Member Training – Trusting The Sheriff?

Member training from November 17th, 2025.

Tonight, we explored the critical concept of the Constitutional Sheriff and whether this office truly represents a reliable bulwark against tyranny. While the historical claim is that the sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the county with the authority to nullify unconstitutional federal or state laws—an idea backed by cases like Sheriff Mack—the reality is far more complex and disappointing. We’ve seen numerous examples of local sheriffs, even those claiming to be “constitutional,” actively enforcing unconstitutional laws like gun control, often in cooperation with state and federal agencies. Key statements from organizations like the Utah Sheriffs’ Association reveal a core problem: they often rely on the legislature and judiciary to define what is constitutional and view themselves primarily as an enforcement arm of those bodies, not as protectors of God-given rights against government overreach, even arguing their office is merely a legislative construct that could be dissolved. This means that relying on a constitutional sheriff is a tempting, easier path that history proves is a distraction designed to strengthen the conspiracy; the ultimate responsibility and the only true path to winning lost liberty lies with you and me through personal nullification, interposition, and building a foundation of understanding with organizations like the Tree of Liberty Society.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

our heavenly father we ask you for your blessing on this meeting tonight um let us remind ourselves of what you said to your servant the prophet david in the 23rd palm uh third verse you where he said to us you let him let him down the path of righteousness for your name's sake i can't think of anything more important to do things in your name's sake but we ask you to help us better understand what is righteousness and all the ways that manifest itself in law and political philosophy and then help us to be bold in bringing righteousness to the world help us to walk that same path that you were helping David walk and we ask you to bless this organization that's pursuing that objective, and we ask you to help the organization and its founder, its leader, Ben, in helping teach all of us what is righteousness and how we can better install it in this nation. I pray this, pray in your name, holy name, our Lord and Savior's name, Jesus Christ, amen.

Our newly developed, I've sent out a i haven't sent a link out but i put it on our telegram page and our members only facebook page a link to this and i'll i'll put it in the chat in a second but this is our recommended personal library these are a list of books that we encourage everyone to to read and then audio and video presentations that are really really vital to building a strong solid foundation on the principles of liberty and on the conspiracy so that we're not fooled by wolves in sheep's clothing. I think that if you go through these, and after you've gone through it, it is going to be very difficult to pull the wool over your eyes. And so the PDF, of course, you can't do this when it's printed, but when you are looking on the website, on the internet, either on your tablet, on your computer, each one that has a link to it, or that has a way to buy it. has a hyperlink for you to go buy it. Like this one's at Shop JBS. This one's at Liberty Fund. And then this one's at the Tree of Liberty Society.

And so that way you can click directly to it. Wherever the video is, you can go and check it out very quickly and easily. And if you have suggestions, please send me those suggestions. If you think this is what everybody needs to start with. This is important from the very beginning. please just send me an email or a text or whatever, and I'll be glad to consider it. And so just a little bit, you can see these icons. So the guillotine is treeoflibertysociety.com. The tank is available at your favorite bookseller. And then the bomb is your favorite. The video's on YouTube or on Rumble. So that's a really important tool. I hope all of us will utilize to be able to make sure that we're building our Liberty Library. and that we're better understanding. Brittany asks in the chat, what time is the live YouTube tomorrow? So that's 7 p.m. Mountain.

So I think if you're on Pacific, if I remember right, Brittany, so it'll be 6 p.m. your time. Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Cool. And so, yeah, if you put that on the notify me on there, then it will notify you at your time zone. That can be helpful as well. Make sure. Oh, yeah. One more thing. Oh, so I'm really excited about this. This is really cool. We have in the past, right, we published our book, Killing No Murder. And I love the book. We did a book club on it. But when we did the combined version of Invasion, we included... copy of Killing No Murder, the original text. We did a glossary and a modern translation of the book as well. But it was all just there. And so what we're going to do is we're going to stop selling the original version of it. And then I retitled it. I put, you can see there on the left, it's originally published as Killing No Murder.

