The Honorable Norman Wood, Kent County Sheriff , requested an opinion from the Delaware State Attorney General as to whether or nor a Sheriff and his deputies have the power to arrest. http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/office/opinions/2012/12-IIB3.pdf.
In Sussex County the deputies had been transporting prisoners until Christopher was elected. That and numerous sections of the state code, and the state constitution gave them powers of arrest. In fact until the late 1970's going back to the establishment of the Sheriff in 1669 Sussex County Sheriffs did make arrests when necessary.
In the 1980s the State Police expanded and municipalities had their own police forces. State patrols assumed jurisdiction in unincorporated outlying county areas and the Sheriffs mainly handle paperwork for the courts. In Sussex County they were armed and sworn in because they transported prisoners until 2010.
Jeff Christopher ran for Sheriff of Sussex county on a platform of equipping, training, and certifying deputies ( all former police officers ) so that they could make stops and take action if they encountered any affront to the peace whilst on duty. He was elected and that's where the trouble started.
Even though the Sheriff is by statute and well settled case law an independent executive in his county the Sussex County Council sought to forbid the Sheriff from having any law enforcement power. Of course this is counter intuitive to most Americans who understand that having a law enforcement official responsive to the voters in critical to preserving the republic.
However here in Delaware it's more about power and money than rights or freedoms. The legislature passed and the Governor signed an arguably illegal bill stripping the Sheriff of statutory powers to arrest however the case is being argued in court that those powers originate in the State Constitution and not the code, therefore the Sheriffs arguably still possess the power of arrest.
The matter is no doubt headed to the highest courts. Most of the opinion from A.G. Biden hangs it hat on "Conservator of the Peace" being an undefined term. In point of fact, the precise page cited by D.A.G. Kent Walker actually uses the Delaware Constitution as a scholarly example and re-enforces that a Conservator of the Peace makes arrests in the context of a Sheriff.
Opponents of the office of the elected Sheriff will make arguments based on exaggerated tax burdens (we are talking about equipment, liability insurance, and training for four to six deputies) and some sense of 'modernizing' the state law to 'clarify' the duties of the Sheriff.
Case law on the matter is well settled and the argument continually comes back to "Yes, but this is Delaware". Which is true, being a state in America. Some restrictions may apply.
The issue is one of due process and equal protection. The voters of Sussex County did not get theirs. Perhaps Fourteenth Amendment territory?
Then we have another opinion, The Delaware and Kent County SPCAs respectively are endowed with law enforcement powers and the A.G. strictly supports this in another opinion. Yet the Animal Control Officers are not Council On Police Training certified as the Sheriff's opinion seems to require for one to be a 'peace officer' and make arrests. http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/office/opinions/2012/12-IIB8.pdf
Interestingly, any complaints against ACOs are ignored. Those with the money to sue have to date been settled having signed non disclosure agreements. There is no oversight and the state keeps insisting that because KCSPCA is a private non profit all internal matters must be taken up with the board of directors. Which is ludicrous. A criminal complaint isn't the same as complaining about the guest soap selection in the powder room.
So in Delaware an elected Sheriff may not instruct his Deputies to make traffic stops for reckless driving but the dog catcher can have you arrested without probable cause and nobody will do anything about it unless you're rich enough to pay a lawyer and can find one to take your case.
Those are not hypothetical situations, this is on the books as being reality in Delaware both with the latter and former examples. Real people and real stories. No wonder we rank so high in corruption consistently.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Sussex County Council, a den of chuckleheads?
Or vipers? The Sussex County Council: http://www.sussexcountyde.gov/dept/council/
Posting a picture of them here would probably be bad luck, certainly bad taste.
On April 5 2012, the County Council released a report in support of House Bill 290,
which was stricken by the sponsor. The report surfaced again when the people's enemy
Pete Schwartzkopf introduced House Bill 325 and it easily passed the State House
and Senate. No surprise to those who know Delaware corruption.
