Sheriff Christopher Says He Will, “Leave This God Forsaken Place”

Well, with the news of the court decision that stated that Delaware sheriffs do not have law enforcement powers, it would seem as if the pressure and frustration may be building for Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher.

With the announcement of the loss in Delaware’s  Superior Court coming just yesterday, this morning, Sheriff Christopher was on the Dan Gaffney show on Delaware 105.9 to give his opinion of the court’s ruling.

Not surprising, the Sheriff seemed a little on edge, even though when asked what he felt about the decision, he said that it was what, “we had predicted”. Is that the royal “we” I wonder?

This “interview”, and I use the word loosely, since at one point I thought that Dan had left the room to go to the bathroom, since the Sheriff was allowed to talk uninterrupted for at least five minutes it seems, but anyway, this interview only got stranger as it went on.

Of course we got a good dose of the sheriff attacking this court, and the court system in general, which is what many expected in the case of a loss for the sheriff.  We of course got another round of the talking points that the sheriff can now recite forward and backwards.

We heard once again about how all around the nation, sheriffs have the power to arrest, except here in Delaware. As an aside, Dan Gaffney at one point in his show, read a quote from Ken Currie, Mr. Currie is a 9/12 Patriot and a GOP R D committee chairperson, in the quote Mr. Currie stated his displeasure in the fact that Delaware was so out of step with the rest of the states across the nation. I find this to be an odd statement from a member of a group that is so strongly in favor of decentralized government, yet in this case he would seem to want to follow the herd and do as the other states would do. I wonder if he would feel the same about gun control and gay marriage?

But back to the sheriff. The discussion took on a bizarre tone at the 5:15 mark in the interview. This is when the sheriff out of the blue mentioned my name when talking about Sen. Chris Coons. It was at this point he also referenced “gas chambers”.  But this wasn’t the end, at the 7:11 point he again used my name completely out of the blue, stating that I should hope that I was never charged with murder in Delaware. It would seem as if I am living rent free in the sheriff’s head.  For full disclosure, I had called into Dan’s show on the topic prior to the sheriff coming on. I guess he heard my opinion of the case, and had me on the brain.

I have to wonder if at the 9:22 mark, if he was again addressing me when he said, with derision, “because they live in America, they can open their mouth and voice their opinion of which, basically they form by someone else’s opinion instead of looking into the situation themselves they borrow someone else’s opinion”.  Let me assure the sheriff and all who read this, I form my own opinions, and since I do live in America, I do have the right to open my mouth and voice it. When you listen to this part, tell me? Does it seem as if the sheriff wishes it weren’t the case?

It was at the 12:35 mark that the sheriff said that he would keep fighting, and if he couldn’t win, he would, “take his family and move out of this God forsaken place”.  Well sheriff, some of us don’t believe this is a God forsaken place.

Speaking of God, the sheriff felt the need to mention his Christianity, and or Christ six times. Now I too am a Christian, and I am very willing to witness my savior, but we have seen this type of talk before from public figures and how it ends. Surely the sheriff does not believe that being a Christian is the sole qualification for being an elected official? One should be concerned when elected officials take such pains to point out their faith.

One last thing that jumped out to me in this, was when Dan asked how Sheriff Christopher was funding his law suit. The sheriff spoke of keeping the people informed and when they knew the facts, as he sees them, then people would want to open their pockets and help. The he spoke of how people can call him at the sheriff’s office to talk about how they can help, and that his cell phone is constantly ringing.  Surely the sheriff is not raising legal funds while he is supposed to be doing the people’s business? I must have misunderstood. Surely this would not be happening on the county’s phones and while he was in the county offices? I must have misunderstood.

But here is a link to Delaware 105.9 and the pod cast of the entire “interview”. You make you own decision on how the sheriff came across during the segment.

Sussex Sheriff Christopher Reacts Strongly to Superior Court Ruling Against Him

102 Comments on "Sheriff Christopher Says He Will, “Leave This God Forsaken Place”"

  1. Harry Whittington says:

    As a Republican and a fiscal conservative I disagree with any expansion of government, that includes giving the Sheriff and his deputies arrest powers..

    I am also opposed to any expansion of the police state that the United States is becoming. Freedom does not mean spy drones in our skies or a taxpayer funded law enforcement officer on every corner.

    When Jeff Christopher was elected, there was not one voting Sussex resident who had cast a vote during a time in our history when the Sheriff had arrest powers. The average voter was unaware of his agenda.

    Calling my home “Godforsaken” was the icing on the cake. Why would anyone want to vote for someone who has that opinion of the place they want to represent, and, God forbid, have police powers over?

    BTW, the comment box sucks, I can barely read what I’m typing.

  2. Robert Hauser says:

    I did…and I did…and he came across for the Constitution as eloquently as you ever would have. You talk about the Sheriff letting you live rent free in his mind….well, you seem to have given him a five year lease in yours the way you have been trying to run the man down. I happen to be an agnostic, not that that would matter two rotten cents worth in the discussion but Christopher took a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in letter and spirit from all enemies, foreign and domestic—-that is a binding moral as well as legal contract that I believe most Christians worthy of the name would honor by force if necessary—albeit you seem to consider that some kind of joke the way you ridicule the man, like some kind of pseudojournalist gallery crow, who is going it, and by appearing in court over a gut issue like this he was doing precisely that—-so what is your problem? If you subscribe to the notion that a man who vehemently stands for the Constitution is a pariah because he might tend to ruffle the feathers of some “conservatives’ in your community, then maybe these precious “conservatives” aren’t worth the powder to blow them straight to hell.

  3. Frank Knotts says:

    Harry, good points, and I will take the comment box issue into consideration.

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    Robert, I have tried to keep this from becoming personal, though I am sure you would not agree. However when talking about the issue I have to talk about Sheriff Christopher because he is driving the issue. But when he is talking about the issue and uses my name completely out of context of the conversation he is having, well that struck me as odd. As for my pointing out his repeatedly pointing out his Christianity, well we here in Sussex have had a history of people who have done this in the past and it didn’t end well. My faith is a shield from the troubles and temptation of this world, but it is not a shield from criticism.

  5. Doug Beatty says:

    Of course there is resistance in such a corrupt system to a Sheriff who would actually do their job. I would humbly submit that an elected Sheriff properly empowered is a bar to unseemly expansion of Government. Because they are accountable directly to the voters unlike appointed officials.
    Could the gradual degradation of the office in the First State be totally unrelated to the WSJ survey placing us at number four in corruption nationwide? It could be unrelated. Then again maybe not.
    The term Sheriff wasn’t explicitly defined in the 1776 Constitution or subsequent Constitutions because the term had been in common use for well over five centuries and didn’t need to be defined.
    In at least 47 states the term is not only understood but respected. Could we be right and everyone else be wrong? Anything is possible but this premise isn’t probable.
    I’m thankful to have Jeff making this stand. What our ‘conservative’ friends here are missing is that allowing any term in the constitution to be redefined by statute at whim is indeed a slippery slope.
    Stripping the Sheriff of powers is a matter for constitutional amendment as a matter of law. Not, as this blogger and others have asserted the business of the County Council, The A.G., or a bill passed by the legislature.
    Apparently never having lived anywhere else tends to limit one’s comprehension of some subjects.

  6. William Christy says:

    Frank the very first time I ever met you it was very apparent this is a “personal” issue for you for whatever reason. I do not care to debate this in my opinion as a law enforcement member you have an issue with law enforcement figures.

    I see and hear the “royal we” used all the time in reference to the County Sheriff issue “we don’t want the sheriff to have arrest powers” who EXACTLY is “we” 2, 10, 20?

    You like all RINO’s take words and phrases out of context to suit your own personal beliefs and then you spin it to become the word of the “royal we”.

    You sit on your self righteous throne passing judgement on people based on their views about gay marriage and gun control. I submit it is you who are nonyeilding in your beliefs about other peoples rights while you crow about your rights.

    As far as someones use of GOD in their discussion get over yourself Frank there isn’t a transaction that takes place with US Currency that all have the word GOD.

    People are making donations Frank, people are holding fund raisers Frank so what? Now you want to dictate what people do with our money or resources and imply that the Sheriff is using his elected position improperly.

    Instead of micro-analyzing every word, phrase, and misconceived action of the Sheriff I suggest you reflect inwardly, look at Frank Knotts and figure out why you are so unwilling to accept the Constitutional rights of others. After all Frank it’s all about Optics.

  7. Earl says:

    I read the opinion of Judge Graves, The first point of seeing how this judgement for Summary judgement would turn out was where the Plaintiff was denid summary judgement, Yet the defense was granted summary judgement.

    In the case there were several arguments that were cited on bahalf of what the Gen Assembly has the right of doing, One is changing the constitution by legislation, as Graves made a note of. I am more interested in hearing the reasoning for this, when the backbone and foundation of our governemnts structure its powers and restrictions recognize that certain acts are unconstitutional except for when an amendment is made to the Constititon, though the due course of law..
    So what I am hearing in this opinion is that your right of assembly can and may even be denied just by the General Assembly passing legislation. Your right to worship freely as well can be eliminated by one simple act of passing a bill without every going through the due process of law of abolishing the rights or powers of the people?

    I know this may sound far reaching, however even prohibition was not changed except through the ratifying of the Constitution of the US.
    Something else that is troubling in this case. I heard that the court would only hear arguments that cited state case law or statutory laws. whereas when the court made its decision Graves cited New Hampshire case law. Giving credit for the Judtge using the Missouri case in the matters of the plaintiffs side of the argument. It is interesting that Graves used Pennsylvania statutes, based upon the mitigation of Graves that we were once a part of Pennsylvania.

    The Sate was not named after Penn though. It was named aftter the Governor of Virginia And historical records show clearly that Pennyslvania did not want anything to do with the lower 3 counties in regards to protecting them from pirating that was occuring during the Age of Pirates (Middle 17-18th centuries) And for this reason the lower three counties were permitted to transfer their powers to a legislative body that would meet in Sussex County orignally and later changed to Dover.

    I don’t expcet an answer from Graves, but I am curious’ why wasn’t any case law used from Virginia in regards to the powers of the Sheriff? Since we are called DELMARVA and not PENNDEMAR or DEPEN.

    It would be intersting to see how many “Christians” will also go against the scriptures when it says though shalt not commit adultry. or not to covet someone elses property their wife or any of their belongings. Of course I am not here to accuse anyone on how they live their life. I am only calling it like I see it.
    Over the years we have seen where judges have made very poor decisions and the only way it was redressed was for the law abiding citizens to be harmed so badly they rebelled. One such incident is what sparked the civil rights movement, when Rosa Parks decided she would ride a bus seated where she wnated and now where people in power were telling her. And yes, we had county sheriffis that were harming individuals rights during that time as well. Yet we have to look at both sides of this matter equally and then ask. What would happen if the “natural form of government” were altered. and exactly what is the natural form of government? In the 17 hundres that was to include slavery. It also included the right of the States to seceede or make their own decisons on matters that wre being handed down. It also included the lack of interstate commerce being properly regulated. That one issue can still be argued, but is going off on another tagent that is not relevant here.

    What I find the most disturbing about this entire issue is the lack of understanding just what a conservator of the peace (COP) really is and how Graves explained it means one definintion for one person but then it means something totally different for someone else who is given the title of COP. Which leads me to wonder about his views on other important issues that could be dangerous in decisions related to intellectual proerty. Civil Rights, as well as whether the State has more power than the federal government, whwere US Sumpreme Court cases were not cited. Does this mean that Delaware is actually independent of the federal government? Is it the only state that has suceessfully seceeded from the Union? According to the direction Graves took it would seem so. I know it is wrong because we all know the 14th Amendment says otherwise..
    In closing, I find this par for the direction the State has been taking over the course of several years. One of which was denying fusion candidacy, where one party can pick up another partys member to run on their ticket. Of course let this not be where I bring in the issue of a possible violation of the Voter Rights Act for not allowing a person recognized as a minority to be denied the ability to run for a particular office. Again that is another tangent that is not related to this case, other than the fact there are certain rights that people will neglect.
    So back on topic. What will happen to Christians when they find they are no longer permitted to read the bible or are denied the right to wear a shirt in a school that says something that the govenment rules is illegal? Who will protect you from your government that is all but appointed or hired agents of the government and people discover they have noone in goernment to stand against tyranny, except for through the acts of violence . This is what occured in the Civil Rights Moveent, this is what occured with the protests against Vietnam as well. The governement demnaded people be drafted. And this like many other likely events that can come out of this. led to people being placed in prision and even murdered. There was a time when the native Americans would have enjoyed having their rights protected as well. But found that to be inconsistant with how they were treated by the very government that assured them safety and well being.

  8. Harry Whittington says:

    There was no “gradual degredation” of the Sheriff’s powers in Delaware. Almost a century ago the position was redifined. That was before anyone in Sussex was alive to cast a vote for a Sheriff with arrest powers, unless anyone can name a 108 year old who voted in 2010 in Sussex.

    The Sheriff, along with the Attorney Generals and Court Chancellors are all labeled “conservators of the peace.” The term “conservator of the peace” is defined by Delaware Code, and the Legislature, our duly elected representatives in Dover, did not attach arrest powers to the definition.

    As a conservative, I also take issue with other so called “conservatives” using other state’s laws as examples of what Delaware should be doing. Delaware is a sovereign state and as a sovereign state, Delaware has the Constitutional right outlined in the Tenth Amendment, to define “conservator of the peace” and the Sheriff’s duties as it sees fit.

    Elected officials in Delaware, by law, are unable to raise funds or accept money in the buildings where their offices reside. The Sheriff, who waxes poetic about defending the Constitution and the law, broke the law by telling people to contact him at the Sheriff’s office to discuss how to donate to his defense fund.

    Sheriff Christopher is disregarding the Constitution by trying to use other states’ laws to regain arrest powers. He is breaking Delaware law by discussing his defense fund donations in the people’s office, and he has shown complete contempt for the people he is sworn to serve by calling us “Godless.”

    If the Attorney General doesn’t indict him for illegal fundraising, the people should demand that he be removed from office.

  9. Dave says:

    I fully support Christopher’s intent to move out of this Godfosaken place. As I said some time ago, I have no real obection to a Delaware county sheriff having law enforcement authority.

    What I object to is the manner in which that authority is exercised. When that authority is clothed in rhetoric such as federal tryanny, posse, chief executive, absolute, “without direction, restriction, or interference of any kind from any other government official or entity within the State of Delaware” it communicates that this is issue was about power, not law enforcement.

    It should be noted that prior to Delaware’s first constitution, sheriffs were appointed, not elected. In my view, this was a more appropriate structure than an elected official who asserts that they are above all other officials in the state, with no constraints or oversight.

    That’s not what I want from my law enforcement. If Sussex County has a need for a county wide law enforcement capability, the county should consider forming a county police force, under the auspices, control, and oversight of the county governmental structure.

    The continuous association with religion and Christianity, raises the spectre of Onward Christian Soldiers and holy wars. One’s religion is their own business, but when it becomes a ribbon ties the law enforcement package, it becomes part and parcel to that package with no separation, evoking images of a law enforcement that is less than universal.

    All in all, what Christopher believes and desires, does not fit in this Godforsaken place and in the spirit of cooperation, we should fully support his desire to leave it all behind.

  10. William Christy says:

    Dave there you go lets have the fox guard the hen house. let’s have the same county government that citizens in Sussex County as being corrupt be in charge of a possible county police agency. How soon you have forgotten this council was sued by the Federal Government

    “The Justice Department announced today that it has settled a lawsuit against Sussex County, Del., and the Planning and Zoning Commission of Sussex County for race and national origin discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”

    Yep their the people I would want overseeing a law enforcement agency. I can see the next lawsuit headline that would arise against the county “County Police Force Charged With Racial Profiling”

  11. Another Mike says:

    “Stripping the Sheriff of powers is a matter for constitutional amendment as a matter of law.”

    Except he’s not being stripped of any powers because he never had any. And I think the lack of comprehension is on your part. When I have lived or worked in other places, I have adapted to what the reality is in those places. Sheriff Loony Tunes knew what the deal was when he ran for office.

  12. Dave says:


    If the county council is the problem, why not fix the county council? You kn0w the political make up of the council as well as I do. One can only conclude that you got the council you thought you wanted (using “you” in the plural sense). If that’s not the case, then you should avail yourself of the electoral process to get a council that better represents your interests instead of creating independent authorities, that could result in worse representation because there is no oversight.

    The county council is accountable to the people. Isn’t that the argument you’ve made about the sheriff?

  13. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Beatty, you speak of the constitution of 1776, you are aware that we are not discussing the U.S. Constitution here, aren’t you? You are aware that we are talking about the Delaware Constitution right? You have been following along and not just repeating someone else’s ideas as the sheriff pointed out, right? The current Delaware Constitution was ratified in 1897 here is a link to it, you might want to actually read it, having lived so many places, you may not have found time to actually know what you are talking about.
    But let me ask you this, since you somehow beleieve that an elected sheriff is somehow beyond the corruption that you feel every other elected official is infected with, do you also believe that every sheriff after Jeff Christopher will also be beyond that corruption? You want to empower the office of sheriff with these powers right? Not just Jeff Christopher, right? So unless you believe that Jeff Christopher will be the last sheriff in Sussex ever! Then you are also empowering every sheriff after him. And what of the other two counties that you are attempting to force this upon, do they not have a say in the process, could it be that is why, since the office was created in the state constitution, that the state legislature has the power to define the office, because when you change the authority of one county, you change it for all three. But of course you being so up on the issue of the 1776, oh that’s right the 1897 constitution, you have already thought this through, right?

  14. Frank Knotts says:

    William, you will have to remind me what I have said that leads you to believe that this is personal. You really should read what I write, I am for gun rights and opposed to gay marriage. I do however tend to discuss the issues in a rasional manner, this may be what is throwing you off kilter.
    Also, you need to realize that not everyone is without humor and sometimes I write with tongue firmly in cheek, the royal we was such a time, I will not be giving clues in the future so you may have to look up some words.
    I’m not sure if I pointed this out to you or someone else, an elected office cannot have constitutional rights, it can only have constitutional powers, and in this case not even that, since it was not defined. Please see my comment above to your fellow traveler Mr. Beatty, it will explain it all, there is also a link to the Delaware Constitution as well.
    As for your name calling, well as you pointed out, it is all about the optics baby!

  15. Frank Knotts says:

    William, please explain this to me like I am a two year old. why is it that you believe that every elected sheriff is above corruption, when clearly you feel every other elected official is corrupt? You want to empower the office not Jeff Christopher, right? What about the other two counties, do they have any say, or does Sussex rule. Remember that even in your argument of the constitution, a change for one county, is a change for all three. Could that be why the court found that the state legislature has the power to define the office? Hum?

  16. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    The intellectual high point of this blog article was posting the WXDE radio link.

    As usual, the author is in over his head, grossly oversimplifying a complex multidimensional political/legal problem, as the case was most probably decided beforehand by a fourth-rate (at best) judge based upon a fifth-rate politically driven AG’s opinion.

    The realpolitik is that corrupt, decadent and hypocritical County Council politicians like Vance Phillips can’t stand an honest, independent and constitutionally empowered Sheriff in their midst.

    Frankie, are you man enough to debate this on Blog Talk Radio?
    You can’t hold a candle to Jeff Christopher.

