Unfortunately this is all too often the image of a sheriff that many think of when you say, “the people’s” sheriff.
Here in Sussex County Delaware that is the case in large part, due to the fact there has been a battle raging for far too long, about what the role of the sheriff’s office is, and should be. On the one side you have people who support the current sheriff, Jeff Christopher, who believes that the role of the county sheriff should be that of a law enforcement agency, one with full arrest powers, and all of the cost and responsibility that goes with it.
Sheriff Christopher uses terms such as “constitutional sheriff”, “the people’s sheriff”, and of course the phrase of, “conservator of the peace”. But in Sheriff Christopher’s world, who gets to decide exactly what a people’s sheriff is? Well of course, Sheriff Christopher, just look at the law suit he brought against the state of Delaware, in which he claimed, the office of the sheriff answers to no one but the people, and that there is no oversight, or checks and balance from other agencies, or branches of government, which anyone who calls themselves a constitutional sheriff should know is a hallmark of our constitutional system.
Sheriff Christopher trades on fear, and some people’s built-in belief that all government is corrupt. He is fond of talking at length about tyranny, and how the elected office of a county sheriff is the people’s last defense against a tyrannical federal government. He will tell anyone who will stand still for three hours about how Delaware is in danger of becoming a police state, and that his answer to that risk, is to create another agency with arrest powers. WHAT? While making the claim he and his three deputies will stave off the entire state, and federal governments to protect the people, all without growing the size or the cost of the sheriff’s office. Okay, right.
Sheriff Christopher has built quite a large reputation, within quite a small circle of people, who think as he does about the office of the sheriff. He travels around the nation doing speaking engagements, telling anyone who will sit still for three hours, how back here in Delaware we got it all wrong. He will tell people Delaware is the only state whose sheriff does not have arrest powers. Okay. So What? Do individual states have the right to be individual states, or not?
It seems to me, and to others that Sheriff Christopher is locked away in time. He and his supporters have chosen a place in time when the role of the office of sheriff was what they wish it to be. They cannot accept that the office has evolved over the years to become what it is currently. Sheriff Christopher talks of posses, and such. He talks of old English Law, and the Sheriff of Nottingham. To tell you the truth, I can’t remember a time when I have read an interview, seen a press release, or heard Sheriff Christopher speak, that he talks about what the office of sheriff is doing, or should be doing. It is always about what the office of sheriff used to be, the powers it once had, and other ancient history.
No, I have to say, in my opinion Sheriff Jeff Christopher is not the people’s sheriff. In my view, in Delaware, the office of the sheriff is defined, not in the state constitution, as Sheriff Christopher would have you believe in four words, “conservator of the peace”, but is defined by the people’s elected representatives within the General Assembly, and that is exactly what has been done. The General Assembly wrote legislation removing all law enforcement powers from the three county sheriff offices. Of course of the three sitting sheriffs, only Sheriff Christopher had a problem with it, in fact he sued the state of Delaware and lost in two courts. Of course he and his supporters have their built-in escape hatch. “ALL GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT INCLUDING THE COURTS”.
So what the people in Sussex County now have, is a clearly defined office of the sheriff, with a sheriff that refuses to accept that definition, and who has not ruled out further law suits that will cost the tax payers more money to defend. I forgot to mention that Sheriff Christopher also sued the Sussex County Council when they refused to fund his ideas. His office has also been involved in other legal matters that included charges of falsifying time sheets and improper use of departmental vehicles. His officers have pulled people over for traffic violations, when it was made clear to them this was not their role. Since Sheriff Christopher has taken office there has been nothing but a disruptive energy coming from that office.
That is why Jeff Christopher will be facing a Republican challenger in a primary this time around. Enough people, have had enough of this constant disruption, and debate of a settled issue. Jeff Christopher ran his idea through the system, and lost. The General Assembly clarified the issue beyond any doubt, and the courts upheld that legislation. But of course that isn’t good enough for the fringe element that supports Christopher.
So enter onto the political stage Robert Lee. Mr. Lee is a former police officer with the Seaford Police Department, he also worked as an investigator for the Attorney Generals Office. Robert Lee has made it clear that he will be the sheriff of the people, he will be the sheriff that the people choose. He has promised, if elected he will respect our system of government and run the office of the sheriff within the current definition of that office. He has promised not to bring law suits against the county council, nor the state of Delaware which would in the end only cost tax payers dollars they can’t afford.
Robert Lee feels, unlike the current office holder, that the office of the sheriff has a vitally important role to play in the fiscal well-being of the county. He believes the office is now clearly defined and he has no problem operating within that definition. A definition handed down by the elected representatives, of the people of Delaware, to deliver subpoenas and conduct sheriff sales.
In my view Robert Lee is many things that Jeff Christopher is not. Robert Lee is likable, and has a sense of humor. Robert Lee has an understanding of how our system actually works, not just how he wishes it would work. Robert Lee is someone you can have a conversation with, and who will listen to what you have to say, not just tell you what he thinks. Robert Lee understands, if he is to be the people’s Sheriff, then he has to listen to the people, unlike Jeff Christopher who spends all his time telling the people who the sheriff should be.
I wonder who footed the tab for the sheriff to travel to Nevada during the Bundy ranch fiasco. Just how much time does the sheriff get off to make all these jaunts all over the country. Why are events still being held to raise money for his defense fund. If the recent event held a Yoders is a litmus test for the current sheriffs chance at re-election he might want to look for another job. IMHO Lee has a good chance at winning the primary, the question is can he win the election and beat Beau Gooch. The posse goes by another name which I can’t recall to circumvent the courts ruling.
Sussex Countian, all good questions, another is, who runs the office while he is away on all those trips? As for winning the general, I am sure Mr. Lee recognizes that he can only win one race at a time.
Frank another good question. One would assume the deputy chief would be next in command, my understanding was the deputy chief was out on medical leave. I understand that those people who graduated from the constitution classes make up the sheriffs support team aka posse. The 2016 candidate for governor is one of those people so is the sheriffs campaign manager Mike Rowe, and the 35th district RD. I could have sworn the sheriff was under order not to assemble any posse of any type regardless of what the name is. This support team is working with neighborhood watch groups to create teams of citizen patrols. That sure sounds like a posse to me.
And knowing this crowd, one has to ask, how long before there is a Trevon Martin type of incident.
Robert Lee is a great person and was an excellent Law Enforcement Officer. He has my support and I hope others as well!
But in Sheriff Christopher’s world, who gets to decide exactly what a people’s sheriff is? Well of course…
No, the Delaware Constitution decides, in plain English; the Sheriff(s) shall be the conservators of the Peace in the county(s). Of course, our Socialist-Democrat legislature didn’t like the wording of our constitution; so, instead of following the prescribed route, a constitutional amendment, to ‘clarify’ the meaning of plain English, they amended the constitution through legislation. And I guess that if you’re not very confident in your ability to comprehend plain English, and you like being led-around by the nose by your Socialist-Democrat kingmakers, that’s just fine and dandy.
If “conservators of the Peace” is “plain English,” it must have the same “plain English” definition for all of the state “conservators of the Peace” and yet…it does not. In two thirds of Delaware counties it has a different meaning, along with the meaning for the AG, others to whom the phrase applies. What we have is a comprehension of the term from all parties to whom the phrase applies, except one single elected official. And yet, we should discard and disavow all those other understandings, comprehensions, and meanings and accept this one particular official’s and his apostles.
That sounds eerily like a cult with a their own Messiah. And in duck speak, if it looks like one, talks like one, and acts like one, my guess it is one. I recognize only one Messiah and Jeff Christopher ain’t him. If you like the kool aid being served, please have a second or third helping. I’ll pass. I have no interest in our own little Jim Jones of Sussex County. At best he is a fool and a joke. At worse he is dangerous because he has influence over some of the more ignorant souls in our county.
Dave, no use talking to Rick, he has his built in escape hatch for when the system doesn’t agree with him. It is because the system is corrupt, or liberal or both in his world.
