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

[Johnny1]

Timothy Leary is dead, and today, the drug culture is rarely about idealism. When I was using drugs, I wasn't trying to expand my mind. I wasn't exerting my constitutional rights as a citizen. I was a drug addict, and I wanted to get high. Each time I used drugs, I committed a felony, and I knew it. I entered the world of drugs fully aware of the consequences.

Does this mean you shouldn't go down without a fight when faced with those consequences? Of course not. You should, however, be prepared for those who will question the sincerity of your argument, Kalash.

Missykins, I understand and respect your side of this, and agree that Kalash must be prepared for those who question his sincerity. But I think we must be careful not to give blind legitimacy to laws, and even more importantly, we must consider that laws which have some legitimate purpose may be over-inclusive and thus morally invalid.

Drugs are as different as people. Some drugs are used just to get high. Some drugs are used mostly for spiritual purposes and to expand the mind. Sure, some naive kids take LSD and go to a club or rave. They don't understand what it's about. But I think most people involved in the manufacture and use of LSD think of it as far more than a way to get high. That's why I chose that drug for an example; many other drugs are different.

But MDMA may not be as different as those drugs that are only taken to get high. MDMA has been proven useful in mending relationships and helping people get over trauma. If someone wants to experience MDMA as part of their lives, who is to say how legitimate or not that use is?

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what the government says is a felony or not when it comes to my own body. The people making these laws are motivated by financial interests and power-grabbing. No one can tell me what I can and can't do with my body so long as it doesn't affect anyone besides me. In Europe in the early 1940s, it was illegal to be a Jew. Should the Jews have considered these laws valid? I don't consider the drug laws to be valid, especially in light of tobacco and alcohol, which kill many times more people each year as all illegal drugs combined, being legal.

We have to recognize that these laws are on the books so that we can properly defend ourselves. However, to say that these laws are in any way legitimate and that there's no moral cause for fighting these laws tooth and nail after an arrest, you should be speaking for yourself because there are many, many others who don't feel the same way.

If abortion becomes illegal in the U.S. in the future, many women will become felons, as will be the people who help them. Those people will also feel that their bodies belong to them. Considering this scenario might be another way to get in touch with the legitimate outrage and legitimate fight over corrupt and hypocritical legislators attempting to own our bodies.

 

[Missykins]

You're really not comparing drug laws to the ghettos of eastern Europe circa 1935, are you? Or a convicted drug dealer's plight to that of a teenage girl raped by her uncle and now pregnant?

 

[Johnny1]

Absolutely I am. The consequences are not as dire, just years in prison and part or all of a life ruined, as opposed to unspeakable torture and death, but it's still very bad and very unfair to the victims of this drug "war," and I'm including everyone in prison or under indictment for nonviolent drug offenses as a victim.

As far as your example of the teenage girl raped by her uncle, possibly not as dire a plight depending on how many years one spends in prison, but still very unjust to the drug war's nonviolent victims.

Why is a drug dealer any worse than a seller of alcohol? (And, arguably, an MDMA dealer is nowhere near as bad, because people don't take MDMA and go home and beat their family or kill someone in an auto accident.) Why is a drug dealer any worse than the CEO of McDonalds or Carl's Jr.? They kill hundreds of thousands with their cheeseburgers, while an MDMA dealer will probably not kill anyone in an entire career.

I don't want to divert this entire thread. My point is that by automatically thinking of a "drug dealer" as a "serious felon" who should accept the "consequences" of his or her actions, you are both lumping a whole bunch of substances together when they are very different, and not thinking outside the box in terms of whether laws are always just and thus should not be denied by those who choose for whatever reason not to follow them.

 

[Welderman]

Kalash I read almost this whole thread and I was inspired to register. I like the arguments you bring up. I was just thinking about the few times I was arested. I was ignorant about the law and I belive I could have done better had I been more informed.

I hope you do not loose the passion you have, keep your head high and stand by your princaples and good luck.

There is a question I have though. Why is the IRS not involved? Or was the income from the alleged sale not enough to tax?

Please get these frivolous laws stricken from the books.