  17. doug says:

    Yes, the Delaware version. The entire ruling rests on the premise that a word in use for over 700 years before appearing in our 1776 Constitution is ‘undefined’. Nobody needed a definition then, and only the ignorant and/or obtuse need one now, but google is available for the for the former. The latter have to construct their own remedy.

  18. Doug Beatty says:

    Yes I have, and so have 47 other states. Simply put, a sheriff elected is easier to replace at the will of the people than an appointed official. The Sheriff first is mentioned in the 1776 Constitution and mention has been made in court that Sheriff is not defined in that or any subsequent version. Those of us who were in court heard it. during oral arguments. The 1776 Delaware constitution is the first appearance of the Sheriff specifying that it shall be an elected office, The 1897 version says shall be a conservator of the peace. In 1935 the state code stated that State Police shall be conservators of the peace with arrest powers similar to the Sheriff. The word Sheriff wasn’t removed from this statute until 2007. I would never say that the Sheriff’s powers can’t be removed, only that constitutional amendment is needed to so do.

  19. Doug Beatty says:

    Nobody is above corruption IMO. Which is why electing the executive law enforcement in one’s county is something understood as good thing just about everywhere. Even in California.

    The other counties are free to elect the Sheriff they want. If they believe that merely serving paperwork is what they want in they way of a Sheriff, that’s their choice. Not all elected Sheriffs are constitutional sheriffs.

  20. Doug Beatty says:

    Actually, according to the ruling, the Sheriff had arrest powers until June 19 2012 when Markell signed HB325 into law. The Sussex County Sheriff made arrests well into the 1970’s. A person who was 21 in 1970 would be 61 in 2010. I’m not sure your statement is accurate.

  21. Alice says:

    Very well said , kudos to you Mr. Christy!!

  22. William Christy says:

    Frank had you actually attended the hearing you would have heard Judge T Henley Graves and both the County and States attorneys make many references to the 3 previous versions of the Delaware state Constitution to support their argument. They made very little reference to the current Delaware state Constitution. OPTICS Frank stop being a condescending a**hole talking down to people OPTICS remember OPTICS!

  23. William Christy says:

    “The designation of so many different offices as being a conservator of the peace leads the court to the obvious conclusion that being labeled a ‘conservator of the peace’ in our constitution means nothing more than the office holder is a constitutional officer involved in governance tasked with keeping the peace or the ‘normal state of society.” – T Henley Graves.

    A “normal state of society” requires citizens acting outside the “normal state of society” (criminals) to be apprehended to maintain the “normal state of society”. That is the role of the County Sheriff as a Conservator of the Peace.

    The states Attorney General reviews charges or brings forth charges and prosecutes citizens acting outside the “normal state of society” that is their role as a “Conservator of the Peace”.

    Judge T Henley Graves like all other judges reviews the evidence presented by the attorney general ( prosecutors) and determine if the citizen charged with acting outside the “normal state of society” should be removed from society for the good of the “normal state of society” by incarcerating the citizen away from society in a jail. That is a judges role as a Conservator of the Peace.

    It sure seems pretty easy for this citizen to understand the Constitutional meaning of Conservator of the Peace as it relates to the need to maintain a “normal state of society”.

  24. Frank Knotts says:

    Hey Doug, riddle me this, who gave the “OFFICE” of the sheriff those powers? You guys keep missing the point. You keep posing the question can the Legislature do what they did? The question is should they. This is why the case was lost at this level and will be lost at the next level. You only talk to, or should I say, you only listen to people who agree with you 100% and so you don’t understand that most people don’t care about this and if they do they don’t want it. Enlarge your circle of friends and you will get a better feel for the people and the politics in Delaware.

  25. Frank Knotts says:

    The point is, that previous constitutions have no relevance once a new one is ratified, since the previous documents are no longer the governing documents for the state. They have no bearing beyond grasping at straws.
    And William, you don’t get to complain about how I talk to people who come here and call me names like RINO. You play nice and I play nice.
    And what is it with the other 47 states? Would you feel the same way if 47 states were in favor of gay marriage? What if 47 states wanted to confiscate your guns? Would you be touting 47 states then? I am not in favor of a centralized government where one state must follow the lead of the other states, I am a state’s rights person.

  26. Frank Knotts says:

    Doug do you really have so little understanding of the law? If Sheriff Christopher is successful in this, the other two counties will be forced to act upon it. If they are empowered with arrest authority and ignore a crime, then they will be in dereliction of their duty, making them liable.
    And please answer the question, why are you willing to trust an elected sheriff if you trust no one? I get that you trust Sheriff Christopher, but what about the next and the next one? As for appointed law enforcement, well they are appointed by elected officials that you can vote out and demand NEW APPOINTEES. Learn the system before you decide to criticize it.

  27. Frank Knotts says:

    Okay citizen William, tell me where in the constitution do the judges and the attorney general receive their instructions as to their roles in the “normal state of society”? I’m waiting! That’s right citizen William they don’t , because their roles as conservators of the peace are not defined in the constitution anymore than the sheriff’s is. They, like the sheriff’s are defined in state code. Again you are fighting the wrong fight, not whether they can define it, but should they? Lord have mercy, but you guys just don’t get it. You are so hopped up on constitution this and constitution that, that you can’t see the end of your noses.

  28. William Christy says:

    Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows what it takes to maintain “a normal state of society” Certainly a self professed Republican who claims he wants less government intrusion shouldn’t expect or need to have the government spell it out.

    There’s a reason your blog has no following and your responses provide all the evidence anyone needs. You love to dish out your criticism but you can’t take it.

    FYI my name is Mr. Christy or Lt Col Christy the first is a sign of respect shown to an elder and the second I earned. Do not presume we are friends, and you haven’t earned the right to call me by my first name.

  29. kavips says:

    Reading these comments from buddies of Jeff, I can certainly sympathize with the Regular Republican Party. No one had any idea the Republican Party was infected with terminal cancer to the depth and breadth that is is.. The “real” Republican Party did a good job keeping the abscessed regions hidden from public view. Unfortunately now that it is out, the Republican Party must undergo chemo therapy to rid itself of that tissue that once belong to itself, but later turned rogue, with no concern whether the host lives or dies by the rogue entities actions…..

    Anyone who still uses the word RINO now that the last election settled things, should be banned from the party. That word (RINO) determines who belongs to the sick, and who is well.. Today, only one with a sick mentality, would every utter it.. The normal everyday Republican party will survive only if they can expunge all Tea Party residue from its roster….

    Anyone who still wants the sheriff to arrest people when the very law he is supposed to defend, prohibits it,… is no better than a common criminal.. Criminals won’t obey law, no matter what law is passed. When it comes to following the letter of the law, supporters of this lost cause are then no better than rapists, child molesters, thieves, or communists. The TEA PARTY does not respect law….

    They would be better served and much happier, if they moved to Yemen, Somalia, or the Taliban regions of Pakistan…. I think they would all be happier there, and finally, the true grand old Republican Party of Sussex County can get down to business and possibly again win elections…

    But be forewarned! While the Republican Party is still ramp with the Bulbous cancer of the Tea Party, Democrats will continue to run everything ad infinitum…. simply because, no one wants to vote for the laughingstock of Sussex County when his only connection with Sussex County, is that he smells the same as Sussex Counties biggest waste product…..

  30. Latter says:

    Ummmmmm BILLY BOY. YEAH YOU – christy boy

    I will call you anything I would like – with all due respect…….

    As will Frank

    You cannot demand respect, y have not earned respect , not from us, not ever

    You have lied about the GOVERNORS TASK FORCE writing down your license plate number
    Y claim law enforcement and now rank
    You are an absolute fraud and a fake

    LtCol in what- the Weebloes? The Klan? The self styled Patriots.?

    How about I show you the same respect you and yr buddies in the 9/12 patriots who have disgraced the word “patriot” like you have disgraced the word “conservative” show the Preseident

    How about I urinate in a jar with Jeff Christopher’s picture in it like Glen Beck did with the President
    Yup. BILLY BOY, we will call y whatever comes to mind and y have no right nor any standing to ask, beg, demand, or supplicate for anything different

    Fraud, fake , phones, wannabe

    Anyone who has ever read YOUR rants on DP -smells the stink of what you are

    And what yu are not and never will be…….deserving of ANY respect….ever

    Keep making those corded bracelets – it’s about all you are good for anyway

  31. Frank Knotts says:

    So, Mr. Christy, your response shows that when faced with dealing with facts you resort to anger and defensiveness.
    I asked a simple question in response to your statement about the constitution and the powers of the courts and the A G. You respond with,
    “Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows what it takes to maintain “a normal state of society” Certainly a self professed Republican who claims he wants less government intrusion shouldn’t expect or need to have the government spell it out. ”
    This issue is about the law, The case is about the constitution, that is what Sheriff Christopher is claiming anyway. And yet you come here to defend that position and seem to have no knowledge of either. Of course when we are talking about the law and the constitution the government must spell it out, that is the whole idea behind having a constitution.
    Answer the question, where in the constitution is the A G and the courts given their powers as a C O P?
    Your responses show that you have not bothered to research this issue, that you are simply putting forth the bumper sticker answers that some try to pass off as facts.
    Now let me apologize for insulting you by using your first name. But as for the elder issue? Unless you are 100 years old, I am not sure you are old enough to be considered my elder at my age of 52. As for the Lt. Col.? Thank you for your service and you are correct, that does earn you respect for that service. However, having been in the military does not make you right on every issue and does not shield you from criticism when you are wrong. In my opinion that is the case on this issue.

  32. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Beatty, you seem to wish to go only as far in history as serves your purpose. The 1776 version has no relevance once a new constitution is ratified. As for the meaning of the word C O P? Well when talking about the law and constitutions, you do need a legal definition written into the law, so that it is not open to wild speculation as we see in this case. And since it was not written into the constitution, it was defined in code. Come on now even you can see that, right? And really an America loving person as yourself shouldn’t be using Google, you do know they have terrorist ties don’t you?