Rick, it is a settled issue. Christopher took it through the courts and lost. Now unless he wants to run on the platform of costing taxpayers even more money to again sue and lose, it is settled.
As for your plain language “within” the state constitution. Please show me where “within” the state constitution the phrase COP is defined? You can’t, you have to go outside of the document to do so. And once you admit that, then you have lost the argument that it is “within” the document.
Frank,
I’ve been waiting for you to write about the Sheriff race, and your support for Mr. Lee. Although we disagree on who the better candidate is I will be respectful in my disagreement, and will try to address a few fallacies in your post. You claim that Sheriff Christopher feels there should be no oversight or checks and balances, and yet that is simply not true. He recognizes the framework of our government, and while he disagrees with it, he respects the recent ruling of the Court. You then say…”Sheriff Christopher trades on fear, and some people’s built-in belief that all government is corrupt.” I don’t know of anyone (in our small circle), who believes that ALL government is corrupt. I do know of many (again, in our small circle), that believe that there is a chance that our Rights will continue to be usurped by our federal government. There have been instances around the country in which the federal government has done just that. You claim that he is locked away in time, but Sheriffs in Delaware had made arrests right up until 1982 (WOW, talk about being locked away in time!)
Seriously though, Sheriff Christopher cares about our communities, he cares about his constituents, and I would argue that the only ones doing the fear mongering would be you, sussex countian (or whatever moniker or form of sock puppetry he is using these days), and those who oppose Sheriff Christopher. It is also interesting that Mr. Lee’s supporters would speak about their candidates law enforcement background, and assert him to be a great law enforcement officer, and yet still assert that the Office should only serve the Courts. On his website Mr. Lee says…” Restoration of this job as originally designed could certainly save the citizens of Sussex county money.” The Office was originally designed to be more than just paper servers, so what exactly does Mr. Lee mean?
I look forward to hearing Mr. Lee and Sheriff Christopher debate so that the citizens of Sussex County can hear the two, and the different viewpoints they may have. Mr. Lee is content with doing nothing, that is except for what the folks at County Council will tell him to do, and Sheriff Christopher will continue to be active serving his constituents, as well as the duties defined in Title 10, Chapter 21 of the Delaware Code. I would also like to invite Mr. Lee to an on- air debate, in the studio of 105.9, during the Dan Gaffney Show, so that the citizens of Sussex can hear the two. Mr. Gaffney has agreed to host said debate, and we surely would welcome Mr. Lee to attend.
Regards,
Mike
Mike, you say, “You claim that Sheriff Christopher feels there should be no oversight or checks and balances, and yet that is simply not true.” It is true, he wrote it in his law suit that the office was not answerable to any other office or agency. Are you denying that in your official capacity as campaign manager?
You then ask, “The Office was originally designed to be more than just paper servers”. Things evolve Mike, jobs change, as do needs. And yet you say that the sheriff and his supporters are not locked into any given time, yet you feel that the office should never change.
As for the office being defined in the state constitution? Let me repeat my question to Rick above, ” As for your plain language “within” the state constitution. Please show me where “within” the state constitution the phrase COP is defined? You can’t, you have to go outside of the document to do so. And once you admit that, then you have lost the argument that it is “within” the document.”
So Mike, where “within” the state constitution is it defined?
As for any debates, well you should be talking to Mr. Lee’s campaign people, as I am but a Sussex citizen who simply am tired of the constant disruptive force coming from the office of the sheriff, with no benefit for the people of the county, only rock star status for Sheriff Christopher within his small circle of support.
Michael respectfully let’s clear up some of your fallacies. I am not a fear monger, nor am I a sock puppet. I am a Sussex County resident who has concerns about the current county sheriff plain and simple. Attempting to silence people through coercion, innuendos and rumors is just another form of usurping citizens rights.
Now on to some of your fallacies about Delaware Code Title 10 Chapter 21.
The County Sheriff although elected is paid by the county government I would certainly expect that the same county government (county council) would have a say in what the Sheriff’s duties are.
§ 2101 Compensation.
The Sheriffs of New Castle, Kent and Sussex Counties shall only receive compensation for the performance of their official duties in the form of an annual salary as fixed by their representative county governments. The New Castle County government, the Kent County Levy Court, and the Sussex County Council shall set the annual salaries for each representative sheriff.
Concerning arrest powers:
§ 2103 Sheriffs and regular deputies.
Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs shall not have any arrest authority. However, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs may take into custody and transport a person when specifically so ordered by a judge or commissioner of Superior Court.
23 Del. Laws, c. 60, § 13; Code 1915, § 1443; Code 1935, § 1602; 10 Del. C. 1953, § 2103; 55 Del. Laws, c. 85, § 32K; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 266, § 16.;
What county sheriffs in Delaware made arrests in 1982 ?
Certainly not NCCo since they did away their county sheriffs arrest powers in 1965 when they created the NCCo police department.
http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga123/chp085.shtml
Maybe it’s because I grew up in Delaware where we don’t have sheriffs with arresting powers, but when I’m someplace where the police cars say “Sheriff” on the side, I get a little apprehensive.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t really trust any cops anymore, but at least I know our cops have to answer to higher ups, where as a sheriff only has to answer to an election by a majority political party every four years , and who knows if that particular sheriff would even be concerned with that.
As far as sheriffs protecting our Constitutional rights….I don’t see it.
In fact whenever I see images of police in full military garb with guns raised, and all the military toys including armored vehicles and such, the soldiers always seem to have the word “sheriff” in bold letters written on their backs.
BTW, if you go to the websites of these county sheriffs, you will see that most of them are connected to The Department of Homeland Security, so I’m not buying that they are protecting us from tyranny.
I’ve got my hat in my hand and I’m down on my knees begging for you to like Sheriff Jeffy. Sam Wilson, you’re like my daddy.
Isn’t the Sheriff a big Bodie supporter and vice versa?
@FBH
And Jeff Christopher is the poster child for exactly what you fear. If you examine his actions thus far during his term, it is abundantly clear that he believes he is a law unto himself and if he were somehow able to obtain the authority, would pose a clear and present danger to the citizens. His obsession with being highest authority in the county is not just fantastical but fanatical as well.
Dave, he does not just think he is the highest authority in the county, he thinks he can arrest the president.
As for the Bodenweiser connection, yes. Bodie worked very hard for Christopher. And I am researching articles about the trial, because I seem to remember Christopher’s name coming up in the pastor’s testimony. We need to know what Christopher knew, and when, and why there was no official report of it.
Remember everyone- mike Rowe is an active member of the Sheriffs possee or whatever the heck he calls it now-…..the possee he was specifically told he could not have
Now where is that respect again????
Oh and Lacey Lafferty is a member too- maybe they get off together In The woods making videos – who knows and frankly who cares
After the next election it will all be history- Christopher will make money with speaking engagements and making a fool out of himself and livin off tea party welfare
Lafferty is a joke and what will the rest of the possee be doing? With their hero politically castrated?
They will be back tilting at windmills- just more misguided children playing cop coz they couldn’t back the real deal
SMH
If “conservators of the Peace” is “plain English,” it must have the same “plain English” definition for all of the state “conservators of the Peace” and yet…it does not.
Delaware Constitution, Article XV, Section 1…..
Conservators of the Peace:
The Chancellor, Judges and Attorney-General shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State; and the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.
Yes, to me and to anyone else who can read, this is “plain English.”
From Blackstone’s commentaries, re, the Sheriffs:
AS the keeper of the king’s peace, both by common law and special
commission, he is the first man in the county, and superior in rank to
any nobleman therein, during his office[p]. He may apprehend, and
commit to prison, all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break
it: and may bind any one in a recognizance to keep the king’s peace.
