U.S. v. Kalash - Drug Law Constitutionality and Other Unconventional Defenses

[Kalash]

All that's changed is that the government has criminally usurped our rights of property and contract using expanded clauses - such as the interstate commerce clause - to violate our rights.

They still don't have the legal authority to do this - and no supreme court ruling may give them such legal authority.

While these laws may have the backing of the court...
May have solidified themselves through historical enforcement...

It does not make them valid laws - nor does it create governmental authorities not enumerated in the constitution.


I don't just find it hard to believe that the supreme court may rule slightly off center over and over again...
Until we have rulings making the constitution invalid.

This is not the purpose nor power afforded to the Supreme court.

Their job is to uphold the constitution - not undermine it through a slow steady encroachment upon it's restraints upon the government.


I'd also encourage you to look at U.S. v. Lopez (1995)




But... I can go on for hours.


I finally got a response from my "real" attorney.

He's saying I'm citing the wrong rule.

Fed. R. Crim Proc. 12(e) applies to the failure to file a motion under Rule 12 – not to the failure to file an opposition. That’s not the basis you should use for the failure to timely file.



Criminal Local Rule 57-1 for the Central District of California provides that Local Civil Rules apply to criminal cases where analogous. Civil Local Rule 7-12, governing motion practice, provides: “The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other paper not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule. The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”



Typically, if an attorney comes up with a good reason for the failure to file, the Court will grant relief. In fact, sometimes when the other side raises the issue, it alerts the opposition to their failure and enables them to “beg forgiveness.” If you want to seek a default, that is up to you. Even if they do file an opposition, you have a right to reply and can note the failure to timely file an opposition.

So...
Maybe I'm not in quite as strong a position as I thought.

Here are his suggestions - 3 possible scenarios;

Three things can happen:



1. You can file a request for default for the government’s failure to timely file an opposition. Such a filing would almost certainly trigger the Gvt to file their opposition and (presumably) ask the court for relief (they should give some explanation for the failure).
2. You can do nothing, and they can file late and hope that you and the court don’t notice. You can then raise the late filing in your reply brief and at the hearing and ask that it be stricken and that the motion be granted based upon the government’s failure to timely file under the local rules (below).
3. You can do nothing, and they can still fail to file, and you can show up at the hearing and request that the motion be granted based upon the absence of any opposition.



At this point, the government messed up, but the Court can still allow them to file late (or make their opposition orally at the hearing). It is completely up to the Judge (the local rule says the court “may” decline to consider a late opposition and the late filing “may” be deemed consent to granting the Motion. The longer it takes them to file, the worse it is for them. If they don’t file anything, then you are in the strongest position – and they will look very poor in front of the Judge. However, you are not entitled to have your motion granted as a matter of right just because they did not file on time.

So...
I haven't quite won just yet.

But I'm getting more and more confident.

I was freaking out about the idea of actually having won...
Of losing my sole purpose in life for the past year.

Now that I know I need to keep fighting I'm a little more stable.


I don't know what I'm going to do when this whole thing ends.
I'll definitely be finding something else to throw myself at.
Sniff's case is the most likely candidate - especially if I get myself off.



I'm debating on what the best choice is here...
Do I file requesting the default ruling...
Or do I just wait it out and try to defend my position in open court?

Typically I'd say to file - to allow time to prepare a response - as an uneducated, non-bar person challenging an educated bar person in open court will most likely get ugly. Fast.

But it's tempting.

And if I begin to struggle, challenge that I AM an uneducated attorney (with a fool for a client) that demands more time - as I did not have a chance to consult with my counsel after receiving the opposition of the prosecution in open court.



Part of me is still wondering if they're willing to let me go - just so they don't have to make a precedential ruling against the drug laws.

I'm open to thoughts and opinions on this.

If I'm filing for the default ruling via a proposed order, I want to have it in by next Monday - my deadline for responding to the prosecution's opposition (under the impression that their silence means they have no opposition to my motion).

 

[thugpassion]

You were interigated by them and they got you to tell them ever thing they wanted. You were very very very foolish to be questioned with out an attorany presant.

