What You Know About County Sheriffs Could Save Your Life
Ed.’s note: This information is not legal advice but there are a few things Americans must come to terms with concerning county sheriffs all over the United States. You cannot serve two masters, so if you do business with county sheriffs, know that you are being forced under duress to contract with a for-profit private corporation. There are no Constitutional sheriffs in America despite what sheriffs themselves might know about the law or their being elected sheriff. County sheriffs must enforce policy. Police comes from the word policy. County sheriffs are nothing more than policy enforcement revenue collection agents.
The supreme court has even ruled that police are not there to protect the public. County sheriff departments all across America are private for-profit entities. Where do the checks come from to pay county sheriffs despite being “elected” to office? What is a “democratic” or a “republican” sheriff? It only demonstrates law enforcement has become political to protect private financial interests. The sheriff’s check comes from: the county of…. a private for profit corporation. The sheriff is enforcing policy. This sheriff in the first article published below does not have policy directives to enforce immigration law. That more than likely would be unprofitable if he did for the municipal private corporation domiciled in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Source: Judicial Watch
Sheriff Who Frees Illegal Alien Convicted of Child Sex Crimes Says Enforcing Immigration Law Not Part of His Duties
In what appears to be a growing national trend, another elected law enforcement official released an illegal immigrant with a serious criminal conviction—in this case child sex offenses—rather than turn him over to federal authorities for removal. Sanctuary policies ban local law enforcement from honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers placed on illegal aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges. If the detainer is honored ICE takes custody and deports the criminal rather than release him or her back into the community. When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and free serious criminal offenders, it undermines the federal government’s duty to protect public safety.
This latest case comes out of Buncombe County, North Carolina where the recently elected sheriff, a Democrat, issued a policy earlier this year refusing to cooperate with ICE when it comes to inmates at his 608-bed jail who are in the country illegally. At the time the sheriff, Quentin Miller, proclaimed that enforcing immigration laws is not part of his agency’s duties. Miller also said that “it is vital that members of our immigrant community can call the sheriff’s office without fear when they are in need of assistance from law enforcement.”
Hiding behind that popular open borders rhetoric, the sheriff recently discharged a child sex offender to keep with his county’s sanctuary policy of protecting illegal aliens, even those with atrocious criminal records. The illegal immigrant from El Salvador, Marvin Ramirez Torres, has been on ICE’s radar since 2017 when he got arrested and charged with four felony counts of statutory sex offense with a child. At the time Torres was 23 and his victim was an 11-year-old girl, according to a local newspaper report that also states Torres must register a sex offender for 30 years. The illegal alien was convicted in North Carolina Superior Court for Buncombe County and was sentenced to less than two years in prison. Last week he was freed into the community because the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office refused to honor the federal detainer.
Thankfully, ICE captured Torres a day after he left prison during a targeted enforcement operation in downtown Asheville. The agency blasted county officials in a statement released shortly after Torres was apprehended. “By releasing an illegal alien with a serious sex offense against a child, Buncombe County chose to release a serious public safety threat into the Asheville community where he was free to potentially harm others until his capture by ICE,” the statement reads. In the document, the agency’s acting director, Matt Albence, points out the obvious: “Continued decisions to refuse cooperation with ICE serve as an open invitation to aliens who commit criminal offenses that these counties are a safe haven for persons seeking to evade federal authorities, and residents of Buncombe County are less safe due to these misguided sanctuary policies.” ICE’s regional field director accuses elected law enforcement officials who chose to ignore ICE detainers and arrest warrants of failing to protect their communities and placing politics above public safety.
Please go to Judicial Watch to read the entire article.
Source: The Global Anticorruption Blog
I Caught the Sheriff: Why U.S. Anticorruption Officials Should Keep an Eye on Sheriffs
July 26, 2019 | by Blake Ellison
An unusual feature of US law enforcement is the important role of the county sheriff. As of 2013, over 3,000 sheriffs’ offices across 47 U.S. states employed 352,000 people—roughly one-third of the country’s law enforcement personnel. The sheriff’s job varies from state-to-state, but the common denominator is responsibility over county corrections, including the operation of jails [see video below] and transportation of inmates to and from court. In some states—Massachusetts, for instance—that’s essentially the extent of sheriffs’ duties. In other states, though, sheriffs wield much broader authority. Texas sheriffs, for example, can enforce the state’s criminal laws anywhere in their county, even where municipal police departments have jurisdiction. Most states are somewhere in the middle, tasking sheriffs with general law enforcement duties only in unincorporated parts of the county and sometimes with security for state government buildings, in addition to their correctional responsibilities.
