Elk County Forum

I know there is a lot of fear mongering going on through out our country.
But I feel it is our responsibility as citizens to pay attention, perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know.

I just recieved an e-mail forom a friend that appears to perhaps be just that.
I have sent off a copy of the following to Snopes to see what information they may provide,
after I hear from them I may check other sources.

Anyway just for what it's worth here is the story for your information.

 
A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.

A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.

Ross, say what you want about the rest of the coutry, but the Sheffif's Dept. is different here, We've discussed this before.
  It's under the Attorney General.. They do not have or need arresting powers.They support the entire court system by serving papers ,setting up foreclouse sales and that kind of thing. They are not the supreme policing agency as they are in some states.
The sherrifs here go back to colonial times before there were regular police agencies.  As they apeared, the sherrif's duties were modified. The Sussex County sherrif for many years, was a real character,big mustash and all. He wanted so much to be able to arrest people, but the exising police agencies didn't want it and the local citizenry didn't  either.
Sussex county is still fighting it, but loses every time, hence the news paper article trying to make a big deal out of it.
Here in New Castle County, and Kent County, the next county south, everybody is happy with the way things are.  Our sherrifs here have not had arresting powers for many,many years and don't need them.
  You brought this up,or I'd never have commented, but I thought you might want to get it right. Our county sherrif is a friend. ...imagine that! I did some of his training many years ago too.

Kansas has laws to take care of that.

19-801a: Sheriff; election, term, bond. Except in those counties operating under the provisions of any consolidated law enforcement act, beginning with the general election in 1976, a sheriff shall be elected in each county, for four (4) years. Such sheriff shall, before entering upon the duties of the office, execute to the state of Kansas a good and sufficient corporate surety bond, issued by a company authorized to do business in Kansas in an amount fixed by the board of county commissioners of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Such bond, when approved, shall be filed in the office of the county clerk.

The Kansas Statutes, starting with 19-801a, state what the sheriff does. I didn't anything in the Kansas Constitution that says anyone has the authority to strip any elected official of their duties in the state of Kansas.

Different states have different laws. The Kansas Sheriffs' Association is a very big organization and I am sure that if an attorney general in the state of Kasnas were to try what the Deleware AG did, would have a difficult with the fine sheriffs of this state.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 05, 2013, 11:32:08 AM
Ross, say what you want about the rest of the coutry, but the Sheffif's Dept. is different here, We've discussed this before.
 It's under the Attorney General.. They do not have or need arresting powers.They support the entire court system by serving papers ,setting up foreclouse sales and that kind of thing. They are not the supreme policing agency as they are in some states.
The sherrifs here go back to colonial times before there were regular police agencies.  As they apeared, the sherrif's duties were modified. The Sussex County sherrif for many years, was a real character,big mustash and all. He wanted so much to be able to arrest people, but the exising police agencies didn't want it and the local citizenry didn't  either.
Sussex county is still fighting it, but loses every time, hence the news paper article trying to make a big deal out of it.
Here in New Castle County, and Kent County, the next county south, everybody is happy with the way things are.  Our sherrifs here have not had arresting powers for many,many years and don't need them.
 You brought this up,or I'd never have commented, but I thought you might want to get it right. Our county sherrif is a friend. ...imagine that! I did some of his training many years ago too.

I wasn't going to do this but i'm feeling quite bitchy tonight: Ms. High and Mighty might want to use spell check before she posts. My husband was chewed on for typing a little quickly and misspelling Bible in a post recently. You, my dear, have several misspelled words on here: coutry, i'm assuming must be COUNTRY; SHEFFIF's isn't a word but I will assume would be SHERIFF'S; again with the word SHERRIF, I believe that's one R and two F's; mustache, moustache, mustachio have those three spellings but nowhere could I find MUSTASH; NEWSPAPER is ONE word; Sheriff is misspelled all the way through your little rant; and lastly, your use of commas kills me. Is the keyboard still sticking on you or are your old arthritic fingers not able to type anymore? Maybe a mild form of dementia? YOU, dear, are a TEACHER, by your admission; I'm just a lowly hillbilly who was also a 4 year spelling bee champ and journalism major. Nevertheless, you should really check your own spelling before you go around correcting others!---Jennifer

P.S. I forgot...exising? Must be EXISTING!

