Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prosecuting Felonies Committed By Judges
Self | 09Aug11 | Self

Posted on 08/09/2011 5:15:39 PM PDT by OneWingedShark

        In the case Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, the court issued the following: “we hold that Indiana [sic] the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
        Ignoring the misplaced word ‘Indiana,’ this statement is quite troubling in its implications. They are saying that nobody has the right to resist even an illegal police entry into ones own home... and there are no qualifying limitations on the statement whatsoever. This means that a police officer could break into you house and rape you, your wife, your kids, your dog and you have no legally recognized right to resist. Even something less extreme, say he likes your house and so he decides to move in with you… the Judiciary is telling you that you have no legal right to resist it.
        In presenting the history of the right to resist unlawful entry, the court cites “United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948)” in which the Supreme Court of the United States said: “One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”
        Now, the Supreme Court of the United States does not hear cases concerning statutory laws, but matters of Constitutionality thereof. The cited Di Re case, as well as the other case cited in the paragraph (Bad Elk v. United States), were brought to the Supreme Court of the United States as issues of the Fourth Amendment. So then,, we have the Indiana Supreme Court admitting that the Fourth Amendment involves the right to resist an unlawful entry by the police.
        So right there we have a contradiction; but let us suppose that the Indiana Supreme Court would claim that the 10TH Amendment, which reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” gives them the authority to make such a declaration. As the Indiana State Constitution does establish (in Article 7, Section 1) the State’s judicial power and gives its Supreme Court (in Article 7, Section 4) the authority over “”l appeals of criminal cases, the power to review all questions of law, to which the question “do I have the legal right to resist an illegal police entry?” rightly belongs.
        But in citing the Di Re & Bad Elk cases the Indiana Supreme Court acknowledged the United States Supreme Court as having addressed these issues in regards to the 4TH Amendment; in so doing, they failed to recognize that such reasoning also applies to Indiana’s State Constitution which in Article 1, Section 11 says:
                The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
A word-for-word copy of the 4TH Amendment. So, unless the Indiana State Court can argue that the capitalization of ‘Oath’ and ‘Warrant’ so significantly change the meaning of the sentence they must acknowledge that the sentence has already been held to mean that the people do indeed have the right to resist an unlawful entry perpetrated by the police.
        Now for the coup de grâce, where I show that this to be a felony:
US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13
§ 241 – Conspiracy against rights
        If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
        If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
        They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
§ 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
        Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Because Indiana’s State Constitution does not cite the authority of the Judiciary to amend the State’s Constitution (Article 16), this must be a violation of the United State’s Constitution’s 14TH Amendment’s prohibition of a State denying due process (Section 1). (And this in addition to the violation of the 4TH Amendment & paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the US Constitution.)
        Therefore, it is obvious that the Supreme Court of Indiana is indeed guilty, and confessed of their own decree, of committing felony; and their declaration is also, in practice, encouraging those in law-enforcement to do the same.


TOPICS: US: Indiana; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; constitution; govtabuse; judiciary; rapeofliberty; tyranny; vanity
I wrote this up the other day and would love to get it into the hands of the Grand Juries of the State of Indiana so that they might use their powers of Presentment to force the prosecution of the judges who assented to and concurred with this decision.

I'm certain that one of the the worst things we can do right now is to let government officials get away with holding the Constitutions which bind them in so low regard; for if we do so, then the Constitutions are of no effect and cannot be depended on to provide any measure of [legal] protection at all.

1 posted on 08/09/2011 5:15:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Read the Writs of Assistance case of 1761. James Otis, with a young John Adams assisting, battled the British on this very subject.


2 posted on 08/09/2011 5:22:29 PM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimBianchi11; org.whodat; Cicero; piytar; A Strict Constructionist; Jonty30; Zuben Elgenubi; ...
Pinging those who were active regarding the IN Supreme Court decision wherein they de-recognized the legal recognition of the right to resist unlawful police entry. [One time]

I would be most appreciative if someone can connect me with IN Grand Juries, as I have little faith that government appointed prosecutors are pursuing this with due diligence.
Thanks in advance.

3 posted on 08/09/2011 5:24:20 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Oh, thank you... it sounds most intriguing.


4 posted on 08/09/2011 5:26:02 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
In the case Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, the court issued the following: “we hold that Indiana [sic] the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

The failure of this ruling is on it's face - the declaration that unlawful police actions must be allowed is, de facto, an unlawful ruling by definition.

