I think Sheriff Whynott Urp is in the wrong state.

“You either have freedom, or you don’t have freedom. And if you tolerate laws that are closing in your face,”

Right. Much like the tyrannical Republicans here in Arizona who are passing “laws” and legislation that impedes our Rights and Freedoms as Americans.

“lawmakers who plan to bulldoze the Constitution.”

That’s precisely what the radical Republicans and their Tea Pottier enablers want. They want to “bulldoze” and rewrite the Constitution that fits their “dark agenda”. SB1070 paved the way for that. And to add on top of that, we also have a feeble Shurf at the MCSO, who continues to desecrate the U.S. Constitution everyday. And because of his anti-government rhetoric, arpaio can join this guy’s crusade to try and destroy the U.S. Constitution, that they think they are defending.

True fact: Delaware was the last state to outlaw flogging as a form of punishment in the 1950s.

Let me just say, I’m glad I live in Sussex UK, rather than Sussex Md!

Sorry Delaware!

Too bad. This sheriff could stand a good old fashion flogging.

I know of a few Sherrifs, and Deputies, who feel this way, here in my Oregon County; but they should be less worried about the City Cops, and more worried about the Federal Ones – as far as their having gone ‘way over the Constitutional Limit’, not to mention engaging in Acts inw hich the committed a Felonious Familial-Professional Conflict of Interest Violation (No, Ex-Waitron of mine ‘Geoffrey J.’, your Federal Agent girlfriend can’t fu*k with me like that….especially if the KKK and National Alliance find out, and they then kill a Jewess, and a Black Girl, and a Black Man….right under you ‘Waffen SS Wannabe’ Noses’! Sorry, I digress, sorta….), as well as pushing drugs on me while messing up my SSDI Claims and Appeals, and all of that are concerned.
I know where SOME of these people – these people who Feel Strongly that They Are Responsible To We, The People First; who think that, by being what I call “Good” Cops, when, say, a KKK & NAZI Lover takes over the DoJ, and Our Nations Federal Police Agencies, that Thy Are Doing The Right Thing – Even If It Means Bucking The Federal Agencies, or The Federal Agencies Rules.
There IS a Danger, though – And, I’m glad to say, they’re listening ot me, here, too; and that’s ‘The Divide and Conqure Factor’ – which means we have to watch out that, In the Name of The People, we don’t ‘elect’ (And that’s LARGELY Up To You, Deputies!) ‘Sherrifs of Notinghams’ – any ‘Petty Tyrants’, ‘Colonels’ and ‘Captains’ and ‘Majors’ looking to do horrible things to people of color; and Corporate Fascists – or even Local Boyz, looking to skirt Good Federal Enviro-Regulations, by having ‘The Sherrif’ run the ‘Federal Inspectors’ outta town; or a thousand and oe things like that……though, in the end, I think you’ll all see that POTUS Obama and USAG Holder and I have been slowly constricting a noose about the you-know-whos necks for the last three years now, and you may just be happy with the “New Attitude” that the Fed is going to try to ‘adopt’ in the wake of the coming storm & etc., & etc., & etc..
It’s a Process, you see…..some people are slippery As The Eels (Hagfish, actually….) They Are!

Forty lashes with a wet noodle! Preferably one that had been dipped in hot sauce, first.

In regard to the Sherriff of Nottingham, where is King John when we need him?!

Some of the “Sherriff’s” organizations are the ones that mis-quote the states Laws against black people for their own racist objectives – and it’s only the state and Federal Law enforcement groups that are there to straighten them out . The “locals” sometimes are not smart enough or don’t have the time off to pursue this stuff . I’ve personally seen it .

Erika are you suggesting that Sheriff Christopher wants to bring Sharia law back to Delaware?

I live in Delaware. Here, Christopher is telling the public that all he wants is for his deputies to be trained for every eventuality they might incur in the exercise of their duties. When they serve papers for eviction, for instance, they might well encounter agressive behavior and would want the ability to handcuff and arrest.

