tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post3403126337185697241..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-64142589696003914572007-08-10T21:11:00.000-05:002007-08-10T21:11:00.000-05:00Reuben Hill is a fool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-53221360790785715642007-08-10T21:06:00.000-05:002007-08-10T21:06:00.000-05:00Welcome, you are now in South Gary, Indiana!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-19666825511339922092007-08-10T18:48:00.000-05:002007-08-10T18:48:00.000-05:00Jason 5:39, doubts do not enter the picture here.<BR/><BR/>1. There is no doubt that the oath is ceremonial and not mandated by law.<BR/><BR/>2. Any workplace rules are just that. They may be enforced, suspended, superceded or overruled by the executive who made them. Courts cannot come take venue of workplace rules and declare venue and law. (Although some judicial activists think they can legislate from the bench)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-39912377109119202022007-08-10T17:39:00.000-05:002007-08-10T17:39:00.000-05:00Just read my earlier thread. You're stuck on the criminal law thing. If you're confused talk to a good defense attorney and ask him/her why they has a copy of General Orders. I'll repeat again, I don't agree with the ruling, but when you write an SOP and then purposefully don't follow it you're going to open yourself up to this doubt, regardless of whether it's criminal (to some judges.) If they didn't matter why were they brought up in the argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-6576770848870368902007-08-10T16:23:00.000-05:002007-08-10T16:23:00.000-05:00If I were you guys I'd want Wilson to go away too. Fact is, he exposes all your nonsense and you all can't stand the truth being told. <BR/><BR/>GO WILSON!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-24282990371760602182007-08-10T08:08:00.000-05:002007-08-10T08:08:00.000-05:00Go away WilsonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-9432094182363304972007-08-09T21:21:00.000-05:002007-08-09T21:21:00.000-05:00Ask your Republican County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi!Wilson46201https://www.blogger.com/profile/14214029150233485312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-17564206503000897122007-08-09T19:27:00.000-05:002007-08-09T19:27:00.000-05:007:21 The Machine says: Tax and Spend!<BR/><BR/>Give the rich a new stadium...tax abatements...and tax the working people, who cannot afford to see the millionaires play games, but who pay for their incarceration.<BR/><BR/>Why wasn't Jim Irsay charged with prescription fraud?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-45228948248340907072007-08-09T19:21:00.000-05:002007-08-09T19:21:00.000-05:00So here's a thought for all you double talking hate all things Peterson crowd... <BR/><BR/>Staging a repeat ceremonial oath performance cost taxpayers MONEY! Good grief, you folks are thick; it's either Peterson the tax and spend democrat or you're lying about your agenda!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-71683327226613408382007-08-09T17:08:00.000-05:002007-08-09T17:08:00.000-05:00Jason 3:01<BR/><BR/>As one who knows, allow me to politely clarify how things work. First, the standard to bring a cause of action in court is law. Has a tort been committed? Has a crime been committed? Has a law been violated?<BR/><BR/>The "general order" is simply a rule from a superior. Violation is only subject to the authority of the superior. A court cannot take venue over a rule that male employees must wear a tie & jacket to work. That is a "general order" or rule from a superior.<BR/><BR/>Judge Hill's ruling takes a ceremonial rule of an entity and tries to construe it as LAW. It is not law. <BR/><BR/>Example: If a company states that every new hire must be presented a certificate of employment, a court cannot state that the person's action's during the course and scope of employment were invalid because the employee did not receive his certificate of employment before he took the actions in the course and scope of his employment. <BR/><BR/>In that case, Jason, the employer must decide...because it is merely a workplace rule, not law.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-36006155315617331392007-08-09T15:49:00.000-05:002007-08-09T15:49:00.000-05:00Jason 3:01<BR/><BR/>In court you can obfuscate just like Wilson does on this blog & bring up all manners of things not germane. <BR/><BR/>Workplace rules, call them what you want (general orders, grand dicta, supreme policy, employee manual) only apply to the subordinates. They are made by the executive authority of the entity.