That's what "unlawful" means. The judge literally contradicted himself. He said, in effect, "that which is defined as what shall not be obeyed, shall be obeyed."

And to uphold such a ruling is to use the law to deny the rule of law.

The only way out is to openly declare that the police are literally beyond the law - any law - and can do anything to any civilian at any time for any reason.

But then you'd have to admit that the unadmitted administrative law is actually a law of slave property, and that the government slave owners do not answer to any law concerning their civilian properties.

Can't admit that, now can we? Otherwise, Hollywood and Congress would be out of a job.

This "judge" should be impeached - and tried for sedition, if not treason.

5 posted on 08/09/2011 5:35:14 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I am hoping we have not heard the end of this matter.


6 posted on 08/09/2011 5:50:21 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
That would be a wasted effort ~ better to go for the jugular.

The judge who wrote the decision was relatively new to the court, and apparently UNFAMILIAR with American standards of jurisprudence.

He spent several years as chief counsel FOR the AlQaida pukes at Gitmo. Which is neither here nor there until you take a look at the case. First off the WOMAN living in the apartment called the cops for help. To a degree this is a relatively simple domestic dispute sort of case but it got to the Indiana Supreme court where this idiot judge could convince TWO OTHERS (including the Chief Justice of the court) to SIMPLY IGNORE THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

That's a page out of Sharia Law ~

There's no way you can follow American legal standards and ignore her part in the case, but the Indiana Supreme court did.

I really think the introduction of Sharia standards, e.g. that a woman's word is worth only half that of a man, to a state supreme court decision is far more serious than the BS about evolving standards.

BTW, there are laws that protect cops even in what turn out to be unlawful searches and seizures. Everybody's got such laws. After all, the cops aren't judges, and they aren't lawyers, and they can't be expected to apply every subtle nuance to every situation.

What that means in most cases is that if you decide you know more than they do and take a 2X4 and bust one of them up against the head he can probably ruin you with a civil suit.

You might even be charged with a crime.

The standard these days is to be patient and then go to court on their blue hides.

7 posted on 08/09/2011 5:51:59 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
You guys won. Mitch Daniels is no longer running for President.

That's what the issue was all about. This case, after all, isn't going to be cited by anyone as a precedent ~ no one would be that foolish.

I think we need to get the judge to resign voluntarily.

8 posted on 08/09/2011 5:54:55 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
You are quite right, in its practice that is what it does mean; however, if you allow me to 'lawyer' it, he did not say that it must be allowed, but that it cannot be resisted (and they say that the proper place to 'fight' it is in the court via suit/counter-suit).

And to uphold such a ruling is to use the law to deny the rule of law.

There are many such 'laws' and statutes which do so; the Gun Control Act is one which is unlawful on the grounds that it made criminal the possession of firearms by felons who had already served their sentence and was/is therefore an Ex Post Facto law. Therefore, the Gun Control Act is forbidden to exist as federal law or State law as the US Constitution prohibits both from passing any Ex Post Facto law.

The only way out is to openly declare that the police are literally beyond the law - any law - and can do anything to any civilian at any time for any reason.

This is already being done, I fear. Just take a look at the fastandfurious tag; that operation was a violation of international treaties, an act of war (in and of itself; apart from treaty violation), complicit in murders of multiple federal agents...

And there's this 'Operation Castaway' too.

But then you'd have to admit that the unadmitted administrative law is actually a law of slave property, and that the government slave owners do not answer to any law concerning their civilian properties.

Interesting you should mention that, it's the subject of what many would consider "crazy conspiracy theories;" that the government creates 'agents' (having the same name, except all capitalized) which represent people and then uses a blurring between this "legal fiction" and the real person to enforce its will.

This "judge" should be impeached - and tried for sedition, if not treason.

Well, that is why I wrote this up. I could likely find even more felonies if I tried; remember, I'm not legally trained at all.

9 posted on 08/09/2011 6:07:54 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Thanks OWS.


10 posted on 08/09/2011 6:12:18 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The judge who wrote the decision was relatively new to the court, and apparently UNFAMILIAR with American standards of jurisprudence.

He spent several years as chief counsel FOR the AlQaida pukes at Gitmo. Which is neither here nor there until you take a look at the case. First off the WOMAN living in the apartment called the cops for help. To a degree this is a relatively simple domestic dispute sort of case but it got to the Indiana Supreme court where this idiot judge could convince TWO OTHERS (including the Chief Justice of the court) to SIMPLY IGNORE THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

That's a page out of Sharia Law ~

There's no way you can follow American legal standards and ignore her part in the case, but the Indiana Supreme court did.