I have seen nothing publicly to indicate his view quoted in this article. Thanks for exposing him.

I actually lived in a place where the elected Sheriff and about 25% of the deputies were arrested by the feds for illegally selling drugs and weapons. It seemed that the Sheriff’s Department used their law enforcement authority to take out competing drug dealers.

The Sheriff wasn’t involved in the drug dealing and weapons sells – he found out about the scheme and covered it up because the deputies involved were friends and family of his.

That Sheriff’s Department was also noted earlier as being extremely incompetent and badly bungled many investgations badly including contaminating and mishandling evidence to make it unusuable.

There have also been too many instances of corrupt local politicians like Sheriffs to count – when local law enforcement is in the hands of politicians (and the state and feds cannot come in to look at what is going on) that creates widespread opportunity for bribes, political dirty tricks, and other corruption.

It is that sort of corruption and incompetence which comes from local Sheriffs using good ole boy networks to find deputies rather than finding competent and honest people which is why laws separating the political and administrative functions from law enforcement functions are separate..

Sign on Sheriff Christopher’s door:

Went to see Nile, out to lunch forever

I don’t know why they even bother with sheriffs in Delaware, by the way. We have cities bigger than that state.

I’m not afraid of being called a racist. If more people in America take my view the word will eventually be devalued, it will lose it’s meaning, and it will no longer matter. Don’t worry if someone calls you a racist. In the future calling someone a ‘racist’ could become a term of endearment.

Erika,
Do you have a link or source of info to back up that claim? I am aware of the Feds(FBI) having raided corrupt law enforcement agencies or their chain of command somewhere in history. But it’s been awhile since FBI has done any raiding of any corrupt law enforcement agency(mainly the Sheriff Depts). And here in Arizona, everybody is still waiting on what the Feds will do with our very own “corrupt” Shurf.

The very fact that this guy believes local sheriffs, if given the power of arrest, can repel moves by national leaders to impose their will locally, simply by telling them “stop”, should stand as undeniable evidence he is a simple-minded moron with a lust for power…the very kind of person we must take guns away from, nevertheless grant them the authority to seek out and arrest enemies of the state ….as he sees them.
Just as the Catholic Church missed a chance to exclude pedophiles by investigating whether or not the apparent willingness of the young teen males to give up sex permanently was less an expression of devotion than it is their attempt to deal with deeply troubling and/or illegal desires by doing the opposite….rejecting sex completely — so too is the case with police recruiters who to this very day still won’t screen cadets for traits indicating psychological authoritarianism, or RWA. And they do this despite strong evidence RWA is rampant through-out law-enforcement. And that evidence comes in the form of records showing how the actions and frequency of occurrence of incidents of police misconduct line up almost perfectly with a list of attitudes and behaviors typical of those with the “authoritarian personality syndrome” (or RWA).

Among the many points on that list is a tendency for what psychologists might call “epistemic seizing and freezing”..meaning a tendency to prematurely decide on the solution to a problem, but having once settled on that solution, to resist efforts from others showing how that solution is wrong.
But in a law-enforcement setting, what this translates to is a LEO who decides on guilt before there’s enough info to support it, and to then single-mindedly pursue their conviction, even while ignoring additional evidence showing someone else did it. Combine that with other RWA traits like their much greater tendency to believe racial stereotypes and use violence on marginalized social groups (like homosexuals, drug addicts, etc), and it becomes obvious that LEOs with a tendency for “seizing and freezing” cannot be trusted to exercise their authority in a fair and just manner. How many times have we heard about the railroading of someone whose innocence only came to light years later via DNA? And that the investigating LEO had for years opposed requests by others wanting to use PCR to search for DNA evidence of guilt or innocence on the grounds that “he KNOWS he right man is now sitting on Death Row awaiting justice for the…blah, blah, blah X ( X= the number of months until their re-election campaign kicks off)?
Although the stats haven’t been compiled (as far as I know), I can virtually guarantee you that the more conservative a state is, the higher the wrongful conviction rate will also be. So although it wont eliminate it completely, using RWA Scale to screen out high -RWAs will drastically reduce false convictions and arrests, police brutality and wrongful death claims,and would help immensely to restore public confidence in the nations LE agencies and personnel.