Every thing you say to any part of law enforsment (especialy the feds) is only going to be used to strenghten and build a case against you. It sounds like you already dug yourself a huge ditch, and theres no way a public defender will be able to help you after you let the cat out of the bag, so to say.

You best bet will come down to pleading or flipping on your friends to get a reduced sentence. After all the shit you probly admitted to during questioning( WITH OUT A LAWYER PRESENT) probly has ensured some jail time. How much depends on how much the feds tricked you in to saying during questioning.

from evey thing you have said it looks like you are going to do time. You were suckered by profesional liers( the police/feds) and their case against you sounds strong, just from what you have said. You screwed up bigtime. You listened to the feds(huge mistake) and let your self be questioned with out legal aid.

You can dance around all you want but it was you that helped build the case(by talking) that is going to send you to jail. The only words you should have said to them is I WANT MY LAWYER.

 

[Kalash]

You were interigated by them and they got you to tell them ever thing they wanted. You were very very very foolish to be questioned with out an attorany presant.

Every thing you say to any part of law enforsment (especialy the feds) is only going to be used to strenghten and build a case against you. It sounds like you already dug yourself a huge ditch, and theres no way a public defender will be able to help you after you let the cat out of the bag, so to say.

You best bet will come down to pleading or flipping on your friends to get a reduced sentence. After all the shit you probly admitted to during questioning( WITH OUT A LAWYER PRESENT) probly has ensured some jail time. How much depends on how much the feds tricked you in to saying during questioning.

from evey thing you have said it looks like you are going to do time. You were suckered by profesional liers( the police/feds) and their case against you sounds strong, just from what you have said. You screwed up bigtime. You listened to the feds(huge mistake) and let your self be questioned with out legal aid.

You can dance around all you want but it was you that helped build the case(by talking) that is going to send you to jail. The only words you should have said to them is I WANT MY LAWYER.

You're absolutely correct.

The first thing ANYONE should do is demand an attorney.

Period.

And I'll advocate that till the world's end.



You're missing the points I'm making though...
There is no case because there is no party with standing.
There is no guilt to admit to.
There is no legitimate charge against me.

The drug laws are unconstitutional and invalid - and I cannot be tried under them - as a free natural born citizen of the U.S.


You're absolutely correct - if I had a guilty mindset I would have screwed up royally.

As I don't - as I have a victim mindset - where I am the victim of the criminal acts of the government to deprive me of my rights...
Wherein I did no wrong and had nothing to hide...

I didn't screw up at all.

A public defender will not do anything with me - other than beg me to plea and call me an idiot for choosing/considering to NOT plea.

I've gone through 2 of them - and am now representing myself so that I can file my motion calling them out for their crimes against my rights - without standing or a legitimate charge against me.


Criminal Deprivation of Rights - U.S. code title 18 chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.

Check them out.
I'm the VICTIM of criminals.

Criminals coerced me using threats of force and violence in order to get me to answer their questions.
That amounts to duress.



I'm taking a VERY unconventional approach.
I only know of one other instance where it's been used - and it failed...
But that was in England.
From a subject of the crown.

I'm not a subject of anyone/anything - and anyone claiming the authority to supersede my rights is acting in violation of the constitution - and is a criminal.



We'll see.
I'm still anticipating a long drawn out battle.
Time will tell.

Prison - if they criminals win - is a certainty.

I'm not planning on giving into the criminals.
I'm not adopting a Stockholm syndrome...

I'm not going to side with those oppressing me.

I see myself ending up in prison for treason before I see the drug charges landing me in prison.
For more on that, see here;
http://new.revolutioni.st

Thing is, one cannot commit treason against the government - unless one has signed a contract to be subservient to the government.

My military contract was voided by the government without my consent.
I owe them nothing.

They are my servants - and must respect my rights.
The drug laws VIOLATE my rights.
The government does not have the power/authority to take those rights without due process of law (guilty verdict PRIOR to my rights being taken - i.e. prior to my initial arrest - or a constitutional amendment - such as the 18th)

For the government to claim to do so is unconstitutional - criminality of the highest order - and I am merely demanding equal protection under the 8th amendment.




