Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved


Most of us have concluded that our judicial system is a farce with the entire country choking on the corruption of the judiciary on all levels.  We have become far too tolerant of judicial misconduct and the intentional refusal to adhere to the law and constitutional rights by what has become known as the Black Robed Mafia. Never are the citizens of any state in greater danger than when they are forced to step into any court room in this country.

On too many occasions judges openly declare that the law is “what I say it is”, then proceed to violate rights, refuse to allow evidence that would counter the oppositions arguments, threaten plaintiff’s and/or defendants with jail for demanding their rights, or, if all else fails, refuse to allow them to speak in their own defense.  We even have instances of judges threatening the victims in their courtrooms with jail for mentioning the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States has become an unnecessary burden on the country, rendering obviously unconstitutional opinions and rulings bearing little resemblance to the rule of law and the constitution.  The state courts are following suit and rendering a few zingers of their own which should have each of them disbanded until a suitable reconstruction effort can be achieved. 

Possibly having advance notice of the impending passage of the police state bill S.1867, which struck down any remaining defenses we had against federal and military threat, the Black Robed Mafia in Indiana fired a shot across the bow of the Constitution……and not one legislator or even the governor of Indiana spoke up to defend the citizens of Indiana from what is clearly a court determined to align itself with the burgeoning police state.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision the following:

“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.” Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David said, 

“We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.

Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry.” 

“We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

From the New AmericanJustice David acknowledged that he was overturning many centuries of common law precedent in favor of his “public policy” decision, admitting that “The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215.”

By this courts own words; “the right to resist an UNLAWFUL entry”. Did these people not read what they wrote?  What they are telling the public is that its ok for law enforcement to break the law, even if you didn’t and, that you have no real recourse if they do!

And what, precisely is modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?  I assume that would be a reiteration of the suspension of habeas corpus, due process, don’t need a warrant, we can arrest without probable cause, and the new and improved, we can terrorize you without repercussion add-ins attached to various bills.

Exigent circumstances

Exigent can mean :  Emergency conditions. ‘Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.’United Statesv. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Exigent, can also mean doing far more than what would be determined to be reasonable and this no doubt is what the Indiana Supreme Court was affirming.  The right of police to unlawfully enter a structure of any kind without warrant or oath of affirmation attached to a warrant and without showing probable cause as to why they are pursuing or attempting to capture an individual(s).

There is no modern day jurisprudence attached to the Fourth Amendment. 

What we have is a modern judiciary that serves as a rubber stamp for the actions of the police state being assembled.  Just because these renegade courts issued an edict saying they made legal that which was unlawful….does not mean that the interpretation or protections of the Fourth Amendment somehow changed.  What it does mean is that we have a court system that should be taken apart and reconstructed with individuals who not only know about our constitution, but who are also prepared to defend it.

“From the New American: Perhaps the egregious part of the Barnes decision is that it was made without any pretense of legislative or constitutional justification. To the contrary, every law and constitutional citation made by Justice Steven David reasserted the citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry, and the court justified its decision on “public policy” considerations and a few activist court decisions.”

The only thing more egregious than this court decision is that these Black Robed Mafia members are allowed to continue sitting on the bench.