Are there legitimate reasons not to be fingerprinted?

[JBusch8899]

I meant the one from the appeal. I wanted to see what their stated reason for not ruling on it was.

The Appellate Court need not, nor often offers, an opinion for refusal to entertain a petition of appeal.

 

[Eddie]

You can't challenge it, Bill. That's the point. You're in Indiana. The Tandy case was brought to the Court of Appeals which flatly refused to hear it. Just refused to hear it. The End. The statute is clear, and the policy is in direct contravention to the statute. The Appellate Court didn't want to overturn every police department policy in the State, so they killed the case. It's really quite scary.

Now, if you go make a stink about what they're doing and put them on the spot in an official sense, you're going to find out, real quick, how much they can hurt you.

We should tell strangers: "You in Indiana, now, Boy."

Is there any way to post documents to this site?

Dunno

It looks like there was an appeal, and there was a fight to proceed in forma pauperis, but once they got permission it looks like nothing else was filed and eventually the appellee asked for a dismissal. Do you know why they didn't file anything after they got their leave to proceed without filing fees?


6/25/07 ****RECEIVED: APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY (2) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (2). MISSING FILE STAMPED COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND EXTRA COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT. GP 7/06/07 **** NOTICE OF DEFECT MAILED **** GP 7/25/07 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY LAKSHMI HASANADKA, ATTY. FOR THE APPELLEE (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) MAIL *CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS* GP 6/01/07 "NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED" 7/11/07 APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY BY BRIAN P. SWEENEY, ATTY. FOR THE APPELLANT (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) MAIL GP 7/11/07 APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (6) GP 7/11/07 **** NOTICE OF DEFECT CURED: APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY **** GP 8/21/07 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 8/21/07 HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. APPELLANT MAY REFILE A MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INDIANA APPELLATE RULE 40 WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. L. MARK BAILEY, ACTING CHIEF JUDGE MS 8/21/07 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 9/04/07 APPELLANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS(6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE(6) BY MAIL 9/4/07 YL 9/11/07 ****NOTE: CASE BUNDLE SENT TO JOE MERRICK. KS 9/14/07 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 9/14/07 HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPELLANT'S AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED. 2. PURSUANT TO IND. APPELLATE RULE 40(D)(1), APPELLANT IS RELIEVED OF THE OBLIGATION TO PREPAY FILING FEES OR COSTS OR TO GIVE SECURITY THEREFOR. JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE MS 9/14/07 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 2/01/08 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY JONATHAN MAYES AND NICOLE KELSEY, ATTY'S FOR THE APPELLEE (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) MAIL AS 6/04/08 *****DOCKET SHEET TRANSMITTED FOR DISMISSAL***** RS 6/11/08 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 6/11/08 ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT NOW FINDS AND ORDERS THAT THIS APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE KJ 6/11/08 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 6/13/08 APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON THE DISMISSAL (6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (6) BY MAIL 6/13/08 GP 7/16/08 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 7/16/08 HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE KM 7/22/08 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 10/28/08 ****SENT FILE TO RECORDS DEPT.****

 

[smoking357]

Dunno

It looks like there was an appeal, and there was a fight to proceed in forma pauperis, but once they got permission it looks like nothing else was filed and eventually the appellee asked for a dismissal. Do you know why they didn't file anything after they got their leave to proceed without filing fees?


6/25/07 ****RECEIVED: APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY (2) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (2). MISSING FILE STAMPED COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND EXTRA COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT. GP 7/06/07 **** NOTICE OF DEFECT MAILED **** GP 7/25/07 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY LAKSHMI HASANADKA, ATTY. FOR THE APPELLEE (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) MAIL *CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS* GP 6/01/07 "NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED" 7/11/07 APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY BY BRIAN P. SWEENEY, ATTY. FOR THE APPELLANT (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) MAIL GP 7/11/07 APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (6) GP 7/11/07 **** NOTICE OF DEFECT CURED: APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY **** GP 8/21/07 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 8/21/07 HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. APPELLANT MAY REFILE A MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INDIANA APPELLATE RULE 40 WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. L. MARK BAILEY, ACTING CHIEF JUDGE MS 8/21/07 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 9/04/07 APPELLANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS(6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE(6) BY MAIL 9/4/07 YL 9/11/07 ****NOTE: CASE BUNDLE SENT TO JOE MERRICK. KS 9/14/07 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 9/14/07 HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPELLANT'S AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED. 2. PURSUANT TO IND. APPELLATE RULE 40(D)(1), APPELLANT IS RELIEVED OF THE OBLIGATION TO PREPAY FILING FEES OR COSTS OR TO GIVE SECURITY THEREFOR. JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE MS 9/14/07 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 2/01/08 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY JONATHAN MAYES AND NICOLE KELSEY, ATTY'S FOR THE APPELLEE (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) MAIL AS 6/04/08 *****DOCKET SHEET TRANSMITTED FOR DISMISSAL***** RS 6/11/08 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 6/11/08 ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT NOW FINDS AND ORDERS THAT THIS APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE KJ 6/11/08 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 6/13/08 APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON THE DISMISSAL (6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (6) BY MAIL 6/13/08 GP 7/16/08 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 7/16/08 HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE KM 7/22/08 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 10/28/08 ****SENT FILE TO RECORDS DEPT.****

