PDA

View Full Version : Indiana Supreme Court Attacks Common Law and the Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest



Zimobog
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 07:20 PM
Indiana Supreme Court Upholds the ‘Rapist Doctrine’: Don’t Resist — You’ll Just Make It Worse

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/88027.html

The Indiana State Supreme Court has just nullified the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of that state’s constitution, in addition to “a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215,” notes a wire service report. In a 3–2 decision, the court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” wrote Justice Steven David. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Actually, the “risks” to a government-licensed bully in such an encounter are vanishingly small. But we must remember that “officer safety” is the controlling priority in any conflict between a State-sanctified enforcer and a mere Mundane. This is why, as Professor Ivan Bodensteiner of Valparaiso University School of Law observes, “It’s not surprising that [the court] would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer.” No, that “right” belongs to the costumed thug; the Mundane has no choice but to submit to whatever invasion or injury his tax-sustained assailant sees fit to inflict at the time.

A victim of criminal police aggression “still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system” — that is, the same court system that has conferred its unconditional benediction on criminal violence by the police. This assumes, of course, that the Mundane survives the initial encounter.

Note how the court assumes — correctly, in my view — that an unlawful arrest is the all-but-inevitable product of an unlawful police incursion. This tacitly recognizes that the right to resist an unwarranted search is derivative of the common law right to resist unlawful arrest.

A similar case explicitly dealing with the right to resist unlawful arrest (People v. Moreno) is working its way through the bowels of the judicial system in neighboring Michigan, and will most likely result in another decision pulled from the emunctory aperture of a robe-wearing sophist on the state Supreme Court. A state appeals court in Michigan has observed that “we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act” in the state’s statute dealing with resisting arrest, which “states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.”

In a 2004 ruling (People v. Ventura) dealing with a self-defense claim against an unlawful arrest, the same Michigan Court of Appeals, in prose laden with disingenuous mock humility, wrote that “it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature’s obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.” Actually, that modification came about because the state judiciary begged the legislature to change the state code to eliminate statutory protection for the long-established individual right to resist unlawful arrest.

In a 1999 ruling (People v. Wess), the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing the state legal code, admitted that citizens had a right, explicitly protected by state statute, “to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest.” In the dicta of that ruling the court pleaded with the legislature to change the law:

“We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity… we see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right’ only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant.” Of course, the requirement that a police officer obtain a warrant is the only “procedural safeguard” that matters — and it’s the one effectively disposed of once the court authorizes police to invade a home on a whim.

In 2002, the Michigan state legislature complied by modifying the relevant section of the state code (MCL 705.81d) by removing the clause recognizing the common law right to “use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent” an unlawful arrest (that is, an armed kidnapping) by a police officer.

In the interests of brevity, these rulings should be consolidated under the name “Rapist Doctrine,” in recognition of the fact that are pseudo-scholarly versions of the advice once urged upon women enduring sexual assault: Don’t resist — it will only make things worse.

Ocko
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 07:31 PM
Does anyone knows the races and political affiliation of those idiots?

seems the judges are only employed to destroy the rights of the citizens and increase the totalitarian power of the government.

any imbecile knows that police should not have the rights to enter your house without any good reason. If there is none you protect your house against a criminal.

Is that so difficult or did they get paid so much in benefits that they don't care anymore?

What they don't see is that if the rule of law is destroyed then there is nothing anymore to protect them. Now they may relish in their power tomorrow they hang on a laterne by a mob which doesn't know anymore the rule of law.

We the people are the sovereign of this country, not corrupt judges.

Freedoms cannot be given or granted, Freedoms can only be taken and defended to the death. That is the lesson any police officer entering my property illegally will learn.

wm mauer
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 07:58 PM
Freedoms cannot be given or granted, Freedoms can only be taken and defended to the death. That is the lesson any police officer entering my property illegally will learn.

I agree with you, brother. IMO they have to be kikes that spewed this ruling. They spat it out as a snake hisses. They openly flout the good Constitution, that had set forth the rules to govern by. That race of vipers has always usurped & perverted the good. I mind my own business & cause no troubles for anyone. Should they come to my door, what I will do, will depend & that bridge will be crossed when confronted.

There is a time & a place for every good action. The goal of my life is to be in perfect accord with my Maker & to live & give honor to all my ancestors who trace back to the beginning. It is my hope to be active when this "beast from babylon" falls, but if not, so be it. In time I will join the council fires of my people. I know that they watch from beyond. May I be welcomed when I cross over.

Zimobog
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 08:31 PM
Does anyone knows the races and political affiliation of those idiots?

Judges aren't supposed to have political affliations, but due them being appointed by elected politicos...

The judge who wrote the qoute from the article was appointed by Gov. Mark Daniels, one of the Republican presidentital hopefuls. The judge has a military and private law career. I would say it seems he is a right-winger based on that. I have no clue what race he is.

Indiana is typically very conservative. My problem with conservatism is that it has become an ideological haven for many who support the militarization of police and the expansion of foreign wars of empire. This ruling reflects a normal conservative view: that police are our friends and that anything one might do to "prevent" them from doing their "duty" should constitute an offense.


seems the judges are only employed to destroy the rights of the citizens and increase the totalitarian power of the government.

I know a good judge at least: Andrew P. Napolitano.

any imbecile knows that police should not have the rights to enter your house without any good reason. If there is none you protect your house against a criminal.
That right has been apart of our society for 600 years. This is a major blow against our culture and laws.

Schopenhauer
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 11:36 PM
Considering the constitutional ramifications of this ruling, I'd expect the Supreme Court will be forced to weigh in on this sooner or later.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 11:54 PM
27fPqQctVXc

Notice the race of the police chief...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/05/ST2008080503214.html


Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.

RoyBatty
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 12:15 AM
well well well.... looky looky here:


the official Steven David bio released by his office announced the fact that David is a member of the American Judicature Society, the leading institutional proponent of the Missouri Plan, and beneficiary of more than $1 million in contributions from George Soros’s Open Society Institute since 2000.

http://dailypundit.com/?p=41322

It's always the same names and the same religious cult involved whenever Whites are being assaulted and brutalised.

wm mauer
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 12:55 AM
Considering the constitutional ramifications of this ruling, I'd expect the Supreme Court will be forced to weigh in on this sooner or later.

Right, but with all the jews & bull dyke jewesses on that court, & on all of our courts, & in our legislatures state & federal, & in our executive branches state & federal at some point their true colors will come forth & reveal just how anti-Constitutional, anti-white, anti-good they are.

Their aim from the beginning imo has been to wipe our seed from the face of this planet. All the wars at their behest, tax theft from us, feminism, homosexuality, race mixing, abortions, 3rd world immigration flood, drugs legal & non, the slaughter of +66 million Russians per Alexander Solzhenitsin, etc, have all contributed to the decimation of our race.

Us being on the toehold of life here has not been random or accidental. I will not hold my breath that the USSC will do the honorable & right thing, especially when we need them to.

Schopenhauer
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 01:49 AM
Right, but with all the jews & bull dyke jewesses on that court, & on all of our courts, & in our legislatures state & federal, & in our executive branches state & federal at some point their true colors will come forth & reveal just how anti-Constitutional, anti-white, anti-good they are.

Their aim from the beginning imo has been to wipe our seed from the face of this planet. All the wars at their behest, tax theft from us, feminism, homosexuality, race mixing, abortions, 3rd world immigration flood, drugs legal & non, the slaughter of +66 million Russians per Alexander Solzhenitsin, etc, have all contributed to the decimation of our race.

Us being on the toehold of life here has not been random or accidental. I will not hold my breath that the USSC will do the honorable & right thing, especially when we need them to.

I would be very surprised indeed if the USSC heard this on appeal and ruled it unconstitutional.

wm mauer
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 02:31 PM
I would be very surprised indeed if the USSC heard this on appeal and ruled it unconstitutional.


Of course I hope we are wrong, brother. All we ever wanted was to be left alone, but then parasites will not abide that.

Æmeric
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 06:10 PM
The Indiana Supreme Court (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/todays.html) is appointed but the members are subjected to popular vote in retention. Most other judges in Indiana are elected. I know I have no faith in the local justice system, if you have legal problems you better have a lawyer in good terms with the presiding judge.

The lone Negro judge dissented, but that may be out of sympathy for his race, they being more likely to have run-ins with the police.

The 3 justices that voted for this decision will be denied retention the next time they come up before the voters. It will be a repeat of Iowas where every justice that came up for retention in 2010, who voted that gay marriage was a constitutional right, was thrown off the court by the voters.

Ocko
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 10:03 PM
America's Death Squads
By Jim Kirwan
5-16-11

How have we come down to this? It did not happen overnight, and this has been the result of decades of extreme-right-wing views of the role of "law-enforcement" polices throughout this country. The very first problem with the entire concept stems from the definition of "law·en·force·ment." The term infers that there are laws that need to be enforced; but the fact is there are no longer any "laws" that govern the behavior of those in uniform.

This is how we have apparently become unwilling participants in this massive crime against the rights and responsibilities of everyone in this country; from the citizens that are the victims to the thugs that are illegally making these arrests; Tasering and sometimes torturing people-as well as those who are murdered by those same people that are armed, supposedly, to protect the same people that the uniformed law-enforcers are now making undeclared-war-upon.

When I was as consultant to the California Department of Justice in the late nineteen-seventies the mood among a great many "officers" was that police in California were being restricted far-too-much by having to Mirandize suspects: Because this limited what police could do to "catch-the-bad-guys."

In fact these same lazy, bull-headed cops were adamant that there should be no restrictions upon whatever they might want to do to get "confessions" from those they had decided were criminals. In this process the first, fourth and fifth amendments were considered to be counter-productive to "good-police-work (i.e. cops needed a blank check, including beating confessions out of suspects). After Death-Squad-Reagan became president these efforts began to be seen as much more desirable than they ever-had been before. Of course after 911 these criminally-open-ended policing polices became defacto law. And the result of these miscarriages of actual justice are now the law of the land: All of which are heavily buried under many layers of false-flag national-security and STATE Security requirements which is how America has come to find itself in the crosshairs of police weapons for the slightest infractions on so very many different occasions.

This brings us to the latest version of lawless-behavior by a SWAT TEAM in Tucson, Arizona. This nameless and faceless "TEAM" murdered an ex-marine in his own home, with 71 shots which were fired at him without reason: and basically without warning. All the members of this TEAM should be profiled in the local papers, with their pictures and home addresses published, along with the records of their entire-service to the despicable Tucson Police Department that routinely utilizes their illegal-services (murder-for-hire). If Tucson cops were any-good at their so-called jobs then the number of home-invasions would not be the problem that they definitely are today!

May 12, 2011 "LR" -- Jose Guerena survived two combat tours of Iraq, only to become a casualty of the Regime's longest war - the one waged against its domestic subjects in the name of drug prohibition. The former Marine was slaughtered by a SWAT team during a May 5 assault on his home in Arizona.

Guerena's wife, Vanessa, heard a noise outside the couple's home near Tucson at about 9 a.m. Jose, who had just gone to bed after pulling a 12-hour shift at the Asarco Mine, suspected - correctly, as it turned out - that his family was threatened by an armed criminal gang. Grabbing his AR-15, Guerena instructed his wife and four-year-old son to hide in the closet while he confronted the intruders. According to Mrs. Guerena, the stormtroopers from the Pima County Regional SWAT team never identified themselves as police; they simply stormed into the home and started shooting.

"I saw this guy pointing me at the window, Vanessa recalled in a television interview. "So, I got scared. And, I got like, 'Please don't shoot, I have a baby.' I put my baby [down]. [And I] put bag in window. And, I yell 'Jose! Jose! Wake up!'"

"A deputy's bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield," recounts the Arizona Daily Star, paraphrasing an account provided by Pima County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) functionary Michael O'Connor. "That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot." Guerena never fired a shot; the marauders who invaded his home fired no fewer than seventy-one. As is standard procedure in such events, the invaders claimed that Guerena had fired on the officers, as he had every moral and legal right to.

Neither Jose nor his wife had a criminal history of any kind. The attack on their home was described as a narcotics enforcement operation, but there are no reports that narcotics were found at the residence * - even though the invaders reportedly "seized" (that is, stole) something that belonged to the victim." (1)

Whatever garbage was 'gleaned' from this attack that involved victims from four different homes that morning; must become public knowledge; so that the public can determine if this death sentence was warranted. As the "officers" were invading this man's home; the burden of PROOF that apparently justified this callous MURDER needs to be proven, beyond the shadow of any doubt! The "officers-involved" need to be immediately suspended and their pay frozen pending a full and open public-investigation of everyone from the Commander of that unit all the way down to and including whatever supposed "intelligence" there might have been that justified this irreversible action that resulted in the DEATH of the "SUSPECT." The judges that issued the warrants, the departments of the government that were behind the orders issued to the SWAT TEAM; in sum everyone and everything involved here ought to become part of this public-investigation. If there were any "justice" these so-called "officers" would be FIRED immediately and then investigated: IF that is, they were being judged the same way that their VICTIM was treated in this instance!

"The Pima County Regional SWAT team fired 71 shots in seven seconds at a Tucson man they say pointed a gun at officers serving a search warrant at his home.
Jose Guerena, 26, a former Marine who served in Iraq twice, was holding an AR-15 rifle when he was killed, but he never fired a shot, the Sheriff's Department said Monday after initially saying he had fired on officers during last week's raid. Six days after Guerena was shot, few details about the investigation that brought the SWAT team to the southwest-side home Guerena shared with his wife and their two young sons are known. Guerena's role in the narcotics investigation is unclear and deputies would not comment on what was seized from his home. Three other homes within a quarter of a mile from Guerena's house, were served search warrants related to the investigation that morning. The addresses and the names of people who live in the other homes have not been made public." (2)

Is the USA now nothing but a holding-pen for unnamed suspects that can be murdered at random; if so, then we need to know that! That is what 'we have all been' since George W. Bush began spying on US citizens seven months before 911 happened. We have no rights, and we have now way to question, to challenge or to confront these animals in uniform: And everyday our ability to deal legally with these out-of-control-uniformed-outlaws is diminished. It is amazing that most of these creatures probably need to use their own fingers to be able to count to ten; and anything over that presents a problem. The US is drafting troops from our wars overseas, straight into police-departments here, without any police-training and putting them in the field as if the people they confront here are no different than those they were murdering routinely overseas. Maybe that's why this RAID looked more like a night-raid in Baghdad than a SWAT-TEAM 'action' in Tucson? This is producing time-bombs that cannot continue in a holding pattern for much longer. . .

If this situation is not directly and publicly addressed then things like Vigilantism could well begin to make a comeback among the population. Because no people can be targeted as we have been TARGETED, for very long without producing an equal and opposite REACTION to these illegal and outrageous behaviors by those that are supposed to protect the public and not simply brutalize and murder us. Apparently no response to these POLICE-STATE tactics was ever contemplated by those dark-forces that have instituted these illegal polices: However there will be a spontaneous public BACKLASH, and the only questions will be When and Where: NOT IF.

Seventy-one shots and although 'The TARGET" was armed, and combat-trained, his weapon while fully loaded was still on SAFETY, and he did not fire a single shot! He had just gone to sleep after working a twelve-hour shift overnight, and he was suddenly awakened to this nightmare. The house was darkened (that helps if you're trying to sleep) but to the invaders this was suspicious, and just seemed to confirm that something illegal was going on). No one in this criminal murder has even asked things like:

"What happened to 'the presumption of INNOCENCE?"

So Jose Guerena was murdered at home, in front of his wife and one of their children. (His wife was never referred to as his wife officially * she was just the unidentified woman). So, unless you like living in Baghdad or Kabul, you need to begin to DEMAND ANSWERS to the questions that at this moment, WE, as American-Victims of POLICE-STATE-INSECURITY are not allowed to ever-ask!

Whatever else happened in Tucson, Arizona these uniformed thugs MURDERED Jose Guerena; and his murders MUST be TRIED in Open Court!

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net




That is what the NWO judges look for: Do any invasion, kill the people then let same posthume complain about the illegal attack.

that it is a superior court doing this is a matter of grave concern.

wm mauer
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 10:25 PM
That is what the NWO judges look for: Do any invasion, kill the people then let same posthume complain about the illegal attack.

that it is a superior court doing this is a matter of grave concern.

WTF, I do not ever advocate violence, but it seems they won't be content until they have a full fledged insurrection on their hands.

Cops are people, too. They will have to choose what side they are on. I no longer see this as firstly a racial contest. Firstly, It seems more to be an issue of good people against bad people & quite frankly the govt isn't on my good list.

Cops enforce laws. not your laws or my laws but someone else's laws. They better wake up. Nothing like +300,000,000 pissed off people.

Schopenhauer
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 11:01 PM
Of course I hope we are wrong, brother. All we ever wanted was to be left alone, but then parasites will not abide that.

Blame Lincoln.

Huginn ok Muninn
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 11:54 PM
The 3 justices that voted for this decision will be denied retention the next time they come up before the voters. It will be a repeat of Iowas where every justice that came up for retention in 2010, who voted that gay marriage was a constitutional right, was thrown off the court by the voters.

Doesn't matter.. the decision stands and they will just be replaced with more NWO stooges to strip us of a few more rights next time. The Bilderbergers just love to inflict death by 1000 cuts. By the time everyone wakes up and is pissed off enough to act, we may be too weak and disempowered to resist.

Schopenhauer
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 11:59 PM
Doesn't matter.. the decision stands and they will just be replaced with more NWO stooges to strip us of a few more rights next time. The Bilderbergers just love to inflict death by 1000 cuts. By the time everyone wakes up and is pissed off enough to act, we may be too weak and disempowered to resist.

Don't forget the Exclusionary Rule.

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Don't forget the Exclusionary Rule.

Do you want to elaborate, or should I guess what you're referring to?



This is how we have apparently become unwilling participants in this massive crime against the rights and responsibilities of everyone in this country; from the citizens that are the victims to the thugs that are illegally making these arrests; Tasering and sometimes torturing people-as well as those who are murdered by those same people that are armed, supposedly, to protect the same people that the uniformed law-enforcers are now making undeclared-war-upon.

When I was as consultant to the California Department of Justice in the late nineteen-seventies the mood among a great many "officers" was that police in California were being restricted far-too-much by having to Mirandize suspects: Because this limited what police could do to "catch-the-bad-guys."

In fact these same lazy, bull-headed cops were adamant that there should be no restrictions upon whatever they might want to do to get "confessions" from those they had decided were criminals. In this process the first, fourth and fifth amendments were considered to be counter-productive to "good-police-work (i.e. cops needed a blank check, including beating confessions out of suspects). After Death-Squad-Reagan became president these efforts began to be seen as much more desirable than they ever-had been before. Of course after 911 these criminally-open-ended policing polices became defacto law. And the result of these miscarriages of actual justice are now the law of the land: All of which are heavily buried under many layers of false-flag national-security and STATE Security requirements which is how America has come to find itself in the crosshairs of police weapons for the slightest infractions on so very many different occasions.

This whole mess is caused by multiculturalism, which this leftist writer would probably defend to his dying breath. How is that? Well, the inveterate criminality of certain races triggers an extremist reaction in order to maintain order. The idea of "equality" means we all must be treated with suspicion equal to that of the lowliest negro thug. White cops may have no sympathy for black suspects, but black cops have even less for white ones, and are less inhibited by any sort of moral fiber in pursuit of their objectives. Eventually, police become militarized, and average folks in their homes become dangerous threats to be liquidated without any consideration at all. And it all grew from a lack of compatibility and understanding between disparate members of an utterly ill-conceived society. This will always be so. It is one of the many loud alarms telling us that multiculturalism simply will not EVER work!

Who knows? Maybe the NWO psychological think tank plotting our demise planned it this way, using the chaos they created by inflicting multiculturalism upon us as an excuse to unleash de facto martial law.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Exclusionary Rule wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

Rocky v
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 12:52 AM
My opinion is if the police have no right to be in your home-you have an absolute right to defend yourself against them (See John Bad Elk v. United States). However, who knows how long or if this will even go to the U.S. Supremes-then we might even get a ridiculous opinion upholding this as (correct me if i'm wrong) Justice Scalia has basically said if a person consents to having your house searched (even if they have no ability to consent for you) too bad for you.

To be cynical and put it in very base terms, I think this is all about business. States, Courts, and law enforcement need customers-this is an easy way to get more customers and increase revenue. After they ransack your house (which might be the wrong house), they can put you in jail for something else or arrest you for resisting. Maybe if they find a marijuana cigarette they can make you forfeit all your assets because you are a drug dealer (Does Indiana still have that asset forfeiture law?)

Sadly, we all know they can make up anything to put you away. Don't know if there are any cops on here but would like to hear from them on this. In my experience cops could not care less about your rights or the constitution-they just want more customers and revenue.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:16 AM
Rocky v wrote,

Sadly, we all know they can make up anything to put you away. Don't know if there are any cops on here but would like to hear from them on this. In my experience cops could not care less about your rights or the constitution-they just want more customers and revenue.

Not law enforcement myself, but I do have a number of relatives who were cops and they didn't take bribes, nor did they push people around just because they had the power to do so.

Also, I think you'll find that the vast majority of cops walking a beat are very pro Second Amendment. It's their chiefs that are the ones who, for the most part, are the ones politicizing law enforcement.

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:29 AM
Exclusionary Rule wiki
http://www.theveteranssite.com/clickToGive/campaign.faces?siteId=3&campaign=DOW-WholesaleWolfSlaughter

?????????

I still don't know what the exclusionary rule has to do with my post there. I know what it is, just not how it pertains, or what your point is in mentioning it.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:39 AM
"The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law."

So even if the USSC upholds the Indiana State Supreme Court's ruling, the Exclusionary Rule can still prevent evidence from being admitted when the procurement of that evidence violated the constitutional rights of the person subject to the search.

LMFAO!

I posted the wrong link, sorry,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:51 AM
So even if the USSC upholds the Indiana State Supreme Court's ruling, the Exclusionary Rule can still prevent evidence from being admitted when the procurement of that evidence violated the constitutional rights of the person subject to the search.

LMFAO!

I posted the wrong link, sorry,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

Sure, but does that matter when he and his family have all been shot dead?

My post was about the supposed power of the electorate to oust bad judges appointed under the Missouri Plan. While they can indeed oust those judges, said judges can do whatever they please for a year, having been appointed by an unelected "commission" (appointed by whom?) And those decisions will remain law, even though the judges have been fired.

It's sort of like legal redress.. how does it matter when you and your family are all already dead because of a no-knock raid by police who have the mentality of U.S. soldiers who have been in Iraq for a year or two? It's all just semantics, and there is no mechanism in place to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:59 AM
A bad decision only remains precedent until someone raises a challenge to it.

And remember, Congress makes the law, not the Judiciary.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 03:25 AM
Sure, but does that matter when he and his family have all been shot dead?

My post was about the supposed power of the electorate to oust bad judges appointed under the Missouri Plan. While they can indeed oust those judges, said judges can do whatever they please for a year, having been appointed by an unelected "commission" (appointed by whom?) And those decisions will remain law, even though the judges have been fired.

It's sort of like legal redress.. how does it matter when you and your family are all already dead because of a no-knock raid by police who have the mentality of U.S. soldiers who have been in Iraq for a year or two? It's all just semantics, and there is no mechanism in place to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place.

I don't think it is possible to oust all the bad judges in America with Elections alone.

They must be Impeached, and tried by local legislatures.
[Impeachment= Trial of a Judge by the Elected Representatives.]

Because we no longer give a dam who we elect into office [EXAMPLE: Obama] the legislature is not going to take the step to impeach bad Judges who the Media will back.

So as such you have a situation in which anything the Globalist Say goes.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 03:38 AM
A bad decision only remains precedent until someone raises a challenge to it.

And remember, Congress makes the law, not the Judiciary.

Yes!

And the current congress are corrupt buffoons that kiss NWO A$$.

The NWO effectively has a gun to the head of the American People an by default the rest of the western world.

One point I would like to make here which is ALLWAYS over looked. that being the so called "Civil Rights Movement" in the 1960's had KGB Spetsnaz teeth behind it.

Meaning THIS
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/23osn_Mechel.jpg/180px-23osn_Mechel.jpg


was something the US "Law Enforcement Pussy's" Knew meant business and would not F around with them, and would fight them on their own level.
Meaning killing shit load of them and stacking them up like chard wood. All the Russians needed was an excuse to "Keep the Peace". And US Armed Forces would have went from Law to "Insurgent".

So in fact the Cold War was sort of a balance on both sides.


What do you have now?

Rocky v
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 04:56 AM
I would not count on this being overturned by our U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/3680012-Court-sides-with-cops-in-warrantless-search/

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 05:40 AM
I would not count on this being overturned by our U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/3680012-Court-sides-with-cops-in-warrantless-search/

Exactly!

The Constitution does not mean jack to these people!
They "Make it up as they go along"!

wm mauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:06 PM
And remember, Congress makes the law, not the Judiciary.


Ahh, but there is this creature called the activist court. They in essence do interpret the law (even where it does not exist) & set the ship upon the course that the judge's masters want the good ship to sail.

Of course congress can "head them off at the pass", but I believe each branch of fedgov has been under the control of our dear friends & that is why little by little we are being sucked into the deep morass of filth.

JMO

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:35 PM
I would not count on this being overturned by our U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/3680012-Court-sides-with-cops-in-warrantless-search/

Ah, but as you know, the police are granted a certain degree of latitude when acting to prevent what they believe is a felonious activity from transpiring.

My initial impression was that the USSC would overturn this ruling, but, given the current composition of the court, who knows.

Damn, where's Andrew Jackson when you need him.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 01:57 PM
Ahh, but there is this creature called the activist court. They in essence do interpret the law (even where it does not exist) & set the ship upon the course that the judge's masters want the good ship to sail.

Of course congress can "head them off at the pass", but I believe each branch of fedgov has been under the control of our dear friends & that is why little by little we are being sucked into the deep morass of filth.

JMO


Activist judges are a cancer upon the courts.

Here's an example of how Congress can legislate around a bad judicial ruling,

In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the ban on the sale and possession of such films (if not otherwise obscene) as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee for freedom of speech.[7] The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Stevens, finding the law unconstitutional because the law was so broad and vague that it included any portrayal of an animal in or being harmed such as by hunting or disease.[8] As of November 28, 2010, bill H.R. 5566, which prohibits interstate commerce in animal crush films, has been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. On December 9, President Obama signed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 into law to re-criminalize the creation, sale, distribution, advertising, marketing and exchange of animal crush videos.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 02:05 PM
Exactly!

The Constitution does not mean jack to these people!
They "Make it up as they go along"!

Thank Hamilton then for subverting the Constitution with his implied powers doctrine. For no other American politician, aside perhaps from Lincoln, did more to expand Federal power at the expense of individual liberty than he did.

Zimobog
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 06:27 PM
I can agree with some of Hamilton's early essays from The Federalist Papers regarding a need for confederation for the purposes of mutual protection, uniform treaties, and arbitration between states.

But when he was POTUS, didn't he and congress pass the Alien and Sedition Act to try to execute journalists who exposed the Clay Treaty which paid the British something like 6000 lbs sterling as "reparations" for the Revolutionary War? He was certainly opposed to many freedoms that the Jeffersonians tried to preserve. Hamilton wrote that taxing the press wasn't the same as an infringement of the freedom of the press since all they had to do was pay the government for the freedom :D.

Schopenhauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 07:53 PM
The Federal Bank was Hamilton's baby as well.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:26 AM
Thank Hamilton then for subverting the Constitution with his implied powers doctrine. For no other American politician, aside perhaps from Lincoln, did more to expand Federal power at the expense of individual liberty than he did.

Well I never liked Hamilton much so go figure.

But actually to tell you the truth most of our modern "Constitutional" problems more or less started in the 1900's when certain eastern Europeans and banking interest arrived in the US in Mass.

At this point what we have is an ever expanding world police state. They will eventually implode, but it is a good chance they will take us with them. And possibly humanity considering their access to nuclear weapons.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 11:16 AM
Well I never liked Hamilton much so go figure.

But actually to tell you the truth most of our modern "Constitutional" problems more or less started in the 1900's when certain eastern Europeans and banking interest arrived in the US in Mass.

At this point what we have is an ever expanding world police state. They will eventually implode, but it is a good chance they will take us with them. And possibly humanity considering their access to nuclear weapons.

Jews didn't subvert the Constitution, Hamilton did with his Implied
Powers Doctrine.

Æmeric
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:49 PM
I can agree with some of Hamilton's early essays from The Federalist Papers regarding a need for confederation for the purposes of mutual protection, uniform treaties, and arbitration between states.

But when he was POTUS, didn't he and congress pass the Alien and Sedition Act to try to execute journalists who exposed the Clay Treaty which paid the British something like 6000 lbs sterling as "reparations" for the Revolutionary War? He was certainly opposed to many freedoms that the Jeffersonians tried to preserve. Hamilton wrote that taxing the press wasn't the same as an infringement of the freedom of the press since all they had to do was pay the government for the freedom :D.

Alexander Hamilton was never POTUS, the Alien & Sedition Act was passed during the presidency of John Adams.

wittwer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 07:21 PM
Only the Courts can determine whether an arrest is Lawful or Unlawful. So, in order, before the Determination can be made, an arrest has to be made. If the Courts make the Determination that the Arrest is Unlawful, the defendant then has the right to petition the Court for redress of Grievances...

To resist or block a Peace Officer in the performance of his duties, is a Crime in itself. In most Cases, a warrant for the arrest must be issued by the Court having Jurisdiction. Except in cases where there is a direct and immediate threat to the Public Safety and Security...