  33. Frank Knotts says:

    Based on what Alice?

  34. Frank Knotts says:

    Earl, if that is your real name, I will let your statement stand even though it rambles a bit. Let me address the first part of your comment.
    You say, “One is changing the constitution by legislation”, please point out where that constitution was changed, has it been re-written in anyway? No, Delaware code was changed, the powers you believe the sheriff had were in Delaware code, put there be legislation and removed the same way. As for your prohibition example, prohibition was created by a constitutional amendment and removed the same way. Of course supporters will not approve of how the court came to the decision. And who knows if I am wrong about the next court and they find in favor of Sheriff Christopher, I may feel the same way. And attempt to pick that apart as well.

  35. Frank Knotts says:

    Harry you are a ray of sanity in the darkness of a fools world. thank you!

  36. Frank Knotts says:

    First off Wolfy, I have been called Frankie my whole life so if that was intended to be an insult, try again. Of course it is usually my family, so welcome to the family.
    As for my being in over my head and holding candles? Well I simply give my opinions on issues.
    I notice that for someone like yourself who often leans towards pomposity, and who says that I am in over my head, you come here and attempt to insult and name call. Is that your idea of how to address an issue with intellect and reason?
    As for being man enough? I would, but if I do any talk blog work it will be here at Delaware Right. I am under an exclusive contract that states that I cannot drive the listenership of other blog radio shows over two.
    Now you can go back to expounding your name calling of everyone you disagree with based on your meager over rated ideas of what passes for intellect.

  37. William Christy says:

    Based on your continual personal disdain for our County Sheriff that clouds your ability to compose an unbiased article about him. The same inability is extremely apparent when you speak about the Sheriff on the radio. A perfect example is your headline for this article you deliberately took out of context; “leave this Godforsaken place”

    Since you claim that the 3 past Delaware Constitutions should have nothing to do with the decision making regarding the County Sheriff perhaps you should request the transcripts and take note of how many times both the state and county attorneys and Judge Graves made reference to all 3 former Constitutions. Judge Graves opinion makes reference to it in several instances. We both know you could care less about making issue over the errors of their ways, however.

  38. William Christy says:

    Even Judge Graves conceded that the Delaware Constitution gave the Sheriff his powers. he also stated that the legislature had the right to change the role of the Sheriff and his powers, as they did. Perhaps if you had taken the time to attend the hearing you would know what was stated in the courtroom as Doug, I and others have stated.

  39. William Christy says:

    Hey Think1234,
    Figures you’d show up, thanks for proving the kind of company Frank keeps.

  40. Dave says:

    Using that criteria, since you and I and others show up, we are all the company Frank keeps. Apparently a wide range of fellows with differing viewpoints. Sort of like democracy or something.

    I don’t agree with Frank on everything but I am always willing to listen to his reasoning on various topics, without feeling the need to tar and feather him with labels. Maybe part of the reason is that he doesn’t confuse belief and opinion with facts. Still he is mostly respectful, which you have to admit is difficult virtue in view of the response he receives for his opinions.

  41. Frank Knotts says:

    Citizen Christy, I have given my opinion of the case, and nothing more. I have given my view of the constitution and the laws. Nothing more.
    As for my so called personal distain? Once again you, like others can only defend your position by saying that mine is based on personal distain. Try agin my friend.
    As for the title, that statement was taken directly from the interview which I linked to and if people do not take the time to listen that is not my problem. I did however in the article quote the entire quote. I guess you feel that only people who agree with you have any rights, but think again my friend.
    As for attending the hearing, well not everyone is retired and some of us do have jobs, and are required to be at them, not running around be advocates.

  42. Frank Knotts says:

    Unlike the company you keep Citizen Christy, we here at Delaware Right attempt to allow all to have their say, I would ask Latter to tone it down a bit though.

  43. William Christy says:

    Harry how about we ask for the resignation of every legislative member who heard in committee testimony last week that FFL gun dealers in Delaware are charging $30. -$35. + for background checks when state law that they wrote clearly states no more than $20.00 maximum can be charged? They are complicit in committing a criminal offense under Delaware Code.

    Attorney Beau Biden is also complicit since formal complaints have been filed in the past and the AG has done NOTHING to the dealers who are breaking the law.

  44. Angus Berger says:

    I’ve watched you with concerned interest and find that you write dribble using a thousand words addressing subjects should take only two hundred words.
    You allow somebody using the name Latter to personally attack another commenter while acting smug and in control.
    I don’t know what you are all about but you Sir, are a hypocrite.
    I read a lot of and all of the personal attacks have stopped since you were tossed out on your butt. Oh, you will say that it was your choice but it truly wasn’t.
    I’ve never commented on delawarepolitics but i will now because they’ve become issue oriented and you will condone personal attacks, no matter what you say.

    BTW Go Sheriff Go, all the way to the US Supreme Court and show these clods that the Constitution still reigns supreme.

  45. William Christy says:

    You mean the grand old republican party of Sussex County that still has elected officials publicly making racial slurs, and members who promote segregation? Please tell that’s not the gop you are promoting, which by the way given your liberal views in your blog hardly represent a conservative GOP.

    Democrats will continue to run this county at every level as long as self righteous GOP members refuse to take their heads out of their asses and stop trying to redefine the party by subgroups within the party.

  46. William Christy says:

    The fact that Mr. Knott’s allows your libelous comments to remain takes away from any credibility this blog has.

  47. Frank Knotts says:

    This is addressed to Angus Berger and Mr. Christy, and to Latter. I will not become that which I left at DP. Over there every little comment was deemed a personal attack and deleted. I have given Latter a warning to tone it down. I do find it interesting that Mr. Christy and Angus come here to attack me and then are offended when someone turns on them. I have no way to know whether or not what you or Latter says is true, I don’t even know for sure you are William Christy. But if you would like to start over in this conversation on a more level keel, then I would suggest that you not name call, such as RINO and accuse me of being personally motivated in my opposition on the sheriff issue. When both could not be further from the truth.
    I am willing to discuss the issues, but you continue to ignore the points I make and belittle me with insults and then act holier than thou when the table is turned.

  48. William Christy says:

    Frank nobody attacked you. Anyone who posts an opinion that differs from yours is subjected to your digs, insults and condescending responses. You get treated exactly in the same manner you respond to me and others.

    At no time have I ever called you a liar, a fraud, a fake, or any of the other libelous terms used by latter (laffter).

    You could easily know if I am the person posting with my name or not by contacting me through facebook just like you did before.

    If I am attacked in a similar manner again I will contact the person whose PAC funds this page and express my concerns directly with him. What you allowed latter (laffter) to post goes well beyond what the purpose of a PAC is for. I am a private citizen who is not seeking any political position.

  49. Russ says:

    I think an elected official’s power to serve should ALWAYS trump appointees. Delaware is making a grave mistake…

  50. Laffter says:

    I will address you first as I have respect for you and do as you ask.

    Citizen christy- you already outed Mr David Anderson as donating 100k to be anti- sheriff so why would he listen to you complain about this blog as this is is blog. Seems a little odd to me.

    I would like to watch THAT exchange of idea

    The mental masturbation between you and Moseley on DP is pathetic, a disgraced and sanctioned attorney- who got in trouble for calling a judge corrupt and you- a fake and a fraud and a phony supporting the sheriff

    As for the name calling- the truth is an absolute defense and I can prove all the statements about your character above…

    It’s all so irrelevant- you have 8k+ in the war chest- you think that will get y to the DE Supreme Court . They cannot hear the case- you planning on refunding those donations. Better follow PAC laws- and is Jeffry lining his pockets?

    The case can only be heard on the merits already brought up- nothing new….

    So, the circle jerk continues- you and rabid dog Ayotte and Moseley- going at it in the echo chamber

    Do you even know the damage the sheriff did to his credibility in the Dan Gaffney interview- LOLOLOL. That’s gonna play well in the election

    I will tell you this- the state will never allow the sheriff the power he seeks
    The sheriff will lose his office next year
    The republicans will not run him – he has to run under wolf gangs banner- HAHAHAHA. Good luck with that
    The democrats would WAY rather vote for a R candidate who is not mentally unstable than your boy…as will the normal R candidates, with that combined number, well your boy is toast

    Not to mention the posts on his Facebook page- LOLOLOL. More fodder as evidenced by political blogs yesterday and today

    When he is no longer sheriff, well then the people have spoken and he has no legal standing to fight this fight anymore- coz he wont be standing…as sheriff.

    This is kinda fun and kinda pathetic, watching you people twist and turn and tie yourselves in knots- begging for money- holding symposiums etc…..

    What we all know, the case was not winnable and your boy has 18 months left in office
    His hands are tied financially, his office has bad morale, and the public thinks the whole issue is just stupid and that includes old local families from sussex.

    You will lose, so all of this is just a dying last gasp of a tea party group that is fighting for relevance where they have become irrelevant. You are a toothless tiger and the old guard republicans are taking their party back- AMEN

    Sure Cruz won in Texas as did Ghomert and everyone laughs at them. rand Paul has even changed his tune on issues…..2 races out of how many nationwide- west lost in FLA….and nay tea party sympathisers have faded into irrelevance

    As will you and youR sheriff boy.

    Waste yr money on hillbilly welfare – like you were already told- the powers that be in DELWARE have determined your side will loose- therefore you will loose

    But, your refusal to heed that means folks like frank and I are in for more entertainment

    Thanks for the laughs!

    Frank- was that toned down enough- like I said, I respect you and will tone it down as requested. ( as much as I can) seeing as I have nothing but contempt for these fools that are traitors and destroying the county and costing us money.