<BR/><BR/>Now to clarify: you brought up a good point that by breaking workplace rules you may subject yourself to tort claims. That is one reason why there are workplace rules. <BR/><BR/>Now, Jason, you are starting to see the point when you state that an employee taking the 2 hr lunch is committing a crime. -Get it? A Crime is punishably by LAW. <BR/><BR/>The employee would be subject to punishment from a supervisor for taking too much time on his lunch break. Nothing more...based on a workplace rule. <BR/><BR/>But, as you point out, some workplace rules are made to prevent torts or crimes one otherwise might not be aware of (see Monroe Gray conflict of interest with concrete contract at Airport Authority). <BR/><BR/>Bottom line, Jason, you cannot take a workplace rule and establish it as law. It isn't. Therefore you cannot say that if someone violates a workplace rule a court has venue over the rules...it has venue over the law.<BR/><BR/>In this thread, there is no LAW requiring the oath that Judge "Over The" Hill wrongfully ruled. The only remedy for not obeying a workplace rule for Mr. Voyles' client is to whine to the authority that wrote the rule. <BR/><BR/>You can't ask a court of law to take venue over workplace rules alone, there must be law to support taking venue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-66958305686286823802007-08-09T15:01:00.000-05:002007-08-09T15:01:00.000-05:002:52 and 2:40, once again you're completely missing the point. If General Orders have no bearing in court why are they brought up by high-price defense attorneys virtually every time there's a suppression hearing? You're stuck trying to look at GO through the lens of criminal law and that's where you're mistaken. Regardless of what the law says, if a good defense attorney can show that an officer has violated his SOP's sometimes that's all the doubt that's needed. I'm not saying that I agree with the ruling, but I can see where he's coming from because whoever wrote them up created that potential loophole.<BR/><BR/>If you're in a court with the type of judge who thinks you're only guilty if your mother testifies against you that's what's going to happen, again and again.<BR/><BR/>Ref. the 2 hour lunch break, the city has been known to construe that as ghost employment (which is a crime.) True story. By violating G.O.'s you open yourself up to many, many potential tort claims. They're there for a reason. All I'm saying is, why would they write it up this way if they never intended for the new officers to follow the protocol set forth in it? Is that how all the other G.O.'s are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-69401661735123639992007-08-09T14:56:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:56:00.000-05:00Wilson is just here to protect Bart. Bart screwed up and we might have to release every person arrested since the first of the year. <BR/><BR/>WHERE IS BALLARD?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-57816047587465678902007-08-09T14:53:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:53:00.000-05:00Wilson why are you always diverting the threads? Aren't you banned from several blogs, including this one??????<BR/><BR/>Why don't you just go trespass through the tulips and stay off of the blogs that have banned you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-30804251729202964812007-08-09T14:52:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:52:00.000-05:0011:36 The only authority subject to a "general order" (workplace rule) is the employee subject to that rule. Nobody else need pay attention to it and there is no cause of action for someone not subject to that workplace rule to obey it. <BR/><BR/>Example: If there is a "general order" that lunch breaks are only 1 hour long and an employee takes a 2 hour lunch break there is not a thing that can be done to enforce the "general order" on that employee by a court. I cannot file a cause of action against the employee for taking 2 hrs lunch break in a court of law, because I have no standing to file a cause.<BR/><BR/>Again, the only enforcement of such "general order" is from the supervisor, not a court. If someone has a "general order" that requires a ceremony and there is no such ceremony, a court cannot accept venue to require the ceremony merely because there is a workplace rule that requires it.<BR/><BR/>That is the basis of this thread. Reuben "Over The" Hill cast a judgment trying to impose a workplace rule that called for a ceremony to take place. There is no LAW that requires such ceremony to allow him to take venue.<BR/><BR/>Just because workplace rules are (often) reviewed by committees, legal counsel, supervisors, and other authorities does NOT make them applicable to anyone other than the entity that holds those as their tenets, rules, policies, regulations, "general order" or whatever you want to call them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-67556408132625325002007-08-09T14:40:00.001-05:002007-08-09T14:40:00.001-05:00Oh, shut up Wilson, weren't you banned?