A Message from the Sheriff
By Richard Mack 
Richard Mack
Innocents in Prison Update:
Sam Girod: Well, on June 30 th it will be one year since federal district judge Danny C. Reeves sentenced Amish farmer Sam Girod to six years in prison. Once again, this tyrant gave three basic reasons for his ruthless and cruel sentencing: 1) That Girod showed no remorse, 2) That Girod was obstinate, and 3) That Girod had failed to register with the FDA. Is it any wonder that the United States is in dire need of prison reform and to "Drain the Swamp?"
We are still working to get him out and praying that President Trump will keep issuing pardons to Americans who really deserve them.
Dwight and Steve Hammond: There appears to be some good news here; Protect the Harvest , a nonprofit organization, has reported that WH Counsel Don McGahn, is working on the Hammonds case. Furthermore, Oregon Cattlemen's Association Director Jerome Rosa, said he has never met anyone who did not feel the Hammonds were treated entirely unjustly. Mr. Rosa called their sentencing "unfathomable."
It also appears that Secretary Ryan Zinke has given his approval to the pardon being considered for the Hammonds. The CSPOA certainly appreciates Secretary Zinke's support on this most worthwhile cause.
The CSPOA and many other freedom organizations (see our website for the list at thefreedomcoalition.com) call upon Congress to fix these laws and "drain" federal bureaucracies in order to prevent such atrocities in the future. But for now, we all have a duty to undo these injustices suffered by those who have been abused by our own federal government. We ask that each of you call your Senators and Representatives, and ask them to encourage President Trump to pardon Sam Girod, the Hammonds, Cox and Kettler, and all other Americans similarly victimized.
If Kim Kardashian can do it, then by God so can we! (Kardashian met with President Trump two weeks ago and obtained a pardon for convicted drug dealer Alice Johnson) 
Note: If anyone knows how to contact Alice Johnson, please let us know. She mentioned that she wants to help others who should not be in prison and we would love to have her work with us.
Constitutional Conservatives, or Rebellious Renegades? Part 2 of 3
By Rick Dalton

In this second installment, we will discuss the details of the article which appeared in the New Yorker, under the title The Renegade Sheriffs.
In Part 1, we shared a few of the many examples of Sheriffs, peace officers and other elected officials who have lived up to their oath in defending the rights of their constituents from enemies of the Constitution.  Some of these enemies are of the "domestic" variety, and hold positions in government.
Here, we will go through parts of the New Yorker article itself, and show the inaccurate and misleading nature of some of the claims made by the author, Ashley Powers, who visited us a couple years ago and attended a couple of our Oath of Office
training events.  I was in charge of the one in the DC area, and, along with Sheriff Mack, was an instructor at the one in Arizona, She spoke with me more than once, and asked about our philosophy.   
During our conversations, I specifically and directly contradicted the ludicrous claims made by previous "media" coverage of CSPOA, but not only did she fail to include our official positions, she repeated many of the bogus claims in her article, the subtitle of which is:
" A law enforcement movement that claims to answer only to the Constitution."  
And here's where the misleading claims begin, even before the body of the piece.  Such a statement is too brief and lacks context to be understood.  But worst of all, neither Sheriff Mack, nor I would ever make that statement.  It was a conclusion and creation of the author.  
In the article, she never offers a single sentence uttered by a CSPOA leader to back up her claim.  A Constitutional American knows that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and so are laws passed in "in pursuance thereof" (Article VI).  Thus, a Constitutional Sheriff follows the Constitution and the laws which are Constitutional. But so does the Supreme Court.  And the Congress.  So in this sense, all three branches are subservient to the Constitution.  
Another unsubstantiated claim in the article is as follows:
"C.S.P.O.A. members believe that the sheriff has the final say on a law's constitutionality in his county. Every law-enforcement officer has some leeway in choosing which laws to enforce, which is why it's rare to get a ticket for jaywalking, for example. But, under this philosophy, the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, is irrelevant. So is the Supreme Court."
This false claim is ridiculous, and comes without any statement by a CSPOA spokesman to back it up.  The author obviously does not understand the Constitutional principle of Federalism, or the limits on the supremacy clause.  First of all, why would Sheriffs Mack and Printz take their case to the courts, if they believed that the courts were "irrelevant"?  And why didn't they just ignore the Brady Bill they were fighting and save the $400,000 and all the headaches the ultimately successful challenge would cost?   
Further, in their challenge of this particular federal law, which they knew was unconstitutional, the Sheriffs submitted to the Supreme Court, which sided with the Constitution, and thusly, the Sheriffs.
Here's a short lesson on Federalism, from the actual writers of the Constitution,  James Madison wrote:
"Widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science, federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments. James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," explained it this way: "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."  
And Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."(Source: National Center for Constitutional Studies).
It is also noteworthy that though she ever so briefly mentioned the summary of the winning SCOTUS decision, which she actually had in her possession, the author totally ignored what it said, and failed to include it in her article, which was allegedly intended to explain the group (CSPOA) she was reporting on. In the lower federal court, the Sheriffs won, but the Fed eral g ov ernment
 wouldn't accept Constitutional defeat, in spite of this finding:  
"Mack is thus forced to choose between keeping his oath or obeying the [federal law], subjecting himself to possible sanctions". (Judge John Roll, Federal District Court in Tucson)
So they appealed to the SCOTUS.  
 It was the Constitution that came out the winner there also. The unconstitutional Brady Act required Sheriffs and other CLEOS (Chief Law Enforcement Officers), to enforce the federal law. Here is just one quote from Justice Scalia's majority opinion, (which we explained in detail in a PowerPoint presentation given to all attendees, and in the written materials handed out with the author present) from the Court:
"The Federal government, we held, cannot compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." 
So much for the article's claim that CSPOA believes the Supreme Court and federal law are irrelevant.  In this case, the Supreme Court was the friend of CSPOA, and together they nullified the "pretended legislation" of the Congress.
The question, for Ms. Powers, who was presented with all these ideas, both verbally and in printed materials, yet refused to present it to the readers, is "why"?
In Part 3, we will finish the discussion of this article, and the sad fact that the media seem to be unable to present our positions and philosophy accurately.


Can't forward the CSPOA newsletter?

The best thing about our members is sharing! Our members love to share, especially when it comes to newsletter time. If you are trying to copy and paste this newsletter to share it with email friends please consider the following. Instead of using copy and paste for email, there is a more simple way! Next to, under or near your email reply button is a "Forward" button. Use this when trying to send out our newsletter to other contacts. Using your email providers forward function will keep the newsletter formatics together.

Still looking to copy and paste? Left click the word August at the very top of the newsletter. After doing this hit the Ctrl + A buttons, then Ctrl + C, go to where you want to paste the article to and hit Ctrl + V. This will copy the entire newsletter for you, be sure to change the font color to black! Thanks for  your support and sharing our newsletter!

- Tech Tips -