Why fight it out in the courts?

[d_goddard]

To neutralize the law and its enforcers, that's why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John Tinker (15 years old) and Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (15 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War. The school board apparently heard rumor of this and chose to pass a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until after New Years Day 1966 when their protest had been scheduled to end.
...
The court's 7 to 2 decision ... held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

The school officials, and two of the Supreme Court justices, argued that the armbands were "disruptive", and therefore not "protected" speech.

I could easily imagine that a judge (or better yet, a well-informed jury of your peers) could be convinced that, say, quietly holding a sign while not blocking anybody's way, or placing a piece of paper on a countertop, are not disruptive and so are "protected"

Obvious to you and me that there was no disruption, but that's not relevant.
A proper legal victory can be a powerful tool enabling you to make your statement, and emboldening many people to join you, who could not otherwise cope with the law enforcement consequences.

[slim]

I do think the courts will be another approach to bringing around a free state I am a bit jaded by the court system right now just by things I have seen and heard. I don't know if right now is the appropriate time to use the courts. I think as civil disobedience gets more press and the public gets to know the people that are engaging in these activities are not violent that will be the time to take this in to the court.

[PowerPenguin]

A caveat: One must pick one's battles very carefully. Contest if you think you can win, Don't if you think it will fail. Precedents can be very bad or very good depending on the situation!

[d_goddard]

One must pick one's battles very carefully

True in so many areas of life!

[Russell Kanning]

I have never lived by that.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Happens on a subliminal basis

[J’raxis 270145]

A caveat: One must pick one's battles very carefully. Contest if you think you can win, Don't if you think it will fail. Precedents can be very bad or very good depending on the situation!

Yes, I'd be very careful about trying to bring anything in front of the current Supreme Court, for example.

[EthanAllen]

To neutralize the law and its enforcers, that's why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John Tinker (15 years old) and Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (15 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War. The school board apparently heard rumor of this and chose to pass a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until after New Years Day 1966 when their protest had been scheduled to end.
...
The court's 7 to 2 decision ... held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

The school officials, and two of the Supreme Court justices, argued that the armbands were "disruptive", and therefore not "protected" speech.

I could easily imagine that a judge (or better yet, a well-informed jury of your peers) could be convinced that, say, quietly holding a sign while not blocking anybody's way, or placing a piece of paper on a countertop, are not disruptive and so are "protected"

Obvious to you and me that there was no disruption, but that's not relevant.
A proper legal victory can be a powerful tool enabling you to make your statement, and emboldening many people to join you, who could not otherwise cope with the law enforcement consequences.

A good test case in NH would be for a person who is conducting official business within the IRS office to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with the exact same wording as what Dave had on his sign and handbill to see if they were arrested.

It might be interesting actually to give these t-shirts away out in front of the IRS building for people to wear and see if anyone is asked to leave before conducting their official business. 

[d_goddard]

A good test case in NH would be for a person who is conducting official business within the IRS office to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with the exact same wording as what Dave had on his sign and handbill to see if they were arrested.

It might be interesting actually to give these t-shirts away out in front of the IRS building for people to wear and see if anyone is asked to leave before conducting their official business. 

That's... brilliant!

[EthanAllen]

A good test case in NH would be for a person who is conducting official business within the IRS office to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with the exact same wording as what Dave had on his sign and handbill to see if they were arrested.

It might be interesting actually to give these t-shirts away out in front of the IRS building for people to wear and see if anyone is asked to leave before conducting their official business. 

That's... brilliant!

Karma?

[coffeeseven]

If there were a common law court then it would be easy to justify using the court. As it stands now His Lordship does not recognize our founding documents and, as in the case of the Browns may not even allow evidence in a jury trial. They also may or may not follow the law, but rely instead on the example of prior cases even if they fly in the face of the written law.

So no.

[TackleTheWorld]

Ed Brown and Susette Kelo have one opinion I agree with: the courts are gone.  All three of us have personal experience with the injustice system that underline that point.  Judges don't follow their own rules, lawyers are puppets of the court, and juries are commanded to side with the state.  Even if you won one case, the next time the court may consider it irrelevant. 
I still work to improve this court system by pushing fully informed juries, but I feel like I'm putting rogue on an ugly pallid corpse's face.  It may be a tragic and unfair revolution that will break this justice system and replace it with a better one. But what choice is there when those entrusted to apply justice are unjust?

[Tom Sawyer]

Ed Brown and Susette Kelo have one opinion I agree with: the courts are gone.  All three of us have personal experience with the injustice system that underline that point.  Judges don't follow their own rules, lawyers are puppets of the court, and juries are commanded to side with the state.  Even if you won one case, the next time the court may consider it irrelevant. 
I still work to improve this court system by pushing fully informed juries, but I feel like I'm putting rogue on an ugly pallid corpse's face.  It may be a tragic and unfair revolution that will break this justice system and replace it with a better one. But what choice is there when those entrusted to apply justice are unjust?

Bravo... 

[armlaw]

I still work to improve this court system by pushing fully informed juries, but I feel like I'm putting rogue on an ugly pallid corpse's face.  It may be a tragic and unfair revolution that will break this justice system and replace it with a better one. But what choice is there when those entrusted to apply justice are unjust?
[/quote]

Thank you for supporting www.fija.org as the jury is really the 4th branch of government and then, and only then do you as a juror have the opportunity to reverse the crimes committed by the legislature, executive and judicial branch of government. You, and only you can HANG the Jury. Your VOTE is the deciding VOTE and this is when YOUR VOTE counts the most. Beware of corporate prosecutors "stacking' the jury. Refuse to fill out "their" questionnaires. All the law requires is your name, address, and telephone number. All other volunteered info will permit them to "stack-the-jury" and keep you off of jury duty.  You NEED to get on the jury to nullify the damage done by CORPORATE GOVERNMENT !

[Francois Tremblay]

I still work to improve this court system by pushing fully informed juries, but I feel like I'm putting rogue on an ugly pallid corpse's face.  It may be a tragic and unfair revolution that will break this justice system and replace it with a better one. But what choice is there when those entrusted to apply justice are unjust?

Although I can understand people who use the court system is self-defense, it does seem rather silly to try to improve a system that is completely illegitimate and corrupt in the first place.