Curiously, the report was never entered into the record in the House or Senate
according to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Why? Perhaps
because the entire report is pure crap? To minimize confusion, all County Council
written scat will be posted in italics.
This will be a long post, as we will be going through the report in it's entirety. First the introduction;
"Introduction
This report outlines the events and factual basis by which Sussex County officials have
rendered their decisions on the office of the sheriff to date. Due to the ambiguity in
Delaware Code, the Sussex County Council recently supported legislation to clarify
the authority and role of their Sheriff’s office in Delaware. The report lists the reasons
why a change in the law is required."
Right off the bat the lies fly. There was no ambiguity in the Delaware Code or the
Delaware State Constitution.
Clarify? more like a propaganda effort to illegally overturn an election and a
heinous effort to over-ride the State Constitution based on greed and corruption.
The Delaware State Code clearly empowered Sheriffs with authority to arrest.
If it did not, then why House Bill 325 which basically removed any mention of arrest
authority for Sheriffs? Clarify? How about subvert?
Item 1;
1. The question surrounding the sheriff’s authority has prompted law enforcement
agencies throughout the State of Delaware to protect themselves from the sheriff
and the liability his actions pose.
Law enforcement agencies throughout the State are trying to protect their power and
resources. If the existing authorities were serving the Citizens of Sussex County then
Sheriff Christopher would have never been elected on his platform.
Item 2;
2. Local law enforcement officials in Sussex County have requested the Sussex County
Sheriff to immediately stop any activities that could be perceived as law
enforcement within their municipalities.
The Sheriff is not part of any county government, Title 9 section 302(a)
Delaware State Code. The Sheriff is specifically an independent Executive
elected by the people to preserve the peace and maintain good order in the
Counties in which they reside. In short, un-elected un-accountable law enforcement
entities don't have a say concerning the lawful duties of the Sheriff. That's on purpose.
Item 3;
3. Sussex County’s decisions as to the governance of the sheriff’s office are based on
the decisions and opinions of legal authority.
The opinion contradicts other opinions from the State Solicitor concerning law
enforcement powers, and we'll get into that in a later post. As well the definition of
conservator of the peace isn't confusing or vague especially in the context of the Sheriff.
As well we have at least 78 years of the Sussex County Sheriff performing police duties
to include arrests since the latest version of the State Constitution.
Item 4;
4. The actions of Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher, Chief Deputy Dennis
Lineweaver and sheriff deputies forced Sussex County officials to take the necessary
steps to limit the County’s liability and seek a final resolution to the issues
surrounding the sheriff’s authority.
I would humbly submit that by preventing the Sheriff from upholding his duty to maintain good order and preserve the peace the County is exposing themselves to liability. Counties don't generally enjoy sovereign immunity . Is the County liable if the Sheriff being prevented from doing his duty results in a danger to the community at large?
Sheriff Christopher was elected on his platform of using deputies to enforce the law when necessary to preserve the peace and maintain good order. That means an increase in liability compared to a Sheriff that is an instrument of the banks and a paper pusher for the courts. DUH.
So the county is nullifying a lawful election, that's a civil rights issue. One the county is on the wrong side of.
Item 5;
5. Sussex County government cannot and will not expand the role of sheriff to include
law enforcement activities.
In the United States of America, a county cannot and must not nullify an election or ignore a State Constitution or State law.
Sheriff Christopher's authority derives from the State Constitution. Until house bill 326 is signed into law his authority is enforced in State Code. When the code and Constitution conflict, the Constitution prevails. The County Council isn't expanding anything except their own authority against the will of the voters, the Constitution, established case law, common sense, decency, and State Law.
Conclusion;
The Sussex County Council is profoundly corrupt and/or ignorant and should be replaced immediately.
In the next post we'll analyze the latest Delaware Attorney General opinions on arrest powers.
Posting a picture of them here would probably be bad luck, certainly bad taste.
On April 5 2012, the County Council released a report in support of House Bill 290,
which was stricken by the sponsor. The report surfaced again when the people's enemy
Pete Schwartzkopf introduced House Bill 325 and it easily passed the State House
and Senate. No surprise to those who know Delaware corruption.