Having once been a law enforcement deputy sheriff I believe strongly in the Sheriff’s powers of arrest. In my state and most other western states the highway patrols and state police agencies do not have the manpower to police the entire state. Also local law enforcement have closer ties and great respect in their communities. The sheriff is the high law enforcement official in the county because he or she is directly elected by the people. Give me one good reason why this should change.

In Delaware, apparently, sheriff’s and deputies do not have powers of arrest. Give me one good reason why this should change. I lived in Mississippi from 1956-1965 and believe me local law enforcement had neither closer ties nor greater respect in the communities they occupied than did the federal marshals who enforced civil rights laws.

shadow wolf, the jurisdiction is Henry County, Virginia – if I remember correctly, it would have been 2006. The story made national news, but the most extensive coverage was by the Washington Post and the Roanoke Times.

S. Stephens: You are from a *Western* state. Probably one of your better ranches would encompass Delaware. I believe the city limits of Jacksonville would.

S. Stepens-In some states the sheriffs department are part of the regular law enforcement personnel. In Delaware policing is done by the municipalities, and the Delaware State Police. For instance the New Castle County Police are not under the jurisdiction of the New Castle County sheriff. They are a policing organization and have their own county police chief separate from the sheriff’s office. This is different from jurisdictions where the county sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer and heads the county police force. The office of sheriff is an administrative one in Delaware with limited powers and responsibilities.

I should also point that the Sheriffs Deputies along with State Troopers are preferred targets by the very same group of antigovernment extremists. If one were to examine the recent shootouts between Sheriffs Deputies and “Sovereign Citizens”. It’s clear that there is not much common ground between the law enforcement who feel the same way as Sheriff Christopher and those in the antigovernment movement. Rogue LEOs like Sheriff Christopher are somewhat alone in the rhetoric he spouts.

The Sheriff Dept, has a working partnership with other law enforcement agencies including federal and tribal police. So I fail to see a valid logical reason expressed by Sheriff Christopher and a few insignificant others.

Are you kidding me? This article is very biased and slanted against Sheriff Christopher. It’s very easy to identify anti-Sheriff written articles. All one has to do is take note of the author’s tone.

The man is seriously delusional. Many of us here in Sussex County fear that this is going to end up with someone being killed by one of his deputies. Unfortunately, we don’t have the power to recall elected officials.

Always4Truth

Of course the article is biased against the sheriff! It’s called an exposé, you dummy!

The central legal and constitutional problem with HB 290 and its derivatives is whether an ordinary state statute can effectually amend a state constitutional article in the absence of an enabling clause in said article (i.e: Article15 , Del.Const.).

The intellectual limitation of blog postings is that most people who are quick to politically characterize
and comment are slow to objectively research.

Basic research of the Delaware Code and its structural semantics indicates general ambiguity, imprecision and logical deficiency re: legal definition of Sheriffs powers and duties. This is largely due to the fact that definitions are generally section and context-dependent and are scattered throughout the code, in contrast to primary organization in a major chapter.
Hence, they can easilly be taken out of perspective to suit the Sussex County Council’s political purposes at hand.

Despite this less than orderly approach to legal codification, the existing state statutes, coupled with publicly available State Archives, indicate that
Delaware Sheriffs have had and continue to have considerable arrest and general law enforcement powers. Accordingly, HB 290 is a de facto legal admission that Delaware Sheriffs have arrest powers in the first place.

If the Delaware General Assembly had originally intended to totally supplant county sheriffs with state police in the 1930′s, they would have thoroughly amended the Delaware Constitution and revised the Delaware Code in the same timeframe.