Lowly hillbilly? Since when? Good for you for catching my errors. I did leave them on purpose, just to see what would happen... I'm still trying to improve my typing and I am failing miserably. Honest ,it's true.
You have always been a good speller and I've complimented you on it in the past.
    Now, you know my spelling isn't really THAT bad, so you must have known I was up to something. 8) By the way,I never saw a comma I didn't like. ;D  As far as poking your hubby on" bilbe"...lighten up, I was just poking him in fun. There was a time when another person would have landed on him for real. Sorry you can't see my humor for what it is. I'm told by friends it's because it's in writing and in a face to face it would be understood.
There are others on here who know how to toss it back and forth and not get mean in the process...sorry you don't get it.
  I am interested in one thing though.Why didn't you do something with your interest in journalism? I have a feeling you would have been very good.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 06, 2013, 10:53:51 AM
Good for you for catching my errors. I did leave them on purpose, just to see what would happen... I'm still trying to improve my typing and I am failing miserably. Honest ,it's true.

Such a leftist.  Just like her cousins Obama & Biden... everything they do, no matter how incongruous, has some preplanned purpose & is done with conscious intent.  They never err... honest, it's true!  NPD if ever there was.

I don't care if you believe me or not ,why would I ? My typing IS miserable .Why would I lie about it? >:(

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 06, 2013, 11:36:40 AM
I don't care if you believe me or not ,why would I ? My typing IS miserable .Why would I lie about it? >:(

"Why would I care?  I'm a narcissist and am never wrong!  I'm perfect, therefore I can't lie.  You're imperfect & therefore can't appreciate my perfection & omniscience, let alone understand my purposes.  You poor miscreants, I pity you.  But I'll tolerate you if I must."

Insanity?  Or just really lame circular logic?

What is wrong with you today? Somebody desecrate your pillow? :P

     In the words of Bug's, " What a maroon".

Why is it just about every subject that Diane enters turns towards her self pity and inability to comprehend the subject.

This subject was not about Delaware, Delaware was only mentioned to show how things coulf go.

I believe the subject was abolishing local sheriffs on the national scene with a stealth federal power grab.

I don't believe the rest of the nation would want worthless sheriff's departments.

I really appreciate Janets input. Thanik you.

Oh, sure like I believe that. Go ahead and back pedal. You only chose Delaware because ....oh my, aren't you innocent? ;D I don't care though.The Sheriff's Dept. has always been different here because it's history is so old, so what? You have your way and that's fine. It's not a matter of right or wrong, just different. How things could go? What do you mean...our whole system is already different. Keep in mind, I did not bring up Delaware...you did .I just thought you'd like to know the facts. I don't think we are the only state either,as I remember talking of this before. But I guess you don't remember. Self pity? Oh please ,you must be desperate...That's the best you've got? Sounds mighty insecure to me. Sorry folks...boring.... Bye bye

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 07, 2013, 10:46:25 AM
Keep in mind, I did not bring up Delaware...you did .

No Diane I did not bring up Delaware the article only briefly mentioned Delaware.
And you brought it up.

The article subject is "Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?"

And apparently you did not appreciate the mention of Delaware and you brought it up.

So sorry, you are so disillusioned.

I happen to like our Sheriff's department and the oll they play here in Elk County.
I happen to appreciate the way our Sheriff and deputies can arrest when they have to!
And I want to see them maintain their ablities and protect Elk County.
And that has nothing ar all to do with Delaware.

It's too bad you don't live in beautiful Elk County.

Home on the Range where the buffalo use to play.
It really is peaceful out here.
We don't hear the steady roar of heavy traffic.
We seldom hear sirenes.
We lack a lot of those city problems of noise polution.
It' is great.

