Bottom line is I am in some crime-related "classes" that are mandated by the state. They charged me $35 to reschedule their class so I could go home and vote.
I am articulate and I have a good ledger of my entire experience. There seems to be a strong case. There are other rights infringed, such as that during this court-mandated class they tell you that you can't drink or smoke weed for 24 hours before the class. If this is legal, it still looks bad. At the very least, they did not allow me credit to modify my schedule to go home and vote, while at the same time they reserved the right to modify my schedule for their own holidays.
Anyone interested in taking this up?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] antistatist 0 points 3 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.
[–] 16605125? [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+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.
[–] 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.
[–] 16605112? [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
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.