I really think the introduction of Sharia standards, e.g. that a woman's word is worth only half that of a man, to a state supreme court decision is far more serious than the BS about evolving standards.

"Unfamiliar" - or deliberately establishing a legal beachhead for further citation, and the subversive establishment of a thread of future connected "sharia-like" rulings and legal "theory"?

Great, great post, and you're absolutely right - this IS a far greater issue than it appears to be (which is saying something).

11 posted on 08/09/2011 6:14:04 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I could likely find even more felonies if I tried; remember, I'm not legally trained at all.

Excellent replies, all of them, and worth a lot of thought - thanks.

If only we could have more people lacking your legal training on the bench!

12 posted on 08/09/2011 6:17:10 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

They government and its legal apparatchiks will continue to offend both the law and the citizenry until there remains no allegiance to their rulings or their positions.

They will quickly find themselves in want of the very civil society that crumbled under their hubris and ignorance.


13 posted on 08/09/2011 6:22:46 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
...however, if you allow me to 'lawyer' it, he did not say that it must be allowed, but that it cannot be resisted (and they say that the proper place to 'fight' it is in the court via suit/counter-suit).

Point taken, but in the case of an armed home invader threatening death and robbery and wearing a badge, I believe the line between allowance and non-resistance is dissolved by the immediate physical threat (given that a priori civilian slave status is not upheld).

...that the government creates 'agents' (having the same name, except all capitalized) which represent people and then uses a blurring between this "legal fiction" and the real person to enforce its will.

This is beyond contention - simply look up the definition of the word "individual" in any government code, and you will find it groups with other corporate terms which hold in common the sole item of having the government as their creator. Since that manifestly does not apply to natural human beings, they are therefore referred to, uniformly, as "individuals," which are defined as their "corporate agents" that are "presumed" to be acting in their stead, and for which they are personally responsible.

Finding a place in the government code which describes the process of rebutting this presumption is, however... problematic.

14 posted on 08/09/2011 6:26:29 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
That would be a wasted effort ~ better to go for the jugular.

It's a wasted effort to try to get grand juries both a) aware of their power [presentment] and b) unafraid to use it against government corruption?
Please explain that one.

The judge who wrote the decision was relatively new to the court, and apparently UNFAMILIAR with American standards of jurisprudence.

And as we "mere civilians" are always being told: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But, aside from that, there is the matter that three other Judges on that court concurred with him; that means that they either a) did not read it, or b) agree with it.
In either case, those judges do not have the excuse of being "relatively new to the court."

He spent several years as chief counsel FOR the AlQaida pukes at Gitmo. Which is neither here nor there until you take a look at the case. First off the WOMAN living in the apartment called the cops for help. To a degree this is a relatively simple domestic dispute sort of case but it got to the Indiana Supreme court where this idiot judge could convince TWO OTHERS (including the Chief Justice of the court) to SIMPLY IGNORE THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

I do not see it as being Sharia law, certainly not provably so. (Or can you prove it, with citations and everything?)
I am trying to build a case that is legally provable and therefore actionable by the Grand Juries.
While the case mentions the woman at first, and then does not mention her again, the operative portion of the decision didn't involve the woman directly [as she did not, herself, give the police direct permission to enter], but whether the jury's instruction in the man's case were correct (the argument given to the appeals court).

BTW, there are laws that protect cops even in what turn out to be unlawful searches and seizures. Everybody's got such laws. After all, the cops aren't judges, and they aren't lawyers, and they can't be expected to apply every subtle nuance to every situation.

Interestingly, the text of the laws I cited should cut through those protections: they are unqualified as to who perpetrates the act.

What that means in most cases is that if you decide you know more than they do and take a 2X4 and bust one of them up against the head he can probably ruin you with a civil suit.
You might even be charged with a crime.
The standard these days is to be patient and then go to court on their blue hides.

Interestingly, that 'standard' was cited in the argument that they used: because people don't spend months/years rotting in jails, and because the courts are open to them, the need to forcibly resist unlawful police actions is anachronistic.

15 posted on 08/09/2011 6:29:00 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
There has been a petition for a rehearing, for what it's worth.

71 Indiana lawmakers ask Supreme Court to reconsider recent ruling on unlawful police entries June 8, 2011.

I think that the people of Indiana should also petition the legislature to impeach and remove the errant judges.

