Roy G. Callahan, USN, Ret.

1529 NW 143rd Street Gainesville, Florida 32606 Tel: (352) 332-9144 Fax: (352) 332-9144 Friday, November 08, 2013 Sheriff Sadie Darnell 2621 SE Hawthorne Road Gainesville, Florida 32641 A jury acquitted Sheriff Finch of malfeasance. The people saw through the politics that removed him from office. Sadly, Governor Scott aided and abetted others who did an end run around FS 993.03 which reads. “Upon specific direction by the Governor in writing to the executive director, the department (FDLE) shall investigate the misconduct, in connection with their official duties, of public officials and employees and of members of public corporations and authorities subject to suspension or removal by the Governor.” The assault on Sheriff Finch’ good name and reputation for upholding his oath of office and the Constitution, of which the 2nd Amendment is a part, made him $60,000 poorer. Lloyd Bailey correctly asserted you are the highest elected law enforcement officer in Alachua County at the Alachua County Tea Party meeting you attended on October 26, 2013. He correctly said you have an obligation to uphold your oath and protect the citizens of this county from federal tyranny. You might recall I wrote you a letter On January 3, 2013, asking if you are a Constitutional sheriff. I also asked if you will honor your oath by refusing to enforce federal rules, regulations, and directives that violate the Constitution. Your reply on January 16,2013, said “your interpretation of what my responsibilities as chief law enforcement are appear to be rhetoric espoused by many groups who are dissatisfied with the current presidential administration.” You also said, “My oath requires me to not only support the federal and state constitutions, but the federal government as well.” Researching the oath of office Florida officials take and comparing it to other states reveals Florida oath is an anomaly.1 The Florida Constitution was revised in 1968 and that revision removed legislative history that precludes online researchers and other interested parties from ascertaining why the new oath contains the words “Government of the United States.” “Sections composing the 1968 revision have no history notes”


"I, ___________, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God."

Page 1 of 3

Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees every state a “Republican form of Government.” Therefore, taking an oath to both Constitutions is appropriate because the state constitution emanates from the U.S. Constitution which denotes each state has the Republic form of government the constitution mandates. The word “government” however, refers to an entity created by the states. The Florida oath mentions two forms of government by name so the oath taker serves two masters or, depending on how one reads the oath, FOUR. The Florida oath, as written, also confirms the state’s vassal status to a government the states created thus diminishing the 9th and 10th Amendments. Your assertion the “rhetoric” in my letter “had something to do with a group who is dissatisfied with the current presidential administration” was an obvious effort to diminish the purpose of its writing. I sat in the front row at the Tea Party meeting you spoke at wearing my Oath Keepers tee shirt so you could readily identify me and what I stand for. I did so knowing that according to former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, my status as a retired member of armed forces and Public Defender Investigator qualifies me as a right wing anarchist, extremist or potential terrorist. Like it or not, it also obligates me to take issue with elected officials who ignore their constitutional oaths. I practice equal opportunity when it comes to the constitutional issues; party affiliation has nothing to do with it. I attended a rally in Tallahassee for Sheriff Finch shortly after he was removed from office. A speaker at the rally suggested local sheriff’s install hot lines for constituents to call should federal agents overstep their authority. I support this idea. I also introduced myself to Sheriff Finch, shook his hand, talked to him, and asked a few questions. Twenty years of experience in the criminal justice system tempered the questions I wanted answered. One question I asked elicited a strong response confirming Sheriff Finch had five or more years of law enforcement experience before running for sheriff as no party affiliation candidate. He confirmed his status as a Constitutional sheriff; proved he knew what he was doing and convinced me he did nothing unlawful. The record shows he was accused of doing the same thing his predecessors did; his problem was an underling and a group of people who do not support the constitution made the issue political. They did their damndest to make him an example of what happens when a newcomer bucks the system. The governor stupidly helped; the media was complicit to a certain extent and the rest is history. You ducked my question about Sheriff Finch at the Tea Party meeting because the Finch case was still pending. His case is over, and the people of Alachua County still employ you. Therefore, as one of your employers, I want to to know if you will you honor your oath or do as directed by the federal government if you are given an order that violates one of your constituent’s Constitutional rights. Looking forward to your reply, I remain,

Yours in the Bill of Rights Roy G. Callahan Member, Florida Oath Keepers/John Birch Society Page 2 of 3

Copy to: Representative Ted Yoho, State Representative Perry, State Senator Rob Bradley et al.

Page 3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful