0
0

[–] 16602815? ago 

That's a good one lol good luck

1
-1

[–] 16602981? [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I don't live here but I am temporarily residing here. I got a DUI on my motorcycle, and had to go to a 3-Month program. Counseling and "Education" etc. [They show you videos like a substitute teacher in Jr. High shows]

So on November, my class was Nov 5th and my county in my State voted on the 6th. There was no way for me to vote in person without a $35 schedule change.

How is that not infringing on my right to vote?

The CA Democrats have built a scaffolding of racketeering and control that is so massive, it is beginning to infringe on our rights as Americans. If they hadn't just let illegal immigrants rig the vote, and if not for a hundred other reasons, I would relent and say this is just part of my penance for riding my motorcycle with a .11 BAC. But no, I stand firm, they infringed on my right as an American Citizen under the Constitution so their bullshit, unscientific Big Government / Socialist Apparatus could control my life.

Fuck that. I'm going to win.

0
1

[–] 16603088? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You imply that the Jewdicial courts are just. It doesint matter how fucked up things they do and infringe on your rights, you won't beat them with words.

0
1

[–] Diggernicks 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Don't live in califailia. Problem solved.

0
3

[–] antistatist 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The infringement of your rights began when you where required to get a licence to use a vehicle. Any "crime" you've committed that didn't have any victim is actually not a crime, and any "law" concerning such "crimes" is itself actually a crime, and you are the victim. This is known as the Nonaggression Principle, if you're unfamiliar. But good luck finding any conventionally educated and certified lawyer who actually understands this very simple concept.

I don't have any courtroom experience so take my advice with a grain of salt, but I think when making your case, you need to make sure that the Nonaggression Principle is fully explained to and understood by the jury, and don't compromise on it - do not entertain the legitimacy of any of the laws of the State because either the State is absolutely wrong and criminal or you simply do not have any rights. Everything or nothing. Indeed your guy better have a nice suit.

And because this involves a DUI make sure it's understood that hypothetical possible victims don't count, because hypotheticals are arbitrary and undefinable, so the whole concept falls apart with a wildcard like that factored in. "Reasonable" is not a legally viable word.

1
-1

[–] 16605112? [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

good luck finding any conventionally educated and certified lawyer who actually understands this very simple concept.

Preach it Brotha.

That is why my methodology includes finding the meanest nastiest best coiffed motherfucker who can walk in and convince a Jury of your premise.

1
0

[–] 16605125? [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

PS. I am not refuting the DUI in any way. That would be a dead end and I know it.

What I am challenging is their institutional apparatus that made it impossible for me to vote without paying them a service fee.

0
0

[–] antistatist ago 

Voting is a privilege, not a right. The State recognizes privileges not rights. Arguing about the vote may work within the premise that the State and its laws are legitimate, but that's in direct contradiction to the fundamental basis of my premise.

0
0

[–] CognitiveDissident5 ago 

No