 

[Welderman]

Kalash, I hope things work out the best they can for you. I have a question. If your arguments are true then what about the income you recived? Why isn't the IRS going for tax evasion?

 

[Kalash]

Death is a common end for victims of the drug war as well.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

Was there a reason for any of these people to have been killed (by police)?


Missykins - the issue here is one of rights.
Either people have rights or they do not.

If the people have rights, the laws are WRONG - and those enforcing the laws are CRIMINALS.
If people have no rights - the government is supreme and passes down the ability to do EVERYTHING to the people as a privilege (through license), then the laws are valid, and those disobeying their Sovereign Government are guilty of treason - to be dealt with as the state sees fit.


I don't like Johnny's abortion example.
There is no "Abortion Issue" - this is a misconception leading to the opposing viewpoints we have today.
If a fetus has RIGHTS, abortion is murder - regardless of the woman carrying the fetus's rights. If a fetus has NO rights, any law attempting to force anyone to do something with their body against their will is a CRIME.
Essentially, the woman wanting an abortion is being raped by the laws - forced into doing something with her body she doesn't want to do.
I don't like the idea of abortion laws. They shouldn't exist. There is no need for them.
If a fetus has rights, it has rights as a person - and killing it is murder. There is no need for a special law protecting the "group" rights of fetuses.

An Amendment recognizing a Fetus as a Full Person With Rights might be called for, but no special laws CAN or SHOULD be made regarding "Fetus Rights" nor "Women's Rights" as these concepts do not exist under the Constitutional Equal protection clause.

If a fetus has NO rights, it is not murder. There is no need for a law making abortion legal (i.e. "Protecting Women's Rights) as there are no WOMEN'S rights beyond her rights as a person.
If the fetus has NO rights, the woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with her body - and what's inside it. Anyone forcing her to NOT do what she wants is committing a crime against her (rape - the forcing of one's desires upon another without their consent, coercion - through threat of violence or force, or murder (if it comes to that).)
***Abortion - either a fetus has rights - or not. If so, abortion is MURDER - depriving the fetus of its right to life. There is no exclusion clause for murder unless it is done in self defense. If the woman's life is in jeopardy - many advocate a clause permitting an abortion; but this is unnecessary as it would be an act of self-defense.***

Terrorism - or placing one under duress by threatening violence if one chooses to do something - is NOT a legitimate act of government.
"Don't have an abortion or we'll come after you with guns!" is not a valid act of Congress (provided that a fetus has no rights).
"Don't use drugs or we'll come after you with guns!" is equally inappropriate conduct by government. These are acts of terrorism - and cannot be tolerated in a free society.

There are NO collective GROUP rights. This is a fallacy perpetuated by the State in an attempt to divide and conquer the sovereign people. Preying upon the people's desire to belong - the desire for collective groups, the government makes up terminology that ensures polarized groups are created advocating for "group rights" instead of recognizing all humanity as the only group - and that we all receive our rights as individuals. This is Individualism v. Collectivism. If you haven't read my posts in CeP, check that link out. It explains this better than I have >_<


So - the drug laws...
Do I have a right to choose what I put into my body? Do I have a right to own property? Do I have a right to pursue happiness in my own way?

If so - and I hold that these are unalienable rights, as defined in the Declaration of Independence as being pre-existent to government (beyond the government's reach of power), what are the limitations on these rights?
How can Government take these rights from me - through legislative acts (exercise of power) when it was made clear that they could not infringe upon my rights without due process of law?

The limit of my rights is the beginning of the rights of anyone else.
"My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose..." Heard that before?

No one has the RIGHT to violate anyone else's rights. This is CRIME.
Laws are meant to provide equal protection from CRIME.
If you violate X right, you get X punishment, regardless of motive, regardless of social standing, regardless of wealth, regardless of race/creed/gender/age/etc.
This is all LAW is supposed to do (according to the Constitution) - provide equal protection of ALL rights through equal application of the law.

If no right is violated... what CRIME exists?
If you rob a bank and there is no law against this, is robbing the bank a CRIME - or is it acceptable - because there is no law?