Furthermore, the constitutional princple of Sheriffs as independently elected Conservators of the Peace is supported by federal res judicata as well as precedent in various state courts. Naturally, as an office is ultimately only as good as the person serving in it (and by extension the People who elected him or her) , government has its human limitations. However, the basic principle of an elected law enforcement officer still affords people an additional measure of protection from abuses of executive power than that of solely administratively appointed law enforcement agencies. I have only to cite the “COVERDALE CROSSROADS incident in which the DSP conducted an unwarranted paramilitary style raid on an entire African-American community in western Sussex County in response to a false report made by female State trooper that she was shot by an African-American male — before she ultimately admitted that she accidently shot herself while mishandling her service weapon.

With respect to the racist and class-prejudiced Sussex County Council, please observe the following:

1] The Sussex County Government supported the Coverdale Crossroads raid by sending in building inspectors and code enforcement constables.

2] During the 2001 redistricting hearings, the Sussex County membership of an alternative political party was threatened with retaliation when its County Chairman attempted to present a plan for an independent redistricting commission during a public hearing.

3] The former County Administrator, Bob Stickles demanded (under threat of conty-sponsored litigation)the dissolution of an informal citizens group advocating economical small-flows wastewater treatment technology as an alternative to expensive central sewer systems, that tended to displace poor people and minority groups from areas closer to waterfront and raised legitimate environment justice questions.

4] The Sussex County Council unanimously passed an ordinance banning all criticism of Councilmembers, county employees, agents or contractors at council meetings — in gross violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the Delaware Constitution. It took three long years to overturn this policy with the assistance of the Delaware ACLU.

In contrast, Sheriff Jeff Christopher is a strong advocate of constitutional liberty and human dignaty
in a post-modern society that is rapidly losing both.
He has been grossly mischaracterized if not libeled by
many of the comments posted.

I sincerely hope that this posting serves to clarify the complexity of the legal and constitutional issues at hand….

Wolf von Baumgart
State Chairman,
Independent Party of Delaware

I stand with Sheriff Christopher. The most important fundamentals of the American system of government and the associated grants of authority as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all merge together in the office of County Sheriff, and how county sheriffs, with their incredibly powerful authority can ENFORCE the Constitution AGAINST serious encroachments by Federal, State or local Government. Private Property Owners – the Sheriff is there to protect you from the freedoms that are being taken away from you by your municipalities/counties/state/federal government.

It is odd that I am published as being far right, It is my responsiblity to address the information presented, speaking a plethora of misinformation on this one very important topic.
1 Being far right; This is not the case of myself, for I have been fighting againts discrimination for years including working to change the SBA rules to include individuals protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act during the Clinton Administration, to be eligible for qualified small business loans under the list of minorities listed with the SBA.
2 As for Hate; It is obvious that anyone who published this has no knowledge of my background . I have been the president of a Child Advocacy Organization, I personally have helped children all over the world.from children being used as human shieilds by Hamas. I have sent toys to dislocated children in Iraq
I have been involved with preserving the rights of minorities since 2007.