Conventionally you are absolutely correct.

I screwed up.
Bad.

Lucky for me I'm not being conventional

 

[Kalash]

I finally got the prosecution's response.
At 2:42AM today.
The 10th of March.

Bearing in mind it was due on Feb. 29th (by midnight, more or less.)

My date to file a rebuttal to their opposition is... today.


http://mike.revolutioni.st/opposition.pdf - link to opposition.

I'm working on a rebuttal now - to be filed today - so that I may obey the timeliness order of the court, even if the prosecution cannot.


Here's a bit of what I'm tossing in there...

It's the conclusion to the introduction...
And probably a testament to how long it's been since I've lost my mind.

The prosecution’s untimely response may hold more activist opinions of certain Judges insistent upon implementing communist policies in our nation, in violations of their oaths to uphold the constitutional protections of the people’s rights, than my initial motion.
I find this to be irrelevant, and hope the court agrees, as their opposition reads as nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify for their criminal acts against me, and not as a definitive source of their alleged authority to deprive me of my rights without due process.
Criminals need to make excuses for their actions. This is all the prosecution has attempted to accomplish with their untimely response; justification of their criminal attempts upon my life, liberty, and property. It appears they have done this in an attempt to convince the court to join in their criminal conspiracy, punishable under U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.
I have no doubts that the prosecution believes they are upholding the best interests of society, but one cannot protect society by punishing it, or discriminating specifically whom to punish and whom to endorse in their criminal conspiracies.
My actions, freely taken with other consenting adults, with a reasonable expectation of privacy; simple exercises of my constitutionally protected rights, do not need to be excused, nor permission obtained from the government (DEA licenses) to exercise these rights.
My rights are unalienable and protected by the constitution, not enumerated within it, and are not mere privileges bestowed upon me by the privileged government carefully constructed in the constitution.
If, indeed, congress and the courts have co-conspired over decades to undermine the protections of the rights of the American people through a slow steady encroachment, this does not excuse the continued criminal usurpation of the people’s rights.
To violate the constitutional protections of the people’s rights is to breach the contract with the American people, waiving any and all implied powers or authority derived from the constitutional contract each public official swears to uphold.
This motion is not in reference to a personal matter, it is not a personal vendetta against the controlled substances act. It is but a demand for the privileged government to recognize the origin of its authority, and be bound by the contract with the people who’s rights and consent grant all powers to it.

 

[Kalash]

[No message]

 

[Johnny1]

^ Kalash, did you mean to make a blank post?

 

[Kalash]

[No message]

 

[Kalash]

^ Kalash, did you mean to make a blank post?

Nooooo....

I didn't even know that you could.

It always makes me put in a period or something...


Anyway...
Quick summary... since I don't remember what all I wrote (long posts=bad habit...)


Lawyerdude is working on a response.

I've sent him what I have, which... is more or less in stream of consciousness form.


The Prosecution's main argument is that I'm claiming I have constitutionally granted rights.
And that because the rights are granted by the constitution, another provision of the constitution (interstate commerce clause and/or the necessary and proper clause) may over ride them.


This is such a simple, magnificent flaw in their argument.




Anyway...
The random stuff I rambled on and on about...
Here it is.

I was also asking if anyone thought that I'd lost my mine - seeing as how my mom does.
But then... I don't weigh her opinion in all that heavily.
She believes goods and services should be provided at gun point - because people sometimes need to be forced to do what's best for them.


(Imagine big long rant here - the preview is coming up blank now - gonna try it without this in here...)

Alright - it's working when I don't copy paste my rebuttal in here.
Link?
Alright...
http://mike.revolutioni.st/rebuttal9007.html

Yes - it's unfinished.
Lawyerdude is going to legalize it for me and finish it up with a conclusion that makes some sort of legal sense.




Wisdom of calling for the abolition of Congress in a motion to a federal court?
I may be losing my mind after all.
>_<



De-regulation comments - I really like them.
Thoughts?

(I'm just bored. Someone else is taking care of the motion for me. I just want some challenges in case I have to actually defend this stuff in open court - as no attorney will be present.)