Nazi Germany - the Jew's lives were being lost due to the direct intervention of the Nazi's. Their right to live was being violated - in accordance to the law of the country. Does this LAWFUL deprivation of life make the acts NOT-Criminal?
Do laws MAKE actions criminal?
Nearly everyone considers the actions of the Nazi's to have been wrong.
Were they criminal though? Considering that in Germany, at the time, the government was sovereign (Empire - rule by Right of hereditary derivation from Source of Power [I.e. God-King line of power]) - the people were SUBJECTS of the all-powerful state - the actions of the German government CHOOSING to eliminate those under its power was well within its authority.
The "Constitution of the German Empire" currently enforced established that its power was derived from the consent of a collection of "Kings" over provinces - and one of them to be the "Empire of Germany"
The source of "Rights" was these kings.
The lives, liberties, and property of ALL subjects were listed as "privileges" in the Constitution (called "Rights" but clearly defined as being GRANTED by the Emperor to the people - privileges; being granted and revoked through Empirical Decree)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire
That link talks about Hitler's "Subversion" of the Constitution - but that was not the case. He suspended "privileges" afforded the people by Consent of the Ruler/Emperor... As was the right of the Emperor, should he choose to do so. Hitler took authority of the Emperor in doing so - but did not violate the Constitution (the suspension of "Rights" was done under legitimate power of the supreme state - as the state was the SOURCE of these "RIGHTS"... it could grant or revoke these "RIGHTS" as it saw fit. Any "RIGHT" that can be revoked is not a RIGHT, but a mere privilege.).
(Partially over-simplified. Their representative republic had full authority - a majority vote was the supreme deciding factor - there were no RIGHTS recognized as being beyond the reach of the legislature - a simple majority vote could make a law undermining the RIGHTS of any citizen - or group of citizens. The Emperor was not the sole seat of power - however the legislature was appointed by Imperial Proclamation - therefore the legislature was a branch of the Emperor's authority... so the over-simplification stands.)
By law, the Emperor could claim the life of any citizen - order others to kill any citizen (or group; i.e. "The Jews") and have that order carried out. BY LAW (German), the actions of the Nazi's were NOT criminal.
They committed NO crimes.

The concept of LAW defining CRIME falters at this point - as clearly, law itself cannot define crime, if there are to be any RIGHTS the law cannot overcome (Law cannot define CRIME if the Nazi's actions were CRIMINAL or WRONG.. Law cannot define Crime in America so long as the Constitution of the U.S. remains the Supreme Law of the Land).
This comes down to the Standing Doctrine - which prevents the Courts from hearing any matter in which there is not a party complaining of a violation of one of their protected rights.
The sole purpose of the Federal Government of the U.S. is to protect the rights of the people. Period.
The source of ALL authority of government IS the rights of the people. Period.
There is NO ONE - elected, born, or otherwise risen to power - in the United States that has ANY authority greater than the right of ANY individual citizen.

This is why the drug laws are invalid - as they raise the false right of Government (i.e. Congress - mere people with no rights greater than that of your neighbor) to control property that does not belong to them.

The false "GOVERNMENTAL RIGHT" to define an act as "CRIMINAL" when there is no violation of a specific "RIGHT" of another.
This is legislative theft - deprivation of one's property without due process of law.
It is also the first step in undermining the fundamental rights of the people - in an attempt to establish that the State is above the law (above the rights of the people), supreme authority (Totalitarianism) that cannot be challenged by its subjects (the people).



People seem to have trouble accepting that everyone's rights are equal.
People seem to have trouble accepting that Congress is only a collection of other people - with no rights greater than their own.

There is no "right" of government to take anything from anyone. That is THEFT - organized CRIME under Color of Law (False authority). (**Direct Taxation - the authority to TAKE - a Constitutional Amendment IS recognized as Due Process of Law. The government HAS, through due process, taken authority beyond the rights of the people through the 16th Amendment** - side note, Prohibition - control over one's property by the state - must be done through the requisite due process; Conviction of a crime or Constitutional Amendment. There is no other way for government to make any claim over the property of any citizen.)
There is no "right" of government to create privileged classes (Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Fetus's Rights, Black Rights, White Rights, Jewish Rights, Hispanic Rights............) - these "Classess" or "Groups" are not recognized under the Constitution.
An individual has all the rights they need to exist equally in society.

