Thread: Sheriffs Removed as Obstacle to Militarized Police in Delaware, Connecticut

Sheriffs Removed as Obstacle to Militarized Police in Delaware, Connecticut

Posted on 18 March, 2014 by Rick Wells



In 2012, a reverse coup of sorts took place in Delaware, following an even more draconian predecessor in Connecticut. There could be national implications if it is allowed to continue.
In Delaware, the son of Joe Biden, Attorney General Beau Biden, pushed through the state legislature a bill which redefined the duties of sheriffs and their deputies. It removed their arrest authority and made them little more than process servers and prisoner transporters.
The sheriff is the front-line of defense in America against a tyrannical centralized police force. They are our local law enforcement and are empowered with more authority in the county in which they serve than any other official at any level, including federal agencies and officials. That is, in every State except Delaware.
The action in Delaware has effectively removed that obstacle from the path of a central controlling government and an increasingly militarized state police force. The residents of Delaware, in their government’s present configuration, have no protection from the anonymous occupants of the black uniforms.
Delaware Sheriff Jeff Christopher says, “Right now the threat to individual Americans from al-Qaeda and other groups is nowhere near the threat we face from officials in our own country who are working at taking away our liberties.”
That is not wild “conspiracy theory,” it’s the reality from the perspective of someone who’s seen it from the inside. Having an ability to recognize when things aren’t as they should be is roundly derided by those with something to hide, but the events lead in only one direction.
Sheriff Christopher says “The battle of liberty is never over. We are attempting to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot overturning the law stripping us of our arrest authority.”
Christopher puts it clearly saying, “I believe the intent of taking away the authority of the sheriff is to set up a situation where the state police have the power to enforce unconstitutional legislation while preventing the sheriff from being able to stand against them.”
Colorado’s Weld County Sheriff John Cooke sees county sheriffs as being a check and balance against state and federal tyranny. They are an elected member of the community in which they serve, answering to the people of the county, not a higher executive. They can simply refuse to enforce unconstitutional or tyrannical laws.
Cooke remarked about the situation in Connecticut, and that state’s attempts to disarm their citizens. He said, “In Connecticut where they are trying to register everyone’s guns and not having much luck, I can see a situation where the state police could be ordered by the governor to do whatever he feels is necessary to get those people to register their guns.”
Connecticut eliminated the office of Sheriff statewide in 2000.
Christopher agrees, “What do the people of Connecticut expect? They don’t have sheriffs to stand in their traditional role to nullify the law and refuse to allow gun confiscation.”
Christopher continued, “If they still had sheriffs, the governor or state police would not even be thinking of confiscation. That is why the sheriff is elected instead of appointed. He owes his allegiance to the people.”
Rick Wells is a conservative Constitutionalist author who contributes to conservative media outlets. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/03/1...e-connecticut/

THE SHERIFF: A NECESSARY OFFICE .. by Bernadine Smith

by Fred Brownbill
on March 18, 2014
in Constitution Legal Watch
Federal ‘change agents’ have been inserting military command and control techniques into America’s civilian law enforcement system with the objective of enhancing global management. Transforming America from a constitutional republic into a segment of socialist world government required many changes, one of which is the elimination of the sheriff. There are those of us who consider the American state, the sheriff and his traditional office as vital.

Already laid over the nation is a militarized infrastructure: the Homeland Security Agency. It is the foundation upon which a worldwide regional system of total command and control can be applied to operate what was once meant to be a republic. Very little will be left to local autonomy. This is a violation of the principles of the Constitution: the Supreme Law of the Land. The ridiculous excuse for this installation is that we may have to give up some of our rights for safety and security. What it is really saying is that we must co-operate in theoverthrow of our own government in order to provide protection for ourselves and our government! It does not make sense!

The county sheriff is being introduced to a maneuver that will gradually eliminate him by a merger with federal marshals. Already under threat by an Advisory group,[1] the traditional American constitutional sheriff will be divested of his authority. He will lose his control over the jails and the courts, and all civilian law enforcement will be consolidated on the federal regional government level.

The first intent is to demote the sheriff and his deputies down to the functions of a beat officer where they can be managed by the Homeland Security Agency as a non-elective county police system.

If the sheriff disappears, good citizens will lose the only opportunity they have to vote for a representative in law enforcement of their own choosing who is endowed with special powers to deal with special crimes. The assault on the sheriff had its beginning as far back as the Wickersham Report, done under Herbert Hoover’s administration.

The work of the Hoover Commission was to make studies, gather statistics, and make recommendations which the Roosevelt administration was later to use in an effort to install regional government over the nation. Roosevelt was all set to eliminate the states in 1935.[2] The Wickersham Report’s critical remark was: “The sheriff is an elective office and any force under him is almost sure to be a makeshift affair….If protection is to be given our rural districts we cannot rely upon the sheriff-constable system to supply it.”

The intent and purpose of regional government is not only to eliminate the states but to operate the nation with metropolitan-trained non-electiveappointees. Elective representation was strongly criticized by Roosevelt’s advisors.

A world government thesis under the League of Nations was openly expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1920 as he made 26 campaign speeches for the vice-presidency, with James Cox as the presidential hopeful. Their effort was unsuccessful and Roosevelt did not surface again until after his attack by polio at which time he took over the presidency during the Depression years beginning in 1932.

The outgoing governor in Colorado in his Farewell Speech to the state legislature exposed Roosevelt’s machinations to the extent that his National Resources Planning Board was ordered to be shut down. Congress cut off all the funding and gave him six months to wind up all the paper work.[3]

In the 1970’s, when the threat to eliminate the sheriff was openly before California supervisors, Supervisor William Johnson of El Dorado County persuaded two California State representatives to join him in getting an initiative qualified for the California ballot which stated in print in the state’s Constitution that the sheriff must be an elective office. The proposition on the ballot passed easily and it was entered into California’s constitution.

At that time Supervisor Johnson declared that it “was an attempt to put a road block in the way” of the ‘change agents’. It gave the people more time to find ways to protect themselves against the ‘change agents’.

‘Change agents’ are still processing their techniques and altering the concepts of how our traditional and proper constitutional system is supposed to operate. They use clandestine methodologies and persuasive techniques so that the public will never suspect the damage that is being done to them or what their losses will be. They are moving with “in perpetuity” formats.

Who is there to speak of the dangers of merging the sheriffs with federal marshals? The answer is YOU whether you are an individual or if you are the sheriff himself. The curtain has not yet dropped!

In states where the sheriff is being merged with federal marshals, federal funding being supplied from Washington, D.C. will speed up the eventual superiority of the assigned marshal over the elected sheriff. The sheriff will then more easily be lowered down with no more power or authority than that of a beat officer and he will be nothing more than a policeman in the county. That is the objective!

Marshals are appointed. The sheriff swears to an oath to the Constitution. Marshals do not. Their pledge is to obey their superiors but no written document is required of marshals to support and defend the Constitution.

In Connecticut the people have already voted in favor of a proposition to eliminate sheriffs and replace them with federal marshals. Passage of this proposition became known as Public Act #00-99 (House Bill #5832 entitled “An Act Reforming the Sheriff System). The phone call to verify this action was connected to a representative in the Connecticut General Assembly who said: “There are no sheriffs left! They are all marshals now!” The bill itself ran 74 pages, but there were documents available on this subject which ran between 600 – 700 pages. Most likely, financial savings was the basis for persuading the voters to pass such a measure! Sometimes the sales pitch is “to eliminate duplication”; “to consolidate”.

In Ohio, one resident had a conversation with the Homeland Security office, and he was told by that office that the sheriffs in Ohio will be replaced by marshals in the near future. Later this statement was denied. Someone slipped up!

The California direction began to change when Governor Pete Wilson signed into law on October 11, 1993 Assembly Bill 1587 authored by Assemblyman Richard Katz (D -Sylmar), which allowed the Los Angeles Supervisors to consolidate the sheriff’s department and the marshal’s department together using the reason that it would save an estimated $10 – 15 million a year. The bill is chaptered and this type of merger exists in many other counties in California.