So people know, right, if they're looking for it, that book's under that title. it'll still come up. But I also felt that it needed a kind of a more modern title so that people kind of understood better what the book was about by the title. Because telling people about a book called Killing No Murder has raised more eyebrows, like kind of confusion than I've ever had before in a book. And so I really thought it was important to kind of have a modern title that would tell people more about what it's about really quickly. without causing confusion because, you know, you lose people when you've just already from the start cause confusion. And so I've been working with Samantha Hollister. This is a rough version. This isn't the final version of the cover, the new cover, but this is a rough version of the new cover.

And what we've developed is a new style guide where what we're right now in the next probably three months, three to six months, we're going to have seven new books. I think it is. under this new Liberty Classics library. And so when it's on your shelf, it's going to look really nice. And if you have several of them or all of them and they're on your shelf, you'd be like, okay, there's my Liberty Library Classics. And you'll be able to go right to it because they all have a similar look to it. And they're all going to be very attractive and something that will be desirable to share with people. And it'll be really unified. And so what we're doing is we're...

There are several modern as well as stuff from this era, from the 1600s that are of similar nature, as well as some things from the Founders era and even a more modern book that we've come across that I'm not going to spoil it yet, but I think it's going to raise a lot of eyebrows as well. But these are books that are out of print. best case scenario you've got one seller on amazon that just slapped a generic cover on a a google book scan of the original 1700s book so it doesn't look very pretty it's dirty it's smudgy um and it's difficult to read it has the old f you know s's that look like f's and so with all of these books we've we're using a modern type set and we're offering a modern translation so um somebody With the same book, you have the ability to read the original as well as saying, okay, I'm not ready for that yet. Let me read it.

I'm not in translation and I can work my way up to the original. That way people are at least getting introduced to these topics because these books have been really basically forgotten to history. And these books in these books are what guided the founding fathers to do what they did. And so I really think that they're really, really important for us to read ourselves and to start distributing amongst our friends. They are basics and they are essentials. Mark, go ahead. Yes. Killing no murder. Apparently there was. An example of that has just occurred in Bangladesh, if you haven't heard about it, where the prime minister just received a death sentence. They're going to execute her for reportedly ordering the army to kill about 1,400 protesters. Most of it was peaceful, but apparently some cars were burnt.

So that's an example of a country using the law as executing. one of their dictators, one of their tyrants. Yep. Well, and what I really like about Killing No Murder is it's not just a thing using scripture to defend the principle of tyrannicide. It gets into even more foundational what is a tyrant in the first place because today, as I've mentioned every time I've talked about this, the word tyrant is just used as basically name calling. And there's no real definition behind it. And so I think it's just so important that we know what it is and that we're not just saying, oh, I don't like you. You're a tyrant. And, you know, no, it's much more detailed and actually specific than I just don't like you. And that anybody can judge these things by whatever, you know. By misusing the title or the name, that acts as cover for the real tyrants. Oh, absolutely.

Yep. we have to know the definition you're right if everybody's a tyrant nobody is right right so you know like that the old saying of you know all of my enemies are hitler you know we just it just makes the term meaningless so okay so i'm really excited about those things and we'll we're going to be offering um a what's it called a some pre-orders on them when we get closer and so give folks an opportunity to be able to um to be able to pre-order it and help support the cause so that we can also get more copies of it to more people and find places to distribute them to. And so that will be really, really important as we get closer to that. I just want to let you guys know what we're working on and that we are actually working with a bigger, a national publisher on some of these things as well.

So I'm really excited about that and let you guys to know about those details when they... get more finalized. So I'm just really excited about that. Well, let's go ahead and get into the bulk of training tonight. I hope I piqued your interest with the email that we sent out today about because I think it'll be pretty shocking to folks to have me say this because it's something that is so common. You know, the idea of Working with local sheriffs and constitutional sheriffs to be able to defend liberty is something that is very common amongst liberty people. And so it's important for us to go over the principles I'm going to share tonight so that way we make sure that we focus where our focus should be and don't get distracted.

So as always, we want to make sure that we are every week, we're doing something new to help build our knowledge. and understanding of these key principles so that we can make sure that we're not being fooled and that we are actually supporting the principles of liberty and not a distraction designed to get us to support tyranny. And that everything that we're doing is to build the understanding and adherence to the principles that have built free nations to expose the conspiracy and to build an effective resistance to that conspiracy. right we talked about this last week why build and so maybe people say well why would we do this when we can just maybe much easier just to get a constitutional sheriff if we have the sheriff of our county is somebody that's defending the constitution against the state tyranny against federal tyranny then we don't need to worry about uprooting ourselves and becoming self-sufficient and you know fighting the digital dollar and fighting the digital id because we've got a constitutional constitutional sheriff it's going to protect us from these things and so that's you know this we are always tempted to go to a route that seems easier i just got to let one guy and all my problems are solved and and so i want to cover why that's not that is not the end all be all answer to solving those problems now you know i'll get into that what i was going to say a little bit later so So I want to get into briefly that there's more to this than this.

But if you've got something, an important caveat or an important bullet point to add to this, I want to just, what does that mean to be a constitutional sheriff? And so the argument, the claim of what this is, is the office of sheriff has been in the United States or in America because the United States didn't exist in the 1600s, but 1634. is when the first sheriff was appointed in the United States. And about 20 years after that was the first election of a sheriff. And so the office of sheriff has been in the United States preceding the constitution for over 150 years. It is frankly the only office that has been in this land for that long of time. The sheriff held his office as the highest law enforcement officer within that county jurisdiction. That is another one of the claims that there is nobody with more authority within the county to be able to enforce the law than the sheriff.

And then the other claim is that sheriffs can determine the constitutionality of laws and refuse to enforce any federal or state laws, court orders, or regulations that they deem unconstitutional. And one of the things that they cite is the famous Sheriff Mack case where Justice Scalia says the federal government may neither issue directives requiring the state's officers to administer or reinforce a federal regulatory program. And so the federal government has no ability, no authority to require the state's officers to enforce its programs. And so they use that as additional in addition to the 10th Amendment of the sheriffs have the ability to nullify or at least, you know, to not themselves, not implement what they consider to be illegal edicts from the federal government. Now, I would say this last one, anybody and everyone can and should do this, right?

Because at every level of a law where When the legislature first introduces a bill and it goes to the committee to be heard, they nullify it by voting no on it. And then if it goes to the floor, then they nullify it by voting no on it then. And then as it goes to the next legislative body, all the way to the governor has the opportunity to nullify it by his veto. And then or if he lets it become law, he has the ability to nullify it by not enforcing it. and a police officer every time he chooses who to pull over and who not to he's choosing to nullify a law that's on the books because everybody while driving on the road is violating something there is something they can be pulled over for and given a citation for or worse as I've talked about in previous trainings there have been studies done that shows that the average person commits three felonies every single day okay we're all felons on this call tonight according to allowed averages and so And not just felonies, but felons multiple times over. And so every time that a person is not prosecuted, they are engaged in nullification.

And so, of course, a sheriff has the right to do so. But being the individual that can actually arrest somebody, they are in a position to be able to prevent somebody from being arrested if they choose to. And so they have that opportunity. And even the Supreme Court has said, of course, they do not have to be a party to enforcement of federal legislation. Okay. So that's generally the claim. Am I missing anything important? I mean, there's definitely more minutia that we can get into, but this is the general claim of what a constitutional sheriff is. Okay. So, you know, this is the image. Oh, go ahead, Mark. Yeah. Yes, the claim about nullification, one of the arguments I hear the sheriffs use and others use to not nullify is they'll say it's not my jurisdiction. Oh, that's a city of law enforcement responsibility. That's a state law enforcement responsibility. So I think that's kind of a big issue because when do we say that if a city has a police force?

What authority do they have? Now, what you've said, the history is they're the highest law enforcement in the county. So that would seem right there would nullify any constitutional act. They have the right to do that. But can you address that issue a little bit about what is the claim of the constitutional sheriff's organizations is that they the sheriff has the they are the primary. They are the the most senior. the highest law enforcement officer within the county. And so they would say, yes, that they have a responsibility to stand between a citizen and even a city police department, let alone a federal, as the Supreme Court case is referring to.