  51. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    LOL…. You mean that someone is actually paying you to write this rambling claptrap?? They are certainly not getting their moneysworth as this blog is dynamic proof of the Peter Principle.

    Face facts — you’re just too chicken to go on Blog Talk Radio because you are intellectually outgunned and can’t articulate a coherent legal thesis or historical analysis. Apparently, your contract allows you on WGMD and WXPE, so you have fabricated a rather lame excuse.

    Name calling???

    That’s another load of manure, as you just can’t take serious criticism and thereby play the victim every time your logically shoddy argument collapses of its own inadequate design.


    Apparently, you are severely allergic to small doses of your own medicine. If you were capable of doing ten per cent of the research that the people that you so arrogantly condemn and mischaracterize (to suit your short-sighted political purposes) accomplished, then it might begin to dawn on you that our very Liberty is at stake.

    Herr Richter Graves and Gauleiter Schwartzkopf as well as the SuSSex
    (or is it SusSEX in Dist.5?) County Council have insidiously chosen the totalitarian path of Orwellian Inversion in an unconstitutional pseudo-legal coup attempt against the Sheriff’s Office and you are merely a pawn in their game.

    ” None dare call it SEDITION … “

  52. Frank Knotts says:

    First, this blog has nothing to do with David Anderson, nor does he have anything to do with it. I would likely not be here if he did.
    Mr. Christy, please feel free to contact whomever you choose. But I did look at Latter’s first comment concerning you and I noticed that the parts you most likely find offensive were followed by question marks, so they were not statements, but questions. I would prefer not to have to referee between commenters here, and to stay on topic.
    As for whether you, or I insulted each other, well that is up to each of us to decided for ourselves.
    Yes I am rife with sarcasm, and yes it comes out when people make accusations that my motivation on issues is personally driven, with no basis for such accusations. I ask you Mr. Christy, on what do you base this? My personal business history with the sheriff? Had none! My social history with the sheriff? Had none! No family ties either, so why would I have a personal axe to grind? I don’t, this is just a last resort of those who cannot argue against the points I make on the issue. Much like the sheriff on the Gaffney show using my name in a personal manner instead of actually arguing against specific points that I have made.
    Ah! And now to Wolfy. Wolfy my dear, dear friend, please look up the word “humor” in your spare time. You are soooooooooo! serious.
    I have made my arguments, I have given my reasons, I have in the past listed my research, by section, code and title. And still the Wolfys of the world come here with their arrogant self righteous condemnation of my opinions. It’s okay with me if you have a difference of opinion, but try pointing out with fact where I am wrong and not using the Ayotte argument of , “just because”.
    As for coming on your, or Mr. Beatty’s NET. Radio shows, as I have explained, my contract does not allow me to appear on any NET Radio show that is not carried by Delaware Right, this of course does not include broadcast radio. It is a very complicated contract that took months to work out and to come to an agreement that worked for both myself and the board of D R. I do wish I could help you out in getting at least one person to listen to your show so that you wouldn’t have to sit and talk to yourself, but I suppose that you more than anyone else enjoys yourself.
    I also liked the school yard attempt at attacking my manhood in order to shame me into it. Well at least I am man enough to choose more than one style of clothing, rather than living in the Steve Irwin line of clothing everyday of my life. See how this goes Wolfy, you make it personal and insulting and I come back with personal and insulting. If however you would like to talk about the facts of the issue, then we can do that also, without the sarcasm, well maybe just a little sarcasm.
    I look forward to see if either you or Mr. Christy can now start over and discuss the facts of the issue, without the bald face claims that I am personally motivated or any of the other rhetoric that so dominates the issue on your side of it.

  53. Theresa Garcia says:

    “I find this to be an odd statement from a member of a group that is so strongly in favor of decentralized government” I’m not sure where you got that impression of our group. Our mission statement is: Our mission is to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. We believe that educating and inspiring citizen participation in government activities on a local, state, and national level are crucial to returning our government to its founding principles. (I don’t see anything about decentralized governement……) Nice try.

  54. William Christy says:

    I didn’t out anyone the PAC that funds this site is right at the bottom right hand corner of the sites page. Contributors to PAC’s are a matter of public record.

  55. Dave says:

    I think it is important to restate that David Anderson of Delaware Politics (and Dover politics) has nothing to do with this site. People get the Andersons confused sometimes because the names are similar.

  56. Wolfie (get it right, turkey) von Baumgart says:

    Hannah Arendt wrote a book, titled “The Banality of Evil”.

    Delaware Right, under the maladministration of the likes of Frank Knotts and his ilk is a classic example of the “Evil of Banality”

  57. William Christy says:

    Dave there was no confusion my post in DP contained the correct name of the contributor. My post ended up in another site you frequent with the first name changed to reflect the owner of DP. That was in turn posted by Laffter in here, with the incorrect name along with the claim that I “outed” the contributor.

    First off the name posted by Laffter was changed from what I posted, second contributors names to PACs are a matter of public record.

  58. Dave says:

    Understood Bill. Wasn’t implying that your post was the source of the confusion.

  59. Eric Boye says:

    “We heard once again about how all around the nation, sheriffs have the power to arrest, except here in Delaware. As an aside, Dan Gaffney at one point in his show, read a quote from Ken Currie, Mr. Currie is a 9/12 Patriot and a GOP R D committee chairperson, in the quote Mr. Currie stated his displeasure in the fact that Delaware was so out of step with the rest of the states across the nation. I find this to be an odd statement from a member of a group that is so strongly in favor of decentralized government, yet in this case he would seem to want to follow the herd and do as the other states would do. I wonder if he would feel the same about gun control and gay marriage?” – Frank the Knottjob

    And this is just one illustration that I immediately knew you were a leftist liberal who doesn’t even understand what they’re talking about. The role of a constitutional sheriff is, by definition, the keystone to decentralized government. The right of the People to have a local, elected law enforcement officer with the power to intervene – or interpose, rather – is the centerpiece of balance for limited government and local sovereignty. The People exercise that sovereignty, and dictate what laws they are willing to accept from state or federal government, through their elected sheriff. Yes, the other states retained some semblance of sovereignty by keeping constitutional sheriffs. Good for them. It’s the fault of Delaware for doing the opposite, by centralizing power through HB 325 and this latest ruling.

    We also know that you are a leftist because you tout the bad ruling of a left-wing, activist judge.

    This is exactly why Delaware Right is going to go nowhere. They allow a left-wing, statist writer on their site instead of espousing the message of liberty and freedom. People want freedom and their Constitution, not the further shredding of it that you promote.

    In fact, this has caused me to come to the conclusion that Delaware Right is just another clever mechanism to pull the GOP further to the Left and continue to infiltrate Republican Party with the liberal agenda.

    Any conservative worth a grain of salt should ignore this destructive website, myself included after this first comment post. The site owners should assume their more appropriate positions getting screwed in the Democrat Party.

  60. Doug Beatty says:

    Actually, our blogtalk was indeed started so a single person could listen to it. My father who likes to follow my ‘adventures’ but due to eye problems that come with age has difficulty reading.

    We are gratified that a bad week is 1300 listens after being at this since only December 2012. At this point a good week is over 1800 listens.

    So let’s get to pointing out where you’ve been wrong with fact.

    Fact number one, everything the Sheriff was doing in regard to traffic stops and other law enforcement duties was legal according to the recent ruling of the Superior court, because at the time his powers had not been abrogated by statute. So you have been factually incorrect whenever you have asserted to the contrary such as when you cited a judges ruling and AG opinion concerning Bob Reed on your politically Frank blog.

    Fact number two: Jeff was elected on a platform of having his deputies equipped and certified to assist with keeping the peace in the event that they witnessed a crime in the performance of their duties. As an independent elected executive that is not part of the county government by statute he is well within his mandate to pursue that while on duty, including raising funds to for a legal fight against entities who are trying to stop him from doing what he was elected to do. .

    Fact number three, he is doing his job and in fact is clearing the backlog he inherited. Implying with leading questions that he isn’t doing his duty is factually wrong.

    Fact number four, on our blogtalk we don’t just sit and talk to ourselves. Our guests so far include Dr. Martin Luther King’s neice Dr. Alveda King, Author and Editor Dr. Jeffery Perry , Conservative radio show host from VA Rob Schilling, longtime conservative activist Dr. Keith Drake, and Cleo Manago sometimes referred to as the gay Malcom X. We will continue to include as many diverse voices as possible.

    Jeff Christopher has also been on our blogtalk, and we welcome anybody who believes we shouldn’t have elected law enforcement including you to come on and defend that stance.

    When we covered the Chris Dorner story we had a caller who was ex-law enforcement from Illinois, and David B. Adams an activist blogger from CT also joins us regularly.

    So you are beyond wrong implying that we just sit and talk to ourselves or that we don’t have a single person to listen to us. However I was not shocked that you would publish something like that.

    You aren’t wrong about the Sheriff’s office because ‘we’ say so. You’re wrong because history and case law say so. Prinz, Mack, et al versus United States might be a good place to start.

    You are wrong about the Sheriff because Mirriam-Webster’s online says so, to wit:
    sheriff noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    In the U.S., the chief law-enforcement officer for the courts in a county. He is ordinarily elected, and he may appoint a deputy. The sheriff and his deputy have the power of police officers to enforce criminal law and may summon private citizens (the posse comitatus, or “force of the county”) to help maintain the peace. The main judicial duty of the sheriff is to execute processes and writs of the courts. Officers of this name also exist in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. In England the office of sheriff existed before the Norman Conquest (1066).

    The office wasn’t specifically defined in the 1776 DELAWARE Constitution ( Don’t want you getting confused on that point, again ) arguably because there was no need to do so. The term had been in common use for over 700 years back in 1776.

    The issue now might be, does the state legislature have the authority to nullify the office by statute or is constitutional amendment required?

