Posted on 02/10/2015 6:43:07 AM PST by HomerBohn
The first Republican elected sheriff in Eddy County, New Mexico, became the first sheriff in 25 years to stand up to the IRS. He physically stood at the gate of a troubled citizen's property while US Marshals threatened his arrest. The landowner filed an appeal with the court and expects his case to receive due process before his land is publicly sold. The sheriff agrees. The judge does not.
(Sheriff Scott London says he learned more about the Constitution in the year he spent campaigning for his job than in all of his years of schooling combined.)
WASHINGTON, February 7, 2015—New Mexico’s Eddy County Sheriff Scott London notified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) via letter that the sale of county resident Kent Carter’s property is canceled until Carter receives due process of law and his appeal is heard. The certified letter dated February 4 received an immediate response from the Undersecretary of the Treasury’s office. According to the Treasury’s website, however, the public auction is still slated for February 19.
“Many officers have stood up over the years for the rights of citizens being victimized by the federal government,” said Sheriff Mack, founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, “But Sheriff London is the first one to stand up to the IRS since the early 1990s.” Mack said, “His actions show courage and humility. London is setting a good example for the rest of our sheriffs.”
Approximately ten days before Christmas, U.S. Marshals broke in the door of Carter’s rental property with their guns drawn. The tenant was a young mother with a new baby—home alone while her husband was at work. Sheriff London was called to the property to intervene. He advised the Marshals that Carter’s case was in appeal and he deserved due process. They threatened to arrest London, but he stood his ground and they backed off.
Carter has battled the IRS for decades over taxes on the earnings of his modest construction business. One court document listed his debt at $145,000, a figure Carter says an assessing agent “pulled out of thin air.” Every time he challenged them, his bill would shoot up a few hundred thousand dollars. His legal complaints state that the IRS failed to adhere to its own tax code, did not use proper accounting methods, and that the collection activity was unlawful because no notices of deficiency were given. Carter says his private and confidential information, including his social security number, was filed in public records and given to third parties. The IRS countered that it can publish and disperse the private information of Americans if it is trying to collect their money or property. A judge agreed.
Carter says the IRS is currently claiming he owes $890,000, a figure that “doubled with the stroke of a pen.”
The Taxation & Revenue Department ordered Carter to cease “engaging in business in New Mexico” until his arbitrary tax debt was paid. Carter appealed this injunction on the grounds that it was both unconstitutional and vague, as it deprived him of his right to make a living and also prohibited him from, “carrying on or causing to be carried on any activity with the purpose of direct or indirect benefit.”
“The IRS fabricates evidence against citizens by pulling numbers out of a hat and adding fees,” said Mack, “They wear people down emotionally and financially until they can’t take it anymore. No citizen should ever have to fight the IRS for decades in order to keep his land.”
“The IRS is a lie. The income tax is a lie,” said Carter. “Why should they be able to take anything? They’re worse than the mafia.”
The Carter properties have liens placed against them. A locksmith was instructed to change the locks. The IRS authorized the United States Marshal Service to arrest/evict anyone found on the premises. London, however, physically stood in front of Carter’s gate until the Marshals backed down. A public auction on the front steps of the Eddy County Courthouse is scheduled, but the local county sheriff—trained in the Constitution—resisted.
Carter voluntarily vacated his property and relocated his mobile home to an undisclosed location. “I chose to leave to keep it from escalating to something ugly—like Ruby Ridge, Idaho,” he said. Carter said he advised the Marshals and IRS Agents who publicly claimed he had armed friends on his land, “If there is going to be any violence, it is going to be you who starts it.”
Carter says 100% of his Social Security benefits is seized each month by the IRS, in addition to $2,800 the agency drained from his bank account. Legally, he says, the IRS can take no more than 15% of Social Security benefits.
Mack says banking institutions quiver when faced with the IRS’ gestapo tactics and generally hand over customers’ personal banking information, including access to accounts, without requiring a warrant or even any documentation. He encourages county sheriffs to brief every bank in their jurisdiction to refer inquiries from IRS agents to them.
Sheriff Mack is calling for the IRS to start following the law, including no “random” audits without probable cause, as they violate the Fourth Amendment. He asks them to stop committing crimes and rewarding IRS employees with bonuses for cheating on their personal taxes. “I agree with Senator Ted Cruz and others who say the IRS should be abolished,” said Mack. “It’s time they got off the backs of the American people.”
Carter says he prays daily for wisdom, and that he is surviving to be able to look into his grandchildren’s eyes and tell them he fought for their future and for America.
London is the first Republican to ever be elected sheriff in Eddy County. He distributes Bibles on behalf of Gideon International and met his wife in choir practice.
Sometimes Posse Comitatus trumps the Sheriff. Last spring, Warlord Bundy and his militia threatened war not only with BLM but also the Clark County Sheriff's dept.
Tell them you will only communicate with the IRS in writing.
I am in favor of a national sales tax because I think that would be the fairest tax. Yes, it is downright scary how much power the IRS has at collecting debts. I agree with your analysis of the federal Marshalls here.
No citation is needed. That is basic civics 101. A federal official gets their authority from laws enacted by Congress and have supremacy clause authority from the federal Constitution. A sheriff gets his authority from the respective state constitution and/or state statute. Federal officers do not answer or report to state officials in the faithful performance of their duties. For example, ever wonder why a state court cannot give an order to a federal agency such as the EPA. It is because the federal government is considered a separate sovereign from the state.