Discrimination BY society because of one's perceived existence in one of these groups - amounting to a violation of the rights of the individual - is CRIMINAL, regardless of the law.

This is where things get sticky - because people do not understand the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.
And the state has done nothing to enlighten the people... but has done much to cloud this issue with the false concept of group rights - which are naught BUT privileges affording special extra protections of the rights of individuals belonging to a certain group.
This in UNEQUAL under the Law (of the Land - i.e. the Constitution) and is precisely what the Constitution was written to prevent.


The "Right" of "Society" - the collective group - to "control" property perceived to be dangerous (drugs); to exclude the owner of the property all his fundamental rights of ownership, is simply a right that does not exist.

 

[Kalash]

Kalash, I hope things work out the best they can for you. I have a question. If your arguments are true then what about the income you recived? Why isn't the IRS going for tax evasion?

Good question.
Why don't they try me for tax evasion instead of possession of my private property?

The nice thing about this is that in TN it's already been ruled that the government cannot have the double standard of requiring sales tax on prohibited items.

They forfeit any tax due them by prohibiting a commodity.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22592.html

Of course - federally this would have to be tried, if the IRS pursued it.

For me though - the total "profit" from the sales (after the pills were paid for)was $1,300 or so.
Since it was split over Nov-Feb, we're under $1000 per year.
It shouldn't be taxable.
If it IS, then I was running my own business - and should be able to write off any associated fees...
Gas for travel expenses, etc... blah, blah... I was driving over 1,000 miles a week - and had a rental car for Jan and Feb (my car was wrecked by a friend in December.) The car rental alone was $300+ a month in tax write-offs.
Basically, I'd be claiming more than my total income as a write off (i.e. Businesses don't pay tax on INCOME - only on PROFITS. Any money made over and above your expenses is taxable. I was going into the hole while I was dealing. My INCOME was less than my expenses - i.e. no profit - no tax due.)

I didn't file taxes last year because I didn't make enough to file.
The year before, I filed for my job from Jan - November.
Business taxes are different - if they did recognize my business as legitimate and attempt to collect back taxes - that's fine. I kept lousy records, so we're going with what they have.
That's 1,300 - minus expenses...
With a minimum of the 2 car rentals, we're talking a taxable income/profit of less than $800. That's assuming no credit for gas, which should be estimated in.
If they want me to pay the back taxes on $800 I'm more than willing.

 

[Welderman]

Good question.
Why don't they try me for tax evasion instead of possession of my private property?

The nice thing about this is that in TN it's already been ruled that the government cannot have the double standard of requiring sales tax on prohibited items.

They forfeit any tax due them by prohibiting a commodity.
[

Of course - federally this would have to be tried, if the IRS pursued it.

For me though - the total "profit" from the sales (after the pills were paid for)was $1,300 or so.
Since it was split over Nov-Feb, we're under $1000 per year.
It shouldn't be taxable.
If it IS, then I was running my own business - and should be able to write off any associated fees...
Gas for travel expenses, etc... blah, blah... I was driving over 1,000 miles a week - and had a rental car for Jan and Feb (my car was wrecked by a friend in December.) The car rental alone was $300+ a month in tax write-offs.
Basically, I'd be claiming more than my total income as a write off (i.e. Businesses don't pay tax on INCOME - only on PROFITS. Any money made over and above your expenses is taxable. I was going into the hole while I was dealing. My INCOME was less than my expenses - i.e. no profit - no tax due.)

I didn't file taxes last year because I didn't make enough to file.
The year before, I filed for my job from Jan - November.
Business taxes are different - if they did recognize my business as legitimate and attempt to collect back taxes - that's fine. I kept lousy records, so we're going with what they have.
That's 1,300 - minus expenses...
With a minimum of the 2 car rentals, we're talking a taxable income/profit of less than $800. That's assuming no credit for gas, which should be estimated in.
If they want me to pay the back taxes on $800 I'm more than willing.

Some how my first post didn't show right away.

Thanks for answering my question. Sounds like you got that covered.

 

[Kalash]

Some how my first post didn't show right away.