Counsel was actually so fookin' stoopid as to think that the changing of the administration would yield a more favorable group of attorneys at Corporation Counsel. Big surprise. Ballard's Republican attorneys are just as anti-gun as Peterson's.

Vote out every Republican you can find. They are pure evil.

It's all eyewash, anyway. We're chasing a ghost. The Appellate Court didn't want to hear the case, and they manufactured a way to kill it. The End.

Same goes with Paul's case. The Court made up some crazy nonsense in that case. In Indiana, if you sue the cops to protect rights, especially gun rights, you'll lose, and the Court will say the most bewildering stuff along the way. They'll bankrupt you trying to overturn them, and they get the final say on their own actions.

I have a gun rights case drafted that I'd like to bring. I know it's stupid to try it, as the Court will dismiss it, manufacturing a justification, so I think I'll save my cash.

I think I'll open another thread and post a draft of the Complaint. Maybe someone else wants to be stupid enough to fight for gun rights in Indiana.

 

[smoking357]

If the appeal was denied, the only other course of action is through the legislature.

Dude, the law is completely on our side. Read the Complaint. The statute is perfect. It says "at once." It doesn't get clearer than that. The courts just don't follow the law. They make up their own law, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Vote for anyone but Ballard. Democrats are at least honest about what they are.

 

[Eddie]

Counsel was actually so fookin' stoopid as to think that the changing of the administration would yield a more favorable group of attorneys at Corporation Counsel. Big surprise. Ballard's Republican attorneys are just as anti-gun as Peterson's.

Vote out every Republican you can find. They are pure evil.

It's all eyewash, anyway. We're chasing a ghost. The Appellate Court didn't want to hear the case, and they manufactured a way to kill it. The End.

Same goes with Paul's case. The Court made up some crazy nonsense in that case. In Indiana, if you sue the cops to protect rights, especially gun rights, you'll lose, and the Court will say the most bewildering stuff along the way. They'll bankrupt you trying to overturn them, and they get the final say on their own actions.

I have a gun rights case drafted that I'd like to bring. I know it's stupid to try it, as the Court will dismiss it, manufacturing a justification, so I think I'll save my cash.

I think I'll open another thread and post a draft of the Complaint. Maybe someone else wants to be stupid enough to fight for gun rights in Indiana.

So what was their manufactured reason? From the docket it looks like no appellant's brief was filed and the case got dismissed which would be in accordance with appellate rule 45(B). (Appellant's Brief must be filed within 30 days of the completion of the Clerk's record.) If his attorney waited too long to file the brief then he was opening himself up to dismissal.

 

[JBusch8899]

Dude, the law is completely on our side. Read the Complaint. The statute is perfect. It says "at once." It doesn't get clearer than that. The courts just don't follow the law. They make up their own law, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Vote for anyone but Ballard. Democrats are at least honest about what they are.

Ballard is the Mayor, the head of the Executive branch of government for Marion County. While public safety may, the Judicial branch of government does not answer to him. Thus it's time to threaten the police department with the money purse.

Given the judicial rationale, a legislative act is the only recourse available at the moment. Such an example would be most effective, to withhold state funds earmarked for law enforcement, as this would certainly "persuade" law enforcement to follow the law as written.

 

[smoking357]

So what was their manufactured reason? From the docket it looks like no appellant's brief was filed and the case got dismissed which would be in accordance with appellate rule 45(B). (Appellant's Brief must be filed within 30 days of the completion of the Clerk's record.) If his attorney waited too long to file the brief then he was opening himself up to dismissal.

