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:
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. |
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.
Read the Writs of Assistance case of 1761. James Otis, with a young John Adams assisting, battled the British on this very subject.
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.
Oh, thank you... it sounds most intriguing.
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.
I am hoping we have not heard the end of this matter.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks OWS.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?)
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.