As to their bit about the "Societal Woes" they go on about - quoting invalid scientific data from the 1980's...

I put in this response;

MDMA (Ecstasy) is more severely punished than heroin (thanks to a bill co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton in 2001[1A][1B]) per dose
1 pill of ecstasy = 25 doses of heroin = 4.4oz marijuana[2]

Caffeine is more addictive than any illicit drug.
A lethal dose of MDMA is 1.6 times a lethal dose of caffeine (Caffeine ~200mg/kg[3], MDMA ~325mg/kg [4 - under section V]

145 CAFFEINE pills would be lethal - at 100mg per pill.
188 ecstasy pills for a lethal dose.
(325 * 72.5) / 125 = 188.5

325 = mg/kg = lethal dose of MDMA
72.5kg=160 pound (typical body weight)
125 = mg per pill.
188.5 = total pills in a lethal dose assuming 125mg MDMA per pill.
235.6 = total MDMA pills in a lethal dose at 100mg per pill (identical to caffeine)
Their claim of overdose related deaths is highly inaccurate.

MDMA is not addictive.[5]

You are more likely to be murdered than die from illicit drug use[6]
Illicit drug use deaths also include deaths from taking legal drugs in a manner other than as prescribed.

You are more likely (by a measure of nearly 10) to die from "adverse effects" of legally prescribed drugs in normal doses (106, 000 deaths/year)[7] than you are from ANY illicit drug use (including DUI accidents, overdoses, etc...)(see[6])

Ecstasy REDUCES "actual crime" i.e. crimes with victims, by about 50% with just one use in the last year.
Young men who didn't use 'ecstasy' in the past year were 36% more likely to have been arrested for a crime than those who had used the drug. Among those who had been arrested, those without a history of 'ecstasy' use were 42% more likely to have committed assault, 58% more likely to have committed robbery, and 67% more likely to have committed burglary.[8]

And you're going to tell me that illicit drugs are SUCH a danger to society that they need to be prohibited, creating a black market, drug gang related violence, police raids on innocent people resulting in hundreds of deaths each year...And the best part of all this - the majority of the illicit drug related deaths are because of the drug laws - where seeking treatment for overdoses will land you in prison for contributing to the overdose, or under conspiracy charges, just for knowing that the person was using drugs (AZ is exempt - they passed a law preventing prosecution for those reporting an overdose and seeking emergency treatment - this is the ONLY state in the nation you can report an overdose without legal consequences).

Harm reduction measures mean decriminalizing possession and use, education on the effects and possible consequences, and permitting precautionary measures (Cool off areas, free water - as Overheating is the major concern with MDMA) in clubs where illicit drugs are used (these measures are illegal because of the RAVE act).

The sources in that bit are pretty nifty.
It's a pity I'm gonna be lazy and not go link them all

The origin of that last part was a blog I posted a while back.
Someone corrected my math.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...n=B0BB0663-FB88-4BA8-9DE1F4CC191EEC3259252448

The parts about crime rates and MDMA are here;
http://thedea.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22



I hate it when facts back up what I'm saying.
It makes me think I'm NOT really crazy >_<

 

[thugpassion]

It really sucks that it souds like the gov't is taking a special likeing to picking on you.

Probabel cause and evidense are all things after fact when dealing with lawinforsement. They didnt need to have anything too have happened to charge you, just the ilusion of wrong doing. But if a cop said you did it and its your word against his(even if you have a coroberating wittness), than you can believe they WILL think you did it nomatterwhat.

My mother told me about how federal marshals bold faced lied in court and sent my father to federal prison for 4years. She said the prosicuteing attoreny even tried to appoligize to her afterwards because he knew they had lied in court to get a grertter conviction.

Alot of those cops and fedrel people are SOBs that will lie and cheat to press their twisted views of how the world should be nomatter who they hurt....

 

[Kalash]

It really sucks that it souds like the gov't is taking a special likeing to picking on you.

Probabel cause and evidense are all things after fact when dealing with lawinforsement. They didnt need to have anything too have happened to charge you, just the ilusion of wrong doing. But if a cop said you did it and its your word against his(even if you have a coroberating wittness), than you can believe they WILL think you did it nomatterwhat.