Don't stop believin', my friend.

By the way, what date was the Clerk's Record completed? I can't see it in the CCH.

 

[smoking357]

Ballard is the Mayor, the head of the Executive branch of government for Marion County. While public safety may, the Judicial branch of government does not answer to him. Thus it's time to threaten the police department with the money purse.

Corporation counsel and IMPD are the Executive Branch. Mayes, Ballard's little toady, was every bit as hostile to gun rights as the Peterson administration.

You can't threaten IMPD, because the courts dismiss suits against the department. Face facts. You have no recourse against the government.

Given the judicial rationale, a legislative act is the only recourse available at the moment. Such an example would be most effective, to withhold state funds earmarked for law enforcement, as this would certainly "persuade" law enforcement to follow the law as written.

I've already been over this. There's nothing you can do at the Legislative Branch if the Judicial Branch won't follow the law. Our law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[theweakerbrother]

So, which one of you are going to take this up with Ballard's booth at the next 1500? I didn't see anything but smiles and handshakes going on this past 1500.

 

[jsharmon7]

Don't stop believin', my friend.

That's your response to Eddie's question?? You make claims such as the ones you've made in this thread and you can't even answer a simple question? Oh brother...

 

[smoking357]

That's your response to Eddie's question?? You make claims such as the ones you've made in this thread and you can't even answer a simple question? Oh brother...

Keep trying. You'll catch up.

 

[jsharmon7]

Keep trying. You'll catch up.

And you'll keep dodging.

 

[Eddie]

Don't stop believin', my friend.

By the way, what date was the Clerk's Record completed? I can't see it in the CCH.

I can't find any more information that what is on the online docket. It just seems weird that they fight out the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and win on that, but then nothing else gets filed and the case sits for nine months and then gets dismissed on the court's own motion. Without seeing the order and reading their stated reason for dismissal it's hard to do more than make guesses.

 

[smoking357]

I can't find any more information that what is on the online docket. It just seems weird that they fight out the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and win on that, but then nothing else gets filed and the case sits for nine months and then gets dismissed on the court's own motion. Without seeing the order and reading their stated reason for dismissal it's hard to do more than make guesses.

Yep.

 

[88GT]

Yep.

Warning: thread jack in progress.

One quick question: is there anything or anyone that hasn't been the target of your holier-than-thou ire in recent past, say the last 20 years?

 

[JBusch8899]

I've already been over this. There's nothing you can do at the Legislative Branch if the Judicial Branch won't follow the law. Our law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

As you keep shooting down every reasonable recourse, what is your suggestion?

 

[jboritzki]

Don't the police already have his fingerprints? They're all over HIS PROPERTY THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT STOLE FROM HIM AND REFUSED TO RETURN!

 

[smoking357]

Warning: thread jack in progress.

One quick question: is there anything or anyone that hasn't been the target of your holier-than-thou ire in recent past, say the last 20 years?

You're a disgrace to gun owners. This thread is talking about a gun case where the citizen refused to give fingerprints. I'm talking about another gun case on similar facts, from a couple years prior dealing with the selfsame governmental entity. Your wilful ignorance of the prior posts is intolerable. You make our side appear unintelligent.

Do you know that you're making a protest about someone who is advocating for gun owners? Do you have any idea to what your nonsense is objecting, or are you following me from thread to thread as a noisome pest?

 

[smoking357]

As you keep shooting down every reasonable recourse, what is your suggestion?

I didn't "shoot down" anything. The courts did.

There's no way out. The Republicans need to be boycotted in every office, in every race, until they make an iron-clad commitment to us, but we all know that most Red-Staters will die before they vote Democrat, so that's not going to happen.

We're screwed. We need to admit it.

 

[JBusch8899]

I didn't "shoot down" anything. The courts did.

There's no way out. The Republicans need to be boycotted in every office, in every race, until they make an iron-clad commitment to us, but we all know that most Red-Staters will die before they vote Democrat, so that's not going to happen.

We're screwed. We need to admit it.

This "The sky is falling!" type of mentality, and refusal to influence and work through the system, is one example obtrusive laws are slow to change, and judges are permitted to render opinions of such.

Dr. King's methods of civil obedience, economic boycotts, as well as his overall political savvy, effected the political landscape more profoundly, than any attempted boycott of a political party. This, with only an approximate 13% of the race population being black.

We all need to get our heads out of our respective posteriors. We need to admit it.