Municipal police in the state of Delaware are not allowed to patrol any unannexed developments or areas located within the geographic area of the given city or town. . Municipal police are not allowd to respond to any 911 emergencies that occurs within any unannexed developments or areas UNLESS the state police give authorization and grant the municipal police ex facto state police power. When crimes like home invasions happen there isn’t time for this type of turf jurisdictional nonsense.

Furthermore the nearly 2.0 MILLION spent still doesn’t give Sussex County government the right to dictate where the troopers paid for by county taxes shall serve within the state. Unless Sussex County residents live within the proximity of the resort areas of Delaware they have little or no police protection at all.

The assertion that the Sheriff or a Sheriff’s Deputy is going to overreact in a situation and shoot someone is rediculous. The Sheriff and Sheriff’s deputies are all former law enforcement officers who have served at either the municipal, state or federal levels. They all have served in those positions for over 20-25 years, prior to joing the Sheriffs Department. There is more of a likelyhood of a first year rookie law enfocement officer drawing his service weapon in a reactionary manner.

Sussex County is the largest county in Delaware comprising 938 square miles. There is no way that the state police located in the county can provide adequate police coverage or protection to thise residents who live out in the more rural areas.

you seem to be somehow under the impression that a state can never change the common law – that we are forever stuck with the law as it was in 1350 or 1776 or whatever – that is an absolutely laughable position. in the unlikely event that you really did receive legal education someplace you should to ask for a refund

Based on what you just wrote, next you’re going to hear Earl claim that county coroners should possess the power of arrest!

What a kook!

And of course, your use of Michigan cases simply shows the way since obviously Michigan cases apply in Delaware.

Of course, citing actualy Delaware cases would not help you. The phrase Conservator of the Peace only appears in 4 reported Delaware cases – two of which are century old cases citing a statute relating to trespass which gives (or gave I mean this is a century old statute) a conservator of the peace .the power to arrest people who they observe trespassing on the property of another. State v. McAllister, 76 A.2d 226 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1909), State v. Johnson, 78 A. 605 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1910).

The third mentions that justices of the peace were originally called conservators of the peace. Farell v. Md. Credit Finance Corp. of Md., Thomas Hughes, Inc., 127 A.2d 226 (Del. Super. 1924).

The third mentions a Delaware statute which seems to rather clearly make clear that a conservator of the peace and a law enforcement officer are not the same thing since otherwise there would be no need to grant the Delaware State Police both the powers of a conservator of peace and given them law enforcement authority. In re Request of the Governor for a Request of an Advisory Opinon, 722 A.2d 307 (Del. 1998).

As far as the search for Conservators of the Peace – again, 4 cases – one of which is the advisory opinion case.

You have Rogers v. Delaware State University, C.A. No. 03C-03-218-PLA, (Del. Supr. 2005) – again, it is merely citing a statute which makes the DSU police “conservators of the peace AND law enforcement officers” (emphasis added). The state law would not mention both roles if both roles were the same as you argue.

State v. Emerson, 10 A.2d 515 (Del. Supr. 1939) – again citing the statue creating the state police.

the final case citing conservators of the peace is State v. Mitchell, 212 A.2d 873 (Del. Supr. 1965) – the mention was citing a 19th century treatise about English Common Law which mentioned that under old English law the conservators of the peace were sheriffs, coroners, justices of the peace, and constables. Oh wait a second, constables are what we now call police men – the sheriff’s primary role (then and now) is to be the jailer. So that means your view of English common law is actually wrong.

And finally, your position has been explicited rejected by the Delaware Supreme Court in Watson v. State, No. 3009, 2009 (Del. 2010) which adopted as correct the Attorney General’s 2000 opinion that peace officers are different from police officers – and it therefore follows that under Delaware law sheriffs while peace officers are not police officers. Quite simply, Delaware law would not make conservators of the peace (peace officers) and police officers separate if they were the same thing.

Quite simply, the position you and the Sheriff are arguing has been rejected by the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware state legislature.