Curiously, the report was never entered into the record in the House or Senate
according to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Why? Perhaps
because the entire report is pure crap? To minimize confusion, all County Council
written scat will be posted in italics.
This will be a long post, as we will be going through the report in it's entirety. First the introduction;
"Introduction
This report outlines the events and factual basis by which Sussex County officials have
rendered their decisions on the office of the sheriff to date. Due to the ambiguity in
Delaware Code, the Sussex County Council recently supported legislation to clarify
the authority and role of their Sheriff’s office in Delaware. The report lists the reasons
why a change in the law is required."
Right off the bat the lies fly. There was no ambiguity in the Delaware Code or the
Delaware State Constitution.
Clarify? more like a propaganda effort to illegally overturn an election and a
heinous effort to over-ride the State Constitution based on greed and corruption.
The Delaware State Code clearly empowered Sheriffs with authority to arrest.
If it did not, then why House Bill 325 which basically removed any mention of arrest
authority for Sheriffs? Clarify? How about subvert?
Item 1;
1. The question surrounding the sheriff’s authority has prompted law enforcement
agencies throughout the State of Delaware to protect themselves from the sheriff
and the liability his actions pose.
Law enforcement agencies throughout the State are trying to protect their power and
resources. If the existing authorities were serving the Citizens of Sussex County then
Sheriff Christopher would have never been elected on his platform.
Item 2;
2. Local law enforcement officials in Sussex County have requested the Sussex County
Sheriff to immediately stop any activities that could be perceived as law
enforcement within their municipalities.
The Sheriff is not part of any county government, Title 9 section 302(a)
Delaware State Code. The Sheriff is specifically an independent Executive
elected by the people to preserve the peace and maintain good order in the
Counties in which they reside. In short, un-elected un-accountable law enforcement
entities don't have a say concerning the lawful duties of the Sheriff. That's on purpose.
Item 3;
3. Sussex County’s decisions as to the governance of the sheriff’s office are based on
the decisions and opinions of legal authority.
The opinion contradicts other opinions from the State Solicitor concerning law
enforcement powers, and we'll get into that in a later post. As well the definition of
conservator of the peace isn't confusing or vague especially in the context of the Sheriff.
As well we have at least 78 years of the Sussex County Sheriff performing police duties
to include arrests since the latest version of the State Constitution.
Item 4;
4. The actions of Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher, Chief Deputy Dennis
Lineweaver and sheriff deputies forced Sussex County officials to take the necessary
steps to limit the County’s liability and seek a final resolution to the issues
surrounding the sheriff’s authority.
I would humbly submit that by preventing the Sheriff from upholding his duty to maintain good order and preserve the peace the County is exposing themselves to liability. Counties don't generally enjoy sovereign immunity . Is the County liable if the Sheriff being prevented from doing his duty results in a danger to the community at large?
Sheriff Christopher was elected on his platform of using deputies to enforce the law when necessary to preserve the peace and maintain good order. That means an increase in liability compared to a Sheriff that is an instrument of the banks and a paper pusher for the courts. DUH.
So the county is nullifying a lawful election, that's a civil rights issue. One the county is on the wrong side of.
Item 5;
5. Sussex County government cannot and will not expand the role of sheriff to include
law enforcement activities.
In the United States of America, a county cannot and must not nullify an election or ignore a State Constitution or State law.
Sheriff Christopher's authority derives from the State Constitution. Until house bill 326 is signed into law his authority is enforced in State Code. When the code and Constitution conflict, the Constitution prevails. The County Council isn't expanding anything except their own authority against the will of the voters, the Constitution, established case law, common sense, decency, and State Law.
Conclusion;
The Sussex County Council is profoundly corrupt and/or ignorant and should be replaced immediately.
In the next post we'll analyze the latest Delaware Attorney General opinions on arrest powers.
By Doug Beatty, copyright 2012 all rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Peace, puppies, and pure crap.