16 posted on 08/09/2011 6:42:51 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Any time you have a man and a woman who are engaged in creating facts for consideration in a case and you just write the woman out of existence you are, in fact, adopting the Sharia standard that women only count for half the weight of the testimony of a man.

If you didn't already know that you are probably a kafir ~ and that's someone whose testimony only counts for one-quarter the weight of a moslem man in court.

The judge slipped it in and that is important.

Sharia law has at its core the idea of CLASSES OF CITIZENS.

17 posted on 08/09/2011 6:45:40 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Remember the Boston Massacre? I do. The soldiers got off because it was their duty to do what they did ~ shoot back at people threatening to knock their heads off.

They acted lawfully.

American patriots argued on behalf of the troops.

Many times you have someone allege that the cops acted unlawfully on a search or seizure ~ then, later on, it's found they acted lawfully. Sometimes it's found they acted unlawfully. In virtually every case the call is best made by someone who has sufficient command of the law to work his way through a myriad of factors.

You've never been allowed to just shoot a cop who shows up in your place.

18 posted on 08/09/2011 6:50:32 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Perhaps here:
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t17b.htm
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

I also read an article, somewhere, where the term “patronymic name” [IIRC] was used to challenge the identity of the ALL CAPS name verses the [correct] Initial Caps name.


19 posted on 08/09/2011 6:52:48 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>You’ve never been allowed to just shoot a cop who shows up in your place.

I quite disagree, you’ve ALWAYS been allowed to shoot a cop who just “shows up” in your place. (It’s called burglary, or breaking and entering.)
In fact, that’s EXACTLY what the fourth amendment is for, it forces the use of a warrant for a government agent to “show up” and take/search someone or something upon ALL government agents.

And it goes back to FAR before the Constitution to the Magna Carta:
“No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” - [Clause 29]

“The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” - Pitt the Elder, speaking in the House of Lords, 1763

Or would you assert that the commission of unlawful acts should be protected by law? If so, how? (Does it not destroy, in practice, the distinction between lawful and unlawful?)


20 posted on 08/09/2011 7:04:49 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Are we creating through “qualified immunity” a form royalty who are presumed to be exempt from having to respect the rights that citizens hold to be unalienable?


21 posted on 08/09/2011 7:07:28 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Sharia law has at its core the idea of CLASSES OF CITIZENS.

Indeed, that makes it contrary to at least several State Constitutions, South Dakota specifically prohibits it.
Yet, I fear that we already DO have classes of citizens: the police/Law-Enforcement and the "civilian" to name two; just look at how the law looks at a freeman and a policeman in possession of a weapon (especially in places like courthouses).

I am wholly against such classings of people; the law should apply to all equally. {If anything more accountability should be required of those that have more power/authority, but that is the exact opposite of what we see.}

22 posted on 08/09/2011 7:09:28 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
Are we creating through “qualified immunity” a form royalty who are presumed to be exempt from having to respect the rights that citizens hold to be unalienable?

That is very much the question.
It is also more though, for if you notice, the cited laws are from the US Code (by which you or I would likely be charged to their fullest extent) and yet seem to have less and less of a hold on those in positions of authority.

23 posted on 08/09/2011 7:13:43 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Look here a moment ~ sometimes people end up someplace by accident ~ you've done it yourself. There is no death penalty authorized for making a mistake.

Sometimes there's an error on the warrant. Discovering the error is a question to be taken to court ~ not by blowing out the cop's brains.

In the same place (Indianapolis) a couple of cops drove by a man's fenced yard and saw his dogs outside romping and playing.

The cops stopped, shot the dogs, and then ran into the man's home guns drawn to DO SOMETHING.

He shot them dead.

What they'd done in shooting his dogs ~ with no warrent, and then entering his dwelling with guns drawn ~ with no warrant, and not in hot pursuit since having your dogs loose in your own yard behind a fence is not a crime, made them fair game ~ but he acted in self defense. He'd seen the cops enter his yard, kill his dogs, and break down his door. He had a reasonable belief that they were after him ~ and that they might not even be cops ~ so he shot them.

Virtually all the time you will NEVER encounter that situation. BTW, the court let him walk ~ his actions were ruled justifiable homicide in an act of self-defense.

At the other end of the line you have a situation where a woman called the cops to come to her apartment because her ex, who was MOVING OUT, was busting up her stuff.

When they arrived he even told the cops he was moving out.

You cannot address the points of law in this case without considering the rights of the woman to call the cops for assistance! Not in American law you can't ~ in Sharia Law you can ~ not in American Law.

