Imagine if you will the one person in a community that everyone hates. Parents, neighbors, children, pastors, strangers. Different politics. Different moral views. Different ways of living, behaving, of disagreeing, and yes protesting. Is this person entitled to possession and exercise of their civil liberties? If not them, who? What should happen to your own civil liberties if you become unpopular? Are your civil liberties dependent upon a majority (or even an active minority) vote? If the people remove their rights, then does that make us "right"? In February of 2008 it was my honor to stand in a representation of such a person in front of judge and prosecutor as we entered a plea of "not guilty" and prepared for trial. Not because he was great. Because his civil liberties, recognized and codified bestly for the first time in human history in America, were here greatly endangered. The American system of law provides both the best recognition of our rights and the best remedies for protecting them. The offense was [an infringement of the First Amendment Right of Free Speech Expression and Religion of a person masquerading as] two counts of criminal trespass. Somewhere in my mind I imagined that if I could stand alongside someone so very unpopular in order to defend the good of civil liberties for all, that others had done so before, and that others would also do so in the future; and especially for the popularly forgotten. And as conflicting as the representation was sometimes, civil liberties were respected on that day. My client was completely vindicated; all charges were dropped; and an apology provided; and rights of liberty were restored. 3L+6
0 Comments
|
AuthorTexas + California corporate attorney in Dallas. Archives
February 2008
Categories |