Having said that parts of the legal system are on your side. Consider the following:
1. Common law recognises the rights of people to freedom from coercion. Afterall they are laws against slavery are there not? The judge is likely to make a distinction between government and private slavery, but is there reason for such a distinction, given that governments comprise bad people, and people do bad things. And they are aware that governments to bad things.
2. Constitutional law might offer some protection as well. Consider that the constitution has provisions for change. The implication is that the writers of the constitution recognised that the document could be wrong. Afterall it was written 100-500 years ago, depending on your country of origin, and values have certainly changed.
3. Legislative law is perhaps the biggest threat to people, and its noteworthy that it does not sit well with Common Law. Its actually intriguing how the founders of each constitution could adopt 2 systems of law making, in as much as through interpreting the law, the Common Law process is actually making laws.
It is also readily apparent that our parliamentary system does not function as it was intended in any country. Whether you are in England, the USA, Australia or any other parliamentary democracy, parties were not foreseen to have such power. This is the same monopoly power that governments talk about legislating against, but seldom do because they have a shared alliance with business leaders in the higher echelons of power and influence.
I thus maintain that there are grounds for fighting a case based on implicit contradictions in constitutional law, whether the case rests on contradictions in the constitution or breaches in the interpretation of the constitution. The provisions within every constitution for change thus allow for change. Regardless of this provision, we can know in our own minds what is right & wrong. So at base we are campaigning for recognition that we exist in an objective reality, so logic should bare witness as it does in science. This was the hope of the constitution before the process was corrupted by the party process of consolidating power in just 2 parties.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com