Thanks for answering my question. Sounds like you got that covered.

Everything on the legal board is moderated...
A mod has to see and approve your post before it shows up.

No problem.
If you have more - or see flaws in my arguments, raise them.
You might see something I haven't.

 

[Noxciyn]

Kalash: how long did you spend in county when you got hit?

(this is relevant for me to understand this thread better)

 

[Kalash]

Kalash: how long did you spend in county when you got hit?

(this is relevant for me to understand this thread better)

Not long.
I was held overnight - transferred to Federal Marshal custody in the morning - so...
So around 8 hours...
By the time they were done harassing me - and turned me over to the jail about 2AM.

And they picked me up around 10AM.

Federal custody from then until bail was posted around 5PM.

Less than a full day in custody so far.

 

[Kalash]

Probation's pre-sentencing report came in today.

They're asking for low end of offense level 23... 46 months.
This is prior to any 5K adjustments, or arguments made at sentencing.

I'm thinking realistically, regardless of the 5K, less than 30 months.
Another co-defendant with additional charges against them received 30 months.

The only mitigating factor here is my reluctance to accept my actions as criminal. I don't see how this is a factor. The court and prosecution have failed to persuade me my actions were criminal.
This isn't a failure on my part, but a failure on behalf of the government.


My arguments are not getting through clearly though.
I was asked for a factual check on the report and there were a few things - listing the wrong scholarship upon my return to college after the air force, not differentiating between a CFI and a commercial pilot's license...

And then point #67;

In his court filings, (ME) has made it clear that he does not believe that MDMA use or sale is wrong. Indeed, he argued that MDMA use and sale is harmless. He characterized MDMA as a harmless recreational drug and praised its positive effects

That isn't what I said.
My "factual" challenge to this is here;

I haven't argued that the sale and use is harmless - only that it was harmless in this instance, and that I am not being tried for a crime (harm) but the conjectural hypothesis that my actions MAY result in harm (harm which is unsubstantiated by science at this point). Ecstasy distribution CAN BE and IS potentially harmful - as the restrictions upon its manufacture and distribution prevent quality control over the products. Without these restrictions (which I believe to be unconstitutionally put into affect), MDMA could be safely and harmlessly used and sold. The source of HARM from MDMA is not the sale, use, nor MDMA itself, but the oppressive legislation by which Congress attempts to deprive people of a commodity that was legal until I was 4 years of age, that people were using, accepting, and loving, before being told that they could not use it for ANY reason, because the state determined that they shouldn't; that there was no RIGHT to engage in activity which brought happiness to the people that government did not fully subsidize, monopolize, and control.

My arguments against MDMA's harm come from the fact that we tested the pills prior to taking or selling them - and our tests, while not extraordinarily sophisticated, were adequate to ensure a certain level of purity - if not an actual percentage of active ingredients. The FBI lab tests on the pills we sold proved that they were, in fact, MDMA - not adulterated pills - specifically not pills containing DXM, a common adulterant or alternative active ingreedient in Ecstasy pills that has been known to cause Ecstasy related deaths.
MDMA, as determined by modern medical science, is a harmless substance with many therapeutic uses, and has yet to be verified as causing any deaths.
Ecstasy (As opposed to MDMA) related deaths are generally not verified to be MDMA, and Ecstasy is rarely, if ever, listed as the cause of death.
Specifics; an active dose of MDMA is ~100mg, about the same as an active dose of caffeine.
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]
****Citations working here; http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...=DE465BBC-14C6-433D-BF3C7233F4107139173461717 in the blog dated July 24th 2007 ****
I'll continue to praise MDMA's positive effects upon my life. It has made me more outgoing, more personable, less shy and withdrawn, and open to thinking differently rather than relying upon my personal beliefs and excluding all other thoughts. MDMA made me more stable emotionally and mentally. Many of the traits MDMA assisted me in developing have proved permanent - I have overcome my fears of speaking publicly, and my fear of death thanks to the thought processes induced by MDMA and the other assorted narcotics I have dappled with.
Drugs have never been a problem for me - they have been a temporary escape from reality allowing my mind to wander and ponder things that I didn't have time to think about in my daily struggles. This temporary release made me generally happier, easier to get along with, and reduced my levels of stress to a bearable level.
I remain positioned that the only negative consequence of drugs has been the assault upon me by persons acting under color of law, in an attempt to deprive me of my rights to pursue happiness and property in violation of the Constitutional restraints upon government.
These persons, to include the prosecutor and arresting agent, were not aware of what MDMA was at the time of my arrest nor arraignment. The arresting Agent made the claim that MDMA was methamphetamine, and when I balked at this assertion, expressed interest in the differences between the two substances.
But I have no faith in the court's consideration of scientific fact, as it has made clear its prejudice against modern science in preference of 20 year old studies cited by the initial legislative authorities that were inconclusive and determined only that more testing be done to determine the harms and benefits of this drug.
The court is also partial to the plaintiff as, by admission in court by the Judge himself, he is not lenient on first time offenders, not because he wants to prevent "further harm to society" - harm that society willingly inflicts upon itself by maintaining a demand for the substances prohibited by its government, harm that society willingly inflicts upon itself despite the furthered threat of violent harm from the state should they choose to risk this harm for themselves - but to get across the point, "Don't do that again."
This is not justice for a crime, this is a mockery of the judicial system and a subversion of our Republic. If the people are free, government mandates may be ignored, so long as no harm comes to another individual without their knowing consent to the associated risks.
There is no restitution in this matter because there was no one harmed. If the actions resulted in no harm, why should I not believe my actions to have been harmless?

