So I'm trying to figure out what I want to do with my trial.

[jzacker]

Who cares what the name of the religion is?  Why can't my god tell me I only obey myself, and not some woman in a robe and her armed thugs?

That's a philosophical question, and I think this thread is about more concrete issues.  Jesse is asking what he should DO.  Claiming religious faith won't work. 

But you made me think of an alternative argument.  If the court allows jews to wear head covering, they are discriminating against others for not having religious faith.  Basically, jews are granted a privilege that is not afforded to others.  You might try checking into court rules regarding dress.  See if there is a statement granting a waiver for items of religious significance.  Then call the court and ask if yarmulkes can be worn.  If so, you can make a policy argument instead of one on the law.

[John Edward Mercier]

I see where Ian is going. Religion is in essence philosophy.
Ian is claiming as a pantheist, that his 'freedom of will' is being violated. That 'freedom of will' being his philosophy and central tenet of religious conviction.
Since it would be very hard to find fact in opposition that this is his true religious conviction (one would have to find a time Ian suggested he impose his will on others since his 'enlightenment'), it would merit at least a reasonable legal question.

[BillKauffman]

So you know there is a "dress code" rule for entering a court room - correct?

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm

RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

GENERAL RULES

Rule 1.4. Regulation of conduct in the courtroom.

(i) Restrictions .  Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge, the following standing orders shall govern.

(10) Appropriate dress is required.

=========

You know that it is the judge's discretion to decide what is appropriate and not appropriate in their courtroom. So you are challenging the judges discretionary authority.

It all comes back to arguing against the "social contract theory" vs. polycentric law with private defense agencies and insurance.

Most people are going to say "use the electoral process to effect the changes you want in the law about dress codes in the court room with a judge's discretion as to what is appropriate or not. You've got the minority opinion on the matter, make it the majority opinion."

But I have to ask you why you think you can make an argument in court challenging the authority of the court and presiding judge? It defies logic.

The alternative is Lauren's approach. I think she literally convinces herself that she is being captured and held against her own will but smiles through it all until they release her. Ian & Mike apparently couldn't...can you?

[John Edward Mercier]

Under 'social contract theory' that discretion is limited in matters of a religious or moral foundation.

[BillKauffman]

Under 'social contract theory' that discretion is limited in matters of a religious or moral foundation.

John-

I continually miss the point of your posts. Are you saying under the SCT the judge's discretion is limited?

If that is what you mean, I understand how on religious issues (like not allowing a yarmulke), but moral?

What does it have to do with SCT?

[John Edward Mercier]

NH Con. Part First [Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

June 2, 1784

----------------------------------------------------------------
Conscience -
a. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.c. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.

[Coconut]

I've decided I'm going to see if I can work 4 10 hours days that week to come to the trial Wednesday.

I should also call the court and see what they want me to do to get a camera in.

[Sam A. Robrin]

Incidentally, your trial's on Ash Wednesday.  Hope it goes better than the one described in this article:

http://www.kittysneezes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=365:book-review-the-trials-of-lenny-bruce&catid=13:book&Itemid=28

[neggy]

just a stupid thought for discussion

If Muslim women, Jews, Rastafarians, Indians (dots not feathers) who customarily wear head garb are not bothered by court officers, and receive a accommodation the general public does not receive, doesn't that bring up issues with separation of church and state?

No group should be allowed to do something under the guise of religion that is not also extended to the rest of us.  Is allowing some people to do something as innocent as wearing head garb while arresting others for doing the same without the benefit of religious protection not unconstitutional? The court is giving favor to some while discriminating against others.

why does she get a free pass?
http://castawayre.blogspot.com/2008/12/muslim-woman-jailed-over-refusal-to.html

or this guy?
http://www.prnewsnow.com/PR%20News%20Releases/Legal%20And%20Law/Georgia%20Court%20Apologizes%20to%20Sikh%20American%20Denied%20Entry%20Into%20Court%20House%20Due%20to%20his%20Turban

[BillKauffman]

just a stupid thought for discussion

So what is the recognized religious observance that he is going to argue his membership in doesn't permit him to remove his hat?

Gangstarians?

[thinkliberty]

So what is the recognized religious observance that he is going to argue his membership in doesn't permit him to remove his hat?

Gangstarians?

No. That was the religious observance that his arrestors were following when they removed him from their kangaroo court.

I love your terminology of Gangstarians and will apply it when speaking of the oppressive state. -- Thanks Bill.

Gangstarians are ones that believe in:  Do what we say or we will kidnap you and put you in a cage, resist and we will kill you.

It puts republicans and democrats with the crips and bloods where they belong.

[neggy]

I'm saying the same right that someone has to wear head garb because the court says it is OK, should extend to all, regardless of religious affiliation, or lack there of.

People should not be treated special because of religion, so the way to treat everyone equally, is to either make everyone take hats off, or let everyone wear one.

I vote for let everyone wear one if they so choose of their own free will
I can see I am not making any friends with this line of thought

[John Edward Mercier]

A decent legal arguement might fall under
NH Constitution Part First Article 4 and Article 3.

[Russell Kanning]

these courts will not give you free speech rights ... they have to be ignored or torn down
showing up to them and engaging them in conversation just points out the injustice of their institutions

[jzacker]

you might just ask for a conference with the judge and prosecutor.  This is more informal, so you don't have to make any significant legal arguments.  Just tell the judge you think this whole thing is stupid and argue for dismissal in the 'interests of justice'.