For once we agree. Elk county is a very nice place and very pretty. I'm not into hauling water though.

Ya know I'm still stuck on the business about the Sherrif's Dept here.  Ross, you are so wrong. One can not take away powers the sheriffs never had, nor have they had the training for it.You are so, so wrong and you are free to look up for yourself. The Sussex County sheriff every few years tries to wrangle arrest powers and the state police down there make sure it never goes anywhere.     Ross, our state is no example of "how things might go" and I didn't bring it up, you did by posting that article. Now be a mench for a change and admit you didn't have complete information.  Even Janet doesn't understand because of your bad informaion and that makes me sad.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 07, 2013, 04:02:38 PM
Ya know I'm still stuck on the business about the Sherrif's Dept here.  Ross, you are so wrong.

The article was not all about your sheriff's Department. Get over yourself.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 07, 2013, 04:02:38 PM
Even Janet doesn't understand because of your bad informaion and that makes me sad.

Oh my God, Diane. I can't believe you just went there with me not understanding.

Let's get one thing clear. When it comes to the Office of Sheriff I totally do understand.  I also want to get it clear about the difference between a sheriff's office, (which Elk County has), and a sheriff's department, which apparently your county has.

What is the difference between a Sheriff's Office and a Sheriff's Department?  Taken from the National Sheriff's Association webpage.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

DEPARTMENT: "One of the major divisions of the executive branch of the government....generally, a branch or division of governmental administration."

OFFICE: "A right, and correspondent duty, to exercise public trust as an office. A public charge of employment... the most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an individual by the government, and when this is the connection, public office is a usual and more discriminating expression... in the constitutional sense, the term implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power either in making, executing, or administering the laws."

The Office of Sheriff is not simply another "department" of county government. The internal operation of an Office of Sheriff is the sole responsibility of the elected Sheriff. County department heads are subordinate to a county governing body, because a "department" is truly only a division of county government.  The Office of Sheriff is a statutory/constitutional office having exclusive powers and authority under state law and/or state constitution.  These inherent powers are not subject to the dictates of a local county governing body.

The Office of Sheriff has inherent common law powers and sovereignty granted under a state's constitution and/or state law.  It is different from a county department which derives its limited authority from whatever is delegated to is by statute or by state constitution.

The use of the term "Department" implies being a subordinate unit of government (i.e.  subordinate to local government - "delegated" authority from county government to a Department). The use of the term "Office" implies inherent powers and independent sovereignty.

Now, as for governments trying to take away the power of the sheriff, this is a long-standing argument. Can it be done? Don't know. I'm not a judge nor a lawyer, but I do know this. I and every person who is currently the elected sheriff or has been the elected sheriff will fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening.

Please be sure that you understand the difference between a department and a duly ELECTED official.

Quote from: Janet Harrington on February 07, 2013, 05:01:16 PM
Oh my God, Diane. I can't believe you just went there with me not understanding.

Pretty arrogant, wasn't it?  Of course, elitists have a tendency to be that way.... when they're not playing victim or martyr.  And Queen Di has demonstrated clearly she's an elitist's elitist... with a full complement of lordship, victim & martyr skills.  Oh, and a list of close elitist associates to boot.

Well doggone, I learned something new.
This old fart is still capable of learning.
Thanks Janet.

I'm not sure how explaining how it works here makes me arrogant. I'd have thought it just made me knowledgeable. Ross brought it up, not me The one whole paragraph was about Delaware.  If not, I'd have not said a word about it. Yes, our county sheriffs are elected to four year terms. For the last time, "they" can't take away powers that the Delaware sheriffs and deputies don't have. Saying that the Delaware example was only mentioned to "show how things coulf (sic) go" is not accurate for here. Please chose another state for your example.I know it's confusing and there are differences between "office" and "dept.'' but that isn't always adhered to either.
All I was trying to do was show how it works here. Whether it is right or wrong to have it set up that way is not mine to decide. It goes back to colonial  Delaware. Now if you have more insults to throw, have at it. But whatever you do, don't look up Delaware's sheriff's dept. in wiki or Google or anywhere else. Ya might have to eat crow ..or would that be raven? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 07, 2013, 05:42:02 PM
Saying that the Delaware example was only mentioned to "show how things coulf (sic) go" is not accurate for here. Please chose another state for your example.

