25 votes

This should make you "Sick"! We need Ron Paul more than ever. No right to resist entry? UPDATED!

When I read this...I could not believe it...??




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Vox Day has a great column on this ...

and a connection to a potential Presidential Candidate:


RIP President Daniels

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Nice article

Vox Day always does it right! I don't know how he can stand to be associated with WND

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!

Debbie's picture

It's incredible that they would actually pass this, and it's got

to be legally challenged.


number one rule !!

never ever open the door to your house or get out of your vehichle. keep them locked. if the police ask you,you politly but firmly refuse. and then ask them to return with a warrant or donot come back.


Practically this doesn't

Practically this doesn't work. Cops will beat you up if you ask for things like a warrant or what you are being arrested for. This is why there is so many police beatings in the news - and what makes the news is less than 10% of the actual number.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

they beat you up

when you open the door. keep your doors locked.


Okaaaaaay everybody, do the happy slave dance!

You don't have the right to protect and defend yourself from armed thugs illegally entering your home and arresting you without probable cause?

Lady Justice may be blind, but she ain't stupid. Our governments keep pushing us, and leaving us fewer options. Even the most timid animal will turn and defend itself when cornered. Can our government officials expect any less from the citizens?

If they drag you off to a

If they drag you off to a concentration camp, don't worry and don't resist!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.


I am a police officer and would like to know the nature of this specific case. Police are entitled to make entry into homes (without consent) under certain circumstances. #1 In case of medical emergency or someone is in danger and cannot get to the door. #2 if someone in the house has a warrant of arrest. #3 the most known reason is a search warrant. Other than those I just mentioned I dont see how police could legally enter a house without the consent of the owner. Anyone know the specific details of this case?

A Warm Welcome!!!

I would like to welcome you here to the DP. As mentioned previously, your opinion will be valued here. Communication and understanding multiple dynamics of how our society operates will only add to the basis that shapes all of our beliefs and values. I would recommend that you maintain a bit of a thick skin around here from time to time as we all continue this journey of knowledge and freedom.

As a former officer and veteran I would like to say thank you for your service to our community. I know it takes a special person to do the job as it is intended. Perhaps I had become a bit jaded after seeing some of the kids come in a bit hotheaded, but I am happy to know many that have not.

Again, Welcome!

David, seems like, in AR,

David, seems like, in AR, anyway, if there are any children in the home the DHS can call the cops and come right in and do a search with no warrant. In fact, if they then find pot, they can take the kids away with them right then.

Here is what it said in the article.

"The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him."

Catch 22

Someone mentioned children were involved? In any event, I dont know all the details. But whatever reason the first officer went in. The second officer was justified to enter because his partner (another police officer) was being assaulted. There is no reason to attack police (even though there could be legal questions about the entry later).
Some other points I wanted to mention is that if someone is on probation or parole, that is still part of their original sentence and they are not entitled to the same rights as other citizens. In most states, a probation officer can search the house (without warrant) of a probationer. In this case, if someone called about children's welfare and police were blocked from checking, the entry could be legal. Can you imagine if a call to police was made about abused children and just left and then the children were killed? Everyone would be attacking the police for not making entry.

You've heard of no knock

You've heard of no knock right? You missed talking about them. That is the exact same abuse of common law right here - it's called "knock and announce", and Americans want to keep their rights.

My feeling is that God is going to punish the wicked, so you don't need to take it to the supreme court either. Men will continue to lie through their teeth about rights that God gave you, and if you pray, God will take care of it. Amen.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The article has some key pieces of information

This was about a third party calling the police concerning a domestic argument outside the home.

When the husband and wife went back into the home, the police arrived and wanted entry. The husband physically resisted when the first officer entered despite being denied permission. The husband was tazed and arrested.

The court ruled that even if police are entering the home illegally, it is illegal to resist.

The court seems to be saying that, in this case, the officers didn't have the right to enter, but that the owner didn't have the right to resist, either. That effectively removes 4th Amendment protections for the homeowner. It is unclear what the court believes the homeowner's remedy would be. Lawsuit? Compensation? Disciplinary action?

I see you are a new member of the DP and a police officer. Welcome. Your perspective will be very valuable. I, for one, have developed a very poor opinion of police officers with whom I have come into contact, so now I avoid them like I would a rabid dog. You will find that opinion is shared by many (most?) on the DP...though I think we all respect what Oathkeepers are trying to do.

This will be overturned it

This will be overturned it will never stand.

Seems doubtful when they have

Seems doubtful when they have been working on getting rid of common law rights for years - they even have people believing it is judge made case law until something like this pops up.

Bashing down doors with Gestapo armed men is nothing new - they've been pushing no knock in this direction for years.

