tl;dr - asking for gibs to help pay legal debt
The state filled an appeal for the favorable dismissal the other day, basically saying 'yeah we object to this ruling, he should be a felon for having a private conversation and shitposting online' - which is attached to this post. Different court and attorney, but it will still cost me $10,000 flat fee. However, I can do $2500 up front and then $500 payments until the fee is paid. I am confident that the dismissal will be upheld as a matter of law.
What the dismissal was: "Knapstad motion to dismiss" - meaning basically that "even if everything the state says is true, and we look at everything the state claims in the light most favorable to the state, it's still not enough to establish guilt on its face" - ie - they never had probable cause to begin with.
For that defense, I still owe about $35k for the criminal defense out of a total of $97k of fees, and am making payments. I've been able to come up with about $12-15k a year on my own, which ofc I would have rather used to buy a nicer van that doesn't have its brake lines explode going 70 down the highway etc etc but no, state wants to strip my children of their inheritance.
If your spirit happens to be amicable to a gift to relieve this debt burden on my family, at this link you can help me pay off that debt, put my name "Tyler Dinsmoor" as the reference: https://secure.lawpay.com/pages/plattbuescherlaw/trust
Also, I am working on filing a civil suit for damages, which should include awarding damages for legal costs like this. If you want to be reimbursed if I win a civil suit, keep your receipt, and I'll send you your money back, again, if I am able to get reimbursed, which is not guaranteed. Constitutional law in the case of malicious prosecution is pretty complicated.
All this stuff makes me really consider going to law school and becoming very.... litigious.... :uhu:
Thanks for the consideration my beloved niggys
Unless you are in Europe paying fines for things you said online makes no sense unless it is liable against a specific individual or fraud or tricking someone into doing something that causes harm to a person or property
What is the law that they said you broke before they fined you if you are accused of breaking any law?
Is this a lawsuit or a charge for an actual alleged crime?
The statute and the facts don't support the charge, even if I disagree with the statute itself.
Internet crashed and I took a screenshot of what I was typing before it dissapeared then a zoomed in and took a screenshot of that screenshot
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
It was claimed elsewhere that title 18 section 242 can be used to prosecute judges and prosecutors although I am not sure it mentions judges and prosecutors specifically
It is not right to only go for fines when you should go for giving them jail time if they did what you are alleging they did
So prosecuting them for a felony vio!ation of titke 18 section 242 I believe would be done in a different type of court than a civil lawsuit
I do not believe they can go to jail or prison for a civil lawsuit
I higjly reccommend trying to charge them with a fe!ony for which they can go to jail or prison instead or in addition
I am not a lawyer
I am not telling you what to do
This is my opinion
I could be wrong
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges
I believe you are suing them under civil court when you could instead be charging them for criminal charges in criminal court possibly in a federal court if I understand my terminolgy correctly
But I could be wrong I am not a lawyer
Thing is, they're claiming that him saying that faggots should be put to death, like the Bible said, caused bodily harm.
This could have all been avoided by saying you would support a referendum or legislation for that to be done by the government in a legal manner, but that you would not personally do that as it violates the current law
Because the government is allowed to do anything it wants as long as it is legal according to the government
What if you move to Mexico before you paid the legal fees then just do not pay them