He may, and is bound _ex officio_ to, pursue and take all traitors,
murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to gaol for
safe custody. He is also to defend his county against any of the
king’s enemies when they come into the land: and for this purpose, as
well as for keeping the peace and pursuing felons, he may command all
the people of his county to attend him; which is called the _posse
comitatus_, or power of the county[q]: which summons every person
above fifteen years old, and under the degree of a peer, is bound to
attend upon warning[r], under pain of fine and imprisonment[s]. But
though the sheriff is thus the principal conservator of the peace in
his county, yet, by the express directions of the great charter[t],
he, together with the constable, coroner, and certain other officers
of the king, are forbidden to hold any pleas of the crown, or, in
other words, to try any criminal offence. For it would be highly
unbecoming, that the executioners of justice should be also the
judges; should impose, as well as levy, fines and amercements; should
one day condemn a man to death, and personally execute him the next.
Neither may he act as an ordinary justice of the peace during the time
of his office[u]: for this would be equally inconsistent; he being in
many respects the servant of the justices.
Delaware law was based on English Common Law, and it would stand to reason that the “intent”of the framers was compatible with Blackstone’s understanding of the duties of the Sheriffs and other “conservators of the peace,” particularly in light of the fact that the 1792 constitution was written only thirty years after Blackstone’s first “Commentaries.” It maybe noted that Delaware’s constitution does not convey power to the coroner or other lower officers.
I don’t really care that much about the Sheriff’s powers- I do care about the rule of law. If the legislature wanted to eliminate the Sheriff’s powers, they should have followed the rule of law and proposed a constitutional amendment. Instead, they tell us that plain English and historical precedent don’t mean a thing, which is an absurdity.
Parenthetically, our state police are rapidly becoming a standing army, and the Founders would have long-ago disbanded the force and returned policing to local control. I guess the state needs tanks to enforce cigarette laws.
Sheriffs don’t have arrest powers in England anymore, either. Just sayin’.
Blackstone’s commentaries are not part of the DE Constitution. Nor does a legal treatise on sheriffs constitute a definition of “conservator of the peace.”
Now if you have a Blackstone treatise on conservators of the peace, I will peruse it.
Jeff Christopher’s claim is based on being a conservator of the peace. That phrase is not defined in the DE constitution. However, Black’s Law Dictionary has this to say:
“Officers authorized to preserve and maintain the public peace. In England, these officers were locally elected by the people until the reign of Edward III. when their appointment was vested in the king. Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace, but they had no power to arraign and try the offender until about 1300. when this authority was given to them by act of parliament, and “then they acquired the more honorable appellation of justices of the peace.” 1 Bl. Comm. 351. Even after this time, however, many public officers were styled “conservators of the peace,” not as a distinct office but by virtue of the duties and authorities pertaining to their offices. In this sense the term may include the king himself, the lord chancellor, justices of the king’s bench, master of the rolls, coroners, sheriffs, constables, etc. 1 Bl. Comm. 350. See Smith v. Abbott. 17 N. J. Law, 358. The tenn is still in use in Texas, where the constitution provides that county judges shall be conservators of the peace. Const. Tex. art. 4,”
Notice that under the common law you wish to use to augment or supplant the constitution, conservators of the peace evolved into justices of the peace, rather than sheriff’s. Regardless, the sheriff as a conservator of the peace, still maintains the peace by the executing of their duties which includes transporting prisoners, sheriff sales, and other sundry duties and responsibilities. One duty and responsibility they do not possess that pertains to keeping the peace is that of police officer, that duty is the purview of other conservators of the peace.
Your error is in the logical fallacy that because the sheriff is a conservator of the peace, they must be police officers or that all conservators of the peace are police officers, which is simply not the case in English common law, Blacks Law Dictionary, Blackstone, the DE Constitution and the DE Code (which made the mayors of DE cities conservators of the peace and surely you don’t think the mayors are police officers?!).
The bottom line is that you hang your entire argument on a phrase that is broadly defined because it applies to multiple entities with a wide variation in duties and responsibilities. Further, the real crux of your argument is actually based on the term “sheriff” and not on “conservator of the peace.” We would not have this discussion/argument if we were talking about another office that did not result in a evoking a stereotypical image of Wyatt Earp. While sheriffs elsewhere are police officers, sheriffs are not police officers everywhere. Yet you persist equating the two all because of cultural conditioning. You can overcome that conditioning if you desire, but make no mistake it is conditioning not logic.
Umm, just for the record, the New Castle County Rural Police started in 1919, BEFORE the state police, not in 1965… that might be the year they changed the name to New Castle County Police, but I lived here during all those years in the 60’s and 70’s when they were trying to figure out the jurisdictions of the State Police and County Police back then, The New Castle County Police and the New Castle County Sheriff’s office are two separate entities that have NOTHING to do with each other. It was almost daily news in the MORNING NEWS back then, which is now known as thing you can buy in any store or on delawareonline.com. Sheriff’s in England, which has nothing to do with us here now anyway, lost ALL their police powers in 1861 when the Metropolitan Police (and yes Scotland Yard) were created.
Blackstone’s commentaries are not part of the DE Constitution
Gee, thanks, Sherlock
Nor does a legal treatise on sheriffs constitute a definition of “conservator of the peace.”
Well, if you had read Blackstone before posting your usual kneejerk response, you’d have seen a brief description of the Sheriff’s duties, to wit;
AS the keeper of the king’s peace, both by common law and special
commission, he is the first man in the county, and superior in rank to
any nobleman therein, during his office[p]. He may apprehend, and
commit to prison, all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break
it: and may bind any one in a recognizance to keep the king’s peace.
He may, and is bound _ex officio_ to, pursue and take all traitors,
murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to gaol for
safe custody. He is also to defend his county against any of the
king’s enemies when they come into the land: and for this purpose, as
well as for keeping the peace and pursuing felons, he may command all
the people of his county to attend him; which is called the _posse
comitatus_, or power of the county[q]: which summons every person
above fifteen years old, and under the degree of a peer, is bound to
attend upon warning[r], under pain of fine and imprisonment[s]…
And this definition was clearly understood by the framers of the Delaware Constitution, and the Delaware Constitution still says…
“…and the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.
The proper course would have been to amend the state constitution. Instead, the sheeple of Delaware are told that words don’t mean what they say. That may be fine for those statists in Delaware who enjoy being led-around by the nose like cattle, but not for the rest of us.
This has been rehashed for eaons – enough already
Blacks Law Dictionary does not make law nor does it define law and duties. It’s a freaking dictionary
Full stop – enough said
The ideologues will take their ideals to the grave . There is no point in even discussing with them on it
It’s done- they lost and they are sore about it. Actually, the pitchfork crew in sussex has lost a lot lately, mirroring the national defeats.
Face it – extremism is over ….. They can keep posting and pretending but the gig is up and it’s time to move on… Frankly , Blacks law dictionary doesn’t mean a bill of beans in this whole mess
We will have a new sheriff who will do the job without drama and the “POSSEE?” Who knows, or cares.
Rick says, “From Blackstone’s commentaries, re, the Sheriffs:”. See Rick, as I said, and as Dave has said so well, you have to go outside of the state constitution to define the term COP. So once you do that, you have admitted that the powers and authorities of a COP are not defined within the state constitution, and thus no constitutional amendment is needed to redefine the powers and authorities. You know Rick it takes a bigger person to admit they were wrong then it does to be stubborn. But here we go again from the fringe. Out on the fringe they believe that I got it wrong, Dave got it wrong, the General Assembly got it wrong two separate courts got it wrong, either that or the fringe has to believe that there is this grand conspiracy to keep Jeff Christopher from becoming the next Hoppalong Cassidy.
In the case of the Sheriff(s), the word most analogous to “conservator of the peace” is “cop.” That is essentially Blackstone’s definition, and the Delaware system is based upon British common law. It’s just not that complicated- conserving the peace means just that. According to the Delaware constitution, there are three components, or “conservators” of the peace; the judges who try cases, the prosecutors who initiate trials and the Sheriffs, who arrest those who violate the peace. Arrest, try and sentence.
