IPFS Larken Rose

More About: Police State

Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism

Something huge--huge and not good--just happened in Indiana, which will be little more than a blip in the propaganda that passes for national news. The Supreme Court of Indiana just ruled that in Indiana, if a police officer decides to illegally come into your house, you're not allowed to do anything to stop him. According to "Justice" Steven David, resisting an admittedly "unlawful police entry into a home" is against "public policy." Got that? If you live in Indiana, and a cop decides to invade your home without a shred of legal justification, it is considered a crime for you to do anything to stop him.

Bizarrely, "Justice" David also said that resisting law-breaking cops goes against "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." You see, only judges are wise enough to know that when the Fourth Amendment says you have a right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures," it actually means that the cops have the right to commit "unreasonable searches and seizures," and you have no right to do anything to stop it.

Please allow me to toot my own horn here, by pointing out that in my novel, "The Iron Web" (page 231), I predicted this step occurring. It is an essential, major step towards totalitarianism, for the control freaks to decide that even when they break their own laws, their victims have no right to resist. There is a huge principle at stake here, and what these three Indiana jackass "judges" have just done is guarantee either complete totalitarianism, or a bloody revolution (or both, in that order). Because this ruling means, quite literally, that residence of Indiana have no rights at all. What would it possibly mean to say you have a "right" to not have your home illegally invaded by a jackbooted thug, while also saying that you cannot do anything to defend that right? To say that you are legally required to allow your rights to be violated means that they aren't rights. (Duh.)

But never fear, because, according to the Supreme Jackass Court of Indiana, you can always come crawling to your masters, after you've been illegally victimized by one of their jackboots, to beg for some restitution. (Good luck with that.) "Justice" David says that, after you let the cop illegally invade your home, you can always "protest the illegal entry through the court system." That's almost straight out of my novel, where a new (fictional) law would "mak[e] it a crime to forcibly resist any arrest, while also providing legal remedies to those who have been subjected to improper arrest.” (This isn't the first thing in my novel that later became either proposed legislation or a new court ruling.)

If anyone considers this reasonable, keep in mind that by the exact same "reasoning" (and I use that term extremely loosely), they might as well also rule that if a cop decides to shoot your dog, or steal your car, or rape your wife, you have to quietly stand by and let him do it, and then later file a complaint, or a lawsuit. In other words, the jackboots can do absolutely anything they damn well please, "legal" or not, and your only recourse is to later whine to the very control freaks that the jackboots work for.

What was the rationale for this? In case all of the above wasn't Orwellian enough, check this out. "Justice" David argued that "allowing resistance [to law-breaking cops] unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved." Holy smokes! Why wouldn't this psychotic reasoning (a.k.a. "retroactive tyranny justification") also mean that if anyone breaks into your house, or assaults you, or steals your stuff, or otherwise attacks you, you'd better let him do it in order to avoid "escalat[ing] the level of violence"? Using defensive violence to combat aggressive violence is completely justified and righteous, notwithstanding the opinions of the tyranny apologists appointed by the parasite class. If a cop illegally barges into your home, you have every right to escalate the level of violence to any extent necessary to stop him, including blowing the fascist's damn head off.

I'm glad I don't live in Indiana, because if some cop decided to barge into my house without a shred of legal justification, I'd now know that if I tried to hold him back, or push him out, I'd be arrested and prosecuted. So I'd just have to shoot the bastard instead. And since it's tough to do that sort of thing without anyone noticing, I would then be a fugitive, for having defended my home and family against an invading criminal. And if that much happened, and I was forced to become a fugitive, I might feel obliged to go pay a visit to the three stupid, tyrant-loving fascist jackasses on the Indiana Supreme Court who just decided to declare it a crime for someone to defend himself against illegal trespassing, breaking and entering, and assault, if the scumbag attacker happens to have a badge.

Hmmm, I have an idea. If there are any Indiana cops who still respect the Constitution, please do your state a huge favor, and go barge into the home of "Justice" Steven David--during supper would probably be a good time. Barge in, without a warrant, and without any legal justification, guns drawn, and start ordering people around. See if "Justice" David does anything to resist. If he does, lock his fascist ass up for violating his own idiotic legal ruling. In fact, since he just declared it to be illegal for him to resist your illegal invasion of his home, if he lifts a finger to stop you, shoot the bastard, or at least give him a good tasering. (That's exactly what happened in the case where "Justice" David sided with the law-breaking cop.) After all, we can't just let people assault police officers, now can we? If some Indiana cop had the spine to do that, I know several thousand people who would be thrilled beyond words.

(P.S. Incidentally, in U.S. vs. John Bad Elk, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that resisting an unlawful arrest, even if doing so requires killing the cop, can be legal. Whether this conflict between the Supreme Court and the Indiana Nazi Brigade will be resolved in court remains to be seen. But whatever any black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding narcissist says, if someone decides to barge into your home, you have the right to evict him, with a harsh word, a fist, or a 12-gauge--whichever you deem necessary.)

21 Comments in Response to

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

To save Larken from his own tortured arguments against Statism, I suggested to him that he should go to school and at least study law and become a RATIONALLY learned man – so that he can rationally argue arrest and forcible entry with me with sense.

Larken’s response is: "That is not how to become learned or rational. That is how to become indoctrinated into the insane, anti-human cult of statism …" It is a "state worship that perfectly personify an enslaved subject …"

Observe how the mind of this guy works. Those who go to school and get educated are, according to his delirious state of mind, "indoctrinated into the insane, anti-human cult of statism …" He looks at almost all the three hundred million Americans who have gone to school "enslaved subject" … all "slaves" of the State.

Slaves? Where in hell did he get this idea, drops your jaw to the floor. Is he a kid in fantasy land that mumbles whatever crosses his mind?

Larken is unaware – the problem when you are not rationally learned – that every taxpaying American digs deep into their pockets to raise US$56 billion (est. 2010 budget) for education so that even hillbillies like Larken can go to school to get an education … to become a RATIONALLY learned American who lives in this country, known to be the mightiest nation on the planet. And Larken has no idea what going to school to get educated is all about, for heavens’ sake!

He is just showing how angry he is. When you are as angry as Larken because in his very disturbed mind we live in a State under a Government which to him is a threat to him to get wild in the name of liberty and freedom [a very distorted view of what personal liberty or freedom is all about], your grasp of reason fades away, and your rationality simply flies out of the window.

Okay, because I am a learned man from the academe, I am a slave of the State, of law and order according to you, Larken.  How about you, Larken, whose slave are you? Or better still, who is your "Master"? If you are neither of the above – what are you? Are you an "alien" from another planet or an earthling in a white straitjacket who rides an ambulance now and then… which one?

No offense intended … just curious for the benefit [and safety] of the American public.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Anybody Who May Want To Help Larken --

If you want to help Larken understand his own contradiction and irrelevance let alone his ignorance of law enforcement and procedures, I give you some pointers to use, culled from my almost two decades in the practice of law: When the performance of their police duty law enforcers conduct an ARREST or FORCIBLE ENTRY to prevent a crime or a crime about to be committed, in Larken’s freaking mind this is "THUGGERY" , calling the law enforcers "jackboots" that should be resisted by force. Anybody who listens to Larken and do exactly what he wants you to do at that critical moment ends up dead or if still alive either ends up in the hospital or in prison with not just a black-eye or a bump in the head. Trust me.

Law enforcers doing this kind of police duty is NOT FASCISM. Help Larken understand that so that he can get out from his very sad mental imprisonment. Tell him also that crime suppression and crime prevention conducted by police authorities are NOT what he imagined as TOTALITARIANISM, REPRESSION OR TYRANNY, which he capsulated in one word as state FASCISM – his very weird justification for calling on the citizenry to rise in arms, and worse, egging them to get killed in his hippie-kind of fight for freedom and liberty [duh!].