But their claim is that, yes, they have the obligation to stand between you and anyone trying to destroy your rights, no matter what level of government that they are at. But you do realize the reality is that they, they accommodate the local city. I'll get into that. I'm just making, what is the claim? What are they saying that their job is, right? Okay, thank you. So this is the image that they put forth out there that, hey, the BATF or the IRS is going to come to town and they're going to try to harass my citizens and the sheriff is going to be there to meet them and make sure that they don't do anything that they shouldn't do. They're not going to violate anybody's rights.

That's the image that is being presented with this idea of a sheriff defending your rights from especially the federal government is the focus. So the reality, though, is that the local sheriffs have been enforcing gun control. Just as one example, I'm going to focus a lot on gun control just because it's kind of the most obvious, because gun control of any kind whatsoever, without exception, is 100 percent unconstitutional. OK, so I'm just going to go through. So sheriffs, even members of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, have been enforcing gun control all along. We have here in San Diego a teen with a ghost gun assault rifle and body armor was arrested in Oklahoma.

So and he was from San Diego and the local sheriff issued an arrest warrant and the local sheriff in Oklahoma. arrested him and gave him back. So we have two sheriffs, one in a more liberal state, but a more conservative area of a liberal state versus a more conservative state. And they both work together to violate the Second Amendment of an individual. And another case we have here, authorities executed a search warrant of residents according to the Box Air County. Fire Marshal's Office news release. The Fire Marshal's Office led the operation with support from the County Sheriff's Office, Special Operations Unit, and the Police Department Bomb Squad, the BATF, Firearms and Explosives, and the FBI. So we have everybody from the Fire Department all the way to the FBI all working together to take away an individual's ability to be able to, well, their Second Amendment protected enumerated right. We have here another example of a man arrested by the sheriff after trying to sell, quote unquote, illegal gun on Facebook Marketplace. A, there's no such thing as an illegal gun.

B, you can sell it anywhere you want to, anyhow you want to. They had no authority to be able to arrest this guy for doing so. But we have the sheriff working to violate the Constitution because the gun is so-called illegal. We have here in... Maryland, a Lexington Park man arrested for possessing unregistered firearms. So what was his only crime? His only crime here that the sheriff was going to arrest him for is not telling the government that he owns his weapons. That is completely, totally, 100% illegal. We have here another, this is in Maryland, a deputy sees a ghost gun in arrest. So a ghost gun, meaning this gun doesn't have any serial numbers on it.

Well, it's illegal to require a gun to have serial numbers on it. And ghost guns are the best kinds of guns. And I could do this all day long. There's an example after example after example of a sheriff working to take away people's rights. We have here an example, right? What does it mean to be a constitutional sheriff? This is one sheriff in Virginia who is claiming to be a constitutional sheriff. He says, let me start by saying that I'm grateful and humbled to have been sheriff. When I first became sheriff, I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. I signed it as an outward showing of my word of honor. As sheriff, that oath did not change. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia and that I will faithfully and partially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as sheriff of this county according to the best of my ability.

Second Amendment is part of the Constitution of the United States. As sheriff of Pulaski County, I fully and without reservation 100% support a resolution by the county board to make the county a Second Amendment sanctuary. As long as I am sheriff of Pulaski County myself, nor am I, any of my deputies will enforce any law that is unconstitutional. As a husband, father, a resident of Pulaski County, I will always support and defend the Constitution of the United States. So that sounds really good on its face. People would say, well, what's your problem? What's wrong with this? Because you have these so-called sanctuary cities protecting illegal aliens.

And so you have places that are claiming to be more conservative are saying, okay, we've got our Second Amendment sanctuary where nobody is going to be allowed to enforce. federal gun laws in our county now and we're going to see this a little bit later even more developed but what we're seeing here is the groundwork for their wiggle room around this issue is their support of the constitution their support of the second amendment okay so what that means to you and i is not what that means to them and i'm gonna Lay that out as we go further in additional statements by other sheriff's departments. We have another sheriff's office, right? It says that our sheriff-elect Donald Simpson said that the laws people are voicing their concerns about, so they're talking about red flag laws and other laws against guns, over have yet to pass, and so he'll have to wait and see if they are voted on. Okay, so he's not going to say I'm opposing that. So you say, well, I got to wait.