Sure, there is nothing illegal about creating a state police force, but that doesn’t change the Delaware Constitution. Why didn’t the Delaware Legislature, dominated by the Socialist-Democrats, simply amend the constitution, deleting or amending the clearly-defined powers of the Sheriff(s)? Why?
Some say “cop” comes from “constable on patrol”, and some say that “cop” is short for “copper” because of the old copper badges they used to wear.
“Why didn’t the Delaware Legislature, dominated by the Socialist-Democrats, simply amend the constitution, deleting or amending the clearly-defined powers of the Sheriff(s)?”
They did not simply because the DE Constitution did not clearly define the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff. That you keep writing and saying it does, does not make it so. Just because you believe the earth is flat does not mean everyone else is wrong when they say it’s round. You continue to confuse fact and belief leading you to create a fallacy of presupposition; wondering why people don’t fall off the edges if the world is flat. It may just be that you are wrong and the earth is not flat. Entertaining that possibility might serve to reduce your anxiety.
And while there is some ambiguity concerning the etymology of the term “cop,” it is clear that it is not an abbreviation for conservator of the peace.
My opinion is that it probably a more of the following: 1704, northern British dialect, “to seize, to catch,” perhaps ultimately from Middle French caper “seize, to take,” from Latin capere “to take” (see capable); or from Dutch kapen “to take,” from Old Frisian capia “to buy,” which is related to Old English ceapian (see cheap). Related: Copped; copping.
But you know how we Americanize words, so my second choice would be from “copper” because of their badges.
I did some fact checking with the New Castle County Police last night. I was a bit off in my dates in my last post. Officially, the New Castle County Highway Police was authorized in 1911, and did not get up and running until 1913. The second division, the New Castle County Rural Police was added in 1919. The Chief Engineer of the Highway Department served two roles, as he was also Chief of Police. Nowhere what-so-ever was the New Castle Co. Sheriff in any way what-so-ever involved in police work then, or now. Prior to all of that, the Wilmington Police was authorized by the legislature to have statewide powers to assist the constables or police of any of the towns anywhere in Delaware if they had something that was beyond their expertise. It is simply beyond dispute that Delaware Sheriff’s had always had a role as court officials, tax collectors, foreclosures, and etc. — and not police patrol officers serving either of the counties, including Sussex.
Rick, I have to agree with Dave, your cult like chant of, “clearly defined constitutional powers and authorities” makes no sense. I again challenge you to stay within the state constitution and show me where the powers and authorities of a COP is defined. You can’t, so are you like your cult leader Sheriff Christopher lobbying for an office with open ended, and unchecked power? And would you have the power of that office invested in a single person, with no actual defining of those powers? I have to tell you that if that is what you are advocating, I have never heard a clearer definition of a tyrant.
did anyone mention he lost in court and is out of appeals? he has a posse alright….”insane clown posse”….. the sheriff and his posse are actually jugalos
Salty Independent has a remarkable and I believe correct point. I too believe he is out of appeals. The word Sheriff appears NOWHERE in the US Constitution, and I believe I was taught that the individual State Supreme Courts are the ultimate authority on matters of that state’s Constitution, unless there is a conflict with something in the US Constitution. Owing to there being no definition of a Sheriff’s powers in the US Constitution, how could a Federal Court take it up. Am I missing something? I am not a lawyer, but I do think it will be fascinating if they (Christopher’s Camp) find a way to get a Federal appeal of some sort… Any real lawyers out there have an opinion on this?
Frank-
You are always right! Why should Delaware be anything like the rest of the country?
In the United States, a sheriff is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. The political election of a person to serve as a police leader is an almost uniquely American tradition. (The Honorary Police of Jersey, a British Crown Dependency in the Channel Islands, have been elected since at least the 16th century.)[1]
Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 have sheriffs. The two that do not are Alaska (which has no counties), and Connecticut (which has no county governments and has state marshals instead of sheriffs)
Delaware however has a sheriff with no arrest powers because we in Delaware are okay with the Police State, oops I meant the State Police.
“typically” “usually” “tradition”
So Delaware should conform rather than daring to be different?
If you don’t like a police state, there are other states. Now while you still have the freedom before you have to retreat to you bunker to live out your days.
Ricky Bobby, so your answer to a “police state” is the same as Sheriff Christopher’s, another agency with arrest powers. Yeah that’ll do it.
“so your answer to a “police state” is the same as Sheriff Christopher’s, another agency with arrest powers.”
I think it is great the way you put words in other people’s mouths. However, you might try asking a polite question like “Gee Ricky Bobby, what do you think we should do?” Let’s start with a little history lesson. It ends with a bang:
http://genealogytrails.com/del/sussex/historypatty_cannon.html
Martha “Patty” Cannon (circa 1760 – May 11, 1829) was a murderer and ruthless leader of a gang that dealt in illegal slave trade in the early 19th century. Patty Cannon with her son-in-law, Joseph Johnson and other gang members, kidnapped slaves and free blacks from Delaware, Philadelphia, New Jersey and Maryland and transported and sold them to plantation owners located further south. She lived in Sussex County, Delaware but operated Johnson’s Tavern, which was located on the state line between Sussex County, Delaware and Caroline and Dorchester County, Maryland in Johnson’s Cross Roads (now Reliance, Delaware).
There are no records to show that Patty herself was ever brought to trial. That she was arrested and locked up is certain, and that she took poison before her trial is also substantiated. It is claimed that she is buried in a corner of the jail yard at Georgetown. The indictment in the kidnapping case in which Johnson was tried and punished, is as follows:
“May 1st, 1822: Upon agreement, rule was discharged and now to wit: the third day of May 1822 the defendant was brought into court by the Sheriff of Sussex County, Delaware, being convicted of having feloniously kidnapped, taken and carried away from this State in the State of Maryland, a free negro man, named Thomas Spence.
So, you see the Sheriff of Sussex County at one time had arrest powers and thankfully brought a notorious murderer to justice. A succession of lazy sheriffs realized that it would be easier to have the highway patrol (now known as our State Police) do the arrest work for them. They decided to just collect the revenue from sheriff’s sales and deliver subpoenas. What a succession of lazy sheriffs did over many years is not the fault of our current sheriff. Just because a bunch of lazy sheriffs and their deputies did not arrest anyone for many years does not mean future sheriff’s and their deputies should lose the power to arrest someone especially if they witness criminal activity. For instance, if you have a nice home in Florida but don’t go stay there for many years, it would still be yours to use whenever you want to in the future.
Now, back to the polite question: “Gee Ricky, what do you think we should do?” Answer: Ask the Sheriff of Sussex County. He is the elected official and our duly elected conservator of the peace. If he wants his deputies to have the ability to arrest someone when and if they are confronted with criminal activity, I say hurrah for him. Would you rather they turn their back and not get involved?
If we ever grow to the point where a county police force makes sense in Sussex County, I will support the effort to establish one. Until then, I will rely upon the DSP. We don’t need an all powerful sheriff, who believes they are the highest power in the county. The only protection from tyranny we need is from an emperor sheriff, who God willing, will be out of our hair come the election.
So Ricky Bobby, you have to go back to the 1800s for your example, wow! It is not about lazy sheriffs, it is about changing times. You would leave the decision up to one person, thank goodness that those who drafted the state constitution had a better idea, they left it up to the legislature and the courts, where by the way it has been settled, the only thing left to do is to remove Jeff Christopher from an office he has no desire to hold in its current form.
If we are looking for early 17th century precedent to define a sheriff’s duties, does Christopher want to add fugitive slave catching to his list of duties?
Good one John! Most likely the slave catching would be left for the ‘posse’ to accomplish.
Frank,
You wrote, “You have to go back to the 1800s for your example”
I am sure there are a lot more examples of the sheriff being the only conservator of the peace in the state. I picked the story about Patty Cannon because I thought some of your readers would find it interesting. Her house still stands in Reliance (near Seaford) and the owner gives tours. The Highway Patrol (DSP) was created in 1923. Up until then, the sheriff and his deputies were the only police in Delaware.
You wrote, “It is not about lazy sheriffs, it is about changing times.”