I think the federal government has much overstepped its federal Constitution limit of powers but in all technicality unto federal laws are ruled unconstitutional then the federal agents have power even over local sheriffs to enforce and carry out federal law.
Not exactly. The judicial system is the proper and lawful venue for challenging federal laws that might run afoul of the powers delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution. If any sheriff could just hypothetically disagree and nullify a a federal law in their county then you would have hundreds and hundreds of different interpretations which would lead to mass confusion and instability. A sheriff just like any other regular civilian is subject to obey federal laws. Even the state governor has to obey federal law.
Post 50 by ctdonath2 seems to offer an answer to that objection. Institute a Fair Tax type consumption tax at the state level. Let each state determine how best to contribute its fair share to fund continuation of the Union.
When FedGov is lawless, I'm okay with refusing to obey an unlawful order. That would have been the correct response when I was in the military, and it is the correct response to an unlawful order from the IRS.
Opinion: "The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government's power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States" ... "Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself."
Again. Federal agents receive their authority from laws enacted by Congress. These laws enacted by Congress give the specific federal agency subject matter jurisdiction. They do not answer to sheriffs when they are actively enforcing federal laws. Remember, a sheriff is a state created position no different than a governor, county board of commissioner, etc. Here is the key. The sheriff is the highest law enforcement official pertaining to state laws and county ordinances in his county. (And even that is dependent on the respective state and applicable state constitution and state law). When it comes to federal laws and enforcement of federal laws-then federal agents have sole authority and cannot be impeded by local sheriffs. A sheriff has no lawful purview to interpret federal laws or to supervise federal agents directly enforcing federal laws. The sheriff is only a state empowered official. It is just like a state court cannot order a federal agency to do anything. Same concept here.
Yes, a federal agent is not exempt from traffic laws. Speeding is not the same as enforcing federal law so that is apples to oranges.
18 USC 115 makes it illegal to directly impede with a federal law enforcement official in the performance of their duties.
The Supreme Court in that case did rule that federal agents cannot compel local law enforcement to enforce federal law. However, the elephant in the room is that it has nothing to do with federal officers enforcing federal law. That decision never gave any notion to the concept that local law enforcement can now dictate or control or have authority over federal officials enforcing federal law. Federal “control” here in the citation is not referring to the authority of federal agents over local officials in reference to federal laws. “Control” here refers to the feds using local law enforcement as mandated de facto deputies who have no choice but to enforce federal law on the whim of the federal government.
Thanks for the ping, Shark.
And a big thank you to to Sheriff London.
Tarheel25
Read the links and start learning that the feds do not have authority over sheriffs.
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/sheriff/sher_boots_feds.html
http://www.mintpressnews.com/sheriffs-defy-feds-refusing-honor-detainer-requests/192541/
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1321294429
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/its-sheriffs-first-in-arizona/
I’ll read it in a little while but, the feds only have permission to operate in the area by ascension of the sheriff.
However, the Feds do have authority on certain federal laws and orders.
In this instance, the sheriff doesn’t believe “Due Process” has occurred and is within his authority to deny their physical operations within his border of authority.
Oops!!!
Thought your post was in support of the tarhead poster assertion.
No point in engaging him. He is a driveby and rarely posts throughout the course of a year and even rarer engages in constructive discussion or any other type.
It is not taking place on Federal lands where the Feds have absolute, mostly, domain and control.
It is happening on private lands and property where the sheriff is the ultimate authority.
Similar to local police attempting to enforce a good many laws on lands and roads controlled by a HOA.
It’s private property and things like speeding are completely unenforceable.
My property, not the government’s and not common use.
He would not be actively making a defacto deputy of local law enforcement here because he is actively in the process of enforcing federal law. In that particular case, the sheriff becomes no different than any ordinary civilian because he is mandated to follow the lawful orders of a federal agent enforcing federal law. If a sheriff were to hypothetically impede here then he becomes no different than any other civilian that would try to impede federal law enforcement enforcing federal law. The federal agent cannot mandate the sheriff to actively assist him but the sheriff cannot get in the federal agents way without risk of lawful arrest.
Remember that federal laws are supreme per the US Constitution and as a result federal agents have supremacy clause authority to not be impeded by local law enforcement when they are reasonably and faithfully carrying out federal law. Since the federal government is a separate sovereign from the states they have a right to carry out their enforcement of federal laws without state interference.
Now yes there are extraordinary circumstances were a local law enforcement could intervene. An extreme example would be if a federal agent hypothetically started to shoot a suspect just out of the blue or roughed them up. The local DA could bring state charges although federal law would provide for the federal agent to request the case be moved to federal court from state court even over the states opposition.
Preventing illegal seizure and foreclosure: This is exactly how Jimmy Traficant, D-Ohio, went from being Sheriff to sitting in Congress.
If you read the article concerning Wyoming in the link you will find where the US District Court of Wyoming stated that they never said or implied that local law enforcement can prohibit federal agents from entering their county. In fact, the court reiterated that anyone who interferes with federal agents performing their duties would be subject to criminal prosecution. So reading that link might not help your premise one bit at all.
In fact that is another example of people reading things on the internet and taking it for gospel. The sheriff being the most powerful and king of his domain is nothing but “localism libertarian” type rhetoric that has no actual basis in the rule of law.
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.