Indiana, The Woozy State

Someone should thank the Indiana Supreme Court for their absolute candor when they explained their decision to suspend the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution in a recent decision-Barnes v. Indiana


It will not be me, of course, since I am of the opinion people so deeply marinated in the philosophy of the Bolshevik Left they are unaware of any other responsibility should be taken out and shot at dawn before a randomly assembled firing squad of passersby.

Rarely have our Overlords and Masters so clearly defined their philosophy to We, The Peasants, in such clear and plain English:

Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

They were equally plain and clear as to the reason why:

Their BELIEF (not knowledge, not precedent, not citation, certainly not any founding documents) PUBLIC POLICY and the 1920 MODEL PENAL CODE trump the Constitution.


“In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right (to resist illegal entry) via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s”


Boy, howdy, that is a newsflash to me. Really? Armed thugs can enter my house day or night and run amok with the blessing of Statute and judicial opinions?

Where are these states that pulled this stunt off under the radar?

And it does not stop there. (Yes, this case incorporates all the foundational pillars of modern Bolshevik Theory)

Remember the Fully Informed Jury advocates who harbor the quaint and silly notion juries can rule on the facts or the law or both?

Not in Indiana!

“Before the trial, Barnes tendered a jury instruction on the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen‘s home. The trial court refused Barnes‘s instruction and did not otherwise instruct the jury as to the right to reasonably resist.”

No, only the trial judge can rule on what jurors may or may not think.

But realistically, this is all par for the course.

In a time when the legal universe is dominated by slip law, case law, session law, codified law, published law, unpublished law, sealed verdicts, private law, public law, regulations with the force of law among others, this is just more anarchy by another name.

And when you have anarchy by another name you end up with some file clerk who “shops around “for a SWAT team to serve a compliance warrant on some women and children while Dad is overseas in Afghanistan. CLICK LINK HERE

Welcome to the 21st Century comrade!

Frank W. James offers his latest thoughts CLICK LINK HERE

Update: Turns out this is not the first time the Indiana Supreme Court has enjoyed a royal cluster foxtrot:

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Sex, Lies and Supreme Court Justices
It’s the high court of Indiana, the court our state constitution vests with supreme judicial power. As such the Supreme Court of Indiana is the final interpreter of our state constitution and laws.

It gives meaning and effect to the words “all people are created equal.” It is our system’s check on an over-reaching legislative or executive branch which would deny equality or justice to any among us. Unfortunately, the people who make up this court are susceptible to the same prejudices of any other person and can fail to live up to the high ideas and ideals embodied in our constitution.

At no point in our state’s history was this more apparent than a bizarre series of events occurring in October, 1988, which spewed deep-seated bigotry on the high court. What made this sad chapter in Indiana history so unusual was the fact that the perpetrators and the victim were all justices of the Supreme Court.

As I stated in my earlier post, “Why Inequality Exists Under Our Current Law?”, judges “[s]ometimes . . . act fairly and in the spirit of our constitution; other times they act out of self-interest and personal prejudice.” And noone demonstrated the latter more than former Supreme Court Justice Alfred Pivarnik when he would accuse none other than the Court’s Chief Justice of being a drunken, pot-smoking queer.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s