    If we accept the State’s position that since ‘Sheriff’ isn’t specifically defined the office can be nullified by statute then the answer is yes. This is not a universally accepted view and will be further litigated.

    Delaware courts have been wrong before, see Franks v Delaware.

    Does every term in the constitution have to be defined within that document to place sections outside the ability of the legislature to nullify by statute? It’s a good question and one for the courts.

    I would submit that this is a slippery slope and would essentially render the State Constitution irrelevant and risk setting precedent for doing the same with the U.S. Constitution.

    Is the word ‘Freedom” specifically defined in the State Constitution? ‘Property’? ‘Life’? Do we want to give our legislators the authority to redefine these commonly and long understood words by majority vote?

    I fully support the right of Delaware’s citizens to remove this office from their constitution if that is their will. I side with those who maintain the only proper and legal way to do so is with a constitutional amendment, rather than by pretending that an term that has been around almost a thousand years is ‘undefined’.


  61. Frank Knotts says:

    First, Ms. Garcia, I come to my conclusions from speaking with members of your organization, if I am wrong, I am sorry. So are you saying you are for centralized government? May I quote you on this? That the 9/12 Patriots are for centralized government?
    Mr. Christy, on the topic of the comments made by a commenter here, I have warned them and they have acknowledged that warning. I am not so sure about liable since the remarks were followed be a question mark.
    Wolfier, I am not sure I am a part of any administration of anything, you give me too much credit.
    Mr. Boye, I do hope that you will stick around, we here at D R are interested in all voices, unlike other blogs and other factions, who don’t wish to even hear the other side. Yes sometimes I am sarcastic, but I will listen and respond with my views of the facts as I see them. We may not agree, but we can talk, and maybe even learn from each other. However, when you begin by writing my name as “knottjob”, the conversation is going to go in a less intellectual direction. But let me see if your comment holds anything worth talking about.
    Let’s see, ” leftist liberal “, ” left-wing, statist writer “, ” liberal agenda”, well I hope this is not the high point of your comments. But let me go back to your repeating of the oft use rhetoric.
    Ah! Here is one from Eric Boye, ” The People exercise that sovereignty, and dictate what laws they are willing to accept from state or federal government”. Really Eric? And how will the sheriff do this? Since Sheriff Christopher has made it quite clear that he is not interested in growing the size of his office or becoming a police force, and that what he is asking for will not raise the cost to the tax payers, just how will one sheriff and three deputies fend off the entire federal government? Will he fight them in the, how did you put it? the court of a ” left-wing, activist judge.” Or will he fight off the federal government by deputizing citizens under the rule of “posse comitatus”? Now there is a reassuring thought for my family’s safety. So the sheriff will fend off the feds, and all without growing the size of his office and without additional cost to tax payers. He shouldn’t be sheriff, he should be head of the Federal Reserve.
    And then you are back to calling me a leftist.
    Now to my old friend Mr. Beatty, I hope your father is well, I have always been a fan, and there is not a shred of sarcasm in that, he is a great actor.
    As for my comments about your NET. Talk show. I give the same advice to you as I did to Wolfier earlier, look up the word humor.
    Now let me address your other comments, since they are actually making a point, not one I agree with, but still a point.
    Let me cut to the chase once more, yes, prior to HB325, the sheriff had some authorities that he no longer has since HB325. In making that statement you have conceded my point all along, that being, that a legislature put those authorities in Delaware code, and so, one can take them out, which is exactly what happened, thank you for making my point. Or do you believe that those authorities that HB 325 removed were the second immaculate conception and simply appeared in state code? (for those that are without humor that was sarcasm Sheldon.)
    All of your talk about all that came before the current constitution is not relevant. A court can only consider the constitution that is in place at the time of the case. Or should we consider Sharia Law? That goes back to 632 A.D.. or maybe we could simply apply the law of the jungle that has been in place since Adam and Eve. How far back in law are you willing to go? It would seem only as far as you need to make your point valid. After all if we go far enough back we go past when a sheriff was even in existence. Why is that not a better time to consider?
    The problem you have here, is that you have a sheriff seeking greater powers for his office. It would be the same if the President were seeking the powers of a king based on the history of the Colonies once being under the rule of a king.
    The court can only consider whether the law passed in HB 325 was in line with the current constitution.
    And those who support the sheriff should stop misrepresenting what has happened. The constitutional sheriff has not been nullified, it has been redefined. I understand that many do not agree with this, but you need to clean up your argument, it is based on wrong headed thoughts and will not hold up in a court of law, in my opinion.

  62. Doug Beatty says:

    The current constitution also includes the office of the Sheriff, again the state maintained that the term was undefined in 1776, something those of us who were there for oral arguments in the case under discussion heard.

    Therefore my comments aren’t irrelevant and like the 1776 constitution the current version also includes the Sheriff as a constitutional officer.

    No immaculate conception, a constitutional one though. If you are going with Sheriff as ‘undefined’ pretending not to know what it means, what the dictionaries say, what case law says your argument makes perfect sense.

    For those confused, when statute and constitution conflict, the constitution prevails. That’s why we are in court over this.

    I do understand humor and I’ll share something from the legendary director Robert Porterfield. He not only gave my dad his start but also Ernest Borgnine and Gregory Peck.

    Bob told my dad once “Actors who entertain themselves seldom entertain anyone else”.

    The stated mission of this blog states among other things “To show that we understand that our opponents at the ballot box, are not our fellow conservatives, but those who work to forward the ideals of a progressive agenda.”

    Eliminating elected Sheriffs is a progressive agenda. Teh Googelz is your friend Eliminating Sheriffs

  63. Frank Knotts says:

    Doug, we have no disagreement about the fact that the current state constitution created the office of the sheriff. However we do disagree whether the simple term of C O P defines the powers and authority of said office. I do not feel that it does. Nowhere in the constitution is the powers and authority defined for the sheriff, nor for any of the other offices labeled C O P. Therefore the state code cannot be in conflict with the constitution, since state code is not abolishing the office, simply redefining it, as you, yourself have pointed out above when talking about powers that the office had before HB 325. You cannot have it both ways my friend, you cannot say on the one hand that the Legislature had given powers previously, and yet say that the Legislature can’t change the definition within the code you acknowledge gives said powers to the office.
    You are arguing from an emotional point of view. You want the sheriff to have these powers, you relate the office with these powers and so if the powers are taken away, you see that as abolishing the office and so you see it as being unconstitutional. The reality is that the office is whatever the legislature defines it as, through state code, like the other offices labeled C O P, we may not like it, but the framers did not foresee that this issue would arise, or maybe they did and allowed for such a change, instead of permanently empowering an office with unfettered powers. Perhaps this is exactly the type of checks and balance needed to stave off corruption of powers.

  64. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    It’s obvious that your controllers won’t let you on other blog radio shows because they realize that you’d fall flat on your face in the first 30 sec.

    When it comes to the Sheriff issue, you are only in over your head, but out
    of your tree….

  65. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    It’s obvious that your controllers won’t let you on other blog radio shows because they realize that you’d fall flat on your face in the first 30 sec.

    When it comes to the Sheriff issue, you are only in over your head, but out
    of your tree….

  66. Doug Beatty says:

    My argument has never been over the definition of the phrase ‘conservator of the peace’. On it’s own it means nothing given the context of the 1897 constitution. Judge Graves correctly points out that it is used to designate many offices and DAG Black argues that conservator of the peace simply means a person that participates in the operations of a peaceable society.

    My argument is that the word “Sheriff” does mean something especially in conjunction with “conservator of the peace”. Sheriffs have an important role in the functioning of a peaceable society and, again, case law and history provides more than adequate guidance.

    The judge and the state’s attorneys in court during oral arguments made much mention of “Sheriff” not being specifically defined in the 1776 constitution where Delaware established the Sheriff as an elected office and also pointed out that Sheriff is not specifically defined in any subsequent constitution.

    Why would it be defined? This designation isn’t confusing anywhere else, it wasn’t confusing in Delaware before we had state or county police, and it wasn’t confusing going back to 1066 in England where our common law originates.

    Yes, statute can redefine common law, No statute cannot abrogate the constitution. That takes an amendment. Just like abolishing the coroner, the court of oyer and tender and just like current proposals to deny bail in certain cases.

    My pointing out that Sheriff was a term understood for seven hundred years is emotional? My quoting the legal and common current definitions of Sheriff is illegal? My pointing out that when the State Police were empowered in 1935 the specific statute said they shall have arrest powers similar to Sheriffs is emotional?

    How come the forces aligned against this constitutional office aren’t being emotional is saying the office is undefined? Clearly, you, the council, the detractors, and the AG were all saying these powers didn’t exist BEFORE the legislature passed HB325 because you didn’t want them to exist. You were wrong and I’m the emotional one?

    I have to disagree with that. Forty Six other states are just being emotional, the Supreme Court of the United States is simply emotional? I would concede that anything is possible but that’s just not logical.

    You are right about one thing, I do want the office of the Sheriff restored to it’s proper role. Contrary to your assertions it’s not an expansion of powers. It’s an important check to expanding power. Three hundred and forty county sheriffs across America have pledged to stand against any unconstitutional gun laws.

    Sheriff Brad Rogers in Indiana thwarted the FDA from shutting down a raw milk dairy. Without a constitutional Sheriff Sussex County is at the mercy of whatever the elites in NCC decide. The state police are just that, responsive to the state with appointed leadership.

    The sheriff is the one charged with keeping over reaching state and federal governments in check. Not to mention over-reach and corruption in county and local governments.

    The sheriff can be removed by impeachment or arrest for criminal offenses. Saying that they can’t be removed except by election is not correct.

    I would submit that by the logic of the Judge since the term ‘infringe’ isn’t defined in the constitution then ‘shall not be infringed’ means whatever the legislature decides. Are you signing off on that?

