2008 Update
Civil Action Legal Arguments
Feb 18, 2008
My earlier arguments (2005-2006), though capturing the spirit of my perceived injustice, were not viewed as proper legal arguments but as attacks on policy. This prompted me to delve deeper into law, shed in some respects my egoic attachments, righteousness and arrogance, integrate my insights and present the core legal arguments with minimal obfuscation by my upsets.
As a result of this paradigm shift I now view my legal arguments through the lens of equal rights and equal protection, recognizing that a fair balance must be struck between the public's right to protection and the individual's right to personal autonomy. Crucially, I have come to see that Parliament has crafted a beautifully evolutive and dynamic legal framework with inherent regulatory flexibility suitable to all eventualities, classes of persons and drugs, particularly alcohol and tobacco, but that Government has not been operating the law in a consistent and evidenced-based manner as Parliament intended. Consequently, Government has the balance tilted in favor of the majority who use alcohol and tobacco without a consistent and objective basis as is required by law.
I have asserted from the outset that my investigation, arrest and trial result from a majoritarian abuse of power in the unequal implementation by the UK Executive of a neutral Act of Parliament. I believe, and now have the evidence and Government admissions to demonstrate it, that the Executive under-regulates the conduct of the majority who prefer to exercise property rights in drugs property such as alcohol and tobacco and over-regulates the conduct of minorities who prefer to exercise property rights in other drugs property with substantially similar potential to cause harm.
This unequal treatment is contrary to the common law principle of equal applicability of neutral laws and illegal in terms of Government's statutory duties under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As such, I believe this unequal treatment denies equal rights and equal protection to all citizens and contributes to tens-of-thousands of unnecessary deaths and imprisonments each year on both sides of the legal distinction and that neither the people nor Parliament intends these consequences.
I have launched Civil legal actions to challenge the UK Executive to honor their commitment to implement evidence-based policy making where like cases are treated alike and unlike cases are treated differently. Each step of the way, I receive concessions from the Executive, the Parliament and the Court which contribute toward my ability to launch an effective criminal appeal against conviction and/or sentence.
As a result of this paradigm shift I now view my legal arguments through the lens of equal rights and equal protection, recognizing that a fair balance must be struck between the public's right to protection and the individual's right to personal autonomy. Crucially, I have come to see that Parliament has crafted a beautifully evolutive and dynamic legal framework with inherent regulatory flexibility suitable to all eventualities, classes of persons and drugs, particularly alcohol and tobacco, but that Government has not been operating the law in a consistent and evidenced-based manner as Parliament intended. Consequently, Government has the balance tilted in favor of the majority who use alcohol and tobacco without a consistent and objective basis as is required by law.
I have asserted from the outset that my investigation, arrest and trial result from a majoritarian abuse of power in the unequal implementation by the UK Executive of a neutral Act of Parliament. I believe, and now have the evidence and Government admissions to demonstrate it, that the Executive under-regulates the conduct of the majority who prefer to exercise property rights in drugs property such as alcohol and tobacco and over-regulates the conduct of minorities who prefer to exercise property rights in other drugs property with substantially similar potential to cause harm.
This unequal treatment is contrary to the common law principle of equal applicability of neutral laws and illegal in terms of Government's statutory duties under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As such, I believe this unequal treatment denies equal rights and equal protection to all citizens and contributes to tens-of-thousands of unnecessary deaths and imprisonments each year on both sides of the legal distinction and that neither the people nor Parliament intends these consequences.
I have launched Civil legal actions to challenge the UK Executive to honor their commitment to implement evidence-based policy making where like cases are treated alike and unlike cases are treated differently. Each step of the way, I receive concessions from the Executive, the Parliament and the Court which contribute toward my ability to launch an effective criminal appeal against conviction and/or sentence.