TEXAS COMMISSION ON

LAW ENFORCEMENT

May 26, 2023

Mr. Richard Mack

Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
P.O. Box567
Higley, Arizona 85236
via e-mail: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Mack:

Please find enclosed the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement's (TCOLE) findings and
conclusions made in review of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
(CSPOA) events held in Texas.

As stated, the material presented is best categorized as political discourse and similar
content will not merit TCOLE training credit in the future.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

John P. Beauchamp
"
Interim Executive Director,
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Enc.: As stated.

Cc: Ms. Tonya Benson via e-mail: [email protected]

Phone: (512) 936-7700 6330 E Highway 290 STE 200 Austin TX 78723-1035
 TEXAS COMMISSION ON
LAW ENFORCEMENT

Memo on Findings and Conclusions

For Attachment to Investigative File
To: Major T.J. Vineyard, Enforcement Division, TCOLE
From: John P. Beauchamp, Interim Executive Director
Subject: Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Events Review
Date: May 25, 2023
Summary
Based on the Enforcement Division's investigation, the reviewed content will not be
eligible for future law enforcement training credit in Texas according to the following:

Under Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) rules, "training" conducted by

a training provider will be awarded credit unless it is "not related to a commission
license." 1

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) material reviewed is
best categorized as political discourse which lacks sufficient instruction or information
constituting any meaningful relation to a Texas law enforcement license.

Moving forward, similar CSPOA content does not merit TCOLE training credit.

Corrective and remedial action. From the regulatory perspective, TCOLE will review
and consider any procedural and policy means needed for improving the state-wide
oversight of course instructor and content. This includes improving or new
requirements related to course instructors, outlines, and the promotion of courses as
TCOLE "approved" or "certified."

The respective training providers were compliant with all applicable standards. Any
instances of technical noncompliance were caused by their reliance on longstanding
TCOLE policies.

TCOLE can notify Texas training providers of this action. As for the courses already
taken, including those occurring prior to formal agency action, credit may be retained
for the purpose of continuing education compliance.

Procedural Background
2021 Complaint, TCOLE monitors two events. In 2021, TCOLE received a complaint
regarding events put on by CSPOA in Texas. 2 The complaint's specific concerns were
with speaker backgrounds and the content of the course entitled "The County Sheriff:
America's Last Hope."
In response, two Texas CPSOA events were monitored, including one recorded by audio,
by TCOLE Field Service Agents. Brief initial summaries concluded that the events were
conducted in accordance with applicable guidelines and training. 3 As with all law
enforcement training in Texas, TCOLE training credit was awarded for all attendees as it
was reported. No further action was taken by TCOLE.
2022 public information request, formal investigation opened. In September 2022,
TCOLE received a media request which included a request for CPSOA course
curriculum, a required part of a law enforcement training provider's file under TCOLE
administrative rules. 4 The request included information for the events monitored by
TCOLE in 2021.s
After an initial review of the responsive information, it was determined that further and
additional inquiry was warranted, and the matter was formally assigned to TCOLE's
Enforcement Division.

The scope of the investigation was to determine whether: (1) TCOLE training providers
were compliant with TCOLE administrative standards, including maintaining course
outlines and instructor qualifications in their training files; and (2) if the events were
law enforcement training which merited TCOLE credit.

The investigation included a review of audio recordings, all relevant documents,

interviews with attendees, and inspection of training provider training files and records.