Well, no, you can say by principle, if this law passes, are you going to enforce it or not? And the sheriff goes on to say, then we'll have to look at these laws in cooperation with the Commonwealth's attorney. Personally, I'm in support of the Second Amendment and will not be enforcing any unconstitutional laws. So he claims to support the Second Amendment and says he won't enforce any unconstitutional laws. But how is he going to decide if it's constitutional or not? He says he's going to look at them with the attorney. So if the attorney says that, oh, case law says this is constitutional, then he is going to say it's constitutional and he is then going to enforce it. So these sheriffs set up these loopholes to make you think they're saying one thing when they're actually saying something completely different.

Okay, we have here Wise County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Ronnie Oaks and Sheriff Elect E. Grant Kilgore fully support the law-abiding citizens of Wise County and the city of Norton in regards to their rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. We fully support the Wise County Board of Supervisors as they consider a resolution making Wise County a Second Amendment sanctuary city. So we've got two big problems there, right? They're saying that your rights are granted to you by the Constitution. They are not. They are given to us by God. They are only enumerated and supposed to be protected under the Constitution.

Not even enumerated, but there are prohibitions to laws violating that right are in the Constitution. And so that is a big red flag right there is when they think that the government grants you your rights. Now we have here the Utah Sheriff's Association, just a couple of years ago, released this announcement and this press release. And every county sheriff in the state of Utah is a member of this organization. And so even Salt Lake County signed on to this statement, which right off the top should give you props to say, okay, there's got to be something up here because they're saying that they support the Constitution. and individual rights to bear arms let's go through the statement so prompted by increasing public concern to safeguard constitutional rights we the elected sheriffs of utah solemnly affirm our sworn oaths to support obey and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of utah now how are they going to interpret that We recognize the legislature as the body responsible for enacting laws and the judiciary as the official interpreters of the law.

As sheriffs, it is our duty to enforce laws. So they're saying, you know, it was the legislature that enforces them. I mean, that enacts them. Then the courts that say they're legal or not. And then our job is to then enforce what the legislature passed and what the courts say is legal. Enforcing the law is a responsibility we seek to fulfill carefully with respect and compassion for others. We also acknowledge the obligation to safeguard the lives of our law enforcement and corrections officers as they serve to protect our community. So we see here just a major red flag of what they're saying. They're not saying that we are going to look at what the founding fathers said. We're not going to look at what the actual constitution says. We're going to look at what is passed by the legislature and what of court said is constitutional. So if the judges say that a law banning certain types of guns is constitutional, Utah Sheriff, every sheriff in the state of Utah has said they will enforce that gun ban. We appreciate the legislature, our governor and other executive officials, and the judiciary for working to uphold the Constitution.

That's laughable. So right there, they're just saying that the courts are great, the legislature is great. The executive office, they're all fantastic in a political constitution. We have separate functions, but we are united in our respect for the role of the citizenry, the rule of law, and our responsibilities. One of the sheriff's most critical duties is preserving the public peace. Not true. Their one job is to protect your life, liberty, and property. That is it. End of story. In accomplishing the mission, we have many capable partners. On a regular basis, state, local, and federal law enforcement officers assist one another in ensuring the safety of Utahns. So again, they are giving these caveats.

So do you think they're saying that you're protecting their rights, that they're protecting your rights, when they're actually saying, no, if the courts say what this lie is is legal, then we will work with every agency from the feds all the way to your cities to enforce these infringements on your rights. Okay, now this is, we have... states that are actually passing legislation that says that they're not going to allow any of their agents to enforce a federal act, law, order, rule, regulation relating to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. That sounds fantastic. This is Alabama. They passed this Second Amendment Preservation Act that makes sure that nobody in the state of Alabama will enforce. or participate in the enforcement of a federal act limiting the second amendment that sounds great i'd love it if it was a little bit further and said we will stop anybody we will arrest anybody that works to enforce these things but this is this is a great start but it's also a bait and switch because what else do they have they've got over a dozen laws restricting the ownership carrying and distribution of a firearm so they themselves are violating your god-given right to protect yourself and your family and defend yourself not only against criminals and whatnot, but against a tyrannical state. And so just because they're protecting you from the feds, they are reserving to themselves the right to be a tyrant over you and to strip you of your God-given rights.

So we got some more bait and switch. We're in Virginia, right? He says he'll deputize residents if a gun law passes. The sheriff there in Culper, Virginia, Culpeper, Virginia, says, quote, every sheriff and Commonwealth attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. So right there, he's opening up the way, the opening of the door for necessary gun restrictions. The county sheriff, Scott Jenkins, wrote on Facebook, I plan to properly screen. and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms so this was put out there as this fantastic thing of hey this guy the sheriff really means it not only is he not going to enforce it but he's going to deputize the population to make sure that they're there everybody's given the authority to protect any infringement on the right to own a gun but He said that Richmond would instead enforce laws already on the books.

So he's not saying, he's just talking about, you know, these dang liberals, right? This is during, you know, the Democrats in the state legislature, if they pass any more laws. But he's got no problem with the laws already on the books that restrict the Second Amendment, restrict your God-given right to protect yourself. and your family against tyrants. He says it's all part of an agenda for the further takeaway guns, restricting registered weapons. There's no need for it. There are enough laws already in place on weapon restriction. So he's got no problem with the current laws in place.

He will be a tyrant and he will enforce the laws already on the board. So his cries and his calls that saying that he's going to defend it is all a complete and total farce because he's already promising, to enforce the tyrannical anti-gun laws that are already in place okay the sheriffs just follow orders this is another case where we have um in the on the border of utah and arizona in the 1950s where indiv where families were uh community was raided and people were put in prison simply because of their religion and then when they uh were arrested and children were being taken away from their mothers simply because of their religious beliefs uh they said when we were informed to come to the juvenile court why one of the national guardsmen so they got the national guard involved in arresting women and taking their children away from them for their religion not just the sheriff the sheriff was him to tell me uh what time to come and i felt quite sorry for him because he almost cried he said believe me lady if i'd known what we were getting into i would come so Even if you have a so-called law enforcement officer, their bosses will know that. And they will lie to them and get them to do something illegal. And so to get them to come and take away your rights.

And they were willing to go, the Sheriff's Department, the National Guard, all these people were willing to come together to destroy families and destroy a community simply because of their religious beliefs. Back in 2000, was this 17, 16? Oh, let me go back. Yes, Rod, go ahead. I'm just going to mention that in that situation as well, the state of Arizona fraudulently got people to, I want to say donate funds, but it was more like there was like a referendum or something to put funds toward some fictitious thing. that actually went towards this. And they did that because they knew the people would not get behind what they were going to do. So the government lied once again to get people to do something. Yep.

So in 2017, the state of Utah, the legislature passed a bill creating what was called a Department of Land Management, where under a regional government, under several states, they passed a new bill that said that the sheriffs were no longer the primary law enforcement body in what was called public lands. And that this new head of the Department of Land Management would act as a dictator where he was this one individual that wasn't even elected, which doesn't matter because if all these three powers are in one person, it doesn't matter if they're elected, he's still a tyrant. But this unelected official would have the power to write legislation.

He would have the power to enforce legislation. And then he would have the power to adjudicate if an individual had violated the law that he passed and enforced. And so we created an uproar letting people know about this law, about this legislation, I should say. And it caused such an uproar that they had to hold an emergency meeting at the state capitol where they had law enforcement, legislators, and the police. come to be told to calm down, that everything was okay. And one of the individuals there that spoke on behalf of this legislation and against the idea of a constitutional sheriff is former Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy. I want to play this video for you. There is no authority through the Constitution of the United States. There's no authority through the Constitution of the Utah State to give us anything other than what we are given legislatively. Sheriff Tracy, Utah County. Going back to the statement that Mark Ward made, that's part of the dilemma, that's part of the issue, that's part of the clarification that we have as sheriffs and understand. States are sovereign. Counties are not sovereign. Counties are political subdivisions of the state.

My authority as sheriff comes from that document right there. It's under Utah code annotated. There's nothing in this document, the Constitution of the United States, that talks about the office of sheriff. There's nothing in the state of Utah's Constitution that talks about the county sheriff. The county sheriff is an animal, a construct of the legislators of Utah under Title 17, Utah code annotated, Chapter 22. It could be ripped in half and null and void tomorrow by legislative action. Where do I get my authority? This is one of the things that I have talked to Sam about before and others, even Richie Mack. When it comes to what I can and can't do, I can't assume unto myself just what I want to do.