Diane, sorry but I did not bring up Delaware.
I did not write the article.
I did forget to add the link, my boo-boo there.
I usually do add the link, so my apology for not adding it.

I'm sure you can recognize that I am not that good at writing?

Actually, wiki did a good job of explaining sheriff's offices. Here is the link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States)

I thought so too. If one scrolls down far enough it mentions several states, Delaware being one and does show how it is different. Ross, you posted the article which included Delaware. Considering how you never miss a chance to stick it to me and where I live ,how would you expect me to feel. I won't mention it again.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 08, 2013, 09:56:56 AM
Considering how you never miss a chance to stick it to me and where I live ,how would you expect me to feel. I won't mention it again.

One thing is surely alive and well in Delaware... Clinical Codependency.  The victim-martyr cycle passionately persists.

 Pat, that was totally unnecessary and an attempt to keep this going. Why do you care? What do you get out of this?
Show me your degree in Psychology to be able to say such things and I'll show you the definition of a psychopath... Might want to read the book  Psychopaths Among Us by Robert Hercz or one by Paul Babhick. (Attacking some one over and over is very typical ya know).
Since one in every 100 males is born a psychopath, it would be easy to imagine one or more on the forum. And no, most are not violent. They are often very charming manipulators who will gather a loyal following of people who don't know they are being hoodwinked... for a time. There is even a new section now on the definition of an E- psychopath. That was very interesting.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on February 08, 2013, 10:36:51 AM
Pat, that was totally unnecessary and an attempt to keep this going. Why do you care? What do you get out of this?
Show me your degree in Psychology to be able to say such things and I'll show you the definition of a psychopath... Might want to read the book  Psychopaths Among Us by Robert Hercz or one by Paul Babhick. (Attacking some one over and over is very typical ya know).
Since one in every 100 males is born a psychopath, it would be easy to imagine one or more on the forum. And no, most are not violent. They are often very charming manipulators who will gather a loyal following of people who don't know they are being hoodwinked... for a time. There is even a new section now on the definition of an E- psychopath. That was very interesting.

You realize, of course, that highly reactionary behaviors are also a codependent trait.  And that codependency is more prevalent among those in 'helping' professions (medical/first responder/education) than among the general population.  Help is available, however.

http://recovery-man.com/coda/symptoms.htm (http://recovery-man.com/coda/symptoms.htm)

http://www.selfesteemawareness.com/codependency-symptoms.htm (http://www.selfesteemawareness.com/codependency-symptoms.htm)

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/symptoms-of-codependency/ (http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/symptoms-of-codependency/)

http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/local/delaware/new-castle/ (http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/local/delaware/new-castle/)

It was my intention to not comment any more on this as it had run it's course. But Pat is determined to keep this going,so what the heck. I took the time to read that that first link. Not one fit me. Not even one. I'll read the rest some other time. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Now I'm done, so even if you do try to get a rise out of me, I won't respond. Give it up. People are starting to see through you.

             

When you start losing the battle---retreat !!! Great tactic.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a decidedly downward trend (approaching zero) in the number of people that dare set foot in your sandbox anymore.

Sorry left out something there.

Flint,
I'm a simple man, so could you explain what that means in layman terms I might understand ?

Quote from: jarhead on February 08, 2013, 12:53:40 PM
Flint,
I'm a simple man, so could you explain what that means in layman terms I might understand ?

I think he means the followers don't like our honesty.

Thanks Ross, but I would rather Flint explain what he means and specify who he means by "you".