Finally, in Larken’s disturbed mind, to resist and kill a policeman while doing an arrest or forcible entry to prevent a crime or stop a crime about to be committed is neither wrong nor immoral. Because to fight the law enforcers under these circumstances is not wrong or immoral, urge him to get funky and get arrested himself. He will have his own whole world of opportunity all to himself to resist with force and let’s see who will win. I place my bet on law enforcers. No doubt they will win … but it is a very tragic way of convincing Larken that to resist with force is not only wrong and immoral but also fatal.

If you want to help Larken out of his delirious anti-State predicament, please do. We may save some lives before he succeeds in blind-siding the public into a rage to commit subersive acts of violence.

Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:


A perfect summary of state-worship, courtesy of :"Bakadudce": "The last alternative I suggest is for you to become a rationally learned man. Go to school and study law."

That is not how to become learned or rational. That is how to become indoctrinated into the insane, anti-human cult of statism, which you obviously have been (along with most lawyers).  You perfectly personify an enslaved subject, when you repeat the mantra that it is wrong to "take the law into your own hands," and that civilized people will beg to the ruling class's "courts" for justice. In other words, "Don't run away, just ask the massah to be nicer!" 

Comment by Tammy Goode
Entered on:

This is on the heals of last month’s Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Baird v Lake Santee, where Chief Judge Robb determined that punitive fines are substantially the same as governmental fees and that your home may be seized and sold without you ever being charged, prosecuted or convicted of a violation.  14th Amendment … not in Indiana.

My advice: Escape Indiana before you’re dead or penniless.


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Larken needs help, people.  Make no mistake about it!

But as far as I am concerned, Larken, you could no longer be helped. You cannot understand – and will never understand -- why the Court declared that resisting arrest and forcible entry is AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. I am simplifying the Indiana court ruling, so that you and your kind, will understand it. It is against public policy to get killed especially when anyone uses force in resisting while police officers or "persons in authority" are in the process of performing their duty of preventing a crime being committed or about to be committed. For you Larken, it might not be wrong to commit suicide, but don’t let the police officers while performing their public duty do your own hara-kiri, for you – it is against public policy to do that, understand? And you should know that that is not "fascism" – for God’s sake! Don’t fool the people every time … anytime when you just feel like it.

Larken, hear this: It is like saying that DON’T TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR HANDS when seeking redress. Your remedy is in the court of law. Don’t you understand that? By writing down your anti-Statism rage, don’t push FP.com captive readers to commit suicide your hellish way.

Just for you to really, really understand your own folly, what you should do is experiment for yourself to run afoul with the law to the point that police officers have no choice but to arrest you. This way you will have the greatest opportunity of your life to use force in resisting arrest or forcible entry – then you call me if you survive, or else let your next of kin call me during your funeral.

Damn it, Larken -- do it! … do to yourself what you are preaching to others, and prove me wrong! Don’t be a coward and let others do it for you. You don’t even understand that my intervention to stop you from deceiving innocent Americans that you are urging to resist arrest or forcible entry is to save them from your macabre way of pushing them and throwing them under the bus. It is the most stupid way of inducing people to fight authorities in the name of liberty and freedom that you are screwing up.

The last alternative I suggest is for you to become a rationally learned man. Go to school and study law. Be a lawyer – even just for the sake of proving to yourself that your understanding of right and wrong is upside down!

As to your delusion that I am a pretending Libertarian, you must have probably already known that I am a Libertarian of Reason, not like the angry libertarian that you are. I do not throw people under the bus in the name of Liberty and Freedom like you do. Libertarian pretenders doing exactly what you are doing to cure their personal anti-statism neurosis embarrass me to no end. I will definitely disown my being called a Libertarian if your tribe increases in FP.com and people get hurt or get killed by your chain-saw-like mantra of violence! Trust me.

Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

Bakadude, are you STILL pretending to be a libertarian? Because you're not going to win any Oscars in your attempt to portray one. In short, you wrote a long-winded diatribe, advocating fascism, claiming that the so-called "duty" and "authority" of state jackboots makes it WRONG to resist their thuggery, even when it goes against their OWN "laws." If you're a libertarian, why do you so often advocate the fascist position? 

 You also have a habit of mischaracterizing what others say. The question of whether someone has the RIGHT to resist, and whether it's a good idea in practical terms, are not the same thing. The guy in the case the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on had the absolute right to use any amount of force to keep the jackboots out of his house, including killing them. However, I'm glad he didn't, because then he would be dead himself. Your argument seems to boil down to the strange assumption that, because resisting state thuggery is RISKY, that makes it IMMORAL. I know lots of tyrants who would love their victims to think that way.


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

The Public Must Know Why Resisting Police Entry Is Against Public Policy


Letter Written by: bakadude Date of Letter: 2011-05-16
Subject: Law Enforcers or Peace Officers



     To Gammill who in his comment [click on the above] is waiting to see the “Thug War on us” – please try harder to be fair and put this “other side of the coin” side by side with that of Larkin Rose’s Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism in the FRONT PAGE and you don’t have to wait for the real Thug War against us waged by those who hate the State and the Government. Stonewalling is not what the reading public needs.


    You write for freedom, and that should start where you are writing from – this website that you run.  FP.com shouldn’t have a CAPTURED audience only. Why is this not in the front page while Larkin’s dangerous rage blind-siding the readers to violence is on it … what are you afraid of?  Is there a plot or something sinister going on?




Comment by Mama Liberty
Entered on:

" (This isn't the first thing in my novel that later became either proposed legislation or a new court ruling.)"

 Good grief, Larken... you have to figure out how not to let your books fall into the hands of legislators! They have enough ideas on their own. :) 

Comment by Duncan Adams
Entered on:

To all the people that think Mitch is such a great guy .... Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is Adolph Hitler personified and is thus disqualified to run for President of the United States. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186124

Comment by Roger Strodtbeck
Entered on:

If you read the federal definition of terrorist, and step back and look at all the elected civil servants (not our masters) plus the members of the bar association who allow thousands of unlawful laws to remain on the books unchallenged because it benefits them, you will then truely understand the situation we find ourselves in. These people are the terrorist  and we need to deal with them swiftly as stated in the constitution throw out such government (cancer of this country) and erectify the errors in the constitution, such as the first part of article six which says we are still under englands rule! redefine the commerce clause, allow swift punishment to judges who disgrace the scales of justice and seek to turn the law around and against the people and allow the servants to have absolute power. To charge legislatures with the charge of traitors/treason when they create unconstitutional acts of legislation. We are at war with terrorism people, Geoge W. Bush declared the war are we going to set back and idly become prisoners and slaves. They the president, congress, the governors and judges and mayors the members of the bar association are our enemies working together to enslave the whole of the population via deception and by the use of ignorant brain washed thugs. They swear an oath to a flag that looks like ours but is not, it is patched together and has gold trim around it this is the federalist flag of foriegn commerce ( englands symbol of power here in america) it flys in all our government building while out in front on american soil flys our red, white, and blue. everyone should meet in front of the government buildings which belong to us march into them drag those flags out and burn them and chant death to the Queen and let the message ring out around the world. Then we need to throw out englands banks which continue to set us up for these ressessions every 25 years, and bring back the gold standard to back our dollar not a debt note. which is 248 cents in debt per each value of 1 dollar right now. Hmmm thats 250% payback to break even, and you want to bitch about 20 some % interest on credit cards! Here is an unlawful act of legislation done by our congress U.S.C. Title 18 Section 1001-1a -1b-1c I will just cover 1a for now it claims it is unlawful for someone to make false claims or file false reports etc.., and if you were ever researching federal laws to use in a court you would probably stop right here copy this down and go to court to show proof the supreme laws says it is unlawful to do the things mentioned above. And of course you would tell the judge your finding only to have the judge ignore your claim here is why, go down to 2a of the same code here it says it is perfectly legal to lie in court and file false reports. This law was designed not to protect we the people but to protect the police, lawyers, and civil servants who know of its existence. Here is one way it is used a police officer pulls you over and accuses you of speeding (motorvehicle moving voilation). Well you have been brainwashed into believing the speed limit laws pertain to everyone but they do not! They pertain to people conducting business on the roads for profit. Here is the federal law definition of a motorvehicle-U.S.C. Title 18 section 31 (crimes and proceedures act) its burried under a bunch of airplane definitions in hopes most people will never find it after all who wants to know about airplanes??? none the less it is there line E and F I believe. Notice a motorvehicle is something being used for a commercial purose. That means while being used for a commercial purpose on the roads then the motorvehicle laws apply to it. Commercial purpose the transportation of people or passengers for a fee, or the transportatation of cargo for a monatary gain! Does ones automobile although being titled and license with the state motorvehicle department always fall into the class of motorvehicle then. The answer is NO it does not, and as explained above when the officer pulls you over he is acting as a terrorist depriving you of your rights our congress has said their are indigents amoung us who can only afford one automobile and thus if it is needed to use on the roads for commercial purpose the owner must obtain proper title and licenses, but because it is their only automobile their rights to use it for their personal affairs must also be observed. Their job is to first ask what your business is is it personal ( where the law does not apply to you or are you conducting business for profit) Here are the laws which tell us what the police are doing is unlawful. U.S.C. Title 18 Section 241-246 excluding 244 note these laws talk about person or persons being in disguise they are talking about police officers, lawyers and judges also note some of the laws talk about while acting under color of law this means although the law exists it does not aplly to you when you are conducting your personal activities or business. Thus making it unlawful for them to prosecute you. Here are some other related laws these came about after the rodney king beatings and a couple of similiar cases in new york. U.S.C. Title 42 Section 1981- 1986. In short you do not need to title your automobiles with the state it is revenue that they have no right to plus what they are doing now is claiming because you have the license you have waived your rights and fall under the commerce clause. Tell everyone you know about these lies send your license plates to your governor and let him know how pissed off you are that they teach you wrong in school not to mention they do not teach federal laws( supreme law of the land in school) and how it should be posted at the department of motorvehicles that titling and licensing your automobile is only required if you are going to use it for a commercial purpose. Think about it would you pay to title and license your automobile if you knew you did not have to!!! Why do you think there is not one law prohibiting you from using your automobile on the roads, duh because it is a right that cannot be regulated!!!! Would you like to know about property taxes and how you do not have to pay property taxes on land or a home you own after all it is a right read the Uniform Commercial Codes learn what the words resident, tenant, person and individual are under this code get a law dictionary also lets defeat these terrorist now before it is too late. Stand up and take back what is rightfully yours.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

In the law, there have been certain very specific places which no court, no judge, is bold enough to breech.  The front door of a person's home, his castle, was one such place.  No more.

The Indiana Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, has taken the state of law since the King John's signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and decide that it no longer serves our "modern" world.  In Barnes v. State, the court held that the sanctity of our homes is a thing of the past. ....


Comment by Mark Perkins
Entered on:

 The government in the United States is completely out of control. I don't even have to say what it would require to correct this, because everyone knows already. It is like an 800pound gorilla sitting in the room, everyone is trying to ignore it. The time is coming. The only question is what will finally trigger the event.