Nothing will change except a repetance to God and asking Him to change it. He'll get rid of the wicked if you ask Him! The wicked, if you ask them nicely, will just keep on being wicked!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.


Please tell me that this is being appealed to the federal court system, this is a federal constitutional rights issue.

It's part of common law,

It's part of common law, which was continued in most States in what are usually called "reception statutes"; It's also in the the Constitution in the 7th, 9th, and 10th amendments, and really the whole document.

A right in common law that has existed forever is prima facie proof that it is a natural, unalienable right.

Unalienable means the judge had no right to do this. This story illustrates why judges have been trying to pretend "common law" means "judge case law". When people have recognized that a right is a right for a thousand years - you can't just suddenly say it is no longer a right - because rights don't change!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The Indiana court's decision relied upon what it considered

to be in the best interest of what it deemed "public policy", as opposed to a conclusion brought about by an analysis of constitutional safeguards and limits. The only way to implement such a public policy judgement is to conclude that, for some reason or reasons, an agent of the State (in this case, police officers) enjoys extra (superior) constitutional authority or rights not possessed by ordinary citizens. To demonstrate this, substitute the word "citizen" for police officer, in the article, and try to imagine the same ruling being published. The information revealed in the article does not demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances (a poorly conceived legal term essentially meaning an obvious "emergency" or likelihood that a crime was in progress or that evidence was in the process of being destroyed) that might have otherwise been considered by the court as one of the common judicially invented "exceptions" to the ordinary 4th amendment standard. And to think that courts regularly refer to jury nullification as jury "lawlessness".

"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

Indiana Constitution Article

Indiana Constitution
Article I : Bill of Rights

Section 1...the People have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

Section 11. Search and seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Section 32. Arms--Right to bear
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16


Now the big battles start.


LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

There is no excuse for this, except the rise of FACISM.....

For those who live in this state.. You have 2 rather 3 choices
2- form , create, and excercise the power of a local militia to remind the "gov" what the Constitution really means!
3- Consent to slavery ..ie do nothing.

Here is what SAM Adams said on this type of issue...



"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”

“It does not take a majority to prevail….but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Read "The Appeal" by John Grisham.

Grisham outlines exactly how our State Supreme Courts are being taken over by anyone with the money to pay it.

Thanks for posting this article.

Indiana superme court Ruleing

I live in Indiana and when I saw this on Drudge, and I was shocked to see such a ruleing be handed down. This should strick fear in all Hoosiers, and realize we truely are on the verge of a poilce state if not there. All Americans should fear this as well. If one state can make such a ruleing why not the other 49. This should make those who love their Liberty to Support Congressman Paul for President.

That judge just overthrew the 4th Amendment.

He should be tried as a traitor to the United States.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

From Indiana

I'm from Indiana.. a local County Councilman posted this on his Facebook today... I re-posted. Everyone is appalled. I'm considering starting an organization/website to petition against this ridiculous ruling. Any advice on what I/we can do?

Varies by state.

Judges are either elected or appointed.
You may be able to re-call him, or you may start impeachment proceedings against him, or you may start putting one helluva lot of heat on whomever appointed him.
If he was appointed, make it VERY clear to whomever appointed him that if that judge isn't "gone by morning", then it will be an end to the political career of the politician that appointed him. Call for impeachment of the official or politician if he refuses.

Then, contact all the other county councils in the rest of the state, to put heat on the situation. Pass county resolutions that this court decision will NOT hold in your county, and that the officers will be held accountable for their actions if they do anything like this in your county. Inform the Sheriff that he is NOT to consider this decision valid in your county, and that his job AND PENSION are at stake if he acts according to this decision.

Take your resolutions against this ruling to your state officials, and demand action to prevent this decision from being allowed.

Petitions are fine, and you can use them too.
But, in situations like this, you don't ASK. You TELL them that they WON'T be acting like this, or they are GONE.

Recall is in Order

Here in the STATE OF INDIANA judges are elected. So either we recall this slave master or we throw him out and the other two that decided on this case. We the People of the State and country of Indiana will not nor should we allow any type of tyranny from the Admiralty Courts imposed upon a free and sovereign citizen.

"Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth. "
— William Faulkner

In that case,

I would recommend a widespread newspaper "letters to the editor" campaign, and anything else you can do.
The rhetoric needs to be ramped up to a fever pitch by election time, with so much fear drilled into the public's mind, that they vote him out in a wave.

Wouldn't hurt to get a private investigator to dig up any dirt on that Judge Davis that can be found which could destroy his career permanently.

The word needs to be out, that anybody who tries this kind of crap will PAY, and won't be around to do any more damage.