Replacing elected officials (responsible to the people) with non-elected officials (which are not responsible to the people, but only to the federal administration) is an unworthy action because appointive representatives can not be voted out or recalled by the people. It contributes to the effort to militarize law enforcement for international command and control.

In one California county where the sheriff has lost his control over the jails in his county, they wear different uniforms and have new badges. Jack McLamb’s office has reported that Las Vegas, Nevada has no sheriff’s department any more in Clark County. They now have what is called the Las Vegas Metropolitan police. In about 1993 in Washington State two counties accepted “appointed” sheriffs. They are King County in the Seattle area and Pearce County in the Tacoma area.

To further desecrate the people’s protectors, plans are being considered to divest all divisions of civilian law enforcement of their firearms. The idea is thatonly the global government (with its world army) will be allowed to possess firearms.

The reason behind these changes is not just supposed financial savings, it is because the “change agents” cannot put over an international policing system if different departments of law enforcement are working independently of the other. The militarization of civilian law enforcement under a worldwide command requires unified command. The communist-oriented United Nations is now demanding control of our police systems for its “rapid response mechanism”.[4]

Once the ‘change agents’ finalize this work, and their internal security system is well in place, the federal government will be in a position to enforce all the other regional administrative systems, aided by the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (the P.P.B.S.), which is already in force, known as Management by Objectives, Total Quality Management, etc. The nation is undergoing implementation of total systems, viz-a-viz “total federal international regional management and control”.

Sheriff Tom Brown was correct when he said back in 1982:

“Public office today is run more and more by bureaucrats and bureaucracy than it is by elected officials. Elected officials are held responsible…but many times {they} have no control over changing things, because it filters all the way down from the president of the United States to the governor, etc. Bureaucracy is so widespread and there are so many restrictions on the elected official that there is no way that he can change things.”

Consequently, the federal government has turned some of our sheriffs into WIMPS. Why? Because they have accepted federal funding in exchange for federal reorganization of their offices. Yet, they fear the loss of federal funding! Pleas from many concerned citizens went unheard, when they once tried to warn sheriffs of the dangers inherent in accepting the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration’s (L.E.A.A.) Regional Rural Law Enforcement Programs and the funding that was attached. Being in charge of the funding, the L.E.A.A. put the county sheriff in the crosshairs of the high caliber long gun of the regional international police movement.

We do have some sheriffs with the courage to tell the federal government to stay out of their counties and not enter unless they clear with the sheriff first. The sheriff is not a part of the federal judicial system. He holds executivepowers.

Have some sheriffs forgotten that the traditional purpose for having a sheriff is a major part of the ‘check and balance system’? Once it was the king that needed watching, and then it moved to public officials who needed watching. It is all about control over tyranny! There are plenty of tyrants and traitors now, whose actions are causing the Constitution to be overthrown. While the city police are content to allow the metropolitan-trained city manager to manage them, the sheriff is supposed to be a different breed of a man. The city manager can hire and fire the chief of police, as well as any police officer, but that authority does not apply to the role of the sheriff! The sheriff is the supposed to be the first man over the whole county![5] The sheriff is the people’s most trusted representative.

As we witness the merger of Canada, Mexico and the United States into one government system, many patriotic writers are blasting open the devastation this North American Community will bring to the Constitution. It means the end of our states, our sovereignty, and our Bill of Rights! The police officer will not help against this criminal act because most likely his city manager will be a regional government appointee!

The law-abiding citizens have trusted the sheriff to maintain good government. Can we convince the sheriff that he has a responsibility to traditional constitutional government, and to those who have voted for him, to resist the federal pressure and directives that will eventually wipe him out as well as the whole Constitutional system? The sheriffs has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The sheriff is a necessary office!

Why, then, do we not find hundreds of sheriffs all over the nation coming forth to fulfill their primary duty?

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com...rnadine-smith/