We have ONE honest Sheriff, can we get two?

[light-one]

In Utah, all counties except Salt Lake signed an agreement not to allow a federal gun grab. Of course, saying and doing are two completely different things. In reality, Utah tends to have more support for queers than patriots.

Even in Oregon, the supposed supporters of the Idaho 3% and the Pacific Patriots, and others, turned tail and went home.

But in Indiana, we have a different story:
http://americanjournalreview.com/sherif ... pens-next/

[David13]

It would be nice to have two, and nicer still to have more than two. They are out there, and may be willing to raise their head at some point in time.
We may ultimately find that there are a few in the military, also. (That is to say, those who would refuse to follow a clearly unconstitutional citizen disarmament order. We did see one, only one during the Katrina fiasco)
dc

[ChristopherABrown]

It is expecting too much to leave this load on the shoulders of the sherifs, they need independent support. Flanking action.

Here it is. But, can we agree upon definition of the most prime constitutional rights?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=41428" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[light-one]

Utah now has one sheriff willing to uphold the law now:

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/ ... 82808.html

There may be others, but an honest cop is hard to find...

Listen to the lies Fox news propagates about it:

[light-one]

Check your state and county to see if there are any law abiding sheriffs where you live. The list is growing. In Utah, a few have links to their signed petition.

CSPOA

http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

[freedomforall]

In Utah, all counties except Salt Lake signed an agreement not to allow a federal gun grab. Of course, saying and doing are two completely different things. In reality, Utah tends to have more support for queers than patriots.

Even in Oregon, the supposed supporters of the Idaho 3% and the Pacific Patriots, and others, turned tail and went home.

But in Indiana, we have a different story:
http://americanjournalreview.com/sherif ... pens-next/

I love this. Having said that, however, what's going to stop them from arresting or doing something to the farmer when he's out of state like the Feds did with Cliven Bundy. They're sneaky you know.

[light-one]

This the the third honest sheriff so far:

[ChristopherABrown]

In Utah, all counties except Salt Lake signed an agreement not to allow a federal gun grab. Of course, saying and doing are two completely different things. In reality, Utah tends to have more support for queers than patriots.

Even in Oregon, the supposed supporters of the Idaho 3% and the Pacific Patriots, and others, turned tail and went home.

But in Indiana, we have a different story:
http://americanjournalreview.com/sherif ... pens-next/

Yes, Indiana has a great Sheriff in Brad Rodgers.

Can America support its Sheriffs being fully constitutional?

This petition seeks support for an Oregon Sheriff, Glenn Palmer, who was trying to stop the violent state reaction to the Malhuer occupation.

Support this Sheriff by signing this petition and we stand a chance that Sheriffs will observe appropriate support for constitutional sheriffs.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeacti ... 1977381714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Take that url outwards, seek others who will support such sheriffs, then sheriffs may see, that we support them and rise to their duty without undue fears for their careers.

[light-one]

Do you have a Sheriff or do you have a puppet? Is your Sheriff fulfilling his oath to “support and defend the Constitution” or is he just “following the law?” The role of the Sheriff was established hundreds of years ago. How do we have less Liberty from our Sheriffs today than we had in [...]

The post Sheriff’s Duty to Defy Federal Government appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

http://krisannehall.com/sheriffs-duty-d ... overnment/

[ChristopherABrown]

The role of the sheriff goes far back in history. In some ways, the Magna Carta defines some key aspects to the current role, which continued to adopt local authority under American law.

The entomological origins are "Shire" and "reeve".

In the year 871, under King Alfred the Great, the Sheriff was responsible for maintaining law and order within his own county.

Over the years as the country became more centralized the King distributed huge tracts of land to various nobleman who governed those lands under the King’s authority. The nobleman appointed the Sheriff for the counties he controlled and for those areas not given to noblemen, the King appointed his own Sheriff.

In 1066, more than ever before the Sheriff became the agent of the King and his new duties was that of tax collector.

In 1215, King John signed the Magna Carta. In the text of the Magna Carta it mentioned the role of the Sheriff nine times further establishing the importance of the office.

Over the next few centuries, the Sheriff remained the leading law enforcement officer for the county.


The Sheriff Crosses the Atlantic
When English settlers came to the new world, the office of Sheriff traveled with them.

The first American counties were established in Virgina in 1634 and one of these counties elected a Sheriff in 1651.

Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, American Sheriff’s were assigned a broad range of responsibilities by colonial and state legislature, such responsibilities as tax collection and law enforcement were carried over from England. Some new responsibilities were added such as over seeing the jails and workhouses.

As America began to move Westward, they took the concept of county jails and the Office of Sheriff with them. The sheriff was desperately needed to establish order in lawless territories where power belonged to those with the fastest draw and the most accurate shot. Here it is said that sheriff fell into two categories, the quick and the dead.

In this republic, our sovereignty as state citizens in the context of the federal constitution is mostly defined by the power of the 9th amendment. Which is only invoked in its greatest sense by our agreement.

[light-one]

Here is an honest sheriff with some facts:

[ChristopherABrown]

Here is an honest sheriff with some facts:

Excellent history on the Hammonds issues with the BLM. The sheriff recommends Americans "alter or abolish". Unfortunately he recommends no strategy or lawful process. He also mistakenly, identifies us as "American citizens". That unfortunately is the 14th amendment of the infiltrated federal government label for us. State citizens is what we are.

I do have such a lawful process to recommend I call our lawful and peaceful revolution. The first step is taken by states citizens in their states to direct them to a convention to propose preparation for amendments to the constitution.

Agreement on the most basic, fundaments, prime constitutional intents, using our exclusive right to define such, is where we begin.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?