I hate repeating my self Erika, however as I stated in an earlier comment, the US Supreme Court has decided the Constitution is to be upheld first and foremost. Even when legislation implies otherwise. (Allor,). Again,(as I stated in a previous comment) in the Hurlbut case pg 93-113 Justice Thomas M. Cooley stated “The state may mould local institutions according to its views of policy or expediency; but local government is matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away. What come first the County Sheriff Office; or a State appointed Law Enforcement Department Erika? And what is the difference between an Office and Department?

Finally , the US Supreme Court ruling, “Board of Park Commissioners vs. Detroit” the Court applied this precedent again, it was also enunciated by Justice Thomas M Cooley that, “An act of Legislature creating a board of Park commissioners of the City of Detroit, the commissioners being appointed by the legislature, was held unconstitutional and void. Do you get that Erika? the word “APPOINTED” is found void when it violates the Constitution.

Delaware legislative laws must adhere with both the US and State Constitutions. Delaware’s General Assembly members knows this, very well. Because of my legal experience. (And no, it is not from the “University of I Don’t Remember (or perhaps Glenn Beck University where ever that is)):,

Why are you so negative and opposed to our republic form of government Erika?.

Delaware lawmakers experienced what happens when they attempt to pass unconstitutional legislation once before- that is against a minority faction. (HB 245, you can look that up Erika, if you wish to improve on your legal research skills).

As for your claim a “LEO” (Law Enforcement Officer is not the same as a “Conservator of The Peace” Let us visit “Printz v.US (521 U.S. 898 (1997)), where Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Sup. Ct wrote the Courts decision and used the term “County Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)” for County Sheriff’s office on several occassions, where in that particular case it was decided that the County Sheriffs Office (CLEO) has more power and authority in his jurisdiction than even the President of the United States.

Again, State legislation can not supercede the State or US Constitutions.. And Blacks 2d edition defines what a Conservator of the Peace is, as Wolf has explained in his comment..

ARTICLE. XV MISCELLANEOUS
§ 1. Conservators of the peace.
Section 1. The Chancellor, Judges and Attorney-General shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State; and the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.

Black’s Law Dictionary [ p.255 , 1st Edition ] defines a conservator as “ A guardian; protector; preserver.” and partially defines peace (internally applied to a given society) as “ the tranquility, security, and freedom from commotion or disturbance which is the sign of good order and harmony and obedience to the laws among all members of society.” [ p. 881 ]. Hence, a conservator of the peace is a legally empowered guardian or protector of the peace, peace officer and/or law enforcement officer.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition [p. 249] explicitly defines a conservator of the peace as “Officers authorized to preserve and maintain the public peace.” and further states that “Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace …” The original definition includes Sheriffs and Constables. [ 1 Bl. Comm. 351 ].

[ SOURCE: "POWERS and DUTIES of the SHERIFF in the STATE of DELAWRE and EMERGENT LEGAL ISSUES" 1st Edition 2011 ]

Reading comprehension is an essential skill…..

Incidentially, when your entire argument is based upon Michigan cases, you probably shouldn’t try to confine matters to Delaware. But just to humor you I did take a look at the bill and the Delaware Constitution. Maybe if you actually understood what a “Conservator of the Peace” is it would help.

In any case, here is the actual Delaware Code regarding Sheriffs for anyone interested (oh look, the Sheriff is a Court Officer). http://delcode.delaware.gov/ti.....ndex.shtml

and for State Police – oh lookie here: “The State Police shall be the primary law-enforcement agency within the State.” http://delcode.delaware.gov/ti.....ndex.shtml

you also have constables – http://delcode.delaware.gov/ti.....ndex.shtml

oh this is fun regarding qualifications of police – http://delcode.delaware.gov/ti.....ndex.shtml

here is the law regarding arrests: http://delcode.delaware.gov/ti.....ndex.shtml

you might want to also notice how “conservator of the peace” and “law enforcement” is not the same thing. or not – its not like merely citing what the law actually says will make a difference.

and um pretty much laws are always subject to amendment. but the Sheriff will still be a conservator of the peace along with the judges and hte Attorney General. Sounds fun whatever that means

I happen to be an historian of military technology. Ergo, I likely know a great deal more about military history than you do.

And I’m also smart enough to know that the Templars were abolished in the fifteenth century.

You can impugn me all you want. At least I’m not the one spewing utterly ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Lighten up… Your photo was amusing…. Grow a beard, wear the hat, write some good material and you just might have a hit comedy act. Better yet, collaborate with someone who looks like Ugo Chavez and you’ll have a cool comedy team. LOL

You exemplify one of the major reasons why I don’t smoke anything. Apparently, you are making way too many inaccurate cross-neural connections, leading to information enthropy.

The IPoD (pre-dating iPOD) and the CP-DE are two separate parties. As for the rest of your writing still standing, the DSWA solid waste facility is the highest point in Sussex County and that’s not going away any time soon.

Kindly pay attention to basic details before posting.
Obviously, you (and some others on this thread)
are ill-prepared to deal with the complex legal and constitutional issues at hand as you have not researched the matter.

Accordingly, your comments are about as relevant as mine would be after going off about some Florida case without reading the applicable statutes, ascertaining the facts and researching the historical context.

BTW my background and general worldview is scientific and trans-disciplinary — not theocratic.

Have a NICE DAY….

Wolf

NEXT

It discusses the Four Temples or the Inns of Court The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn
The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn
In the US we have the American Inns of Court HQ in Phiiladelphia, PA all are part of the Law society.
But since your specialty is history of technology I suppose that topic is a bit above your pay grade.

The Middle Temple is the western part of “The Temple”, the headquarters of the Knights Templar. and each of these are of the ancient society which our laws are based upon. .
You should have read the entire article how the Paris Peace Treaty (1783) actually eradicated the rights of the people of the 13 colonies of these united States of America, where John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay (esquires) gave back much of what we went to war against Great Britain for.in the first place.
You should have studied a little more of American History Aron, you would know more about what the Barbary Wars and Second War of Independence was about as well (war of 1812). .

Delaware Laws are not based on ancient french rules of laws like LA. Nor is Delaware a Commonwealth, We seperated from both the Commonewealth of PA and commonwealth of VA

HB 290 violates the rights of the people, and General Assembly is not able to change a constitutional amendment nor alter preexisting rights of the people protected under the US Constitution or the States Constitution and that is based upon US Supreme Ct rulings Delaware Court Rulings as well as other Federal Ct Rulings.

This Earl Lofland fellow believes that the United States is owned by some un-name European monarch.

I think that tells you everything you’d need to know.

you might be able to make stronger arguments if you actually knew what common law was (and it would also help if you realized that Louisiana doesn’t use a common law system at all). Common law is simply law which is made by judges – so the right to privacy under the Constitution – that would be a common law right in that it is not written. Of course, right wingers genreally hate that sort of thing, but apparently judgemade law is great when it supports what you wanted. Of course, even in England which originated the concept of common law (based upon court decisions) as opposed to civil law (based upon laws) had a Parliament which could pass laws if they did not like the common law rules. Obviously, in creating Congress, the founding fathers clearly intended there to be the ability to pass laws and alter laws – hence, the U.S. has never been a strictly common law system.

The best example is to look at Virginia – no state clings more closely to common law than Virginia (VA Code Sec. 1-200 declares that “the common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth shall continue in full force within the same and be the rule of decision except as altered b the General Assembly”). Note the last part. The common law only applies if it doesn’t violate the Constitution (an example of a common law rule found to be repugnant to the Virginia Constitution was the common law rule implying consent for a wife to have sex with her husband) or the law got changed by the legislature.

In every state of the U.S. the state legislature has repeatedly changed the laws – what is even stranger is that the very same people trying to advocate for strict common law in one area are the very same area who went nuts when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a common law right to abortion (and yes abortion was a common law right of England at the time of the founding of the U.S.) Of course, its all silly since from the start, the English system was always common law applies unless Parliament changes it.