Despite the variety of roles played by sheriffs, many commentators view sheriffs as merely another kind of police. After all, they wear badges, can legally use force, and, in many parts of the country, patrol the beat. But sheriffs are distinct from their police counterparts in significant respects. Most notably, whereas police chiefs are appointed by city officials, sheriffs are popularly elected by the county they serve. And, unlike police departments, which are creatures of state statute, the responsibilities of a county sheriff are often rooted in the state constitution.
Please go to The Global Anticorruption Blog to read the entire article.
Ed.’s note: Remember the investigative journalist Gary Webb who was assassinated when he started uncovering the drug trade flowing into California by the CIA like an open water spigot? Gary Webb was a journalist at the Mercury News. Journalists at the Mercury News must have been intimidated by Gary Webb’s assassination. Nothing wrong with reporting on a little corruption going on in the Santa Clara County’s sheriff’s office though. Not worth two bullets in the back of the head.
Source: The Mercury News
Undersheriff ensnared in Santa Clara County concealed guns corruption probe
Search warrant was served Thursday at office of Rick Sung, the second-in-command to Sheriff Laurie Smith
By ROBERT SALONGA | November 8, 2019
SAN JOSE — A corruption investigation targeting the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office over a possible pay-to-play racket for concealed-handgun privileges now has reached the top tier of Sheriff Laurie Smith’s administration, with sources saying her second-in-command — Undersheriff Rick Sung — now is a subject of the wide-ranging probe into whether Smith rewarded political donors with the coveted permits.
Multiple sources confirmed that a search warrant was served Thursday morning at Sung’s office in the Sheriff’s Office headquarters on Younger Avenue in North San Jose. Computer equipment was seized by investigators with the District Attorney’s Office at the direction of its Public Integrity Unit, sources said.
As the investigation intensifies, tension has been building inside the Sheriff’s Office. To date, at least four sheriff’s supervisors — including at least one other high-ranking commander — have been the subject of search warrants in connection with suspected “quid pro quo” handling of the permits, according to sources familiar with the case. The DA’s office previously served a warrant at Sheriff’s Office headquarters in early August.
Sung, who quickly rose to the No. 2 position in the Sheriff’s office in about 16 years, did not immediately respond to calls and messages left for him Friday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment in time for the print edition of this story.
Sources also say that multiple concealed-weapon applicants have been interviewed in the case as the DA’s office looks to establish common threads between those who did and didn’t get the permits.
Deputy District Attorney John Chase, who heads the public integrity unit, declined to comment on the search warrant served Thursday but acknowledged the contributions of witnesses to the case.
“We are not going to comment on specifics of our investigation except to thank the many witnesses who have been willing to talk to us and provide evidence voluntarily,” Chase wrote in a statement to this news organization.
A focal point of the DA investigation continues to be a single $45,000 donation by Martin Nielsen, executive protection operations and executive projects manager for Seattle-based AS Solution. Records show Nielsen made the donation in October 2018 to the Santa Clara County Public Safety Alliance, an independent-expenditure committee that backed Smith’s bid for a sixth term, and he and multiple colleagues in the firm received concealed-carry weapon permits this past March.
AS Solution, which specializes in executive security, has said in previous statements that the firm is cooperating with the DA investigation and has launched an internal probe into the matter.
Please go to The Mercury News to read the entire article.
Ed.’s note: This event took place in Colorado with the sheriffs of that county responsible for the inmates at this Boulder jail where this young woman was incarcerated. We cannot account for this woman’s behavior and attitude but clearly she is confused about her status, jurisdiction and standing in law. The point is, this woman doesn’t know who she is. Need an example? She hired an attorney. If you have an attorney it means you are a ward of the state, a ward of the court and unable to speak for yourself. If you hire an attorney it demonstrates you are incompetent. An attorney can only represent a minor, a corporation, a person, somebody incompetent and somebody infirm. Attorneys cannot represent a man or a woman. If this woman knew her standing in law, her status and her jurisdiction, she would have never found herself under these violent circumstances with sheriffs in Boulder, Colorado.
The best advice for this woman even though it is too late was for her to have just shut up and not say a thing. By becoming hysterical she incriminated herself regardless of the seemingly brutal treatment she received by these sheriffs. These sheriffs themselves it can probably be stated have no idea of their own standing in law and are acting in the name of the municipal corporation as employees. The sheriffs in this clip are carrying out policy. Watch carefully the behavior of these revenue collection agents. Does anyone actually think they know anything at all about status, jurisdiction and standing in law? No, of course not. They are order followers of the private for-profit corporation they work for. Their policy directives call for escalation in order to bring you into law to profit off of you.