Indiana supreme court just eliminated the 4th Amendment

There's always the "remedy" this guy applied, right, Smarter Than Few?

​
​
victor+white.jpg
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
Do you have an answer to the question posed or not?
Click to expand...

you don't have a clue....the consitution doesn't automatically nullify something...it has to go to the scotus and they rule on it. there is a process that needs to take place, rulings or laws are not automatically nullified because you or i thinks the consitution says X. scotus is the ultimate arbiter of that.

i find it incredible dishonest that you demand debate when you want something discussed, yet when others do, you have no problem fucking up a thread with your attacks.
 
Yurt said:
you don't have a clue....the consitution doesn't automatically nullify something...it has to go to the scotus and they rule on it. there is a process that needs to take place, rulings or laws are not automatically nullified because you or i thinks the consitution says X. scotus is the ultimate arbiter of that.

i find it incredible dishonest that you demand debate when you want something discussed, yet when others do, you have no problem fucking up a thread with your attacks.
Click to expand...

I didn't demand debate, I asked a question, and not of you, either.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
There's always the "remedy" this guy applied, right, Smarter Than Me?
Click to expand...

maybe, and as i'm sure you're sitting here just trying to be a troll, what this decision is telling you is that you are not smart enough to know when an entry in to your home is legal or illegal, so you have no more right to resist even an illegal entry. the courts, who are much more intelligent than you, will decide if your home was entered illegally and then appropriately punish the guilty party. I'm sure you don't care about that part though, since you're obviously a pro police state troll and you're more interested in the police having unfettered access to the homes of people you don't like, like me most likely.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
all this 'predatory' crap is worthless, considering you IGNORE the governments (both left and right) culpability in leaving these legal avenues open to the lenders. YOU are partially responsible.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem as I see it. A banker or other financial individual can pretty much write whatever terms they wish and some folks will say, "Why not? It's a free country." The financial individual or company president does not worry about his personal safety.

Let's take a look at this example. A person buys a horse from a farmer and the farmer lies about the horse's health. Today, it would involve a court case and should the farmer be found culpable he'd reimburse the buyer. What would have most likely happened if someone sold an injured horse 150 or 200 years ago? The least of the seller's worries would have been financial reimbursement. HA!

The point being how do we address a problem where we have freedom, on one hand, and a lack of personal responsibility on the other? Many people don't want government interference in business.

Look at scams today where items are sold with a 15 day, no questions asked, return policy which starts at the moment of purchase. If the item is returned within 15 days a person's credit card is not charged. However, shipping is delayed so by the time one receives the merchandise it's on the 14th day. There is no way it can be returned in time and the person is charged for the item.

As a side note, last year I made a purchase through Pay Pal. They "guarantee" the purchase or money refunded...well, sort of. I didn't receive my item so I filed a report. They contacted me and said I "won" my case; won, as in they tried to contact the company but the company never replied to their inquiry.

Great, I thought! I'll get a refund.

Eh, not exactly. You see, their "guarantee" means I will get a refund IF the company refunds Pay Pal.

(Following along?) A "company" puts up a web site, opens a Pay Pal account, then sits back and collects money. Usually it's a product at a reduced price to encourage purchases. Orders are placed on the company web site through Pay Pal. Delivery is to be expected in a week to 10 days.

So I and, I imagine, hundreds of others patiently wait and finally contact the company after two weeks.The company replies they had sooo many requests and they are working as quickly as possible to fulfill the orders. They write they started sending out orders two days ago and I should receive mine within the week.

Now the third week has passed and the company has had all the Pay Pal funds transferred to their bank account and out of Pay Pal. Requests to Pay Pal start pouring in and Pay Pal responds with, "Oops, there's no money in the company's Pay Pal account to reimburse anyone."

How is that for a "guarantee"? If the thief decides to reimburse your purchase Pay Pal will forward the money to you. :rofl:

Anyway, I contacted Visa and explained the scam to them. "We'll look into it", the lady said.

Three days later the funds were credited to my Visa.

Two days after that Pay Pal send an email saying Visa had "inquired" about my account.

I wonder how many other folks just accepted Pay Pal's "sorry" and ended up losing their money.

Remember Greenspan and his "invisible hand" philosophy. He finally confessed to Congress his head was in a very dark place. HA!

He was aware of the mortgage bundles. He figured if enough people lost money others wouldn't invest and everything would work out. Here's an interesting video.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?autoplay

To wrap this all up there's lots of blame to go around but keeping government out of business, letting business do as it wishes, is not the answer. That much is clear.
 
Yurt said:
it is an open board....and yes you did ask me to answer it
Click to expand...

Oh Elisibeth, I'm coming, this is the big one, yurt finaly got me. No yurtle, I was asking if you had an anwer, not to answer it, see?
You can tell by the words I used, "Do you have an answer... as oposed to what is the answer.
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
Oh Elisibeth, I'm coming, this is the big one, yurt finaly got me. No yurtle, I was asking if you had an anwer, not to answer it, see?
You can tell by the words I used, "Do you have an answer... as oposed to what is the answer.
Click to expand...

lol...yeah...you didn't want me to answer the question

do you really think your bs flies?
 
Liberty said:
Trading liberty for security.

Each are gone it seems.
Click to expand...

until a leo invades a house improperly and there is insufficient reimbursement for said and the case goes to scotus and is won

or the indiana legislature overturns the decision

until the usa patriot act is overturned or not renewed this is the former land of the free
 
Gee, who didn't see this one coming?

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

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.
Click to expand...

and this one also....

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...ened-after-allowing-warrantless-searches.html

The Indiana Supreme Court has received numerous threats via telephone and email following a controversial decision handed down last Thursday, May 12th, 2011, that “authorizes” police to search homes randomly according to Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman, Kathryn Dolan. In a 3-2 ruling in BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA, Justice Steven David, appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels wrote that under “modern” (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence, Hoosiers must submit to the violent force of any and all UNLAWFUL searches instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion due to individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law.
Click to expand...

From the Indiana State Constitution:
Section 11. 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.

Indiana Constitution
Ratified 1851
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top