And I am sure you mean no ill words against me.
However, to address your diagnosis in relation to what you have read,
It is clear we have a 1.3 trillion dollar debt
It is facts that we have had to raise the debt ceiling and we have lost our Credit rating
it is a fact that the USD is no longer the leading currency used to buy and sell on the global market
It is a fact that we have 8.5 percent of Americans unemployed and when you add the underemployed along with those who are no longer in the system that number reaches 17 percent or higher acccording the the Bureau of Labor statistics.
It is also a fact that we have a problem with college graduates and high school students having an unemployment or under employment ratio of 53%
There is no doubt that the NDAA will allow more intrusion into your personal privacy as was the Patriot Act that was revealed by the media American Citizens phone conversations were being illegally wire tapped
And we have seen that both Demcrat and Republican lawmakers agree that we need to cut spending and the size of goverment but have yet to do so.
It is also a fact that Social security and Medicade is about to go in the Red and there has been no clear solutions to solving this problem either.
It is a fact that we have followed a Keneysian Economic Model that has done nothing more than cause us to have an unsustainable debt and bring us to the brink of an economic collapse. That neither the Democrat or Republican Leadership has yet to solve. And has actually done more harm that good over the course of 60 years or more.
It is a fact that we have had civil liberties violated by both political factions with waterboarding and let us not leave out GITMO and that Abu issue.
I would be interested in hearing your ideas on how to solve these problems that are all occuring here in the US And if you do have any logical ideas for a political platform I would also encourage you to run for office! If they sound logical enough to actually work, I may even endorse your campaign!
Again thank you for your insights I would be happy to hear your insights on how to fix the errors that have now become a mistake as JFK so warned us would occur to a socieity where man is free and Independent (reference to John F. Kennedy Speeck last 3 paragraphs “The President and the Press April 27, 1961

My apologies. I mixed you up with the Constitution Party. However, other than that one bit of confusion, everything else I’ve written still stands.

I’ve read your comments here and also some of your blog entries, and I cannot in good conscience refrain from sharing my overwhelming impression that your writing exhibits all the classic hallmarks of paranoid-schizophrenic delusion. I’m not saying this to insult you but rather in all sincerity to urge you to see a psychological professional immediately to determine whether my conclusion is correct (I’m not a professional myself, but I do have some personal experience with people who suffer from this condition). Schizophrenia is treatable, but if left untreated, it can lead the sufferer to cause irrepable harm to himself or others. Please take action, and good luck.

Couple things. First off, the photo was taken in Maryland when I lived there. Second, I happened to be wearing olive that day, and I’m a cigar enthusiast. so THAT’S how you’re judging me?

Third, based upon everything I’ve read regarding the Constitution Party and The Good Sheriff of Rottingham, you guys seem to be obsessed with a federal encroachment on states’ rights that ISN’T HAPPENING and then on top of that, there’s the whole Dominionism thing.

So until you disavow the notion of theocratic government, I have nothing more to say to you. And you can be sure I’ll avoid the Delawere Cigar Festival in September.

Did you read the relevant sections of the Delaware Code or do any legal / historical research on the matter at hand? Most likely NOT — and it shows in your gratuitous use of the word “conspiracy”.
I did not refer to or even imply a conspiracy, so this is a politically-motivated and insipid comment at best — not to mention a gross non sequitor.

The events listed are factual and reflect recent Sussex County history. Furthermore, one County Councilman has openly expressed racist and anti-semetic viewpoints.

Also, if you are the same guy on Facebook, wearing the Castro-style uniform and puffing and a fat cigar in Florida, then you are certainly not in any serious intellectual or moral position to call my writing BS, as you obviously don’t know the first thing about Sussex County and Delaware politics, the Delaware Constitution, the IPoD Platform or proper writing for that matter. In fact, I could not have created a better sit com character, myself.

Accordingly, your comments are written on a very superficial level and can’t be considered as anything beyond knee-jerk reaction. In summation, I am neither impressed nor intimidated….

The rule of law is that Sheriffs remain, in all important particulars, what they were at common law when our American system of government was first framed. The County Sheriff’s are, and always have been “the local peace officers”. Their “powers and duties are among the best known subjects of legal inquiry”. All Sheriff’s, in whatever sphere they operate, are “guardians of the public safety, and conservators and defenders of the public peace.” Allor, supra at 102-103. (emphasis added)