Friday, May 13, 2011

Indiana Supreme Court erases 4th Amendment: "No right to resist illegal cop entry into home."

In Indiana, the rule for feral cops is now the same as for feral wolves: shoot, shovel and shut up. Hey, don't blame me, the Indiana Supreme Court says so. They forgot to revoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.


Anonymous said...

Why are you surprised ? Recently I had the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, eradicate Pennsylvania Sunshine Law, in a civil rights lawsuit. A lawsuit where I WON a jury verdict but upon appeal the Federal judge decided the jury didn't know what they were doing when they gave me victory over the local county government. The 3rd Circuit upheld this destruction of Pennsylvania law, the 1st and 7th Amendments to the US Constitution.

The Constitution is DEAD. Judges are no less than government employees and advocates in black robes. If you even THINK you can get justice in an American're WRONG.


Dedicated_Dad said...

Gosh, seems like I remember hearing about a government who had a special class of people who could do whatever they wanted to the sheeple without fear of retaliation from sheep or punishment from the .gov.

Help me out here...

Was that:
(A) The Nazi-Germans and their Gestapo
(B) The Soviets and their "Stasi"
{C) The US and their "Only Ones" or
(D) All of the Above??

And -- given what we now know -- what does this tell us about the legitimacy of these cops, the courts -- of our .gov in general?

But hey -- lest anyone misunderstand me -- It could NEVER happen HERE!!



Anonymous said...

No Frickin way! That and their other decision to allow no-knack warrant service. Is the Indiana constitution read that much different than the United States constitution? WTF?

Anonymous said...

The time for taking up arms draws ever nearer.


Daniel M. Parkman, Sr. said...

search box: MTV, popcorn, depleted uranium, suv, micro, lrad, monsanto, guillotines, egg, milk, water, silver, cereal, ibm, fluoride, farm, garden, mel,

jesse, jones, beck, bush, clinton, obama, deception,rex, NASA, jfk ss, nwo,

cfr, tri,ill, nau, nais, echelon, haarp, un, us, fiat, fda, ama, ada, tooth,

Daniel M. Parkman, Sr. said...

eddymatthews said...

Why am I not surprised.................. The time is drawing near, or is it already here?

CCK said...

Something something, unfair shootout, comes to mind...

Anonymous said...

That court is wrong. I will still shoot ANYONE who comes into my house without my permission. Granted, the Gestapo would no doubt end up killing me in the process, but they'll be missing at least one of their comrades, too.


David III said...

So you have no right to defend yourself or loved ones from home invaders, you also should not expect to receive a fair trial. Might as well go down taking a bunch of the tax feeders with you! Personally at this point I have decided that the first shot has already been fired by the .gov, The judges who make these decisions have violated the Constitution and should now be considered enemy targets...

Anonymous said...

All of you are completely missing the point.
They are doing this to protect the police, who are your friends. We can't have them getting hurt or they won't be able to protect you when you really need it, from the terrorists and 'other' bad guys. So stop whining!

Ready on the left.
Ready on the right.
Shooters may commence firing when their swat target appears.

Anonymous said...

Indiana wants you... dead.
I wonder how many cops are going to die this summer because of this law?
And how many American citizens are going to be facing trial- if they live that long- with a jury that agrees with these pretend SC judges?
Curious minds want to know...
When we hear of a home under attack, is it our cue to get off our asses and get in the fight?
How many more states need to fall under complete tyranny before... fuck it, no one cares anyway.

Anonymous said...

First the 71 shots fired at the innocent young Marine, now this? How much do they expect us to put up with?
Very clear to me. You illegally enter my house, you're going to hurt, or die. Simple.

Sedition said...

I hope they bring their own body bags, 'cause I ain't supplying them.

Anonymous said...

I see little froggies in a great big pot called Indiana.
All the little froggies are saying how hot it is getting.
One frog yells out jump out !!!! jump out!!!.
Three froggies in blue uniforms grab the first frog and take him to a hotter side of the pot while another frog says—jeesh what’s with that frog it’s just global-warming.

Just sit back and relax.


TPaine said...

The time draws near, gentlemen! It won't be long now.

Duane Suddeth said...

if they ever come to this conclusion in TX, it's on.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the Indiana Supreme Court has been designated point in this latest advance of evil.

Seem to me that years ago there was a reason that nobody really wanted to walk point. Maybe there still is.

Scott J said...

The wedge between cop and citizen gets driven in a little deeper.

All by design of course.

Anonymous said...

This is a trifle pedantic and I know that I am preaching to the choir. But, here it goes: ALEA IACTA EST.

Anonymous said...

inJustice Randall T. Shepard
Justice Brent E. Dickson *
inJustice Frank Sullivan, Jr.
Justice Robert D. Rucker *
inJustice Steven H. David

* Dissented from the ruling.

The odds are against prevailing in court in such a situation, just as bad as your chances in an unfair gunfight.

At least there's the chance of taking some ferals with you...


skybill said...

