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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What progress have you made?
save for later