The historical role of the Sussex County Sheriff has always been to maintain good order and preserve the peace. As a conservator of the peace and the supreme law enforcement entity many other tasks fell on the sheriff. Since 1669 the Sheriff of Sussex County has always been empowered to make arrests.
Up until the 1940's the Sheriff of Sussex County was very active in peace keeping. In the 1950s and 1960s the role of the Sheriff in making arrests became less prominent but arrests were still made. In the 1970s the office gradually came to be mostly concerned with foreclosures, process serving, Sheriff's sales and the odd prisoner transport.
Then in the early 1980s the Sheriff became an active peace officer once more. According to the Police Chief's Council Administrator who maintains that the Sheriff has no power to arrest, and the pro-Sheriff movement that insists that the Sheriff can and should make arrests, that's when the battle over Sheriff Powers began.
So one thing is clear. Saying that the Sheriff traditionally has not had the power of arrest is a flat out lie, that's the pure crap.
In the Delaware State Constitution, Sheriffs are conservators of the peace in the counties in which they reside. Under title 9 section 302(a) of the State Code, Sheriffs are not part of the County Government. Current mental gymnastics seem to revolve around what the definition of the word 'is' is. Literally. In forty seven states, the definition of conservator of the peace in the context of Sheriff is not 'undefined'.
Discuss this issue with any anti-Sheriff activist long enough and it comes down to 'this is Delaware'. Not uncommonly a suggestion to pack up and leave if you don't like it will be included free of charge. Eerily similar to statements by anti-civil rights activists in Mississippi circa 1962. So much for peace.
This is a civil rights issue. When the people can't elect a Sheriff to be anything other than an errand boy for the bankers, that's an issue. We are then left at the mercy of a Police State. A thorough investigation of complaints against the Delaware State Police and some decent investigative reporting would be helpful.
Unfortunately, most of our media reads press releases as if Moses himself delivered them on tablets of stone. Adversarial press regarding statements by our Staties is difficult to come by.
Then we come to puppies. The same attorney general who maintains that the traditional role of the Sheriff has never been making arrests, ( cough cough cough ) has also issued an opinion affirming the wide range of law enforcement powers given to members and agents of the Kent Couny SPCA and the Delaware SPCA.
In fact animal control officers have full DELJEIS ( electronic information systems of the department of justice, wants, warrants, criminal records, etc., etc..) access and email addresses from DOJ. The dog catchers have law enforcement powers but the Sheriffs don't. Puppies.
Next post we will start with the Sussex County Council report in support of stripping the Sheriff of arrest powers. The pure crap.
Up until the 1940's the Sheriff of Sussex County was very active in peace keeping. In the 1950s and 1960s the role of the Sheriff in making arrests became less prominent but arrests were still made. In the 1970s the office gradually came to be mostly concerned with foreclosures, process serving, Sheriff's sales and the odd prisoner transport.
Then in the early 1980s the Sheriff became an active peace officer once more. According to the Police Chief's Council Administrator who maintains that the Sheriff has no power to arrest, and the pro-Sheriff movement that insists that the Sheriff can and should make arrests, that's when the battle over Sheriff Powers began.
So one thing is clear. Saying that the Sheriff traditionally has not had the power of arrest is a flat out lie, that's the pure crap.
In the Delaware State Constitution, Sheriffs are conservators of the peace in the counties in which they reside. Under title 9 section 302(a) of the State Code, Sheriffs are not part of the County Government. Current mental gymnastics seem to revolve around what the definition of the word 'is' is. Literally. In forty seven states, the definition of conservator of the peace in the context of Sheriff is not 'undefined'.
Discuss this issue with any anti-Sheriff activist long enough and it comes down to 'this is Delaware'. Not uncommonly a suggestion to pack up and leave if you don't like it will be included free of charge. Eerily similar to statements by anti-civil rights activists in Mississippi circa 1962. So much for peace.