Then I become the... king i become the tyrant i become the person who tells this county will do this and this sheriff becomes the county's dictator for that county i obey the law both federal and local state and county law i enforce those laws but what my enumerated powers authorities and responsibilities are are given or taken away by the state legislature because there is no authority through the constitution of the united states there's no authority through the constitution of the utah state to give us anything other than what we are given legislatively that is part of the issue so when i look at what my duties are within my county there are things that under the sovereignty of the state must be statewide in its application and those are appropriate and I don't want to be doing every enforcement on every one of those little things now there used to be a clause in this title 17 that said the sheriff was the primary law enforcement officer of the county that was removed years ago We have concurrent jurisdiction in cities, and we have primary jurisdiction in all unincorporated area.

Again, a construct of what the legislative language is. So we have to look at what our authority is and take our authority from where it comes. It doesn't come from my self-proposed authorities. It comes from the language and the words in this statute. So that's part of the issue. In this state, in other states, there is no constitutional outlined office of sheriff in the state constitution. We need to understand that everything the sheriff does is not what he just wants to do. It has to be based against what legal authority I have or they have. And it comes from the construct within Title 17, Chapter 22. And it is by legislative authority because there is no constitutional office in the state of Utah for sheriff.

So in short, what he says, if you want to just encapsulate that. What he just said right there is that the sheriff is nothing more than an enforcement arm of the tyrants in the legislature. And then he tries to gaslight you into saying, well, if I nullify, I'm now, right, I am now a tyrant. He's equating nullifying and defending your rights against a tyrant as being a tyrant himself. And so that way you're like, well, I'm against tyranny, so I better allow him to enforce tyranny. And the language that he is using is saying that he is nothing more than the lapdog of the legislature. He is just there because the legislature can't be everywhere. And so they have a local sheriff in each county to be able to enforce their tyrannical edicts on the local level and to enforce the tyrannical edicts from the federal government.

That's what this Republican. sheriff in a conservative county in the state of in the conservative state of utah says his authority and power is and you know what is really interesting about this is not only that but he's actually um went through the constitutional sheriffs and peace officers association uh classes on a constitutional sheriff and received certification as a constitutional sheriff and then he goes and says these things and so we have these sheriffs that even go through training and yet they themselves even afterwards will say they don't have the authority to do these things and they will defend their position as as uh tyranny enforcers i think i heard somebody raising their hand oops wrong button are we still oh let me go back oh sorry guys oh okay it's not yes who had their hand up i had my hand up in Yeah, go ahead. Oh, wow. This Tracy should be kicked out of office immediately. There is no authority. You know, he's trying to hide behind the law.

But what law is he citing? Title 17 is federal regulation. The Constitution is so far above any federal regulation, any statute law. It's above everything. The Second Amendment. applies to everyone in every state. It doesn't limit it to Congress. If you're not familiar with the Second Amendment, a well -regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means every single person has a right to, as long as they don't violate the rights of others, right to uncompromisingly, as you talked about earlier. So that's the law, and that means... Title 17 that he keeps citing or referencing is a null and void because the Supreme Law says it's null and void. Does that make sense? Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, when he's using it as a tool to say this, I have to do whatever they say, absolutely. But then, and I totally agree. But his power, what he's saying, he's citing federal regulation, he's citing, but they're all, Inferior law to the supreme law.

And he's saying that he could be dissolved, that his office could be dissolved tomorrow by the state legislature, and his position would be null and void if the state legislature decided to do so. And so this idea of why do these states even have the office of sheriff if they can be dissolved at any time? And it's pretty wild that... A sheriff that has gone through this training would still say this. And so it tells us much of what we need to understand about what law enforcement, even as a sheriff that has received this training. And if can we trust them to be the people that are going to preserve our rights? Right. And some people will say, well, you know, when when crap hits the fan, they'll be the ones to protect us from the federal army if they invade. Right. Here's a picture of what looks like a federal army, but it's actually the Utah County Sheriff's Department. They are the army. I've given the trainings on this before.