    What you are saying is that any term in the constitution not explicitly defined can be explicitly redefined by statute. I am going to disagree. If that were the case constitutions are arguably meaningless.

  67. Doug Beatty says:

    As far as ‘having it both ways’ I would counter that my argument has consistently been that the Sheriff is a constitutional officer and the powers derive from the Constitution, not statute even though the Sheriffs arrest powers were clearly enumerated in statute as well while those opposed to such were saying that they didn’t exist.

    Now the anti-sheriff factions are claiming that the powers they say weren’t there have been removed ( why where they removed if they weren’t there??) and ignoring the fact that it’s a constitutional office and must be removed by amending the constitution.

    Higher courts may disagree. In which case I’ll have a choice, move to a place where common sense and the rule of law prevails or stay and continue to be an activist. I’ll cross that bridge when and if it comes to that.

    I would submit that this is a slippery slope. If the legislature can arbitrarily say the Sheriff isn’t in the law enforcement business, redefining a term that has been in common use for nearly a century, what’s to stop them from defining the right of the people to keep and bear arms as being satisfied by police having arms and being directed by elected representatives of the people?

    Or perhaps redefining ‘infringe’ to be limited to outright prohibition of any arms? If we are allowed to own muzzle loaders or archery tackle for instance the legislators decide that we’re not being ‘infringed’ upon?

  68. Dave says:

    Don’t you support keeping firearms out the hands of the mentally ill and criminals?

    If you do you already support some form of infringment. However, you rationalize it, it remains infringement. As you must recognize, “infringed” cannot be taken in the absolute sense because if that is the case, then society has no choice but to allow even the severely mentally ill access to firearms.

    Now you can and should debate what the limits are but you are dangerously close to saying there should be no limits and there are unintended consequences of not having limits.

    That’s the crux of our democracy though, is the continual debate on the limits, the checks and balances that we put in place to ensure a just society that we can all live in. Those debates are hard work but they must be had because there can never be absolutes except in the arms of anarchy, where society is every man for himself.

    There are existing limits to “shall not be infringed upon” You presumably support those limits. The debate must be centered on appropriate limits, not, no limits.

  69. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolfster, I have to say, for a guy who often touts intellect and science, your third grade school yard attempts to motivate me to come on your talk show are funny. “Handlers”? That’s funny. But hey if you would like to hire me to appear as a paid pundit, I have a rider in my contract with D R that allows me to soak other NET Radio shows for monetary purposes.
    Doug, first let me thank you for bringing this conversation back to an exchange of ideas rather than simply exchanging barbs.
    We are slowly finding common ground here. You and I agree that the term C O P has no definition within the state constitution.
    We agree that the office of the sheriff was created in and by the state constitution.
    You are however making a leap of faith when you say that because the office of the sheriff was not defined in the constitution, and that the word sheriff carries a certain meaning, that the word sheriff alone is the definition of powers and authority.
    This is where we part ways my friend. This is merely another version of Sheriff Christopher’s position that the term C O P has a historical meaning that over-rides state code.
    I bring you back to a logical argument, if the word sheriff alone is the defining of the office, then the word court must also be the defining of that constitutional office as well as the A G. Yet the state saw fit to define all three within state code. Was it unneeded to define what a court’s powers and authority was? Would you want a court with unlimited and undefined powers?
    Let me address this idea of going back beyond the current constitution and code to define the office, not create the office, but to define the office.
    I again ask, why stop at the point where you get what you want? What if another person wanted to do away with the office all together? In your point of view they need only go back in history until there was no office of the sheriff and argue that historically there was no office of the sheriff.
    That is why the court can only consider the current constitution and the definition put into place by state code, said definition can be changed.
    I will also agree with you that the office of the sheriff, which is not the same as the powers of the sheriff can only be abolished through an amendment process. But the powers you seek and the office you seek to empower are two different things.
    As for the reference to other states, well again, in this case other states have no bearing, because the court is ruling based on the Delaware constitution and the law passed in Delaware in HB 325. The case is specific to those two documents.
    Mr. Beatty, you then say, “The sheriff can be removed by impeachment or arrest for criminal offenses. Saying that they can’t be removed except by election is not correct.”
    Have you read Sheriff Christopher’s original petition for this law suit?
    Have you read the part where he stated that he felt the office of the sheriff was sovereign and answerable to no other office, or agency within the government? I have spoken with Sheriff Christopher on this and his answer has always been that only the people can remove the sheriff from office at the time of an election. This is what his suit was also stating.
    That is not a county sheriff, that would be a county king.
    Finally, I would encourage you to go to my old blog posting, either at or if they haven’t expunged them at and read what I have written in the past. You will find I am consistent in my views, and that I never denied that the office had certain powers within state code, but that I always contended that the G A always had the power to redefine the office, but not to abolish it.

  70. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    While your right of Free Speech and expression is priceless, your actual writing and broadcast ability is not worth a plugged nickel. So, you are just another paid whore for special interst groups — an integral part of the dumbing down of America ….

    Nice work if you can get and are willing to make the Faustian Bargain, but don’t expect a check anytime soon for guest appearances.

    What idiot would want to pay a lightweight like you to go on blog or broadcast radio in the first place?

    You are just too chicken to go on BTR as your whole
    pseudo-legal position would collapse. Uninformed people like you and your ilk are actually undermining our constituional Liberty with your unfounded diatribes, rants and raves and paving the way for tyranny.


  71. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolfster, as much as I would love to string you along on this, even a cat gets tired at some point, with toying with the mouse. Go back and look at the comments you and I have exchanged on this thread. You are the only one who mentioned money. I merely said I had a contract, and I do, a verbal one. I am free to leave anytime, and those who run Delaware Right are free to ask me to leave anytime. Our verbal contract is mostly the fact that we share certain ideals and principles, but not all. I have had serious debates with the members of Delaware Right, and yet we respect each other’s view points, and we do this without name calling or child like attempts to belittle each other. It is the shared respect that allows us to work together for a common goal, “Moving Delaware Forward”, even as we disagree sometimes on just how to do that. It is this idea of working together that we hope to bring to others. But first people such as yourself must open your eyes beyond your narrow view of the world and those in it that do not agree with you 100% of the time.
    I may be a whore, but I am not a paid whore!

  72. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    For a guy who purports to be a conservative, Frank,
    you surely come accross as as liberal Wiener (or is it whyner)?

    If anyonearound here is narrow-minded, it’s you and DR is every bit as retarded asDL…..


  73. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolfest, for a guy who puports to be an intellectual, you sure do come off as a school yard bully, or is it bullsh? With the name calling, and haven’t you heard, all of the smartest people have stopped using the “R” word. How did you get to be such an angry little man? Your mother was such a nice lady, and yes I did know her through my company servising her little trailer.

  74. Wolf von Baumgart says:



    Actually I find your shoddy attempts at political discourse to be amusing and challage you to write a coherent legal, philosophical or scientific thesis, supporting any of your positions beyond rambling
    blog postings.

    Your false accusations will get you nowhere in this electronic wasteland……

    Have a nice day,


  75. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    You are getting desparate…

    Now that you have appealed to Motherhood … What’s next ???

    Apple pie?


  76. fightingbluehen says:

    In Delaware, the term “conservator of the peace” does not grant power. It limits power. Sheriffs in Delaware do not have the authority to arrest. If some of you transplants can’t live with that, nobody is stopping you from returning to the states from which you decided weren’t worth staying in.

  77. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    Stautorially, sheriffs had the power of arrest until the Governor”s water carrier, Peter SSwartzkopf rammed HB 325 down our throats.
    The question of whether a statute can nullifiy a consitutional provision is still in play. The gravity of the “Superior” Court ruling is that historical
    ex post facto semantic revision, if allowed to stand will subvert other state constitutions aribitrarilly and capriciously.

    The Graves decision overturns 200+ years o f American jurisprudence and makes Delaware the laughing stock of the nation.

  78. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    Statutorially, sheriffs had the power of arrest until the Governor’s water carrier, Peter SSchwartzkopf, rammed HB 325 down our throats.
    The question of whether a statute can nullify a constitutional provision is still in play.

  79. Dave says:

    I wasn’t aware that Swartzkopf had the power to pass any bills with but a single vote, unless you meant that he authored the bill, had it sent to the floor, and got the assembly to vote on it, in which case, I would call it the legislative process in action, aka democracy.

    As far as Graves overturning 200+ years of jurisprudence, that’s your opinion, which you are entitled to. My opinion, to which I am entitled, is that Graves gave the correct and proper ruling based on the facts.

    I suppose it will be the Delaware Supreme Court that decides once and for all, if they feel the need to take up the case. Until the current ruling is appealed, there is nothing to be done but follow the rule of law and the law has been decided.

    It’s still democracy, even when you don’t like the outcome.

  80. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolfister, I am just amazed that you had a mother, with your constant talk of science, I assumed that you were a test tube baby.
    Now I do find it interesting that Wolflinger is able to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and not make a real point with either.
    Wolf actually says, “Stautorially, sheriffs had the power of arrest until the Governor”s water carrier, Peter SSwartzkopf rammed HB 325 down our throats. (I left the spelling errors in case they were intentional), then he says, “The question of whether a statute can nullifiy a consitutional provision is still in play”, (okay a guy who is so up on the constitution should be able to spell the word for goodness sake).
    So Wolfister, which is it? Does the GA have the power to define the office of sheriff, as you admit had been done prior to HB325? Or don’t they?
    Now as for this whole 200 years thing. Why are we stopping there? If we can just go back in time to define what an office is, why can’t we go back beyond the time when it was created, and simply say once upon a time there was no such thing as a sheriff and so there shouldn’t be one now.
    You see Wolfsister, you and those like you simply won’t admit that you want the sheriff to have these powers and that not many people even care. So you can’t convince enough people to your side, and so you have to justify the powers you seek by making it about the constitution.
    And finally, as I have said before, the court cannot consider any previous Delaware constitutions, it cannot consider any other state constitutions, it cannot consider common law because there is now actual law. The court can only consider whether HB325 is in conflict with the current Delaware constitution. We have had one finding that says it is not. And because in the appeals process the law suits cannot be changed the supreme court will be bound to consider the same issue, and I believe come to the same conclusion. Leaving the little brains to cry their usual tantrum, of liberal and crooked courts.

  81. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    The Graves Decision is nothing short of an Orwellian attempt at ex-post facto historical revision. It is Herr SSchwartzkopf who speaks out of both sides of his mouth as the preamble of HB 325 stated that sheriffs in Delaware have not historically had arrest powers and then subsequently nullified them by statute when a constitutional amendment is required.

    So, I made one typographical error and you caught it — it shows that you are paying attention. The screen was displaying in 4pt. type. So, an error was inveitable. (Also, it’s nice to throw you a bone ocaisionally.)

  82. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolf, when you acknowledge that the GA put those powers into code by quoting them, you are acknowledging that the GA can take them out again. And how about you address my little time traveler theory there big boy. Why do you want to stop at a point in time that suits you? Why not go back further?

  83. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    At no time have I acknowledged that a statutory act of a legislative body can properly nullify a constitutional provision in the absence of a constitutional amendment. Why not give judges powers to deny bail or abolish the five-year waiting period for restoration of convicted felons voting rights after release by statute instead of constitutional amendments? The answer is political expediency — another fraudulent example of the Delaware Way in the fourth most corrupt state.

    Del. Const. Art. 15 does not have a clause granting the General Assembly the power to modify this section by appropriate legislation. Therefore, Graves’ ruling is as defective as your time traveler theory due to the fact that the sheriff had constitutional arrest powers in 1897 and the 1935 statute defined the powers of the DSP as conservators of the peace having powers similar to sheriffs and constables.

  84. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolf. you admit, you actually quote, the fact that the sheriff had certain powers within the state code until HB325. The GA hasn’t changed the constitution at all, since they have not done away with the office, only redefined it. Art. 15 only established the office, code has always defined it, in the absence of any such definition within the constitution.
    I am still waiting for you to address why if you can go back two hundred years for you definition of the office of sheriff, why can’t someone else go back a thousand years or two thousand years. why not go back and use Sharia law, that has been around longer than the office of sheriff?

  85. fightingbluehen says:

    People supporting sheriff Christopher are under the impression that a sheriff with arrest powers will protect us from the tyranny of the federal government.
    Well, I was browsing around some county office of the sheriff’s web sites, and I noticed that a great number of these offices are now affiliated with Homeland Security. Yes, that’s right, the same Homeland Security that is an arm of the executive branch is now embedded into local sheriff’s offices.

    Just Google “Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security, and you will see what I mean.’

  86. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    Reductio ad absurdum…

    US law is based on English Law (except in LA where it’s based on French law); both are tracable to Roman Law. Sharia is irrelevant and immaterial beyond knee-jerk rhetoric.

    “Conservator of the Peace” is the operative term from which all constitutional law enforcement derives. Graves got it wrong and so did you in your
    jihad against the Sheriff.

  87. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    Reductio ad absurdum….

    US law is based on English law (except forFrench-based law in LA). Both are partial derivatives Roman law. Sharia is irrelevant, except as overblown rhetoric in your venomous jihad against the Sheriff.

    So, what else can we expect from a big bad blogmeister who’s full of Shiite???

  88. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    Shouldn’t the elephant be red … or better yet, pink???

  89. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolf dodges the question once again. wolf you show again that you wish only to go back far enough in history to make your point. The question remains, little brain, why stop there? Why not go back beyond the creation of the office of sheriff? I think maybe all that kaki is affecting your mind, maybe you should try a nice plaid or pastel. you haven’t made a single point in this entire thread beyond the just because thought process. Are you taking lessons, or giving them to the rest of the hate nation?

  90. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    Why not go back to the Dark Ages, missing link, Sirulian Period or the BIG BANG?

    1776 is sufficient.

    The rest of your last posting is a pile of crap, facist lies and rabid delusion. You are trying to play a big fish in a little pond and are falling flat on your face —
    just like the rest of your insidious hateful ilk.

  91. Frank Knotts says:

    Thank you Wolf for finally being completely honest when you said in your previous comment, “Why not go back to the Dark Ages, missing link, Sirulian Period or the BIG BANG? 1776 is sufficient.”
    You have finally admitted that you and your posse seek to troll back through history in an attempt to find the particular time in which you find what you seek. You care nothing for actual interpretation of the law beyond your own selfish desires.
    here is an idea for you science man, build yourself a time machine and travel back to 1776 and when you get there destroy the machine and live out the rest of your days there, I wonder how you will like the blood letting with leaches to cure your headaches?

  92. Wolf von Baumgart says:



    Leave it to a brain pickled on alcohol and fried on drugs to infer anything other than historical legal analysis from 1776 onward is an adequate time range in which to argue the case.

    I am sorry that you have such logical and cognitive impairment, but your case is hopeless This blog and the entire GOP is doomed to failure as long as you spew out your brand of brainrot.

    Your handlers are wasting their money.

  93. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    In closing, you are neither in a valid intellectual or
    moral position to accuse me of HATE, as you are one of the most hateful and bitter garbagemouths in the blogosphere………….

  94. Frank Knotts says:

    Yes Wolf in my younger days I was a sinner of the highest order, I smoked dope, and drank enough to float even your ego. I found a way out of that life through the love of my wife and the love of Christ, so if you wish to judge me harshly for my past, that is your prerogative.
    It seems that it is not sinking through to you that the courts cannot look into history in this particular case beyond the current Delaware state constitution, since that is the current governing document for the state and the basis of the law suit brought by Sheriff Christopher. You don’t get to change the argument once the case is underway. That is the end of it my friend, I was merely pointing out to you that your desire to travel back to a point that is beneficial to your argument is merely a wish that cannot happen, in my opinion.
    I notice that in every comment that you make here, you feel the need to attack me personally, is the some defect in your personality, or do you really believe that those tactics will win over converts to your position?

  95. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    There is nothing exemplifying the high road of Christianity on this miserible excuse for a blog.
    Heavy drug and alcohol use warps the brain — that’s a fact — not a judgement.

    Irrespective of your phony time machine argument,
    the Graves Decision is an Orwellian nightmare of legal semantic judicial historical division. Most terms are not precisely defined in constitutions. That includes Freedom of Speech, Religion and the Press, as constitutions are general documents by their very form and nature — a basic point beyond the comprehension of the Sheriff’s reactionary critics.

    Graves’s argument will not stand if Delaware is to maintain its Liberty, Independence and constitutional integrity.

    You can rant and insult all you like, but it doesn’t advance your fundamentally flawed argument in this electronic wasteland.

  96. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    Strike “division” and substitute “revision”.

  97. kavips says:

    so the real question remains… do we or do we not, yet have an elective official worthy of pushing paper in Sussex County.. If he is incompetent when it comes to pushing paper, if he can’t even accomplish that menial task, shouldn’t we begin to recall him starting now?

  98. Frank Knotts says:

    Wolf says, ” Most terms are not precisely defined in constitutions. That includes Freedom of Speech, Religion and the Press, as constitutions are general documents by their very form and nature “, now see that Wolf, you and I do agree, the part we disagree on is where then do we seek that definition? Well I have admitted that if there is not statutory law then the definition is open to interpretation of common law, but that is not the case once there is actual law, as in the case of HB325, once actual law is passed as is the case here, then the interpretation shifts to the courts on whether the law passed is in anyway in conflict with the state constitution, again which is exactly the case here. The court has decided that no conflict exist between HB325 and the flimsy term of conservator of the peace which the law suit was brought on. Again the court can only consider the current constitution and the law passed and the argument in the suit. The only problem the Sheriff and his supporters have is that the court found against their argument. They don’t like the law within HB325 and so they rant that the courts are bias.

  99. Wolf von Baumgart says:


    Recall is not in the Delaware Constitution and would require an amendment to implement. The same goes for Initiative and Refererendum.

  100. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    ****** WRONG ******

    If anything is flimsy, it’s the Graves Decision, based on semantic sleight of hand. A constitutional amendment is first required before a statute like HB 325 could lproperly take effect. The General ASSembly had the votes, but they were just too stupid,lazy and/or politically motivated to propose a state constitutional amendment, but, then again, it’s the DELAWARE WAY………..

  101. Frank Knotts says:

    No Wolf, again you have already stated that the sheriff previously had powers granted to the office by state code, there was no need for an amendment to put those powers into state code and so none is needed to remove them. HB325 does not abolish the office, the constitution merely created the office. As I said above, “They don’t like the law within HB325 and so they rant that the courts are bias.”
    Kavips, referendum might work for you, but conservatives like myself should never even consider it, since in Delaware referendum would always be decided by NCC. Secondly, I believe that representative republic is the purest form of government when the people actually participate, and referendum and recall is an attempt at forming a pure democracy, which in my opinion would lead to a constant state of chaos, with referendum after referendum being brought and now real governance happening.

  102. Wolf von Baumgart says:

    Graves got it wrong. (But, what else could we expect?) The term “conservator of the peace” is the constitutional basis of all legitimate state law enforcement. The DSP’s powers were statuorially defined as having powers similar to Sheriffs.

    By disregarding an essential constitutional provision
    for the sake political expediancy, he has actually undermined the authority of the courts, the DSP and the AG’s Office.

    As for IR&R, an effective counterweight to the popular misrepesentation of corporate special interest driven Delaware politics as usual is required as reality trumps theory any day of the week.

Got something to say? Go for it!