or Property, or unlawful violations of Constitutional Rights, as well as prevent Violations of State Laws by any Federal Agency, or Agents thereof.
The Legislature of EVERY STATE has the Authority to impose just such Laws to keep the Federal Government in check.
The Federal Government only has the Power Granted it By the Constitution and WE THE PEOPLE. When the Federal Government Abuses its Power, or usurps More Authority over the People than is granted it By the Constitution... Every Person in Legislature, State Officials, Judges and WE THE PEOPLE have an OBLIGATION... A DUTY... TO OURSELVES AND EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IN THIS NATION... TO PASS THESE LAWS, AND ANY OTHER LAWS NECESSARY TO FORCE FEDERAL ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION... AND TO RESPECT, ACKNOWLEDGE, AND DEFEND (or at least concede to)THE RIGHTS OF OUR PEOPLE!
ROCK ON MONTANA!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home