Event content
The reviewed material is political discourse. The CSPOA events offer opm1ons,
anecdotes, and discussion on the separation of powers and exercise of political authority
amongst governmental actors and include the following claims:

"This is a war" in which local, state, and federal agencies have been
"weaponized against you" through an "incursion" of "state and federal
bureaucrats" that have been "infiltrated" and "placed traitors and
saboteurs in local authority." These agents "attack by using federal and
state agencies to tyrannize people to advance goals";

Sheriffs "have a duty to interpose on behalf of constituents" against "state

and federal bureaucrats" and other "state agents" whose laws, orders, or
acts they individually deem as unconstitutional;

Tyranny should be resisted whether from "some other agency in your

county, or if it comes from the state, or it comes from the federal
government, or it comes from cartels, or it comes from street gangs." "Any
government" involved in tyranny should be stopped. When a peace officer
refuses an order or law deemed unconstitutional, they are upholding the
law; and

Likewise, state executive orders are not law and "can't be enforced" as "you
don't swear allegiance to the governor." Finally, whenever the Legislature
 1s m session "our liberties are in jeopardy" because they are "always
creating some law."

Assuming for the sake of evaluation that the material is something other than political
discourse, it could be otherwise construed as legal theory.

For example, the events invite Texas law enforcement officers to step into the roles of
court and lawmaker because they are "empowered to say what the law is."6 This is
necessary because "some acts of the legislature are not laws" but instead "pretended
legislation."7 Further, "unjust laws" are not to be followed because they are "nullities"
and are unlawful to enforce. 8

Notably, statements by law enforcement attendees indicate that they were under the
impression of being taught the authority and duties of Texas Sheriffs and other law
enforcement officers under the United States and Texas Constitutions.

However, as presented, there is no meaningful authority cited supporting these

proposed legal theories. For instance, there is no authority presented or found for the
proposition that "pretended legislation" is a condition precedent to, or legal principle
that, lawfully allows the individual nullification of existing laws.

There is also misapplication of the fundamental concept of judicial review, which gives
courts the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws. 9 As the United States
Supreme Court has said, such a determination is the "gravest and most delicate duty"
they are "called on to perform." 10 In similar deference, the Texas Supreme Court
presumes that statutes and executive agency regulations are constitutional. 11

Further, attendees are urged to not rely upon duly elected Texas County Attorneys, who
are charged under statute with protecting the legal interests of their respective
counties. 12

Based on the foregoing reasons, this material does not merit law enforcement training
credit in the future.

ohn P. Beaucham,,_,_.
Interim Executive Director,
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
1 See Tex. 0cc. Code § l 701.251(c)(2)(the comm1ss1on may conduct in-service and
advanced courses as the commission determines appropriate for officers, jailers, and
telecommunicators); 37 Tex. Admin. Code § 215.l 7(e)(3)(illustrative examples of
circumstances not meriting training credit).
2 July 6, 2021 complaint.
3 Upon review, insufficient guidance was provided to TCOLE personnel attending as to the
scope and nature of the inquiry.
4 37 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 215.9, .10. (Training Coordinator and Course Instructor
Requirements).
5 Also reviewed is audio recorded at April 17-18, 2023 CPSOA events. It is not materially
different.

6
See United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 318 F.2d 1, 17 (5th Cir. 1963)(defiance of the
rule oflaw by a state or city, a governor, or police officer may hamstring the nation).
7 The source of the term itself is used in the colonists' accusation that George III assisted the
British Parliament in the continued efforts to tax colonies and subjected the colonists to "a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution." See The Declaration of Independence para. 15 (U.S.
1776)("He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisiliction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended
Legislation... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent... ").
8 This is an invocation of Saint Augustine's classic formula, lex iniusta non est lex (unjust
law is not law) absent the corollary obligation to observe all civil authority. See City of God,
V.17.
9 Gabriel Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Bev. Comm'n, 24 F.4th 503, 507 (5th Cir. 2022)
citing McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., 983 F.3d 194, 202 (5th Cir. 2020) quoting Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).
10Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 205 (2009)(citation
omitted).
Patel v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 87 (Tex. 2015)(determining
11
whether a law is unconstitutional is a question of law).
12CSPOA proposes that since attorneys are trained in the "the case law method" "developed
at Harvard law school back in the 1880s" they "don't know what the law is" and mistake
"pretended legislation" for such.