Comment by Gene Swank
Entered on:

I have had dealings with crooked, gung ho cops. They will never enter my property without a warrent and they will not enter untill I have witnesses to watch them so they dont plant anything in my property. This all comes down to the left apointed Judges making illegal unconstitutional rulings to scare us into submission to there taking over and making us all their slaves. I have been arrested with out a warrent, jailed, convicted with out ever pleading guilty and never having a trial. Then spent 7K trying to get my day in court. The police report had 10 outright lies in it, the person who made the complaint never signed a statement, the Detective trashed evidence I gave him proving me innocent. I was threatened by this Detective that if I came back for a trial I would be arrested again and held until the trial was over. Even though this was a misdemeanor charge and I served only 3and 1/2 days in jail I dont want it on my record, as I have no record and this was caused by an ex wife who lied to the police and the court.

Comment by Robert Fowler
Entered on:

Did you not read the article? The police can enter for no reason at all. It doesn't say a word about a arrest. I have a problem with a cop thinking he can just come into my house with out PC or a warrant.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

       Larken Rose and his kind should know what resisting arrest or unlawful entry means, and why it is against public policy. He has a twisted understanding of what the Indiana court ruling was all about. Take it from Bakadude whose enlightenment I sent to the Editor for FP.com readers to read and comprehend.


      From Bakadude: You need to know, and I must tell you what this court ruling means: "... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy" -- it simply means that it is against public policy for anyone TO RESIST WHILE POLICE ARREST OR UNLAWFUL ENTRY IS IN PROGRESS – regardless of whether such arrest or entry is legal or not. What is being prevented as a matter of public policy is the violence, death or injury that would take place if police officers -- described in the study of law as "persons in authority" – are obstructed or prevented from the performance of their duty.


      Conducting arrest is a duty of police officers. During arrest, the person being arrested cannot stop the arrest by invoking his/her constitutional right. The lawyer if present while the arrest is in progress has no right either to intervene or stop the arrest. Anyone resisting and using violence in resisting arrest or entry could end up in the morgue.

        Read more. See the list of letters to the editor and click open on Indiana Court Ruling: Larken Should Know What It Means.


Comment by Robert Fowler
Entered on:

You are absolutely right. I don't live in Indiana but I agree, no cop is coming iin my house without a warrant. These idiot judges need to be removed from the bench. They obviously don't know what the $th Amendment needs.

I love your take no prisoner style. Keep spreading the good word.


Comment by Forty Four O Nine
Entered on:

Man...one things for sure, larken don't mess around when he writes something...this story cuts sharper than a doctors scalpel.

Comment by Stupid Amerkin
Entered on:


"There exist a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not by theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

 Majority will (vote?) cannot change the nature of man. He is born with inalienable rights, i.e., they remain forever, not able to be waived. No court can remove them. The court can only refuse to acknowledge them, making the court decision unlawful. Sovereignty does not reside in the nation. It resides in the individual

If Sovereignty resides in "the individual", would that be an individual with a badge?  And individual wearing robes?  Or only private individuals?

I visit this In my book, "The Constellation of  Liberty".  When an officer of the law acts, use of force is implicit each time - no exceptions.  Whether that act - an thus the implicit use of force - is legitimate or not depends on who you ask.  I think the party being arrested has a say in the matter, and that the people at large have a say later.  Both the officer who initiates this use of force and the courts who evaluate such actions should be aware of it.

So should the people at large.

DC Treybil

Comment by Don Duncan
Entered on:

Majority will (vote?) cannot change the nature of man. He is born with inalienable rights, i.e., they remain forever, not able to be waived. No court can remove them. The court can only refuse to acknowledge them, making the court decision unlawful. Sovereignty does not reside in the nation. It resides in the individual. 

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

"7.  No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested by virtue of the law shall submit instantly:  resistance makes you guilty." (from an English translation of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, as Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789)

The question becomes what is the law?  Is the law what the man with the badge says it is?  Or is the law derived from the will of the people - ALL the people?  Elsewhere in this document Paine asserts:

"3.  The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation."

Not far from "consent of the governed" is it?  The nation is ALL the people.  The nation is NOT the one guy (or small squad of guys) with a badge.

At least that much of Paine bears on this event.


DC Treybil