HA!
I didn't put a date on that.
I was supposed to meet with my attorney today.
2 days ago his secretary called and pushed it back to the 11th.
I LOVE last minute things
That gives us 14 days before the trial.
14 days to build a defense when I've been on bail - with this attorney - for over 5 months.
That seems fair and reasonable to me.
My arguments have been simplified.
I can sum it up in something that doesn't take 2 years to read any more
1. The purpose of Government is to protect the rights of the individual - namely the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (property and contract).
2. In order to protect these rights, certain powers are granted under the Constitution for the government to create laws against those infringing upon others' rights.
3. Owning property or contracting with it - by mutual consent with another adult - is a protected right; this cannot be a crime (Corpus Delicti/Standing)
4. Prohibiting property ownership or contract rights by creating and enforcing a law that does so is a direct violation of Federal Law (U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law))
5. Statutory Jurisdiction - if I am not being tried under the Common Law (Constitutional Law) then I am being tried outside of the jurisdiction I was arrested in.
If the judge refuses to recognize my constitutional rights of property and contract and proceeds with the hearing, I appeal and press charges for (18, 13, 241) Conspiracy against rights.
For if I'm being tried for owning property, my inalienable rights MUST have been waived without my knowledge or consent.
If I have waived those rights, so has everyone else in the courtroom - and we no longer have a free society - and the court has no authority that I must recognize - as it does not recognize the Constitution as law, it does not recognize its own authority under the Constitution and is a mock court without jurisdiction.
The fundamental argument here is the Liberty and Pursuit of happiness define "property and contract" as unalienable rights.
The 5th amendment aids in this argument - as no man can be deprived of property without due process of law.
I am being tried for owning property.
I never underwent due process of law to make this property ownership illegal - therefore the law violates my unalienable/constitutional rights - and is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Seem solid enough?
Simple enough?
I can start tossing in analogies that will take up pages if you like
For more on Liberty and the purpose of government...
Revolutioni.st/liberty.html
Note: the civil flag mentioned at the beginning of that - it does not have historical value (though that is heavily in debate). I need to re-do the beginning of the video.
A lot of people ARE adopting that flag, calling it the U.S. Civil flag that stands for liberty and peace as opposed to the U.S. Flag (that is rumored to be the Admiralty/War Time flag) that is not a world symbol for war.
Just to clarify before the Civil flag became a debate...
That's the mainstay of my argument.
Banquo - other mods...
Anyone?
Tear it apart.
It's coming down to the wire - if it needs refined any more, I need to do it now.