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-4185732867862238592007-08-09T14:40:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:40:00.000-05:00Jason 11:51<BR/><BR/>Judges do what they want. I've been in enough courtrooms to see it. I've seen them disgrace the judiciary, call laws they are sworn to interpret "stupid" from the bench, dismiss cases improperly....<BR/><BR/>...the actions by the judge are not right because he took them. That is why there is a Court of Appeals and other higher courts, to review the actions of the lower courts to be sure the proper administration of justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-58472793945541987862007-08-09T14:36:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:36:00.000-05:0011:36 Sorry, but you are (respectfully) mistaken.<BR/><BR/>Any workplace rule (call it policy, "general order", personnel manuel, or anything else) is only that....Without power of law the only people it applies to are the subordinate employees who are employed by those rules. What you call it is not important. I can call it "Executive Dicta" or "Grand Policy", but it all reverts to the authority of the person who wrote or implemented it. Persons outside that organization are not subject to it. The remedy for violation of such rules is determined by the executive of the corporation or entity, and likely may only be enforced through fines, suspensions, or separation from the entity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-2574630100707576182007-08-09T14:28:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:28:00.000-05:00When the Republican State Attorney General says it wasn't a screwup, the GOP candidate for mayor might find it prudent to bite his tongue ... but don't let me stop him running his mouth again!Wilson46201https://www.blogger.com/profile/14214029150233485312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-21448061325104748262007-08-09T14:02:00.000-05:002007-08-09T14:02:00.000-05:00Where's Ballard on this?! Another screwup for him to exploit and he's silent on it?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-75060829812261986342007-08-09T11:51:00.000-05:002007-08-09T11:51:00.000-05:0011:06, if you'll go back and reread my post you'll see I addressed that issue. If a defense attorney can find a discrepancy between conduct (legal or no) and the way general orders state you should conduct yourself, you can create enough doubt to grant a motion to suppress (which is what happened.) In court it's not really a question of state law when you show procedure wasn't followed.<BR/><BR/>For example, cases have been dismissed because an officer stopped a car on an infraction and a criminal arrest was made, but that officer never wrote the arrested a citation for the original infraction. It's not against the law to give someone a verbal warning for an infraction under any circumstances, but judges will still throw cases because of 'bias.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-18561440540155202982007-08-09T11:47:00.000-05:002007-08-09T11:47:00.000-05:00Well, if judge hill is a goof, Jim Voyles is one of those snake attorneys always trrying to free the "guilty"...because the police & Pros. charged them, the WHY didn't the prosecutor have a valid objection? Perhaps there is no valid objection and Hll & Voyles are correct. Bravo for protection the people's rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-69400640463840898132007-08-09T11:40:00.000-05:002007-08-09T11:40:00.000-05:00I wonder what Ballard thinks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-74529139342167058472007-08-09T11:38:00.000-05:002007-08-09T11:38:00.000-05:00No swearing in huh?? Looks like our mayor and sheriff have taken another "wrong turn in the war on crime".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-13732706982805931672007-08-09T11:36:00.000-05:002007-08-09T11:36:00.000-05:00Anon 1106,<BR/> A general order is not "a rule made up by a supervisor that can be superceded, exempted or not enforced by a supervisor." An IMPD general order is made up by the planning and research dept of IMPD. It has to be in accordance with state and federal law and the legal wizbangs like Kobe Wright have review and sign off on it before it is issued. General orders are based on court rulings and law which could hold the department liable if not obeyed. For example, Fair Labor Standards Act which covers how an officer will be compensated for overtime is part of IMPD general orders. If anyone including a supervisor is caught not obeying a general order they can be disciplined for violating it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com