UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you stand as good a chance at winning your case as you do at actually producing "dank dank".
Police Break The Law, Marijuana in Texas
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
- Status
you stand as good a chance at winning your case as you do at actually producing "dank dank".
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
First of all, it's not bullshit. One of the links had other links to virtually every case of the use of the religious sacrament defense. It included the Trevor Douglas case and the quote from the judge, “It does not appear to this court that the defendant is practicing a religion so much as his own beliefs.” Douglas belonged to two churches that used sacramental marijuana.
This fits exactly with your case as you do not have a defined religion, you are not Hindi. You made up your own belief system, which I personally think is fine and the government has no right to say otherwise, but along with virtually ever other use of this defense across the country has failed. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. That's why I suggested an attorney that is familiar with this defense, yet you only took bits and pieces of what I wrote and whined and complained.
As for the peyote case, it is 100% relevant and you would know that if you understood the law and terms like equal protection, and facts like the Native Americans have been using peyote in their spiritual practices even before there was a United States. If the defense works for one drug, then the court must show compelling interest why they can discriminate, and if the defense doesn't work, the reasons that the court gives can usually be applied to cases involving other drugs.
However, you don't seem interested in having a discussion about these cases and maybe try to add even more support to your case. You seem to prefer to argue and call everyone an idiot because we don't understand your specific situation. You focus on the differences rather than the similarities. That's your personal bias.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Really? Have you read any of my threads?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
That's because it's the only part that even made sense to reply to
His WHOLE argument was just him saying "You're not Hindu" When clearly in the aspect of Shiva worship, I am Hindu. I do have other religions that melt together to make mine, but Hindu is definitely a big one of them 
Figong
Well-Known Member
That's because it's the only part that even made sense to reply to
Precisely why your religious usage will fail in a court of law, and you've already pretty much left digital evidence in plain view on a forum - well done, dig the trench faster.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Slight disambiguation. Hindi is a language. Hindu is a practitioner of the eponymous religion. cn
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Do any of you trolls READ before posting? At all?
Figong
Well-Known Member
Do you read a fucking thing about law before you talk out your ass like you're the attorney for OJ? (Rhetorical, we know the answer is no) - the reason I ask... the Justice statement, in no uncertain terms says that you do not have to prove it .. which no, you won't say a word on the stand but with this thing called google and potential precedent for this case(precedent being they're going to arrest someone who appears to have down syndrome).. they have more than enough information in this thread to blow you out of the water. Would highly recommend you consult with real legal counsel if you wish to have a snowballs chance in hell of surviving this one. I also think you're funny as fuck calling me a troll when pretty much all you do is run your cocksucker with zero knowledge on the subject.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Most of the original post is straight up Supreme Court rulings, not my opinions or ideas. So... Yes I read about law, and it's not me talking out of my ass, if you see ass talking, it came from supreme court judges, and you can take your argument up with them... Did you even read a single post of this thread before posting? Or did you think just because I have other trolls stalking me that it would be easy for you to come in and act like you know something about something you haven't even attempted to understand? I'd say it's probably a mix of both
Figong
Well-Known Member
Most of the original post is straight up Supreme Court rulings, not my opinions or ideas. So... Yes I read about law, and it's not me talking out of my ass, if you see ass talking, it came from supreme court judges, and you can take your argument up with them... Did you even read a single post of this thread before posting? Or did you think just because I have other trolls stalking me that it would be easy for you to come in and act like you know something about something you haven't even attempted to understand? I'd say it's probably a mix of both
Awesome, none of your opinions or ideas(your words, not mine), so you're now admitting that you're effectively parroting something you don't understand in an attempt to argue with those who have chosen to post. I've read your posts for the last 2 weeks, and am not stalking you - as for acting like I know something about something...oh yes, you pegged it - dead on, I'm just doing what you're doing as I envy you, and your ability to grow primo crop - top of the line shit. (Want to see troll and sarcasm? There you have it.)
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
You're a terrible troll, you aren't even on topic anymore. No I didn't parrot, I pulled information for Supreme court cases to support my case. And everything that you said that I didn't include in the quote isn't even about this thread. Do you know you're a troll, or is this all on accident? And again, please at least TRY to read at least 1 post on this thread before replying to it. Anyone who has read ANY of this can plainly see how ignorant you are being (blatantly ignoring the things that are obvious if you just look)
Totoe
Well-Known Member
I can not wait until this case goes to court and the DA eats his lunch, the Judge laughs his ass off and they tell Tardy his defense does not hold water. Then he will reply nuh-uh it does cause I misapplied a legal dictionary to 100's of years of case law. The only way this works is if he is aiming for a mistrial due to incompetent counsel (himself). When and where is this court date?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
HOLY SHIT. I just learned something that blows the top off this shit... https://www.rollitup.org/politics/18088-marijuana-no-more-automatic-arrest.html I was on MY OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY, they had NO WARRANT, and they have been told (By the Governor of Texas) not to arrest everyone with weed, even in traffic stops and in public.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
They will likely use the same old argument "Federal law trumps state law", how do you think they arrest people in medical states for it?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
When you go to the supreme court that is not an argument. When it comes to the supreme court you have to prove who was on the side of the state and federal constitution, and who was not. And the people with no warrant, intruding on personal property, and personal liberties are the ones who were in the wrong. Not the free citizen, who was not on any probationary status, who was on their own property, bothering no one, and receiving no complaints.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I can virtually guarantee you this case would never reach the supreme court
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
To get to the supreme court I just have to appeal and sit in jail. It will make it, simply based on the fact that the police had no warrant. It NEEDS to be reviewed by a higher court than the one that works with the police department that busted in on me.
Figong
Well-Known Member
You get more retarded every day. So because they don't get you for possession, but will bitchsmack you violently with the paraphernalia and intent to grow / distribute.. that's a good thing? And Padawan is dead on, federal law trumps anything at state level, on any grounds whatsoever - unless of course you want to argue more laws you simply don't understand with me, let me know what you decide, Mr. 2grams =)
- Status
Similar threads