Hi Mike,
Funny how that goes. While reading this post and the comments, I keep visualizing Phil Gordon and then Charlie Quintard. Need I say more??


Big Al said...

Profile of a cowardly 'YES MAN' here.
Note his Military service. He is a 'wannabe' NWO stooge. Additionally, it did not take him long to 'change' the concept of Indiana law. Damn, I kind of liked living here...

Pat H. said...

Indeed, and I own a backhoe, makes short work of shoveling.

WarriorClass said...

You didn't post my comment, Mike.

Guess you're being my sheep dog.


Anonymous said...

The legislature can take up the ball on this. I'm sure if they do we'll all perk up our ears. The only representatives of the people that matter are the legislatures and the county Sheriffs.

I hope that there are more people than just those 2 judges that are taking notice and action.

Bill S. said...

.....'Enemies foreign and domestic'..

I think we know who many of the domestic ones now are.

Anonymous said...


Sorry. I don't speak Egyptian.

Anonymous said...

Here is several Supreme Court Rulings that say the Indiania Justices need to go back to Law School.
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

I will DEFEND MY HOME AND MY COUNTRY against these power grabbing thugs.
Semper Fi

Crustyrusty said...

@ WarriorClass:

Blogger has been acting up. Our comments probably ended up lost in the ether...

Mark Matis said...

For Crustyrusty:
Or your nearest Fusion Center. After all, Blogger is a Google venture, and they are on the record that you have no rights.

So which is it? Is the blog owner doing the censoring? If so, that's fine. After all, it IS his blog.

Or is Blogger doing that on its own?

TypicalClinger said...

We just passed a law saying that an employer has no right to tell you that you can't keep a legally owned firearm in your private vehicle on company property. Now this. I hope this will be overturned. There are a few things I would like to do before I go out in a hail of gunfire.

Happy D said...

If I remember right The Supreme Court of these United States has already ruled just the opposite.
It was discussed quite a bit after the Waco Massacre.

Anyone out there know the case/ruling name?

Toastrider said...

It's certainly jawdropping, that's for sure.

I mean, we've all seen blatant misconduct before, but there's always been an attempt to use a fig leaf. This... is pretty dumbfounding.

They've basically stated: 'It doesn't matter what the policeman is doing. He could be robbing you, executing an illegal warrant, entering without a warrant at all, or whatever. You have no right to refuse him entry.'

Anonymous said...

Skybill, which Phil Gordon are you referring to? My Google-fu is weak - all I can come up with is a professional poker player and a politician.

Ace said...

When the constitution stops protecting the public from the government, it also stops protecting the government from the public.

Anonymous said...

What is to keep a few good old boys from dressing up like cops and doing a raid on the home of a judge. If by chance the judge gets shot "resisting arrest" than 'tough toenails' for the judge when the 'cops' say- oops sorry, wrong address. Sometimes there are things called Unintended Consequences and a comment I once heard a wise Judge say: The Law is a two edged sword, it cuts BOTH WAYS.

CowboyDan said...

Alea iacta est (also alea jacta est, Latin: "The die has been cast") is a Latin phrase attributed by Suetonius (as iacta alea est [ˈjakta ˈaːlea est]) to Julius Caesar on January 10, 49 BC as he led his army across the River Rubicon in northern Italy. With this step, he entered Italy at the head of his army in defiance and began his long civil war against Pompey and the Optimates.

That's from Wikipedia. I also had to look it up.

Smoking357 said...

Know the Three Rules:

1. Police are a standing army whose enemy is the People.

2. Police are the greatest enemy America has ever faced.

3. America would be better off without the police.

Mike H said...

Time to watch the classics. Edge of Darkness The Moon is Down

The Moon Is Down novella

SamenoKami said...

Only an idiot calls the cops unless there's a dead body that needs to be hauled out.
The less the cops are around your place the better.

Robert Fowler said...

Here's a great rant on the subject. Including the idea that members of the PD show up at the judges houses around dinner time and just walk right in.

If my spouse and I are asleep at 2 in the morning and the police want to come in, simple. Knock on the door and show a warrant. The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is still in effect at my house. The Indiana supreme is obviously populated with idiots. Doesn't Indiana have the Castle Doctrine law? Wouldn't that protect the homeowner? What in the holy hell is going on in this country? How are we electing all of these liberal idiots that seem to believe in a police state? I, myself, don't want to live in a police state where I have no rights. We are becoming a nation of sheep that put up with bullshit like "no knock" warrants and SWAT teams shooting family pets and no recourse. Innocent people gunned down, like the 90 something lady in Atlanta. When are we going to stand up and say NO MORE? If you look, you can find these stories every day. More and more police departments are becoming more and more militarized.

I'm set in my thinking and I know a couple more that are the same way. But 3 or 4 of us aren't going to change much. We need people that believe this is still a free Country to grow some balls and stand up and do something. We need to throw the lot of crooked politicians out of every level of government and vote in people that believe in freedom and the Constitution. Maybe it's time for a revolution. Be it peaceful or otherwise.