They are the army that the founding fathers warned us about. These are not the people that are going to be fighting tyranny. These are the individuals, by their own words, that are the enforcers of the tyranny of the legislature and the judiciary. That is who they are. That is who they claim to be. They do not claim to be anything else but that. And so, right, where is your hope to win lost liberty? Is it in Congress? Do we get Congress to pass legislation to say that, you know, the sheriff is the ultimate authority and they can nullify anything they want to and they can stand up against Congress if they want to? I think, you know, shadows of power says that that's. That's off the table that the conspiracy, the satanic conspiracy controls Congress and the executive branch and the judiciary without a doubt.

Well, how about our local legislatures? Whatever state you're in, is your local legislature going to pass a law that now all of a sudden says that the sheriff has the ability to nullify and any unconstitutional? deemed unconstitutional, ruled unconstitutional law, but that they have the autonomy. to be able to use their own brains to decide when a law violates the Constitution or not. I think my book, Invasion, clearly rules that out, takes that off the table. The conspiracy controls the legislature. Congress, federally, controls the legislature and the governors on each state level. And so that is not where your hope is to lie in winning lost liberty. Patrick Henry addressed this very issue when he said, show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole change of their rulers being good men without a consequence loss of liberty. And so what he's saying there is if we're depending on government to be as the only way that we can defend our liberty. We've already, it doesn't happen. You can't do that. You cannot depend on government. Yes. Yes. You're starting to cut out.

Okay. Well, we're almost done. So hopefully we can finish that up. Okay. So really what it is, it's you working to build the understanding of others and then combining with the tree of liberty society. That is what is going to win your liberty. It is not pawning it off to a sheriff. It is not pawning it off to the con. to the legislature is not pawning it off to your favorite congressman it is not pawning it off to saying that your favorite president those things we we have to understand the score of where we're at and who controls those bodies and so where does it lay where's the responsibility the responsibility is on you and me to to to stand up for liberty to in engage in um the principle of nullification and interposition and ultimately the final solution on those issues. And so that's something we need to make sure that we understand.

So that way we don't, I don't know why this is not allowing me to stop my share. Ah, I apologize. Okay, there we go. So I'll go through the comments, but we're pretty much wrapped up for the time of the official meeting. But I just, I wanted to share those things with you because, you know, I think it'd be great if you have a sheriff that will actually do those things that we talked about. that will actually stand between you and a tyrant? That's awesome. But history shows that they're lying to you when they say that they are going to stand up for your rights, that the only thing that they are going to do is to be enforcers of the legislature's tyranny or the federal government's tyranny.

Best case scenario, we have Richard Mack saying, I'm not going to enforce X gun law in my state. But did he ever interpose? Did he ever stand between a federal agent? and an individual citizen having their rights taken away from them. We haven't seen that anywhere in the last 100 years. And so it's important for us to realize where it really boils down to. So that way, because we always want to pass the buck to somebody else. We always want to go the easier route. We say, wouldn't it be much easier if I just work really hard for a couple of months, get so-and-so elected to this position? and then he'll take care of me. But history shows that that doesn't work, never works, and is designed not to work, is designed to strengthen the conspiracy. What God has told us to do as individuals, that we are individually responsible for the laws that are passed and how those laws are implemented. That is where it's at, is us. What are we doing to nullify? What are we doing to interpose?

What are we doing to help others engage in those activities? as well. And so that's where the solution is. It's not for pawning it off to somebody else. So if we have them, I'll look in the chat, but we'll close the meeting officially. Then we'll go Q &A and see if there's anything else that maybe I didn't cover well for you today. But Brittany, would you say the closing prayer for us?

Our kind, gracious Heavenly Father, we are grateful the opportunity to be able to gather together and to learn more and to increase our knowledge about. what things we can do to help regain our liberty and be able to build up the kingdom of God. And we ask that thou may help us to be able to find those that are open and willing to listen to our words and to help hear our messages so that we can be able to grow and expand our group and be able to fight for freedom and liberty as Heavenly Father would ask us to do. And we ask that thou may help us to continue to think and ponder on these subjects and be able to share. these messages to those around us so that we can diligently fight for the good cause. And we ask for these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.