Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Indiana Supreme Court Nullifies 4th Amendment in Favor of Public Policy :

  1. #21
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    MJ,

    Thank You for additional clarification regarding your familiarity with Rod's efforts.

    All the Best, TG

  2. #22
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.


    From the article:

    Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

    I am hoping to coin:

    The essence of the political religion, Consitutional Republic is that the oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond.

    The new ruling, as briefly as I have glanced at it does not allow for random house-to-house searches. All it allows for is what it can allow for under the constitutions. - That a police officer should not be gunned down for being inside somebody's private home.

    Whoever the homeowner is, is still assured that short of a warrant or specific Affidavit of Exigent Circumstances or better known Affidavit of Probable Cause, the principality behind the officer is still just as subject to a law suit and having to award exemplary and punitive damages to the homeowner.

    In other words, I still have confidence in my $20M lien albeit I do not speak of specifics until they are past tense.

    Notice of Lien to Retaliatory Financial Regime - BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This is the prime example in motion.

    The sheriff sure hopes there will be no legal repurcussions but the Court cannot aborgate their own oaths. When sworn in officials can pass rulings against the constitutional protections built into government, then the oaths will become a thing of the past.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
    Sweet! Don't even need to write a writ of assistance any more !!

  5. #25
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    From the article:




    I am hoping to coin:

    The essence of the political religion, Consitutional Republic is that the oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond.

    The new ruling, as briefly as I have glanced at it does not allow for random house-to-house searches. All it allows for is what it can allow for under the constitutions. - That a police officer should not be gunned down for being inside somebody's private home.

    Whoever the homeowner is, is still assured that short of a warrant or specific Affidavit of Exigent Circumstances or better known Affidavit of Probable Cause, the principality behind the officer is still just as subject to a law suit and having to award exemplary and punitive damages to the homeowner.

    In other words, I still have confidence in my $20M lien albeit I do not speak of specifics until they are past tense.

    Notice of Lien to Retaliatory Financial Regime - BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This is the prime example in motion.

    The sheriff sure hopes there will be no legal repurcussions but the Court cannot aborgate their own oaths. When sworn in officials can pass rulings against the constitutional protections built into government, then the oaths will become a thing of the past.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    We have noticed through our groups that once everyone has been put on notice that said property has already been deposited into the state usufructuary trust via seal and signature on deed and that they cannot take what has already been given which no longer encourages your action they usually 9 out of 10 occurrences will back away and go home. Others just need a little reverse encouragement to settle the matter honorably.

    Another thing is at best the lien is being held in value for the estate, you lien'd on the corporate trust that operates the estate. I would be very surprised if you do get it, but if you do it is on the backs of everyone that you lien'd, some of which might even be in this very group, uknowing innocent by standards would then get their taxes raised because of it.
    Last edited by motla68; 05-20-11 at 03:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •