Posted on 06/22/2013 6:12:03 PM PDT by george76
The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.
Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”
In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.
“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”
(Excerpt) Read more at sacramento.cbslocal.com ...
Odd things have been going on in this county. It is a heavily Republican county, starting east of Sacramento and ending at South Lake Tahoe. About half the county is federal forest lands.
The county has been very nervous about Agenda 21, because it sees itself a prime target to have its infrastructure destroyed by the federal government, with the idea of muscling the people who live there out. The Forest Service has been at the forefront of this.
Equally odd, a state mandated civil grand jury was tasked to investigate local government in the county, but after a heated dispute, 14 of the 19 members of the grand jury resigned as a group. Therefore a judge dissolved the grand jury.
While they cannot say what happened or why they quit, I suspect that they were being used to pressure county and local officials, and they refused to do it.
And Arizona:
Governor Brewer signs HB 2551
June 21, 2013
Governor Jan. Brewer on June 19 signed House Bill 2551 (off-highway vehicles; use; authority; enforcement). The bill clarifies state authority in how it will enforce federal Travel Management Rules regarding off-highway vehicle use on U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted in March to support HB 2551, but made its support contingent on adoption of amended language that would address the commission’s concerns about unintended limitations on officers’ ability to enforce resource damage laws or road closures for public safety purposes, such as during forest fires. Subsequent amendments addressed the commission’s concerns.
The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Chester Crandell (R-Heber) and Rep. David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), passed the Arizona Senate and House in May.
The bill permits Game and Fish officers to enforce laws related to habitat damage and other duties important to the department’s mission, while giving officers discretion in enforcing federal travel management rules that are lower priority or that might impede achieving wildlife management objectives.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has expressed long-standing concerns that the new forest Travel Management Rules put undue constraints on reasonable public access, are inconsistent across the different forests and therefore confusing to outdoor recreationists, and could impede the commission’s and department’s ability to meet wildlife management objectives.
In addition to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, SB 2551 is supported by county sheriffs and county supervisors throughout Arizona.
“One purpose of this legislation is to reaffirm the department’s leading role in protecting wildlife habitat, while ensuring that the use of our law enforcement resources are not spent on efforts that, in some instances, unreasonably reduce the opportunities for Arizona’s families to fish, hunt, camp or enjoy wildlife viewing or responsible off-highway vehicle recreation,” said Kurt Davis, a member of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
Davis said the department’s education programs, scientific evaluation and law enforcement activities related to protecting wildlife habitat will continue, while balancing the ability for Arizonans to enjoy the outdoors.
“This legislation simply strengthens the department’s legally recognized role to manage wildlife across all our public lands and ensures that role is more appropriately recognized and respected,” he said.
http://azgfd.net/artman/publish/NewsMedia/Governor-Brewer-signs-HB-2551.shtml
He’s an elected official, answerable to his constituents, isn’t he?
sfl
Multiple rural county sheriffs from Utah testified bout the abusive use of police power by Bureau of Land Management rangers or forest protection officers with the U.S. Forest Service.
They are asserting it is time to rein in the authority the agencies should have never been allowed to exercise.
Ya know, this is pure BS. Under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, the federal law applies directly to an individual and the state law applies directly to an individual. There are two jurisdictions. If the laws conflict and the federal law is Constitutional, it pre-empts the state law.
The Sheriff cannot obstruct a federal officer from applying federal law in his jurisdiction. He can ask to be notified and present when the feds apply their law, but he cannot prohibit them.
http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/96cv99.pdf
This is the case Sheriff Mack allegedly claims gave local Sheriff’s primacy:
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
I think El Dorado I a lot like my county. The Grand Jury probably tried to subpoena state agents for violation of local rights. Their County Counsel likely told them they couldn’t. They likely tried to establish their own independent court and were told they didn’t have that power either.
The prosecutor is the highest law enforcement authority in the county.
The armed forestry officers here mostly chase away kids operating 4x4’s in restricted areas. Some areas are set aside for nesting or mating or species maintenance. Occasionally, they’ll arrest somebody for hunting or people carrying machine guns. (Seriously.) The relationship with the Sheriff is, apparently, very cordial. If the Sheriff has taken this action it indicates that the federal officers are doing something that is outrageous. Strip searches, perhaps. This is a very unexpected action and should merit a federal probe into the actions of its employees.
I’m sure Eric Holder will get right on that last.
Sheriff’s are elected, not that easy to get rid of them via politics....
When Canadian grey wolves were re-introduced in Idaho in the mid-1990’s, they killed a local rancher’s Angus calf and “someone” shot and killed the wolf. The Fed wildlife gestapo moved in and tried to arrest the rancher; in stepped the county sheriff who told the feds to pack up and get the hell out of his county.
A brief armed standoff occurred, but the feds backed down.
We have so many idiot feds running around armed in vehicles with lights all over them it feels like a police state. The stupid BLM and US Forest Service have armed law enforcement nitwits driving around acting important.
I am with the Sheriffs. The federal government didn’t start out with law enforcement duties but now they seem to have laws that trump every State law. There are only a few enumerated powers in the US Constitution and having law enforcement in every aspect of our lives isn’t one of them.
P.S. I don’t see in the US Constitution where the federal government can take State lands for its own use as a park, not to mention the feds have taken a ridiculous amount of State lands especially in the western States. The forest service isn’t an enumerated power.
I’d have to lean more towards their being asked to do something they refused to do. 14 out of 19 resigned, leaving only 5 willing to obey; so I suspect whatever it was, was so repugnant, and so coerced, that they decided to resign en masse.
This hearkens back to American colonial days almost to the 20th Century, when judges directed juries to issue guilty verdicts, which resulted in jury nullification, and threats by the judge to punish the jury for contempt, as well as double jeopardy prosecutions by the government.
Since this was a civil grand jury, I suspect that they were directed to reach a conclusion outside of the evidence, for political reasons. Most Americans can be stubborn as mules when ordered to violate their principles.
This brings up a litany of the coercive use of power by the Democrats in California, as well as the fears of the people in this county of abuse under the auspices of Agenda 21.
The State ought to now starting taking the “Federal” lands within their borders. The Fed’s hold the land in trust with the ultimate disposal of the land to the each State. Time to take action.
All state constitutions allow for the chief law enforcement of the state to indict and remove for such cause or even for egregious defective carrying out of his lawful duties.
People probably got sick of being harrassed by the forest service idiots. Mr. GG2 has had run ins with these morons a few times out west. They think they own the forest.
“The State ought to now starting taking the “Federal” lands within their borders. The Fed’s hold the land in trust with the ultimate disposal of the land to the each State. Time to take action.”
Take a look at the percentage of the land within the “western states” that “belongs” to the Federal Government. Back when these state were admitted to the Union, the Feds “ransomed” their admission by taking possession of large percentages of their land. Take Nevada, where, if my memory serves me correctly, the Feds “own” more than 80% of the land.
Have a look at this listing: http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
From wikipedia:
Lastly, Title 28 USC Chapter 37 § 564. authorizes United States marshals, deputy marshals and such other officials of the Service as may be designated by the Director, in executing the laws of the United States within a State, to exercise the same powers which a sheriff of the State may exercise in executing the laws thereof.[11]
U.S. Marshals are also responsible for carrying out evictions within the District of Columbia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.