This is a civil rights issue. When the people can't elect a Sheriff to be anything other than an errand boy for the bankers, that's an issue. We are then left at the mercy of a Police State. A thorough investigation of complaints against the Delaware State Police and some decent investigative reporting would be helpful.
Unfortunately, most of our media reads press releases as if Moses himself delivered them on tablets of stone. Adversarial press regarding statements by our Staties is difficult to come by.
Then we come to puppies. The same attorney general who maintains that the traditional role of the Sheriff has never been making arrests, ( cough cough cough ) has also issued an opinion affirming the wide range of law enforcement powers given to members and agents of the Kent Couny SPCA and the Delaware SPCA.
In fact animal control officers have full DELJEIS ( electronic information systems of the department of justice, wants, warrants, criminal records, etc., etc..) access and email addresses from DOJ. The dog catchers have law enforcement powers but the Sheriffs don't. Puppies.
Next post we will start with the Sussex County Council report in support of stripping the Sheriff of arrest powers. The pure crap.
By Doug Beatty, copyright 2012 all rights reserved.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The curious case of Deputy Torres
On Monday June 11 at the Sussex County Council Chambers, an informal hearing was convened in the matter of Deputy Ishmael "Pete" Torres. Deputy Torres was previously dismissed by the Sussex County Adminstration, apparently in violation of Delaware State Code;
§ 302. Officers and employees holding other offices.
(a) No receiver of taxes and county treasurer, coroner or sheriff shall,
during his or her term of office, be a member of the county government.
during his or her term of office, be a member of the county government.
§ 9201. Duties and responsibilities of officers appointing deputies and clerks.
All deputies and clerks shall be under the control of the officer by whom they are selected and employed, who may discharge any such deputy or clerk at any time. The officer shall be responsible for all the official acts, neglects and defaults of all deputies and clerks that officer employs. http://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c092/index.shtml
The complaints against Torres seem to center around time records which do not coincide with GPS records. If true that's a felony in most cases. Why the informal hearing?
There are no rules of evidence, no sworn testimony. If manipulated GPS reports are indeed in play, as some supporters claim is there no danger of perjury?
Does the publicized nature of this hearing endanger any formal proceedings by tainting possible jury pools?
The opening statement by the county attorney assuring the assembled that the dismissal was not politically motivated is suspicious at best.
Councilman Charlie Wilson spoke to me in the lobby of the chambers, his arguments were most unconvincing and uninformed. He claimed that the attorney general was the supreme law enforcement entity in the state. The governor is the supreme executive and has in fact ignored at least one A.G. opinion, the opinion stating that the Kent County SPCA was a public agency to be specific.
That was the most reasonable argument Wilson made in defense of the Council's actions. One can only speculate as to the motives of the Sussex County Council to nullify a Sheriff that wants to do his job.
Then we have the players involved in the anti-sheriff movement. We'll be taking a look at them as this story unfolds. They are an interesting group with even more compelling political connections. We have our own little national political drama unfolding in Sussex County. That may prove inconvenient for many politicians and state and local employees.
I don't know if Deputy Torres fudged his time logs or not. Having a hard time believing that Sheriff Christopher would put up with it. I consider Jeff to be a friend, and I would not want to put him in a position to do his job. He impresses me as that kind of man, which makes me admire him more.
To be sure, Sheriff Christopher and I have some political differences. We differ on how specific incidents should be handled. Having said that, were I not challenged from a traffic accident I would walk through fire to work for him. My experience as an operations manager and supervisor in private security would cause me to hire the man in an New York minute. He's solid people.
This whole dust-up appears to be an effort to undermine the voters of Sussex County, and Deputy Torres is a vulnerable figure to attack. His history with DRBA and Milton PD makes him easy to smear. To my mind, I've seen enough skulduggery that it could go either way.
Torres could be the bum that some make him out to be. His troubles could also be what befalls a person who is unskilled at looking the other way at the required moment. Ask me how I know.
