If the rule of law were respectable, I might find a way to convince a willing lawyer to file sentiments such as these...
The State avoids strict scrutiny, encouraging locals to spread rumors of indirect effects, of fragile normality.
The bondage laden term lodging, and 647(e) itself, are vague, in law. 602(o), as abused locally, no better.
Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment. On the sentencing motion appeal: we seek no more than a single conviction, or a stay of sentence on 3 of the convictions. We seek a ruling that Penal Code 647(e) is unconstitutional on its face and/or as applied, and a ruling on Appellant’s right to sleep and the contours of that right, for all the reasons stated above. We also request that the opinion be published.
Another allocution might sound like this...
Protest is a necessity of State.
Sleep is a necessity of life, yet the State claims sovereignty oversleeping? Over staying warm, even if awake?!
Sleep is expressive, yet the State claims sovereignty over traditional public forums? Over protest itself?
Making protest a crime is unconstitutional. Making sleep a crime is unconstitutional. Making protest a crime is a crime. Making sleep a crime is worse.
