Jail Gets a Bad Rap

Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
I just thought about something, some of you think the first thing people in jail notice about me is my skin color. When I walk in, what most people notice first is my hair, which I grow out for my religion. And my hair is pretty big and hard to miss.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
But as I get each town I live in to start recognizing Shaivism, eventually I'll just never have to go unless I want to volunteer.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Has anyone noticed they never really give people charges for Conspiracy to start a Riot anymore? After the Chicago 7 got so famous I think they decided it was a bad idea.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
StonedFarmer said:
Fin my new appointed lawyer, will yhis fly on the 'ron n Crack charges I got?

I need help quick!!! This is like so against my rights. It was only coca in a baby food jar with aome soda???

Helps me
Click to expand...
Did you consent to a search? Was there a warrant? Was it in plain view?

And most importantly, are you being charged under State or Federal Law? Because if it is the Federal Controlled Substances Act, you can challenge the Act on its face with the 21st Amendment. Though you did not have an intoxicating liquor, the entire law is still possibly in violation of the 21st Amendment which says only States can control intoxicating liquors, so it needs to be replaced by a law that only prohibits solid materials (but that narrow of a law has not been written).

Also, did you know you had it?
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Random, but the Police and National Guard violated 1st Amendment Rights in Ferguson.

In Cox V Louisiana the Supreme Court ruled that "Breach of the Peace Statutes" such as curfews can not be put in place because of a protest as they are likely to cause riots, which is exactly what happened.

It's like the Police decided that every protest is an occupy movement, and completely forgot all protest cases up to that point.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
I am so ready for this lawsuit.
They aren't even ready for this. They are going to walk in the courtroom talking about "He has no evidence that it was an illegal search and seizure", and "We are a department of the City, he should sue the City" and "Texas has Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court". Lol

I just have to bring the Original wording of my lawsuit, which emphasized Religious Rights not an illegal search, then just show them a copy of Tx Code Title 5 Chapter 110 where they waive Sovereign Immunity, then US Code Title 42 Chapters 21B and 21C. And once I get my stuff back from the Lab this week I will have a receipt of everything taken. And that's just where I start, which already negates all of their points in the case.

From there I can Subpoena the Narcotic Conspiracy Sergeant who knows how long I have been waiting and how hard it has been for me to get my stuff after he told me to go pick it up. I can bring Religious texts, Notarized Articles, etc.

The real question in the court room will be, "How much do they owe the plaintiff for damages and for Rights Violations under Title 42 Section 1983?"
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And when they illegally searched my car with no consent (they said the window was open, which is not a reasonable search) and started taking my things and it irritated me and I got angry and stopped being friendly, they thought they were on the right track. So I just have to subpoena their police report which probably contains a perjurous entry in place of non-consent, and I can prove emotional distress, which could bring the lawsuit up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But I'll only do that if they really seem like they want to fight this.​
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And more evidence of that is my constant contact with the Narcotics Conspiracy Sergeant, and when I got mad again at the Forensics lab when the Narcotics Conspiracy Sergeant told me to go pick up my stuff and they wouldn't give it to me 2 days in a row because the Chemist wasn't there.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
I am so ready for this lawsuit.
They aren't even ready for this. They are going to walk in the courtroom talking about "He has no evidence that it was an illegal search and seizure", and "We are a department of the City, he should sue the City" and "Texas has Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court". Lol

I just have to bring the Original wording of my lawsuit, which emphasized Religious Rights not an illegal search, then just show them a copy of Tx Code Title 5 Chapter 110 where they waive Sovereign Immunity, then US Code Title 42 Chapters 21B and 21C. And once I get my stuff back from the Lab this week I will have a receipt of everything taken. And that's just where I start, which already negates all of their points in the case.

From there I can Subpoena the Narcotic Conspiracy Sergeant who knows how long I have been waiting and how hard it has been for me to get my stuff after he told me to go pick it up. I can bring Religious texts, Notarized Articles, etc.

The real question in the court room will be, "How much do they owe the plaintiff for damages and for Rights Violations under Title 42 Section 1983?"
Click to expand...
Is it possible that the lawyers for the police department might know what they're doing?

You have so many contacts with police, it's hard to keep track. You're not suing over your arrest in 2010 correct? Just suing over the stuff that was confiscated recently?
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
pabloesqobar said:
Is it possible that the lawyers for the police department might know what they're doing?

You have so many contacts with police, it's hard to keep track. You're not suing over your arrest in 2010 correct? Just suing over the stuff that was confiscated recently?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they don't know what they are doing, they are just on the losing end of a case. The court room isn't about who is better or who has been in a courtroom the most, it is about what happened to get everyone there.

I am suing over the 2010 arrest next, then I am suing the DEA for the Controlled Substances Act being in violation of the 21st Amendment. But right now, yes, just for the stolen Religious Materials.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And I know that they have not read the Religious laws. They think that they can take this to Federal Court and get it dropped with Sovereign Immunity, that is literally their plan right now.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
When I walk in the Federal court room I just have to show the judge this.

Sec. 110.008. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVED. (a) Subject to Section 110.006, sovereign immunity to suit and from liability is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by Section 110.005, and a claimant may sue a government agency for damages allowed by that section.

(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), this chapter does not waive or abolish sovereign immunity to suit and from liability under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top