As for the Constitution Party being Far Right.
Under the First Amendment we are protected to express our views and one of those views is a controversial topic that politics here is using to attack those whom are more inerested in preserving a republic form of government that prevents the federal government from incroaching on the rights of everyone as is expressed in Amendment IVX and the Equal protection clause,
This article is blatently nothing more than slanderous and defamatory to me based upon the documented history record of what I personally have done and have been involved with.
As for the issue of the county sheriff and pick and choose items of the speech that was given the day I mentioned the Sheriff of Notingham it is clearly misinformation.
A county Sheriff is actually citizens right that prevents anarchy and preserving peace.
As to referencing the Sherwood Sheriff in a derogatory way against the Constitution Party
The case that I rerferened was actually a dissenting case where Judge Cirillo wrote about the Sheriff of Nottingham.
(Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641. A.2d 299 (1994)
In a legal brief I handed to Sheriff Jeff Christopher there are three very distinctive cases Cooly J presided over.
1 Allor v Bd of Auditors of Wayne Cty, 43 Mich 76, 101, 102-03; 4 NW 492 (1880)
2 People v Hurlbut 24 Mich 44 (1871) pp 93-113
3 Board of Park Commissioners v. Detroit 28 Mich 228 (1873)
Pursuant to Allor v Wayne County Bd of Auditors (Mich. 1889), once the Sheriff is named in the constitution the powers and duties he had at common law cannot be infringed upon or transferred to another authority short of constitutional amendment. Not even the state Legislature can pass legislation doing this..
In People v Hurlbut pg 93-113 Cooley J. 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. and finally, In Board of Park Commissioners v. Detroit we find the principles again enunciated by Cooley J “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. The management of its parks is the local concern of Detroit and the legislature cannot interfere in it. Towns and City?s have certain rights to local self-government, even though the constitution be silent on the subject”.
In Closing who do you prefer to preserve peace in your county? an appointed special police force that is not answerable to the citizens or an elected executive officer who is?

Until the people are unwise enough to undo their own work. The loss of interest in the preservation of ancient rights is not a very encouraging sign of public spirit or good sense.” Allor v. Bd. of Auditors of Wayne County, 43 Mich 76, 101-102 (1880) (CAMPBELL, J.).
Earl Lofland, State Chairman Constitution Party of Delaware.

Wolf,

I find it hilarious that you character the Delawere Code as ambiguous and convoluted. What you just wrote there is some of the most convoluted BS this side of WND. The only major conspiracies are inside your and Sheriff Moonbat’s heads. And the same goes for you, too S Hughes.

Hey Earl, ever hear of paragraphs? You blathered on and on and on, and you were damn near impossible to read because of your lack of structure.

But I guess I should expect that from a Constitution Party wingnut like yourself.

Your dysphemisms of labeling somone you disagree with as a “Wingnut ” is interesting Aron. The term Wingnut is a slang used to depict someone who serves in the US Air Force.
If you are comparing the Constitution Party and myself to a branch of the goverment that would suggest we are actually not “ANTI GOVERNMENT”
By the way, Every individual who is commissioned or elisted in the US Armed Forces is sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic without any mental reservations.

Your ad hominem approach to what is spoken is more persuasive to showing you lack any structure or capability to debate. And unfounded.
Because you state you were able to read it and you obviously comprended what was stated enough to reply to both mine and Wolf’s comment.

Your remarks Araon point to one conclusion; Showing you have little or no knowledge of the issues surrounding your Rights protected under the US Constitution, nor do you have any basis for presenting a logical and educated debate to this topic

See here, Chairman:

In the physical sense, a “wingnut” is either a nut equipped with flanges, so it can be easily finger-tightened over a bolt, or a tree or fruit thereof of the genus Pterocarya (“ptero”= “wing”, “carya”=”pecan”). Therefore, neither is an airman one of those. Any such use is therefore as much a figure of speech as any other such use. The vernacular understanding, however, is that it designates someone exhibiting a combination of flightiness and nuttiness, such that his/her nuttiness can alight and sprout in all sorts of unpredictable places. Indeed, the Air Force has become infiltrated with wingnuts. One lives down the road from me. Another sort consists of people who insist they are “ril uhMericuns” who’ll uphold the “ril Constitution”, which says whatever they think it should, to Hell with what it says on paper, what its amendments say, what a long line of jurisprudence says, or how acts of Congress have interpreted or executed it. Sir, you are that sort. Vale, pterocarya.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, you might think of going to a “ril law school”, one accredited by the ABA, and passing a ril Bar exam, before you venture any more constitutional interpretations.

Dear Reynar
Though you give good veancular discriptions to what a “wingnut’ is you have obviously drifred away from the facts.