My mother told me about how federal marshals bold faced lied in court and sent my father to federal prison for 4years. She said the prosicuteing attoreny even tried to appoligize to her afterwards because he knew they had lied in court to get a grertter conviction.

Alot of those cops and fedrel people are SOBs that will lie and cheat to press their twisted views of how the world should be nomatter who they hurt....

Sorry about your dad.

Lucky for me I have the case file.
They can't lie about what I did.

And yes - I've lost my mind - and FIRMLY believe that dealing drugs CANNOT be criminal. (Ah. So he is insane...)

Casey William Hardison...
He tried the same thing.

And failed. Though he's still fighting.

The problem is that he is a subject.
I am supposed to be free - and my "public servant" is punishing me preemptively for hypothetical and conjectural crimes.


Oppression results in resistance.

In a "Free" society with barriers against the privileged government from oppressing the people?
I intend to stand behind those barriers and hold out until the barriers turn back the waves of oppression.


Since that other bit (link) was WAY too long and no one will read it (generally - someone will, but hey. Generalizations are easier...)

An act of congress is not due process, and the entire Controlled Substances Act, based upon the communistic idea of state sole-proprietorship, societal “rights” superior to the rights of an individual, and the authoritarian un-reigned powers of Congress to dictate what acts may and may not take place in accordance with the majority’s moral code; and attempt to legislate morality and religious views, is unconstitutional and void ab initio; a criminal deprivation of the rights of all American people without the required due process defined as either a criminal conviction or a constitutional amendment.
If congress cannot possess this authority, I cannot comprehend the prosecution’s assertions that congress may delegate this authority to the executive branch of the government, nor do I understand their justification to place this ability in the hands of any privileged official, granting them amnesty for their violations of the people’s rights.
The prosecution’s untimely response may hold more activist opinions of certain Judges insistent upon implementing communist policies in our nation, in violations of their oaths to uphold the constitutional protections of the people’s rights, than my initial motion.
I find this to be irrelevant and frivolous, and hope the court agrees, as their opposition reads as nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify for their criminal acts against me, and not as a definitive source of their alleged authority to deprive me of my rights without due process.

 

[Kalash]

New dates.

The prosecution is filing a stipulation to push back the hearing date (unclear yet) and trial date to June 17th.

The date for my surrebuttal is now April 8th.
The hearing date will be the 14th or the 21st of April - I'm asking for the 21st as I am not writing the motion myself and wish for time to become familiar with it.

I have not received a response on this yet.


March 17th is now nothing.


If the case is going to be dismissed by the motion I've already filed it will not be dismissed until April 14th or 21st (depending on when the hearing is.)

Or later, if we file for a writ and appeal the ruling against the motion prior to trial.


The more the prosecutor talks, the stronger I feel my defense (errr... offense against criminal usurpation of rights) gets.

If this case keeps going this way, I'm going to have led a rebellion and over thrown the federal government before I ever get within a week of my trial date.

More on that on the CEP boards >_<

 

[Kalash]

OH!

I was wrong!

The court is still requiring an appearance next Monday - the 17th.
The prosecution has filed a stipulation to postpone the hearing and trial dates.

The court wants us there anyway.

I'm trying to figure out what time >_<
The original hearing was scheduled for the 10th at 3PM.



The court said it will address the issue of the prosecution's untimely response on Monday.
I'm not getting my hopes up, but the court does have the authority to deny admission of their opposition.

 

[Kalash]

And...


Anti-climax.

>_<

All that happened today was.... we rescheduled everything according to the stipulation filed by the prosecution last week.

So... what was the point?
Apparently the clerk didn't inform us that a continuance had been granted.
So...
We had to show up and confirm the continuance.

So... continuance granted - April 3rd I have to file my surrebuttal - which is already 1/2 finished.
I turned in this copy today;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/9007SR.htm

April 21st is the new hearing date...
And July 22nd is the new trial date.

And... that's pretty much it.

 

[Kalash]

And...


Anti-climax.

>_<

All that happened today was.... we rescheduled everything according to the stipulation filed by the prosecution last week.