That is exactly my point. The times they are a-changin’. Lazy sheriffs caused the sheriff to lose his arrest powers. The police state we are living in has caused the people to demand that the sheriff be given the powers back. If you can’t see we are heading down the wrong path in this state and country, apparently you are blind.
“A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.”
Hopefully, your eyes are now opened.
We are almost there now. We need our sheriff to be able to do what the rest of the sheriffs in the country can do if need be. And that is to tell the police state and the federal government to leave the county if they step over the line.
You wrote, “You would leave the decision up to one person”
You keep putting words in my mouth. I am not in favor of a dictatorship. I agree with the state constitution and the three branches of government. I also believe in local and county government too. Do you?
You wrote, “the only thing left to do is to remove Jeff Christopher from an office he has no desire to hold in its current form.”
Good luck with removing Christopher. You and your “cabal” (Briggs, Towers, Grossman and Dean) are unable to get anyone elected or removed from office. You are the epitome of irrelevance.
1- fact , Christopher will be removed
–
2- Ricky Bobby is a paid troll – careful…
Who has all that time to troll thru comments , all the posts and make comments that long?
It’s starting to be obvious
Laffter,
“1- fact , Christopher will be removed”
Then you’d better get out there and start knocking doors for your candidate rather than stay on this site and play blog boy.
“2- Ricky Bobby is a paid troll – careful…”
Sorry, but I am not paid to troll. What should readers and contributors be “careful” about?
“3- Who has all that time to troll thru comments, all the posts and make comments that long?”
Some of us worked hard, saved our money and retired. We get to do whatever we enjoy doing all day long. Lately, I have been enjoying a little back and forth with Frank. I will become bored with him soon and move on to something more tangible or he will become so frustrated with me that he will stop responding to my comments and my fun will stop. Either way, I will still be retired and happy and he will still be Frank. Afterward, all his sycophants can go back to patting him on the back again rather than be concerned about my comments.
4- “It’s starting to be obvious”
What is starting to be obvious to you? It is obvious to me that you have absolutely no writing skills.
Actually Laffter I am starting to think JM has found a new IP.
Ricky B, says, “I am sure there are a lot more examples of the sheriff being the only conservator of the peace in the state.”
Okay now I get to point out that either you are completely clueless, or you are, no you are completely clueless.
You say there are many examples of the sheriff being the only COP in the state. Really? So for how many years were there no courts and no office of the Attorney General? Even though these positions were created in the same state constitution as the office of the sheriff? Come on tell us all. Tell us how the AG was left vacant. You demonstrate your lack of actual knowledge on this issue and that you have nothing but talking points. Is Sheriff Christopher feeding them directly, or are you simply repeating what you have heard while lying at the feet of the master?
Ah! And here is the new favorite phrase from the fringe, “The police state we are living in”. First of all, you are again making the argument that to end a police state we need more people with arrest powers. Good argument, LOL! Second, please tell me how many people you know of that have been hauled out of their homes in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, with no hearing, and no trial of their case? The term “police state” has a real world meaning, and the sheriff and his supporters use it frivolously. Unless you can show examples of the so called police state you speak of, then you are nothing more than a fellow fear monger of Sheriff Christopher.
Ricky B says,”You keep putting words in my mouth. I am not in favor of a dictatorship. I agree with the state constitution and the three branches of government. I also believe in local and county government too. Do you?”
Have you read Jeff Christopher’s law suit? I have. He stated that his office was autonomous, having to answer to no one, no agency, and no branch of government, answering only to the people. Where is the checks and balance there? If you support his position, then you support one man rule of the county.
You say, “Good luck with removing Christopher.” And I say thank you.
As for my becoming frustrated, good luck. I am the king of the last word, ask anyone.
Frank,
You wrote, “Actually Laffter I am starting to think JM has found a new IP.” I am guessing “JM” is Jon Moseley. You are wrong. While I generally agree with what Moseley writes, I am not he. Sorry. Guess again.
You wrote, “So for how many years were there no courts and no office of the Attorney General? Even though these positions were created in the same state constitution as the office of the sheriff? Obviously I misspoke and meant ground level law enforcement. I know there are other offices that are listed in the constitution as Conservators of the Peace. You are really grasping here. You make no mention of the fact that the office of the sheriff existed centuries before the DSP. You ignore the fact that The Highway Patrol (DSP) was not created until 1923.
You wrote, “First of all, you are again making the argument that to end a police state we need more people with arrest powers.” Again you are putting words in my mouth. I am making the argument that arrest powers were and should be returned to of the office of the sheriff in Delaware in order that the office is able to help keep the peace and enforce state’s rights if necessary. If you think the DSP will come to Delaware’s rescue if it becomes necessary, you are mistaken.
You wrote, “Second, please tell me how many people you know of that have been hauled out of their homes in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, with no hearing, and no trial of their case?” Personally, I know not one. Those of us that support the office of the sheriff are trying to remedy the problem we see coming. Without an elected sheriff with a strong backbone, we are doomed. A simple Google search of “police state examples in the USA” produces the following hits:
1. 14 Signs America Is Turning Into A Police State – Distractify
news.distractify.com/news/police-state/
o
14 Signs America Is Turning Into A Police State … The United States Of America. …. This is only one example where perfectly lawful protests were disbanded …
2. America has Become a Police State | Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-become-a-police-state/5378258
Apr 18, 2014 – It may be the case that the United States is a plural society, where … are other examples of how the U.S. police state is treating the Muslims in a …
3. 7 Examples of a Police State and How They Are Appearing …
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/police-state/6401/
o
o
by Will Potter – Sep 26, 2012 – Common traits shared by “police states” and how they have appeared in the United States.
4. Battlefield USA: American police ‘excessively militarized …
rt.com/usa/168072-us-drugs-swat-police/
o
RT
Jun 24, 2014 – As the United States winds down its military operations in … The Keene police department, for example, cites in its application (which trumps …
5. Police State USA: Land of the Checkpoints | Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/PoliceStateUSA
o
Police State USA: Land of the Checkpoints. 142285 likes · 12804 talking about this. Website: http://www.policestateusa.com Twitter:…
6. Police State USA – YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/rambone5
o
o
Wake up America. The USA is becoming a police state. Visit http://www.policestateusa.com. The movie clip in the final minutes is called Gray State. Support Gray …
You wrote, “Have you read Jeff Christopher’s law suit? I have. He stated that his office was autonomous, having to answer to no one, no agency, and no branch of government, answering only to the people. Where is the checks and balance there?” It is called an election held every four years. You will have your first chance to overthrow the sheriff on 9/9/14. Good luck with that and your welcome.
I asked, “I also believe in local and county government too. Do you?” You have not responded so apparently you do not.
You did not deny your involvement in “The Briggs, Towers, Grossman and Dean Cabal” either. So I will now rename it as “The Briggs, Towers, Grossman, Dean and Knottzi Cabal”. Keep typing.
I was merely comparing you to JM due to your long winded mindless and fact less comments.
As for your continued arguments on the sheriff office, like your hero Jeff Christopher, nothing new here, same old argument that lost in the court system. And will likely lose at the ballot box putting and end to this saga.
Your links are just more of the fringe talking points.
And you answer a question with a question on the matter of have you read the law suit, if you haven’t then there is no point in discussing it with you because you are again going simply on “BELIEF” the hallmark of TEA types. WINNING!
But I will answer your question. Yes, I believe in local government, but I also believe in the Delaware Constitution and my understanding of it, and if you do some research you will find that I wrote the outcome of the law suit long before it was even filed. What I don’t believe in is giving undefined powers and authorities to any one person at any level and that is what Sheriff Christopher was asking for.
As for your so called cabal, so in other post you challenge me to get up and work for something or someone I believe in, and here you call it a cabal if I do. WINNING!
As for your third grade attempt to insult me by changing my name to Knottzi, WOW! That is the best you got? WINNING!
If you have so much confidence in your candidate Robert Lee’s ability to win the primary against Sheriff Jeff Christopher then you, Steve Grossman, Lewis Briggs, Dan Short and the rest of your Rhino Rodeo Clown Crowd will drag your County Council token boy candidate Robert Lee to the debate the Sheriff at Independence Hall on Aug 14th. Quit making sheep excuses for being booked or busy, bc we all know your NOT. Lewis Briggs made a first hand gut reaction statement ” This debate would NOT look favorably for my candidate”. We all know when those two are together at events and speak, Sheriff Jeff Christopher makes Robert Lee look like fifth grade geek. Going to be damned if you do and damned if you don’t, so just grow some balls guys, man up and be there.
I should say, “It sure as hell won’t make him look good anywhere regardless where he goes with a slogan as “I want to keep the Sheriff’s office on what it was intended to be”. Well Sherlock Holmes, Sheriff’s office was a conservator of the peace first and that is what it was intended to be. Which is it Frank, your candidate seems confused on what his platform is.
Has anyone in the Rhino Rodeo Clown Crowd schooled him on what he supposed to say or does he have any guts and go-nads to be his own man and stand on his own convictions. Oh, and for the record, if all you guys can coach your token boy on is lying from the start of his campaign about Sheriff Jeff Christopher wanted a County Police force, when in fact he has NEVER said or stated that was his intention for the Sheriff’s office, God help us if he gets elected bc he will be lying to the public in the course of his duties.
I know Frank you will have something clever to say, but actions speak louder than your sheep herder excuses. Just drag your candidate Robert Lee by the ear, kicking and screaming like a scared school boy into Independence Hall on Aug. 14th and let the games begin.
Ah! Welcome back Remmy, your adult input has been so missed here.
It is ironic that you say, ” kicking and screaming like a scared school boy “, in a comment that you do nothing but name call and taunt like a third grader.
First of all, Robert Lee is his own man, he is not my candidate beyond I support him. If you or anyone else have a problem scheduling an event with him, then you should talk with his campaign people.
As for this so called “DEBATE”, it is nothing more than a put up job of a campaign rally for Christopher, much like his so called “Poker Run for Charity”. I have never attended a so called “DEBATE”, in which there are scheduled guest speakers, and in this case two who clearly have a bias for Christopher.
One is some lawyer from Maryland that is selling his so called constitution classes, and the other some wild west sheriff that would put women and children in the front of a firing squad to prove a political point.
I have heard that advice was given to the Christopher camp to make another offer to schedule a real debate, one that doesn’t include Christopher’s posse. Gary Cooper stood alone at High Noon, what’s the matter can’t Sheriff Christopher stand alone.
You wrote, “I was merely comparing you to JM due to your long winded mindless and fact less comments.
I hope he posts on this blog soon. You said you allow those that use their own name to post. Let’s see what happens next.
You wrote, “As for your continued arguments on the sheriff office, like your hero Jeff Christopher…will likely lose at the ballot box putting and end to this saga.”
He is my hero and he will prevail in September and November.
You wrote, “Your links are just more of the fringe talking points.”
How about this one? Seems like it hits pretty close to home:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/delawarewindjammer/2013/08/26/the-police-shooting-of-michael-rogers-an-interview-with-his-mother/
A Georgetown man unknowingly broke the tail light out of a car in a parking lot . The Police State barged into his home and after firing five shots, failed to kill him for his “wreckless behavior” so the Department of Injustice charged him with resisting arrest and assault. Another hung jury, we will see how this one turns out . Word is the state is on the hook for millions in lawsuits for this abuse of power.
Yo wrote, “And you answer a question with a question on the matter of have you read the law suit, if you haven’t then there is no point in discussing it with you because you are again going simply on “BELIEF” the hallmark of TEA types.”
I heard enough about the lawsuit to know what is in it.
You wrote, “…Yes, I believe in local government, but I also believe in the Delaware Constitution…”
You are a walking contradiction. You believe in local government, just not the local sheriff. You believe in the constitution just not the part about the conservators of the peace.
You wrote, “…and my understanding of it (the constitution),
I guess that is the problem, you just don’t understand.
Your wrote, “…and if you do some research you will find that I wrote the outcome of the law suit long before it was even filed.
Oh swami and soothsayer, where do I go to worship at your altar?
Your wrote, “What I don’t believe in is giving undefined powers and authorities to any one person at any level and that is what Sheriff Christopher was asking for.”
No he isn’t. You are making this up.
You wrote, “As for your so called cabal, so in other post you challenge me to get up and work for something or someone I believe in, and here you call it a cabal if I do.”
Aha! So you are in the cabal! Are you the head cabalist or is that Screwy Louie?
You wrote, “As for your third grade attempt to insult me by changing my name to Knottzi…”
How about this one? Not Frank Knotts
Steel!
You da man!
I tried to email Robert Lee and his email doesn’t work, so I had to send him a snail mail to ask him to show up to the debate. An email that doesn’t work, great start.
Frank,
Why don’t you and your cabal put together a debate right there in Lee’s hometown of Seaford? Oh, that’s right it would take a little work on your part. You are all talk, no action. We’s gonna whoop you good.
Frank,
Your great one to lecture anyone on name calling on this ground zero site. Just handed you back some of your own recipe.
Effort was put forth for a debate for the office of Sheriff regardless who is there. Bring whomever your Rhino rodeo clown crowd wants attending. Like bringing your own sandwich to a restaraunt if that makes your poison posse more secure. Quit making excuses for your poison posse’s in ept qualifications. Quit the lying from the jump start attempting to build a lying platform. It will bite your candidate right in the ass.
Further more the OK Corral was won by several participates in the fight, not Doc Holiday!
But if it makes your poison posse feel more secure, you call the place and time of ANY DEBATE with Sheriff Jeff Christopher where ever, whenever and who ever you want and I guarantee you SHERIFF JEFF CHRISTOPHER will be there with fire in eyes and a speech that will send the Rhino rodeo clown crowd, candidate and their poison posse supporters to Cow Town rodeo in NJ.
Oh, How I love a good rodeoing for a guy that should have not run for office. But Frank and his cabal just had to talk him into it.
Ro! Ro! Ro! Dee boat
Gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily,
Lee winning is just a dream!
Frank,
Wake up! Your public is getting impatient. We need some more of your wisdumb.
Ah, got me again, my original comment on JM was that he must have gotten a new IP, because he is banned here far past offenses.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You link to Don Ayotte? Now that IFF. I have read that post. And everything he wrote has been proven by other to be nothing but his own opinion and dream works. FAIL!
Ricky B says, “I heard enough about the lawsuit to know what is in it.” yeah well I actually read, but hey, why bother right, you “BELIEVE”!
Ricky says, “You are a walking contradiction. You believe in local government, just not the local sheriff. You believe in the constitution just not the part about the conservators of the peace.”
I don’t have time to bring you up to speed, go back and read my post on this issue. My view is that the General Assembly had the authority to do what they did based on the state constitution, as did the courts.
You can go to http://www.politicallyfrank.wordpress.com or you can try http://www.delawarepolitics.net, but most of that has been deleted by Don Ayotte.
In response to my saying, ““What I don’t believe in is giving undefined powers and authorities to any one person at any level and that is what Sheriff Christopher was asking for.”
Ricky says, “No he isn’t. You are making this up.”. Yet Ricky has admitted to having not read the law suit, so you wouldn’t know would you, you are simply taking the word of others.
Remmy, you are talking to the wrong person, I have no say in who debates who, but keep wasting your time if it makes you feel better.
You wrote, “he (JM (John Moseley)) is banned here far past offenses.”
So he can comment but he can’t post? I suppose he proved you wrong too many times so you had to ban him. I bet he could care less. Are you gonna ban me too?
You wrote, “You link to Don Ayotte? Now that IFF. I have read that post. And everything he wrote has been proven by other to be nothing but his own opinion and dream works.”
Ayotte went to the house and interviewed Roger’s 86 year old mother Lorraine. He reported exactly what she told him. You just stand on the sidelines, make stuff up and report it as fact.