 

[Kalash]

Sentencing is no longer Oct. 20th.
It's being pushed back an undetermined amount of time - quoting my attorney, "At least one month, maybe 2."

Tentatively, we're looking at the 2nd Monday of December for Sentencing.
This isn't a set date.

Basically - I'm going to be out a while longer.

 

[Kalash]

Sentencing has been pushed back to an unset date.

It's not going to be Oct. 20th - and is most likely going to be sometime in December (the aim is for the 2nd Monday in Dec. but this is not official yet.)

I haven't been given a solid reason for this - but suspect that it has to do with one of my co-defendants that hasn't yet plead nor gone to trial.

 

[Noxciyn]

I am guessing Kalash is in the joint

confirm/deny?

 

[Johnny1]

^ It's more like us mods haven't looked at page 2 of the forum in a while. There hasn't been a lot of activity on p. 2, then I decide to look and see three threads waiting for approval.

Keep us posted, Kalash.

 

[Kalash]

I am guessing Kalash is in the joint

confirm/deny?

Erm...

Deny.

Unless you posted that before the form was moderated.......
Your question should be answered.

As I posted (twice - because I wasn't sure if I'd posted here or not... I made a lot of posts in CEP during my break here...), sentencing has been pushed back... again.

I still don't have a date - but the rumor is, the prosecutor and my attorney are aiming for the beginning of December.

Everything looks good for self reporting (i.e. I'm sentenced, released, and told to report on XX day at XX time - 6-8 weeks after sentencing.)

Going with that presumption, based on what my attorney has said, what the probation pre-sentencing report said, and my communications with pre-trial, I'll be able to post how long I'm getting AFTER I find out at sentencing - begin filing the appeal motions, and keep updates until the day I report in.

Nothing in Federal Court is sudden - except for arrests.
I'm being good. I know how precarious my position is in court.
If I slip up at all, I lose credibility.

I can't slip up.

Of course, my definition of slipping up and my attorney's vary slightly...
As my attorney warned me away from a Medical Marijuana protest - at which I spoke as a supporter/member of LEAP. (More in CEP - Video, hopefully, tomorrow night...)

I've said it before, TIMING is crucial to my position - and the timing is working out in my favor so far.
All I need now, is the conclusion of the MAPS study showing MDMA has a legitimate medical purpose precluding it from its schedule I status...
And I'm good to go.

Regardless, the existence of the MAPS study cements my position.
It is LEGAL to manufacture, possess, distribute, and consume MDMA with a government issued license.
These abilities - to "control" the substance come from ownership rights...
And the government cannot deprive anyone of their property (denying one their ability to possess or use their property IS deprivation) without due process of law... Nor can they convert any right (to property) into a privilege through a licensing statute.
See Shuttlesworth V. Birmingham for more info on "Unconstitutional Licensing Statutes" and how this contention could bring down the drug laws.