So... what was the point?
Apparently the clerk didn't inform us that a continuance had been granted.
So...
We had to show up and confirm the continuance.

So... continuance granted - April 3rd I have to file my surrebuttal - which is already 1/2 finished.
I turned in this copy today;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/9007SR.htm

April 21st is the new hearing date...
And July 22nd is the new trial date.

And... that's pretty much it.

 

[Thou]

I've been actively following your plight for I'd have to say the entire duration of this thread, and granted I'm not well versed in the field of U.S. law, but after reading the link to your surrebuttal, I'm quite impressed. Both by your dilligence and and your goddamned balls to attempt something like this. I certainly hope that I would have the nerve to stand up to such a flawed system of government as are the likes we suffer today.

You sir, have a kind of determination we need in times like these, as I feel that they would ultimately lead to, in large enough numbers, a widespread repeal in many of these dishonest and facisctic (sp?) policies.

I hope it's not a stretch to say, that every faithful party in opposition to consensual crime laws, is rooting for you. We'll be keeping our fingers crossed brother.

2c

 

[Kalash]

I've been actively following your plight for I'd have to say the entire duration of this thread, and granted I'm not well versed in the field of U.S. law, but after reading the link to your surrebuttal, I'm quite impressed. Both by your dilligence and and your goddamned balls to attempt something like this. I certainly hope that I would have the nerve to stand up to such a flawed system of government as are the likes we suffer today.

You sir, have a kind of determination we need in times like these, as I feel that they would ultimately lead to, in large enough numbers, a widespread repeal in many of these dishonest and facisctic (sp?) policies.

I hope it's not a stretch to say, that every faithful party in opposition to consensual crime laws, is rooting for you. We'll be keeping our fingers crossed brother.

2c

Thanks.

You're right - it isn't such a great feat as it is sheer determination and diligence.

We'll see what happens.

I'm still hoping someone - anyone - can show me the fundamental flaws in my position so that I may correct my mistakes - or drop the case if I am proved wrong.


The prosecutor's opposition to my motion placed the argument firmly at
My Rights v. Governmental Power.

That was perfect.

He then tried to waylay my rights by stating that I have no fundamental RIGHT to sell drugs (based on case law regarding the RIGHT to sell marijuana).

He is correct - no one has a fundamental right to sell drugs.
You have a fundamental right to possess/use/distribute/sell that which you wholly own.
As one is not BORN in ownership of anything, there can be no fundamental RIGHT to sell something.

I didn't clarify this in my surrebuttal.
It'll be added in before April 8th (my new filing date - it MUST be complete and infallible at that point.)






The biggest problem is - you're right (again).
It will take numbers.

I'll continue to do what I can - but this is a task that will take more than just myself.
I may get a favorable ruling - the court may demand it not be published.

But the tides will be turned and we'll begin our slow march to victory.


(Course... I could fail. But we won't dwell on that - just in case all that, "The Secret" stuff turns out to be true. Victor. Be grateful for it. It's at hand. )

 

[Mariposa]

Kalash:

I admire your search for truth and justice, but invoking ab intio is a major stretch. I don't know what else to tell you except that you're combining several documents into one. I am a nonlawyer and do not work in criminal law.

There are major factual problems with your rebuttal (is it a demurrer?). I will take this to PM to protect your privacy. You are on a track here and I'm not at all confident you will prevail by what I'm reading. Most of this should have been dealt with, in my lay opinion, in discovery or efforts to meet and confer.

I will PM you individual thoughts if you would be receptive and suggest that you proofread this work very carefully as there are typographical and factual errors everywhere.

Whatever stipulation you signed indicates agreement among all parties; that is what a stipulation is - you agree to do or not do something in advance of trial or relevant hearing.

I can't really get any further with this. I think you backed yourself into a corner here. I urge you to talk to your lawyer immediately. Legal writing has both formal and informal parameters; I'm having a hard time fitting this into any. Are you responding to a motion, or are you the moving party? I don't know where to start, and I imagine a busy judge with a clogged docket would feel similarly.

I would be glad to help edit for spelling and grammar but I cannot touch this on content. I wish you the best, but this is not what will get you a favorable result. Attend to your deadlines, make sure to properly serve all relevant papers on the other side, call for your hearing dates before you notice a hearing, and keep good records.

I wish you the best; that said I wil not blow smoke up your ass and tell you this will be a case you can pursue much further. Good luck, and PM me on anything administrative with which I can help.

 

[Kalash]

Kalash:

I admire your search for truth and justice, but invoking ab intio is a major stretch. I don't know what else to tell you except that you're combining several documents into one. I am a nonlawyer and do not work in criminal law.

There are major factual problems with your rebuttal (is it a demurrer?). I will take this to PM to protect your privacy. You are on a track here and I'm not at all confident you will prevail by what I'm reading. Most of this should have been dealt with, in my lay opinion, in discovery or efforts to meet and confer.

I will PM you individual thoughts if you would be receptive and suggest that you proofread this work very carefully as there are typographical and factual errors everywhere.

Whatever stipulation you signed indicates agreement among all parties; that is what a stipulation is - you agree to do or not do something in advance of trial or relevant hearing.

I can't really get any further with this. I think you backed yourself into a corner here. I urge you to talk to your lawyer immediately. Legal writing has both formal and informal parameters; I'm having a hard time fitting this into any. Are you responding to a motion, or are you the moving party? I don't know where to start, and I imagine a busy judge with a clogged docket would feel similarly.

I would be glad to help edit for spelling and grammar but I cannot touch this on content. I wish you the best, but this is not what will get you a favorable result. Attend to your deadlines, make sure to properly serve all relevant papers on the other side, call for your hearing dates before you notice a hearing, and keep good records.

I wish you the best; that said I wil not blow smoke up your ass and tell you this will be a case you can pursue much further. Good luck, and PM me on anything administrative with which I can help.

Sure!

I'm grateful for help!

You can pm me or send it to my email - as listed in the brief (kalash AT kalash.ws)


Factual flaws - let me know immediately!


As for the stipulations; the only stipulations signed were to put off the trial/waiver of speedy trial right.



And... in case it isn't clear...

Feb. 19th - I filed the motion to dismiss/demurrer motion - it was due Feb. 19th.

The prosecution was to respond by Feb. 29th.
They failed.

Their response was received on March 10th - 11 days late according to the judge.

The document you're criticizing (and please, feel free to do so. I'll be grateful!) was filed on March 17th - after being served - the date of the hearing for the Demurrer motion filed on Feb. 19th.

The hearing was not rescheduled - and I wanted SOMETHING on file prior to the hearing in case I was required to argue against the prosecution's opposition on that day.

I was not.

The court granted extended time to respond - my response to their opposition is due on April 8th.

The new hearing date is April 21st.


And again - any corrections of facts/flaws/ect. are greatly appreciated.


I've found a few spelling and grammatical mistakes myself.
Keep in mind this was a rush job I stayed up all weekend to finish, and rushed through Monday morning as I finalized certain things.

It needs a good going over before it is re-submitted.

I've been working all week (and stressing over everything) and haven't even looked at the thing since Monday.

I've got the next 2 days off.
Give me the errors NOW so I can work on them this "weekend" (Mon-tues for me).

Thanks!

 

[Infinite Jest]

Hey Kalash, I didn't read all you wrote - but I'd really suggest re-wording some of it - e.g. when you start calling people communists or arguing that the court is involved in a conspiracy. You may very well be right - but what do you hope to gain by this? Insulting people isn't going to convince them that you're right. Cut down what you've written, focus it very clearly on your actual legal arguments. Good luck.

 

[Kalash]

Hey Kalash, I didn't read all you wrote - but I'd really suggest re-wording some of it - e.g. when you start calling people communists or arguing that the court is involved in a conspiracy. You may very well be right - but what do you hope to gain by this? Insulting people isn't going to convince them that you're right. Cut down what you've written, focus it very clearly on your actual legal arguments. Good luck.

Thanks.

Noted.
There are a few points that are rather rash.

It's hard not to call things what they are sometimes though.
I'll keep working on it.