|
It appears that the the following are being claimed.
1. The system is flawed.
2. The system attempts to hide the flaws.
3. The system allows for redress of the above two items.
4. Irrespective of 3 it should be completely acceptable to commit other criminal acts because of 1 and 2 despite any reasonableness of 3.
To me the above is self serving and contradictory. If one is going to claim that they do in fact have any reasonable belief in 3 and that 1 and 2 are meritous then they cannot attempt to rationalize 4 because of them.
Other than that based on my experience (going back probably two decades) this particular rant looks simular to other self-serving pleadings from various individuals who claim victimization by the system while ignoring the same laws that they broke. I have seen a lot of such postings from those espousing freedom from taxes, privacy rights, 'hacking' cases, drug cases and even standard breaking an entering cases. The usual process is often odd attempt to string together various odd bit and pieces of things in a vary vain attempt to produce a 'story' that makes the law breaker into a victim. The telling point in these stories is that it requires so many pieces. Those who have actually been victimized by the system have individual actions that by themselves make a breakdown in the system at least somewhat obvious.
Brian Aberle wrote: violations of my rights denied me a fair trial.
Like all rights in the US there is no such thing as an absolute right. All rights have restrictions either implicitly or explicitly set. This includes contention between rights themselves and the ability of the government to operate in a reasonable manner in consideration for all citizens.
|
|
|
|