Reg T said...

Yes, I guessed my post wouldn't pass muster. Phil Gordon and Charlie Quintard wouldn't be so crude. I don't blame you for not wanting to have that reflect back upon you, Mike, but I will say that throwing rocks through windows will never get their attention the way my suggestion would. And perhaps will, someday.

Unfortunately, it won't have much force to it unless they understand it has become SOP for those of us government decides to kill. The folks at Waco were too nice, simply trying to defend themselves. When they understood what was happening (like being shot at by helicopters when they attempted to flee), they should have resorted to my technique. It would make the next Waco even less enjoyable for them, or for the local SWAT cops.

Hope you get to read this, and that it isn't sorted directly into your trash bin. Take care.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Constitutional crisis, and another candidate for 100 hundred heads...

Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will:

Anonymous said...

Carrie Severino, National Review Online, Bench Notes 02/2011 via
Old Grouch and/or

Or maybe [Governor Daniels] he could explain why 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.

When this first came down, most reports only noted that David was a JAG, and a long time trial lawyer, both qualifications notably missing from some other high judicial appointments recently. Yet he did his best to push us all closer to the brink.

I am reminded of a short discussion I had long ago with someone who remembered the Soviet many long time covert collaborators came forward who had been entirely unsuspected by most.

In this case, we can't say we weren't warned.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 12:25 PM/Dan:

"Independent Accountant" at
his blog said some time ago how the JNOV contributes to the reluctance many have to be jurors. Why bother?

Walter Zoomie said...

This from the author of the Mike Church story regarding the Newton County Indiana sheriff:

As it relates to the legal ramifications of this Indiana Supreme Court ruling, my analysis was validated by several law enforcement sources and a Constitutional attorney. Supreme Court Justice David in writing the MAJORITY opinion did so in a manner that went outside the matters presented in BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA.

When he wrote "MODERN" legalese for (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence that Hoosiers may not resist UNLAWFUL entry, with the stroke of a pen he decreed the ability for law enforcement to conduct random house to house searches.

In order to appreciate the full gravity of the ruling, we must understand exactly what UNLAWFUL ENTRY means in the legal sense.Telephone any police chief and ask what does UNLAWFUL ENTRY MEAN; you will get an answer that states an UNLAWFUL ENTRY is any search of PRIVATE PROPERTY without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT.

Therefore if neither PROBABLE CAUSE nor a WARRANT must be issued, it is left to the arbitrary whims of the department or officer on the scene.

Further as it relates to the inferences that this story is phony, all I can offer is that I have been publishing for 3 years, in that time never once have any of my articles ever received a LIBEL DEMAND RETRACTION LETTER from the facts presented therein.

Furthermore, Mike Church who retained my services as a Contributing Editor & Publisher, would not risk Libel litigation (nor his contract with Sirius/XM) by allowing libelous news reports to be published anywhere on his site which directly tied to the Sirius/XM show. (The article was originally drafted for where it also currently resides.)

Thus, you have my word as the author that the following is all true:

a.) I telephoned the Newton County Sheriff's Department on May 16th, 2011 and asked his secretary to speak with Sheriff Hartman since he as Sheriff is the highest-constitutionally-elected law enforcement officer in the state.

b.) Sheriff Hartman was asked if UNLAWFUL entry by law enforcement means entry without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT. He indicated that is the definition of UNLAWFUL ENTRY.

c.) I then asked the Sheriff if he was familiar with the BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, to which he replied "yes."

c.) When asked what would then stop police from conducting random searches, he indicated to me that he would "follow the law as decided by the Indiana Supreme Court."

d.) I then asked again if this meant he felt he could conduct random searches without Probable Cause or warrant to which he replied, "if the Supreme Court has said Hoosiers cannot resist, I follow the law. If that means we can conduct random searches then we will if needed"

e.) Sheriff Hartman was then asked about whether he felt his oath to the Indiana State Constitution Section 11. was superior to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling to which he responded in a annoyed fashion, "Ma'am, I have already told you twice, if the supreme court says Hoosier cannot resist, then that is the law."

f.) I then asked if he saw any benefit to conducting Random Searches, to which he replied, "the people would be happy to have random searches if it means the capture of a criminal."

I thanked him for his time we hung up the telephone and utterly astounded at what he told me, immediately began to draft the article.

Anonymous said...

Donny thinks he can do random searches with his 19 patrolmen? He'll need quite a bit more, like reservists, of which his son Don Hartman Jr, 34, is one.

Seems appropriate that Donny needs to reminded of his oath to the Constitution:

Newton County Sheriff's Department
304 East Seymour Street
Kentland, IN  47951
Administrative: (219) 474-3331

Donald E. Hartman Sr., 64
Married to Theresa L Hartman 61
6372 W 1125 S
Kentland, IN 47951 (219) 474-6736
202 E Ray St
Kentland, IN 47951 (219) 474-6667