Originally Posted by Trust Guy
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.
Reply With Quote