The Constitution is nothing more than an old piece of paper when courts are issuing rulings like this:

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, 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.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. 

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.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Motorists Illegally Detained at Florida Tolls - For Using Large Bills! | firstcoastnews.com

The Government is completely out of control. When civil liberties were suspended post 9-11 through the Patriot Act many of us, myself included, though that this is the new world we live in and we need protection from the terrorists so we kept our mouths shut and dealt with it. But with each video of a child or a disabled veteran being groped by high school dropouts that were hired by the TSA I grew more anger. Now Florida is illegal detaining motorists simply because people are paying with too large a bill. The worst part of this story is that this was the official policy of the Turnpike Authority and they tried to cover it up when they got caught.

TAMPA, Florida -- Meet Joel Chandler, who just paid his $1.00 toll on the Polk Parkway with a $100 bill, he is not allowed to leave unless he provides personal info to the toll taker. The toll taker tells Chandler this is what happens when they get large bills. She says this is what they have to do. 

Chandler says to the toll taker, "So I'm being detained?" She says, "Yes sir."

It is a policy the Florida Turnpike authority instituted for people who paid with $20, $50 or $100 bills. After it happened once, Chandler kept testing the system and taped his encounters as he went through the toll booths.

One time a toll taker told him she wouldn't give him his change unless he gave her the information. Chandler replied, "So I'm being detained." He asked why he was being detained but never got an answer. 

Chandler says this is a serious criminal offense, to detain someone without proper legal authority. He says that is exactly what the department is doing. 

When Chandler called and emailed the Florida Department of Transportation to complain about the policy, he was told there is no policy to detain people who give large bills. He says that made him more concerned, because that meant there were individual rogue toll takers detaining people. 

The practice continued at toll booth after toll booth and, if someone refused to provide the information, they were threatened with arrest. One toll taker told Chandler's brother Robert, "I could call FHP. Would you like me to do that, sir?" Robert Chandler asked why she would call the Florida Highway Patrol when he was being illegally detained and the toll taker said he could come up with another form of tender. 

Chandler continued to complain and on July 21 at 7:19 p.m., he received an email from the assistant General Counsel of FDOT saying essentially the department didn't know what he was talking about and they don't have sufficient information to investigate. However, earlier that same day, there were a flurry of e-mails going back and forth in the department saying shut the program down, temporarily suspend it and asking who should call Chandler and what they should say. 

According to Chandler, not only was the D.O.T. not being truthful about the policy existing, but he also says they made a concerted effort to cover it up. 

One reason the department might not have wanted the public to know about the program is because of who was being detained. 

Chandler says he thinks it's clear from their own documents there was a lot of racial profiling going on. 

And when you look at the documents from the Florida Department of Transportation, you see there was a policy change about detaining people who gave a $20 bill. The Department decided to leave it up to the discretion of the toll takers to decide who was suspicious. 

The courts have ruled that is unconstitutional, because it allows the preferences and prejudices of an individual to make the decision. 

Chandler says 87 percent of the times toll takers took the time to fill out the form as to why they stopped someone it was a racial description like young black male or young Hispanic male. 

Although FDOT refused to comment because the Department expects to be sued, internal emails justify the program because of counterfeit bills. However, in a two and a half year period the DOT got $16,000 in counterfeit bills, while at the same time it collected close to $2 billion in tolls ($1,523,825,404). 

The Department also spent $32,000 on forms used to catch the $16,000 in funny money. The department also says in e-mails, the program will help law enforcement catch counterfeiters. 

However, as Chandler discovered, in the 885 times the D.O.T. claims it received counterfeit money, not one time was it referred to any law enforcement agency of any description. 

Meantime, Chandler estimates the illegal detainment has happened at least 5 million times. He says it has been crime upon crime upon crime, lie upon lie upon lie. He says it's disturbing because the Department got its hands caught in the cookie jar. 

That's why Chandler wants to file a class action suit against the state. He says what it comes down to it the Department of Transportation will be found by the courts to be involved in the largest criminal conspiracy in the state. 

And if the court were to award everyone who was detained even a small amount to compensate them, it could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Motorists Illegally Detained at Florida Tolls - For Using Large Bills! | firstcoastnews.com

Jesse Jackson Jr. Fix Unemployment by Changing Constitution So Every Ki...

Thomas More Law Center Appeals Conviction of Christian Missionary Arrested at Dearborn Arab Festival

From the Thomas More Law Center:

Standing barely 5 feet tall, 18-year old Negeen Mayel, whose parents escaped from Afghanistan after the Russian invasion, couldn’t escape the clutches of the Dearborn, Michigan Police Department. Her crime: she was a Christian publicly filming her fellow Christian missionaries discussing the Gospel with Muslims at last year’s annual Dearborn Arab Festival, and she didn’t turn off her camera quick enough after a police officer ordered her to do so.

Negeen Mayel was convicted in the Dearborn District Court of failure to obey a police officer’s order. Astonishingly, at the trial, the officer admitted that the filming by Mayel was in fact not a crime.
Last week, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed its opening brief with the Wayne County Circuit Court, seeking to overturn her conviction. Mayel was one of four Christian missionaries originally arrested for preaching the Gospel at the 2010 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan.

All four Christians were charged with Breach of the Peace for discussing their faith with Muslims at the Festival. All four were acquitted by a jury. However, Negeen Mayel was also charged with “failure to obey” for not turning off her video camera when told to do so by a Dearborn police officer. The officer then forcefully grabbed Negeen’s arm and camera, placed her in handcuffs, and had her locked-up in the city jail.
Dearborn is considered home to the largest Muslim population in America. As a result, many City officials, including the Mayor, engage in official action solely to please this significant voting bloc. In this case, police effectively replaced our constitutional guarantees of Free Speech with Sharia law, which forbids Christians to proselytize Muslims.

The Law Center’s brief argues that the conviction must be overturned because the arresting police officer lacked any information that Mayel was involved in criminal activity when she was seized by the officer, in violation of the Constitution. According to the brief filed with the Circuit Court, the police officer’s order “to shut off her camera and remain with him for questioning directly violated [Mayel’s] constitutional rights. Consequently, [she] cannot be criminally charged nor convicted for disobeying an unconstitutional—and thus unlawful—police order.”

Read the Law Center’s brief here.

Robert Muise, TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel who is handling the matter, stated, “The arresting officer’s actions and the actions of the Dearborn police department are textbook examples of civil rights violations of the highest order. Consequently, when a conviction is based on the actions of a police officer that violate fundamental constitutional rights, as in this case, that conviction must be reversed, lest our constitutional freedoms be rendered meaningless platitudes subject to the will of police officials.”