Supposedly about 1/3 of cases which are appealed are reversed and about 2/3 are not. One of the issues in my appeal in the Cameron case is the claim that the “first aggressor instruction” was not appropriate for the case and was prejudicial.
The other issue is whether or not the preliminary order that my expert witness only be allowed to testify if and when he was in testifying in contradiction to a prosecution witness was not reasonable, fair and was a denial of constitutional rights.
Many other states have a similar first aggressor instruction but if I recall correctly, in the federal system and in many other states, the cause of being considered a first aggressor must be some sort of crime, assault or threat and not merely something that offends another person.
In our society, a guy who wears a dress, goes to gay bars, who has a sex change operation, who burns a flag, or if he is black or Mexican, if he dates or goes out with a white woman, or one who takes photos of people at some political protests or rallies or who wears hats with a political significance has a higher likelihood of being robbed, threatened or attacked.
Supposedly there were about 300 and some killings of transgender persons in the last 12 months and about 1/10 of those, or about 30, were done in America. So, being transgender or having had a sex change operation or wearing a skirt as a guy or having some other feminine manners or ways puts you at greater risk of assault, beating and even death. So it is alleged, at least by some.
Now the “first aggressor instruction” as found and used in Washington state courts actually also applies to the black guys who go out with white women and guys who wear a dress or have a sex change operation, etc. These actions are all actions that put a person at greater risk or significant risk of getting beat up or killed, at least in some neighborhoods. Reportedly in fact, in Seattle, a few years ago, there was an assault upon a person in Capitol Hill for being transgender or wearing a dress or whatever.
We do not know the results of the appeal hearing, for it has not yet taken place and we have no ruling yet.
In any case, I think that, even if I lose on the topic of the “first aggressor instruction,” that I will protest that by burning Eisenberg and some others in effigy.
Courts have opinions and those opinions change over time and they are certainly not morally infallible. Applying a first aggressor instruction to a person who has merely offended another in some slight way is not reasonable and not morally sound.
Of course, I am in California at this time and we do not know how soon I will be back! And it is also possible that God and society will ignore the protest, in the future!
Oh, in the appeal, on 2 issues, the judge who reviews the issues has the option of ruling against me on 2 of them, in my favor on both, or ruling in my favor on 1 and against me on the other.
I assume that most people and probably all will ignore me in terms of if and when burn some judges in effigy for immoral conduct, meaning, legally immoral.
The hearing for the appeal is next Friday at 8:30!