Twice I've prevailed at labor hearings against outrageous allegations that did not withstand the scrutiny of the rules of evidence. I'm not that good at looking the other way either. On one occasion my former employer was represented by two managers and an attorney. They still got the Brazilian wax from little ole me all by my lonesome. The truth is hard to get around.
All I know for sure is that the hearing was packed with citizens who support Christopher and Torres. It will be an interesting election cycle in Sussex County. I don't think those voters are going to take this lightly.
On the day of his closed hearing, some citizens showed up in support. That same day, bloggers who seemed to know an awful lot about the case were very active. We'll get to that as we unmask some players who have tried to be anonymous and not done a very good job of it, as well as some public servants who might have some explaining to do.
There are no rules of evidence, no sworn testimony. If manipulated GPS reports are indeed in play, as some supporters claim is there no danger of perjury?
Does the publicized nature of this hearing endanger any formal proceedings by tainting possible jury pools?
The opening statement by the county attorney assuring the assembled that the dismissal was not politically motivated is suspicious at best.
Councilman Charlie Wilson spoke to me in the lobby of the chambers, his arguments were most unconvincing and uninformed. He claimed that the attorney general was the supreme law enforcement entity in the state. The governor is the supreme executive and has in fact ignored at least one A.G. opinion, the opinion stating that the Kent County SPCA was a public agency to be specific.
That was the most reasonable argument Wilson made in defense of the Council's actions. One can only speculate as to the motives of the Sussex County Council to nullify a Sheriff that wants to do his job.
Then we have the players involved in the anti-sheriff movement. We'll be taking a look at them as this story unfolds. They are an interesting group with even more compelling political connections. We have our own little national political drama unfolding in Sussex County. That may prove inconvenient for many politicians and state and local employees.
I don't know if Deputy Torres fudged his time logs or not. Having a hard time believing that Sheriff Christopher would put up with it. I consider Jeff to be a friend, and I would not want to put him in a position to do his job. He impresses me as that kind of man, which makes me admire him more.
To be sure, Sheriff Christopher and I have some political differences. We differ on how specific incidents should be handled. Having said that, were I not challenged from a traffic accident I would walk through fire to work for him. My experience as an operations manager and supervisor in private security would cause me to hire the man in an New York minute. He's solid people.
This whole dust-up appears to be an effort to undermine the voters of Sussex County, and Deputy Torres is a vulnerable figure to attack. His history with DRBA and Milton PD makes him easy to smear. To my mind, I've seen enough skulduggery that it could go either way.
Torres could be the bum that some make him out to be. His troubles could also be what befalls a person who is unskilled at looking the other way at the required moment. Ask me how I know.
Twice I've prevailed at labor hearings against outrageous allegations that did not withstand the scrutiny of the rules of evidence. I'm not that good at looking the other way either. On one occasion my former employer was represented by two managers and an attorney. They still got the Brazilian wax from little ole me all by my lonesome. The truth is hard to get around.
All I know for sure is that the hearing was packed with citizens who support Christopher and Torres. It will be an interesting election cycle in Sussex County. I don't think those voters are going to take this lightly.
On the day of his closed hearing, some citizens showed up in support. That same day, bloggers who seemed to know an awful lot about the case were very active. We'll get to that as we unmask some players who have tried to be anonymous and not done a very good job of it, as well as some public servants who might have some explaining to do.
By Doug Beatty, copyright 2012 all rights reserved.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Today was historic. This afternoon in the small capitol of a small state, Dover Delaware, the State Senate voted to strip the county Sheriffs of any and all powers of Arrest. The State Constitution didn't change, the definition of conservator of the peace didn't change.
That's how we roll in Delaware. We just do stuff, openly and notoriously that would have made Atlantic City Mayors Mike Matthews and Jim Usry blush AFTER they were convicted. I can't even imagine Marion Barry's reaction.
State Senator Deluca spoke in support of the anti-sheriff bill. Waving a thrree ring binder of complaints from the Sussex County Council, the Delaware State Police, and Police Chiefs Association. Senator Deluca twice stated that Sussex County Sheriff Deputies were 'self dispatching' to calls from the Delaware State Police picked up by scanners.
Yep, that's how it's done in most of America. Sheriffs are the supreme law enforcement entity in their counties. If they hear a call they respond.
The Sheriff wasn't complying with instructions from the County Council.
The Delaware State Code specifically states that a Sheriff is not a part of the County Government, why would the Sheriff be subservient to the County Council?
The Delaware State Police were against the Sheriff? The Police Chiefs Association is against the Sheriff? The Sheriff is not subject to the direction of the Delaware State Police or the Police Chief's Association.
The Police Chiefs Council is a 501c(6) according to Mr. Martin Johnson. The office is actually located inside the Dover Police Station. You have to see the police to see the Police Chiefs Council. * Correction from earlier post *
Senator Deluca mentioned tax dollars related to liability for Sheriff actions. Presumably it won't cost the state one thin dime to fight the legal battle that this legislation will bring. There might not be an elected Sheriff in America that can afford to let this legislation stand.
Here's a hint as to what might be next for Delaware after passing this apparently unconstitutional legislation:
From Carson J. Tucker - http://amicus-curious.com/2012/06/06/an-open-letter-to-the-delaware-general-assembly/
_________________________________
I would call to task any such individual who ignorantly challenges the powers of the
County Sheriff to enforce the law and to make arrests in light of this unassailable constitutional
legal history, and, more importantly, in light of the precise language of the Delaware
Constitution vesting the Sheriff with powers of conservator of the peace.
1
Not to mention the horrendous consequences this proposed usurpation has of eviscerating the public’s will and their representative choice in who they wish to perform this inarguable constitutional duty. Source
###
The Delaware Attorney General's opinion was given great weight. Our Attorney General is Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden. Here's a tidbit that the opinion centers on:
" The Constitution does not define the powers of a "conservator'
of the peace," and dictionary definitions offer little guidance. See Black's Law Dictiotxary (rev.
4th ed. 1968) at 378 1"Officers authorizcd to preserve and maintain the public peace."). Source
That's a good idea, lets see Black's Law Dictionary and take a peek at page 378:
"1
Black’s Law Dictionary provides a very thorough definition of the powers of a “conservator of
the peace” and even cites Delaware’s own constitutional provision as a legal exemplar. It
provides:
CONSERVATORS OF THE PEACE. Officers authorized to preserve and
maintain the public peace. In England, these officers were locally elected by the
people until the reign of Edward III, when their appointment was vested in the
king. Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace, but they
had no power to arraign and try the offender until about 1360, when this authority
was given to them by act of parliament, and “then they acquired the more
honorable appellation of justices of the peace.” 1 Bl. Comm. 351.
Even after this time, however, many public officers were styled “conservators
of the peace,” not as a distinct office but by virtue of the duties and authorities
pertaining to their offices. In this sense the term may include the king himself,
the lord chancellor, justices of the king’s bench, master of the rolls, coroners,
sheriffs, constables, etc. 1 Bl. Comm. 350. See Smith v. Abbott, 17 N.J.L. 358.
In Texas, the constitution provides that county judges shall be conservators of the
peace. Const. Tex. Art. 4, § 15; Jones v. State, Tex. Cr. App. 65 S.W. 92. The
Constitution of Delaware (1831) provides that: “The members of the senate and
house of representatives the chancellor, the judges, and the attorney-general shall,
by virtue of their offices, be conservators of the peace throughout the state; and
the treasurer, secretary, and prothonotaries, registers, recorders, sheriffs, and
coroners, shall, by virtue of their offices, be conservators thereof within the
counties respectively in which they reside.
[Black’s Law Dictionary (rev’d. 4
th
ed.) (1968), p. 378 (emphasis added).]"
What's next for Delaware? Legislative Rehab? The new reality show?
(quoted text taken from : http://amicuscuriousdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/vitae-republicae1.pdf)
In the coming weeks and months we'll look at the unique cast of characters in the anti-sheriff movement.
By Doug Beatty, copyright 2012 all rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)