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)

Methinks Mr Chairman doth protest too much…

I am so tired of rightwingers using “New World Order” as though it is a liberal construct – it was coined by George H. W. Bush after the fall of the Soviet Union. To my knowledge, neither Clinton nor Obama have used this terminology, but the far right keeps peeing in their pants about the “New World Order.”

Aron,

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….

Wolf:

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.

Mr. Lofland,

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.

Wolf,

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.

CM
Thank you for your (questionable) medical opinion.
I would like to also thank you for reading my blogs.

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

Mr. (I’m assuming) State Chairman,

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.

Everyone,

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.

This issue is all about the rule of law in Delaware and HB 290. Whether or not it is unconstitutional is based upon Federal Court desisions; USSC rulings: Delaware Case Law; And DE LAWS.

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.

Aron
You must be refering to an article I published
What is Lincoln’s Inn? and Where is it?

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). .

Aron

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

Hey Friend,

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.

Chair, you have now convinced me you are both a moron and a confabulator. “Templar” in that sense has nothing to do with the Knights Templar. The English Inns of Court are membership and meeting places for the barristers of that country, and a barrister or a student aspiring to that status is jokingly called a “Templar”. It has no more to do with the American legal system than powdered wigs, and less to do with the historic Knights Templar than the Society for Creative Anachronisms. You must think we have less sense than ducks to fall for such a canard.

Apparently Mr. Earl the Chairman learned history from the same place he learned law – the very prestigious University of I Don’t Remember (or perhaps Glenn Beck University) with perhaps daily reading of the Paris Buisness Review.

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). ^[7]

and for State Police – oh lookie here: “The State Police shall be the primary law-enforcement agency within the State.” ^[8]

you also have constables – ^[9]

oh this is fun regarding qualifications of police – ^[10]

here is the law regarding arrests: ^[11]

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

How can anyone even remotely derive or infer support for theocracy from my postings???

Reading comprehension is an essential skill…..

The office of Sheriff is currently clearly enumerated in Article XV, Section 1 of the 1897 Delaware Constitution:

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 ]

Erika,
First, thank you for finding DE CODE that needs to be revisited and reversed, There are several other statutes, we are aware of as well, but your legal research has been beneficial to helping us out tremendously. Thank you.

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..

Or so Mr. Earl the Chairman is now admitting that his position would require a change of the law. Oh Thank You for educating me! Your arguments are so just like totally convincing.

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.

Erika,

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!

The coroners power was taken away through a constitutional amendment.
That it a different issue.

Thank you for the DE Cases Erika and You are incorrect in believing it has been decided already.

Elsewhere, what I regarded as an inoffensive and chastely-worded post arguing that totalitarianism is a psychological construct rather than a political one has been pending approval for three days, and yet drivel proclaiming the English Inns of Court a secret refuge of the Knights Templar has breezed in. There has even been a post let through that used language deemed inadmissible in US English unless unequivocally referring to actual cats and roosters, yet I have had a post taken down when I didn’t write LXIX as a Roman numeral. No, I don’t think it’s about me, but what the (ahem) Mephistopheles are the standards here?

oh mr. chairman earl, what am i so incorrect about?

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

Pay no attention to Wolfgang von Bombast. He’s as delusional as the sheriff on nuttingham, as is Earl Loflin, the chair of the “DE Constitution Party.” He’s its only member.

If the Delaware Sate Police are the chief law enforcement and a State agency then why do residents of Sussex County pay nearly 2 MILIION in tax dollars for state police protection, that the other two counties in the state don’t pay?

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.

We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site offered us with valuable info to work on. You’ve performed an impressive
job and our whole neighborhood can be grateful to you.
^[12]

Dont Believe the hate articles posted here, those people spreading lies about the Sheriffs are paid for by our own government. They want to stop all sheriffs from making arrests so that they cant defend us when the FEDs come in. Those People are TROLLS who post LIES DONT BELIEVE THEM