Why don’t you and your cabal put together a debate right there in Lee’s hometown of Seaford?
Ricky B, now you are showing your true colors. You simply are pinging around the site in an attempt to be annoying, so yes you are truly like JM. And I do not ban anyone on my own, there would need to be a consensuses of the people involved in Delaware Right. But keep trying if that is your goal, I know how you TEA types love to play the martyr.
As for the anything concerning the Lee campaign, you are talking to the wrong person.
Frank,
You wrote, “You simply are pinging around the site in an attempt to be annoying…”
No, I am alerting your readers just how Knott right you are.
You wrote, “And I do not ban anyone on my own, there would need to be a consensuses of the people involved in Delaware Right.”
Great, another cabal looking to shut down free speech!
You wrote, “As for the anything concerning the Lee campaign, you are talking to the wrong person.”
Maybe. But we all know you are connected to the right person. A recent poll in Sussex shows voters support a constitutional sheriff by a wide margin. There are enough voters in Sussex now that know what a sheriff is truly supposed to be to get Christopher re-elected over and over again.
Friank,
You wrote, “ I also know that even in off years the elected officials rarely come to these meetings…”
I agree. They should be personally invited every month and given an opportunity to give a short report. Sams ran it that way and he was right in doing that.
You wrote, “and there is a tendency for the EC members to insult them (elected officials) when they do, usually the TEA types.”
You were the King of insulting officials and candidates at the EC when you were on it. You picked the wrong time to point out there mistakes and they tossed you out for it.
You wrote, “So you see they (Sussex GOP) did nothing to actually raise money except collect required filing fees.”
At least they keep the party up and running. Without them, who would collect and hold the filing fees? Who would keep the headquarters going and set up monthly meetings? They should have someone on staff doing fundraising but no one wants that job.
You wrote, “The victory fund is a can they pass at the meetings, which has been questioned about its legality.”
The legality of anything can be questioned. That, in itself, does not make it illegal.
You wrote, “Okay, again, I am sorry I made a mistake.”
Oh? What was your mistake?
You wrote, ““not that big a room” was in reference for your comment that I had missed Matt at (Sussex GOP) meetings.”
How would I know what you meant if you do not explain yourself better in your writing?
You wrote, “You call me a liar, but I am not part of the decision making of the Lee campaign.”
Your actions in the future will prove this to be true or false.
You wrote, “If I did have that input in his campaign, I would tell Lee that as soon as Sheriff Christopher comes up with something new to debate…then there should be a debate…”
Maybe that will happen…
You wrote, “…we here at Delaware Right offered to allow the Sheriff, or his campaign to write a post here that we would post unedited, we have yet to receive it…”
Maybe that will happen too…
You wrote, “Rep. Wilson’s event was open to the public and advertised. And as an RD Chair Matt Opalisky should have been there to show support. Remember, campaigns are more important than meetings, your words friend.”
You’re the only one that says Matt should have been there. When did that become a requirement of the RD Chair? I thought they were required to be at EC meetings and hold monthly meetings. What do the bylaws say? Campaigns are more important than meetings when you are the candidate. EC meetings are more important when you are the RD Chair. Wilson does not look for any support from the party. Just ask him, he will tell you the same thing. He runs on his own, under the GOP banner as most candidates do. I know. I’ve done it. You haven’t. You just complain, criticize and condemn.
You wrote, “Again I am sorry I made a mistake.”
Again, What was your mistake?
You wrote, “I allowed myself to be fooled…”
Why would you allow yourself to be fooled?
Lynn Rogers donated to the PAC, quite the opposite of receiving money from the PAC. So a conservative democrat gave money to a conservative PAC run by republicans. The republicans would do well to bring Lynn Rogers into the fold. He is okay in my book.
1. How about your book?
2. What other Democrats did Clark’s PAC contribute (or in your case, not contribute) to?
You wrote, “The current 35th RD Chair Matt Opalinski did not even work the polls in the last election, at least not the largest in his district at the Bridgeville Firehouse, where I stood outside all day…”
1. So if you didn’t see Opalinski at the polling place you were working he did not work any of the polls?
2. Matt wasn’t even the Chairman of the 35th during the 2012 election was he?
Frank,
You wrote, “You simply are pinging around the site in an attempt to be annoying…”
No, I am alerting your readers just how Knott right you are.
You wrote, “And I do not ban anyone on my own, there would need to be a consensuses of the people involved in Delaware Right.”
Great, another cabal looking to shut down free speech!
You wrote, “As for the anything concerning the Lee campaign, you are talking to the wrong person.”
Maybe. But we all know you are connected to the right person. A recent poll in Sussex shows voters support a constitutional sheriff by a wide margin. There are enough voters in Sussex now that know what a sheriff is truly supposed to be to get Christopher re-elected over and over again.
Ricky says, “Great, another cabal looking to shut down free speech! ” Great another TEA patriot with no idea about anything. You have no guarantee of free speech here, this is a privately owned site, and the owners (which does not include myself) decide who gets to play here (including me).
You are now repeating the same comments on several threads, and even repeating on the same thread. Clean up your behavior, or action will be taken to block your access.
Now you can cry baby about that all you want.
“Why I am not voting for Robert Lee for Sussex County Sheriff
During his interview with Dan Gaffney on Delaware 105.9 He states that he a person of “Fairness, Big in Community Affairs, And is Team Orientated, You can make your own opinion after reading.
Delaware is a small state and many of the residents have personal knowledge of candidates. I wanted to take a few minutes and explain why I will not vote for Robert Lee.
Mr. Lee has boasted about his fairness, but I have had the displeasure of seeing just how he lacks fairness unless it’s to his direct benefit. I was employed at the Seaford Police as a dispatcher and worked with Mr.Lee for eight years, so we both were employeed at the same time. During my evaluation process I had the distinct displeasure of experiencing Mr. Lee’s fairness or lack there of. While employed in Seaford Mr. Lee was married, but had no trouble displaying affection to the relief dispatcher. This was abundantly clear when during my employment I often worked in support of Mr.Lee, who spoke to me at length about placing more information on the dispatchers cards for calls. However, he was so infatuated with the relief dispatcher that her cards held far less information yet she was never counseled. Keep in mind I had been filling these cards out the same way for eight years and now I needed counseling. I witnessed the differences between both sets of cards. Mr. Lee was fair ?
He never denied a budding workplace relationship with this person, nor did he deny he was still married and went on to divorcing his wife to marry this woman. Who I might add is not his current wife at present time.
Mr. Lee was instrumental in my desire to resign from the department because of his constant harassment, covert threatening conversations, and intimidating demeanor. Mr. Lee would often apply police like tactics in dealing with civilian employees including myself. Is this team oriented?
At one point a woman had come into the Seaford Police Dept to make a complaint. Mr.Lee was assigned to take the Information. He apparently knew the plaintiff and defendant. As Lee walked away from the woman he mumbled, “if she stuck with her own color she wouldn’t have these problems”. Is this Lee’s ideal of fairness?
I have also witnessed how a prisoner was treated in the holding cell after the toilet was overflowing due to the prisoner. Mr. Lee was the arresting officer of this black migrant worker in this matter. There were only 3 people in the building that night at this time. The prisoner, Mr. Lee, and myself. I couldn’t get the guy any help. Who was going to listen to me. You can figure what happened in the back room. Is this Mr.Lee’s ideal of fairness?
In closing, I’m well aware of campaign slogans and a desire to help the community, however Mr. lee has demonstrated that he lacks the moral fiber to make good choices and act in fairness as a sworn law enforcement officer in a small town. What is the expectation for his performance in a larger capacity with even more authority?
His idea of team orientation only pertains to people with the same mindset that he has. I’m sure his idea of Community Affairs pertains to the number of wives and potential wives and cronies he has.
I can understand why he refused to debate on the Dan Gaffney show. The airwaves would have been filled with the skeletons from his past. Mr. Lee should withdraw from the race and quietly live out his life rather than bring discredit to the election process due to his lack of ethics and morals.
