I don’t believe it. The “96” in the case number indicates this case is twelve years old, not two. I plugged the case number into google and found references to it dating back to 1997.
From http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive86.htm:
quote:
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.
A similar action took place back on April 15, 1997, Big Horn County, Wyoming when Sheriff Dave Mattis issued a new policy regarding federal law enforcement personnel:
Federal law enforcement personnel need to notify Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming.
Sheriff’s Office requests the following information before the Sheriff determines whether the Sheriff’s Office will be involved:
An identification of the individuals or residences to be searched or arrested if known.
An identification of the agencies and personnel to be involved in the overall operation contemplated by the federal law enforcement agency.
An identification of the chain of command for the operation or planned activity.
An identification of the translator if those to be arrested or subject to search are not expected to be fluent in English.
Determine the time of day of proposed arrest or search.
The Sheriff’s Office will inquire of federal law enforcement personnel in charge to confirm that the federal law enforcement agency in good faith has probable cause for any potential searches and arrests prior to any such search or arrest of which the Sheriffs Office gains knowledge.
The Sheriff’s Office will discourage federal law enforcement arrests or searches after 10:00 P.M. unless exigent circumstances exist.
If assistance is provided, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office will:
Have direct radio communication capability with the Sheriff’s Dispatch during all searches and arrests. Report any observed violation of civil rights to the Sheriff’s Dispatch contemporaneously. Keep dispatcher logs. Prepare after action reports within 48 hours. Conduct thorough investigation of any alleged civil rights violations.
This new policy by Sheriff Mattis was a result of a U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J) and announced that all federal officials were forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval stating: “If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody.”
end quote.
Obviously the 1997 guidelines above were instituted based on a 1996 case, not a 2006 case.
I found another website which states that the case was settled, not adjudicated, which if true means the case is not precedent. Other links make me wonder if what is being referenced as the Judge’s ruling is really argument of one of the attorneys.
Although the article and the links refer to upholding the US and Wyoming Constitutions, there’s nothing in the article or the links that shows how the ruling, if it was a ruling, is grounded in the US Constitution, or the Wyoming Constitution, or any case law.
This particular case seems to have been around a dozen years and not gone much of anywhere. There’s another link to Wyoming legislation introduced in 2002 or 2003, based on the same case, but where did that legislation go?
So why are all these events from the 90s and early 2000s being trumpeted now, in 2008, and the case misrepresented as a fairly recent case, when it is a dozen years old?
I know the “county is the highest form of legitimate governmental power” argument has a long association with militia and tax freedom types. I remember hearing it back in the mid 1990s, so this sort of story would obviously have some appeal. But it sounds like someone may be trying to cobble together a story, or a legal argument, out of parts that don’t fit — a practice quite prevalent among the militia and tax freedom types, btw.
You are right. This is a hoax. See above.