The circular reasoning of the court is unpersuasive.
"Those who enacted the drug laws certainly considered the conduct
inherently wrong due to the perceived dangerousness of drugs and drug trafficking."
Drugs are now more dangerous than prior to the enactment (the law does not do what it is supposed to do) - and drug trafficking didn't exist before the laws.
Before the laws, drug "trafficking" was merely engaging in legitimate commerce.

Where did government get the authority to make the claim that "Use of a recreational drug for recreational purposes is NOT a legitimate use of that drug" - and what kind of ludicrous reasoning leads to this conclusion?


I'm still just throwing around ideas of what to say at sentencing.
If you've read the rest of this thread, this post should come off as mostly review and reiteration.
It's been a while since I put my thoughts down...
And I like how concise the argument is at this point (bold part).

 

[Kalash]

Alright - someone help with this.
Please.
From the court's ruling denying my motion...

Finally, Kalash argues that the possession with intent to distribute is not a real crime because It requires neither an actus reas or mens re and constitutions a malum prohibitum offense - i.e. it is only wrong because it is unlawful. The statute clearly identifies both and act and a mental state requirement: (the act of) possession and the specific intent to distribute. The Constitution
(FOOTNOTE)If Kalash’s concern is that he can be convicted of a crime without due process, it is misguided. Kalash is entitled to a full trial before a jury if he so chooses.(/FOOTNOTE)
requires no more. See Unites States v. Greenbaum, 138 F.2d 437, 438 (3 Cir. 1943) (no Constitutional requirement that crimes contain a mens rea element)."

Maybe my terminology was incorrect - but the court just isn't making sense here.

The argument is that there must not be a BODY (person suffering injury or loss) when one violates a regulatory statute - that the law itself is sufficient to provide "injury" as alleged by the mere act harming no one.

The court relies on U.S. v. Shunk (Illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon) to claim that laws of prohibition are legitimate - that no "Standing" be required by a plaintiff (As apparently, standing only applies to civil cases - and the court's ruling indicates that I could not be tried civilly for possessing and/or distributing drugs, as the accusation lacks this prerequisite to bring the case before a court.)

The problem with the court's ruling is that we're not talking about a right that has been lost through due process of law...
We're talking about a right that has NOT been lost through due process... That is secured to me by the Constitution and laws of the United States...
The right to possess and distribute property which I own (control my property) so long as I cause no injury or loss to anyone against their will... The sacred unalienable right to my property, regardless of a 3rd party's claim that I "shouldn't" have this property because they "perceive dangerousness" in the possession of it. That is a 3rd party claim that cannot be heard before this court - nor any court.

Absolutely, the court is correct in supporting a law prohibiting the exercise of a right that has been taken through due process.
That is not the case in this matter.


Something always seemed screwy about that part of the court's ruling.
I didn't catch it till just now.

Does my argument make sense here?

 

[Kalash]

Further in that line of thought...
The court is wrong in its accusation that the crime is "malum in se" - as per this ruling;
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/legal/l1920/united_states_v_balint_et_al.htm

Which is a really interesting read (if you're into this legal stuff...)

The offense (selling drugs without the required tax forms) is "some sort of social betterment" - not a "crime" as in malum in se acts.

Of course - that's under an old, outdated law...
But the principal stands...
Except that now, as per the court, we have prohibition - which exceeds the reach of governmental authority (not the commerce clause, but the limitations upon the commerce clause by the amendments).

As this ruling makes it abundantly clear that the restriction of drug sales is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, the court's ruling needs to be held invalid... and the majority of its reasoning becomes unstable - as the court requires the act to be malum in se in order to affect the majority of its arguments.
If the act is merely malum prohibitum, there is no "crime against the United States" - only the violation of a Congressional edict by a free man in the claim and exercise of his protected property rights.

 

[Kalash]

I just got a date...

Sentencing is re-scheduled for Dec. 15th at 3PM, Santa Ana Federal court house, room 9-D.