Ms. Shear, I heard your call into the Dan Gaffney Show following Mr. Lee’s segment. I notice you have left a few things out of your comment above that you stated on air. Like the fact that you receive unfavorable revues and that you were terminated, and it seems that you blame Mr. Lee, so one has to wonder if what you state above is someone trying to get the truth out to the people, or merely a disgruntled former employee trying to get revenge?
As for the anecdotal evidence you gave above about supposed miss treatment of people, well again, without corroboration it is again just the accusations of someone with an ax to grind.
Frank Knotts Glad you heard me on the radio, I didn’t leave out that much,, And I need to enlighten you some I can see,,, I Didn’t say on the radio I was Terminated,,, I Resigned I mailed my resignation letter to city manger and Mayor and city council, My unfavorable revue as you call it,, was a unsatisfactory evaluation which with held a pay increase,,, after grieving the evaluation all the way to Mayor and City Council with a lawyer,,, city manger brought a check with the difference to me….. That was the start of my unfair treatment working there,,,, I had already been employed 8 yrs at that time,,,, I do not blame Mr.Lee for the evaluation,,, Roger Griffith was the sergeant at that time,,, Mr.Lee had continued with my Harassment there after due to the fact The dept changed up shifts,,, and I then worked under Robert Lee,, non of that plays a role in him and Mrs.Harris being little to friendly during my 8 yrs working there,,, after I left he married her,,, I’m am stating to show his fairness as he states,,, along with Team oriented are you saying Mr.Lee isn’t on his third wife,,,??? Sorry I’m not lying you believe what you will,,,,, I saw the prisoner in the back room,,,, and I heard his statement as he walked pass me,,, saying the woman should stick to her own color and she wont have problems,,, How is that given the public a fair chance,???
Frank Knotts,,,,, Let me ask you,,, given what I said on the radio and in the above letter, along with my commits’ back to you,, correcting the fact that I resigned, On that information, if you found that I was not exaggerating and that is just some of what I can write, The readers don’t like to read long statements, so I was trying to summarize his creditability
Would you support Mr.Lee ??? giving what I said an be honest
Ms. Shear, so your unfavorable revue was not administered by Mr. Lee, then why do you bring it up in this conversation?
I cannot tell you what I would or would not do based on what might be or not be true.
Your anger was apparent on the radio and is also apparent here. You obviously feel you were mistreated in your former job and are projecting that anger upon Mr. Lee. However, if Mr. Lee was not your supervisor and had nothing to do with your revue it would seem that this is simply an attack of convenience.
I am surprised that if you had a legitimate grievance of harassment and since you had already been through the legal process, why you didn’t file a harassment suit?
As for your recounting of incidents, well I could say just about anything about Crystal Shear if I chose to.
This ranks right up there with the recent comments posted by Christopher’s campaign manager. He’s insinuating Lee supporters are removing and destroying Christopher’s signs. He makes no mention of the fact that the the signs are not 10′ from the pavement of state roadways, as required by DelDOT. I wonder what the higher ups at People Place would think if they knew the van purchased for the transportation of vets is being used for putting out signs for Christopher, and other campaign business.. The same van is seen at Jimmy’s when Christopher is there speaking on the Gaffney show.
Frank Knotts I am responding one last time to you,, I have my Resonation letter dated March 23,1999 Which as I have already informed you,, that I CC to City Manger Dolores Slacher ( Spelling ) and ALL of City Council and Mayor,,, Mayor was Danny Short at the time… So he was fully aware of things if not shame on him,,,, Turning a blind eye
In my letter I let them know of the Hostile work environment at the Seaford Police Dept back then from 1991 though March 1999 so anyone that was working there or on Council Knew of the conditions,,,,, below is what I made them all aware of,,, So by Mr.Lee telling you different he isn’t being truthful
I let the department know about he Racial prejudice going there with the Public, and employee’s Where I had openly heard the commits
along with witnessing unnecessary force used on defendant in custody while in police department.
Harassing a female officer to the point she resigned, Who I may say was a officer on Mr.Lee’s Shift for year Did he stand by her as a Team Player??
I was written up for calling in sick,,, and had a doctor’s not for my absence
I was made to work nightshift while on light duty,, when others were able to work day work,, allowing them time to go to Dr’s appt while on the clock
Not to mention,,, I was asked by Capt Pugh that City Council wanted me to write up reason that I felt it was hostile along with suggestions to make things better,,
after summiting my letter,, NO ONE from Seaford City Council responded back to me,,,
This led me to leave there,,,
Now I have this in Writing, of the copy I sent Making all involved aware of the Issues,,, with no results,,,,,
Mr.Lee was a Sergeant there, and Could had done something, given the fact I was his Dispatcher at the time of me leaving,,, “Team Oriented I ask ???
You wont hear from me on this Tread I have made my point,,,, See you at the Poles,,, Crystal
Lee Supporter,
Get your facts straight please, and also, don’t be a coward and use your real name when posting. EVERYTHING I have done has been WITHOUT my work van! The signs in question well past 10 feet of the edge of pavement! These signs were scattered along route 13 from Greenwood to Delmar, and many were replaced by Lee signs. At Jimmy’s I often am driving my work van because I am off on most Fridays because by Friday I am already at my scheduled 40 hours. Thursday I drive to the VA Hospital and I bring the van with me to Jimmy’s Friday morning then once I leave I drive back to Milford and pick my personal vehicle up. Also, we have a description of a person who has been destroying our signs and it has been reported to DELDOT and the DOE. You continue to attack me and others, using several fake names. You are a bitter man. Do I think Mr. Lee is responsible for the removal and destruction of our signs, no. I have even said as much to a few of his supporters. If you have a personal issue with me then be a man and call me.
Coward? I’m not a coward. I’m just one of many people who are sick of your crap. Go pull some more of your cowardly crap like you have in our state, NH, and West Virginia.
Get your facts straight! I didn’t say you implied Mr. Lee was responsible, I said you insinuated Lee supporters were removing the signs. You live less than 10 minutes from your work, you could drive the van and pick your own vehicle up.
As far as the signs I only relayed what I was told you were seen placing signs while you had the van that belongs to the organization you work for.
Given the nature of comments you have posted about Mr. Lee and others you have no room to be accusing anyone of attacking you.
Mike Rowe
28 August
“Gotta love adults acting like children. It’s interesting when a candidate’s campaign signs are missing or shredded into pieces, and his opponent has his signs in the same location.”
“I think it’s county wide. There’s over 100 signs missing and Robert Lee signs are located where ours were. Good Ole Sussex County Politics. It’s just too bad that some would resort to doing this.”
You assume way to much fat man I’m not bitter about anything. I think you and the rest of the hacks trying to discredit the other 2 candidates are a joke. You spread half baked truths with scare tactics in attempt to discredit anyone who doesn’t drink your kool-aid.
Lee Supporter,
Nothing cowardly about me. You’re the one who won’t use their real name, even though I know who you are.
Well Ms. Shear from your above comments, it is possible that you received an unfavorable revue based on your grammar and spelling, and maybe even your syntax (that means how you arrange words.)
Again, if you felt that you had a legitimate grievance why didn’t you file a suit rather than “resigning”?
You again make the statement that “YOU” witnessed such behavior, but have no collaboration. You point out that Mr. Lee was your Sargent and yet did nothing to keep you on when you resigned, it is not surprising that one would not reach out to keep someone on the team who obviously would have trouble writing a report, and who obviously was not happy in their position.
It is not unique for disgruntled former employees to come forward at such times as this.
thank you Frank for mentioning that,, suit gives a person something to think about. I wasn’t the only female there, and after I left that had problems. like I mention in my letter that was cc to city council there was a female officer that wasn’t treated fair I bet she didn’t have trouble writing a report and had good grammar Hmmm ok wow thank you I know for a fact after leaving there were others, Thanks again see there is a reason for everything
all I can say is WOW thank you…..
You’re welcome.