24 posted on 08/09/2011 7:14:44 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Here's some background on what's been done so far. Ind. Decisions - Attorney General files Response in Barnes v. State provided by the Indiana Law Blog. Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed a brief urging reconsideration of the Indiana Supreme Court Ruling to allow "non-violent" resistance to unlawful police entry.
25 posted on 08/09/2011 8:37:26 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
“The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” - Pitt the Elder, speaking in the House of Lords, 1763

Thank you! I've been searching for that quote and it's attribution lately and hadn't been able to find it, no doubt because I couldn't remember enough of the exact wording to do a good search. (In fact it occurred to me to look for it again to respond to that very same post till I saw you beat me to it! GMTA)

26 posted on 08/10/2011 7:57:52 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>Look here a moment ~ sometimes people end up someplace by accident ~ you’ve done it yourself. There is no death penalty authorized for making a mistake.

Oh, yes, there is.
There is no ‘undo’ on the battle field; there are many, many situations where this simple witticism may be correctly applied to life.

>Sometimes there’s an error on the warrant. Discovering the error is a question to be taken to court ~ not by blowing out the cop’s brains.

And how many citizens have died or been injured due those selfsame errors? (Think especially hard about SWAT team mobilizations.)

>You cannot address the points of law in this case without considering the rights of the woman to call the cops for assistance!

I already laid out a chain of reasoning wherein you can; it might not sit well with you but it exists: they could have looked exclusively at the jury-instructions and the claims of the man (concerning those instructions).

>Not in American law you can’t ~ in Sharia Law you can ~ not in American Law.

I’ve asked for references here; it may be absolutely true, but this is a case wherein I am going after what I can *prove* in court. That is why I structured my argument the way I did: considering the federal implication of the decision (4th Amd & Art 6, of the US Constitution) as well as the State (the Indiana State Constitution and the 14th Amendment prohibiting the States from abridging due process)... effectively that covers both the cases.


27 posted on 08/10/2011 5:53:48 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; All

Many thanks for an interesting discussion.

Not sure, but I believe you will need to search out the Foreman for the Grand Jury, and find out what restrictions the courts have placed on his and the GJ’s power. Good luck.


28 posted on 08/11/2011 10:52:47 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

What progress have you made?


29 posted on 08/18/2011 9:55:31 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

No real progress to speak of.


30 posted on 08/20/2011 3:04:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
That's what "unlawful" means. The judge literally contradicted himself. He said, in effect, "that which is defined as what shall not be obeyed, shall be obeyed."

Playing devil's advocate, the judge may have meant the term "unlawful police entry" been trying to refer to actions by cops which are facially legitimate, but which might at some later time be found to have been unlawful for some reason unknowable by the cops on the scene. Viewed that way, his argument would not be unreasonable, even though I disagree with it in some measure.

Essentially, the question the judge may have been trying to answer would be: "If a cop wishes to enter a person's dwelling with a facially-valid warrant, and a person articulates some basis for believing that a court which examined all the facts surrounding the warrant would find it to have been unlawful, does such articulable belief form sufficient basis for the person to resist entry?" The judge may have been concerned that answering in the affirmative would give a green light for people to resist warrant service on the slightest pretext.

My argument would be that if the warrant is facially valid for the search, and the person cannot demonstrate some reason why it is not, the person's belief that the warrant is invalid, no matter how reasonable that belief may be, is not sufficient basis to deny the search. HOWEVER, I would suggest that a person who is accused of having acted unlawfully while resisting a search has the right to have all factual matters related to the legitimacy of the search considered by the jury which would be instructed that if it finds that the search was in fact unlawful, it cannot convict the defendant for actions undertaken to resist it.

Essentially, I would require a jury to acquit if if found that either:

  1. The defendant had a reasonable belief that the search was facially unlawful, and/or the cop could not have reasonably believed it to be legitimate.
  2. The search was, in fact, unlawful, irrespective of whether the defendant had a reasonable belief of such legitimacy at the time.
The sets of facts required for the two defenses are somewhat disjoint. The former defense would not require that the defendant show that the search actually was unlawful, if the defendant had a reasonable belief that it was facially illegitimate; the second would not allow a belief in the illegitimacy of a facially-legitimate search, no matter how reasonably held, to be used as a defense unless the search was in fact unlawful.
31 posted on 09/21/2011 4:55:00 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

save for later


32 posted on 10/19/2011 8:42:39 PM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson