New ruling from the Supreme Court.......... V

[Ponce]

From "What Really Happened".........cops don't need any thing to enter your home they can do it at will.

Get your FREAKING Land Patent.......is the only thing that can stop them........and posted it where it can be seen.

V

[midnight rambler]

got a link?

[BrewTech]

got a link?

This is the link, but it appears it's not working right now.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/supreme-court-rules-police-do-not-need-a-warrant-to-search-your-home/

[osoab]

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches (http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/25/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226)



WASHINGTON — Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door.

Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.


http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
"You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights," Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.

Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.

In Tuesday's decision, the high court said Fernandez did not have the right to prevent the search of his apartment once he was gone and Rojas had consented.

In the past, the court has frowned upon most searches of residences except in the case of an emergency or if the police had a warrant from a judge.

But Alito said police were free to search when they get the consent of the only occupant on site.

"A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," he said in Fernandez vs. California. "Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."

He also said Rojas, who appeared to have been beaten when police first arrived, should have her own right to consent to a search. "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence," Alito wrote for the court.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in dissent and faulted the court for retreating from the warrant rule.

"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it," Ginsburg said.

She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday's opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was "physically present" to object.

The voting lineup seemed to track the court's ideological divide and its gender split, with male and female justices taking opposite sides. The six men — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and Alito — voted to uphold Rojas' consent to the search. The court's three women would have honored Fernandez's objection.

Fernandez was later convicted for his role in the street robbery and sentenced to 14 years in prison. After the California Supreme Court upheld his conviction, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the search of his apartment.


Moral to the story is don't let a woman live with you? :[]

[Glass]

what it seems to say is, the subject of the search must be present at the time, to deny entry to the police. Not sure what that means if the subject is not present. I guess they just walk in?

Next question. Does a federal warrant apply to anyone outside of federal territory. There maybe recent cases that state definitively, no.

[BrewTech]

I'm pretty sure that shit like this is why the second amendment was included, for when the Supreme Court becomes irreversibly corrupt, leading to Constitutional breakdown..

[Hitch]

I'm pretty sure that shit like this is why the second amendment was included, for when the Supreme Court becomes irreversibly corrupt, leading to Constitutional breakdown..

Yeah but now the 4th amendment overrides the 2nd amendment.

Such fucking BS. Not stop attacks on the 4th amendment, more wiggle room, take a little here, and then there.

Our Constitution is under attack and is a death by a thousand cuts. This shit pisses me off to no end. It's like the oppressors don't have the balls to come out in the open....the resort to this crap.

Honestly, fuck it at this point. There are no rules. Buy guns, and ammo, and wait at the door for these fuckers to try and kick it in.

Who the hell are these communists?

Damnit

[7th trump]

Yeah but now the 4th amendment overrides the 2nd amendment.

Such fucking BS. Not stop attacks on the 4th amendment, more wiggle room, take a little here, and then there.

Our Constitution is under attack and is a death by a thousand cuts. This shit pisses me off to no end. It's like the oppressors don't have the balls to come out in the open....the resort to this crap.

Honestly, fuck it at this point. There are no rules. Buy guns, and ammo, and wait at the door for these fuckers to try and kick it in.

Who the hell are these communists?

Damnit

No the constitution isn't under attack....you are. You as a US citizen don't get much of the protections anyhow.

I seriously ask you to read this website.... www.1215.org

Pick the red pill and read...read...read!

[Serpo]

No the constitution isn't under attack....you are. You as a US citizen don't get much of the protections anyhow.

I seriously ask you to read this website.... www.1215.org (http://www.1215.org)

Pick the red pill and read...read...read!

The Essence of Common Law



A reader objects:

I disagree with your position that I am subject to the common law - what exactly is the common law?? And who says so?? And, as I am Sovereign, who gets to decide that I am subject to it??

Upon the revolution everything from England was nullified - including the common law of England!! As an explanation, that which is commonly known as "international law" is, in reality nothing but "custom and practice" -

Reasonable Sovereigns of equal authority and power do not want to go to war - so they are careful about how they relate to their Sovereign equals - this develops into "custom and practice" which, when "violated" could result in a confrontation and even war - that is what "excuse me" is used to repair.

There is no proper way that I can be held to some previously contrived "common law" that I had no participation in establishing and no choice as to my respect thereof or adherence thereto!!



We respond:

"Custom and usage since time immemorial" is generally what is behind the definition of common law. There is no singular source of the common law as one would expect with statutes made by a legislature.

Having said that, consider also that law follows physical power.

Let's pretend that you reset your brain almost to zero--you have no knowledge but your natural knowledge of good and evil, your natural intelligence, and a language with which to communicate with others. You are in your sovereign capacity, accountable to no higher authority, but acknowledging the sovereignty of others and that you may not diminish the sovereignty of others. You are at peace.

Along comes another being like you who causes you pain for which you want fair compensation.

At this point you have a choice: you can do immediate battle, or you can round up other like beings (we suggest 12 of them, a jury) and ask them to join you in battle. If you can get all of them to agree that you have a just cause, then it would be you and them against the accused (you+them=13 against 1).

They, not having been present at the time of the crime, being fair minded, demand that you justify your request (provide the rule and prove your facts).

You make your presentation, and the accused makes his counter-presentation. After the presentations (the trial) the jury retires to cogitate over two questions.

The first question: Is the rule valid? If, in the opinion of the jury your rule is not valid (jury nullification), then they will refuse to join you (a not-guilty verdict). But, if they, in their independent sovereign judgment agree with your rule, then they move on to the second question.

The second question: Did the actions of the accused violate the rule. If, in the opinion of the jury he did not, then they will refuse to join you (a not-guilty verdict). But, if they, in their independent sovereign judgment agree that your rule was violated, then they will join you (a guilty verdict).

If the jury's decision is split, the issue remains unresolved, and a new trial may be needed with a new jury.

If the jury's decision is unanimous, whether "guilty" or "not guilty", the question is decided, and you now have 13 vs. 1. Depending on the verdict, the "1" would be either the accuser or the accused.

Whoever lost the case would be foolish to do physical battle against 13 opponents. Thus, through this process, we bring peace to the realm.

An accuser always has jurisdiction to accuse. The accused always has jurisdiction to defend. And, either one may grant jurisdiction to a jury to intervene.

That is the bare essence of the common law.

Anything more than that is an attempt to "improve" the process. However, so-called "improvements" often are imperfect.

Although there is no singular authoritative source of common law, much has been written over the past thousand years. Many have come to respect the thoughts and opinions of those who preceded them. Having respect does not mean to quit thinking. Education is the process of learning about prior conclusions. Those conclusions are a valuable guide to use to arrive at our own conclusions.

In true common law, there are no obligatory rules or precedents. A common law court (a court of record (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm)) has unlimited jurisdiction and is independent of government. All external factors are, at best, advisory, not obligatory.

The founding fathers understood all that. At his 1801 inaugural Thomas Jefferson said, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." And he wrote, "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." [Letter, September 28, 1820.]

The self-correcting temporary imperfections of common law were preferrable to the entrenched imperfections of legislated written laws. That is why they chose the common law as the law superior to statutes and all other forms law. They expressed that choice through the Constitution (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/constusa.htm)'s 7th Amendment which essentially says that no court may second-guess (review) a decision of a jury.

Also, notice that, although the common law is outside of the Constitution, the Constitution authorizes the USA to support the common law with its judicial power. See Article III, Section 2-1.

A statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) may not second guess the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the USA acknowledges the common law as supreme: “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]