Banquo said:
be careful what you read in Wikipedia. it is filled with errors. moreover, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of jurisdiction, which is not a singular conept. there are different types of jurisdiction, all of which you are using interchangably. personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and legislative jurisdiction are all different concepts. your situation does involve a case or controversey, since you allegedly broke a federal statute. "federal question" may have been a misnomer -- you haven't really described every detail of your case, so it's tough to know exactly what you're talking about sometimes (like whether you are being tried in state or federal court) -- but it does not change the fact that the courts have well-established authority to prosecute felony drug offenses.
It just felt good to find out an inaccuracy in your statements.
Facts;
Federal court - U.S. District court
Charges;
Chapter 21 section 846 (Conspiracy) - one count
Chapter 21 section 841A (distribution and possession with intent to distribute)- 5 counts
Conspiracy - offense level 28 (offenses 1-5 combined weight total, plus other pills possessed by other co-defendants I never touched or saw)
Distribution count # - offense level
1 - 18
2 - 20
3 - 20
4 - 18
5 - 20
My situation does involve a CASE - not a CONTROVERSY.
"CONTROVERSY - A dispute arising between two or more persons. It differs from case, which includes all suits criminal as well as civil; whereas controversy is a civil and not a criminal proceeding.
By the Constitution of the United States the judicial power shall extend to controversies to which the United States shall be a party. Art.2, S.1. The meaning to be attached to the word controversy in the Constitution is that above given."
(source =
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c304.htm )
Therefore the applicable subject matter jurisdiction (Article III section 2, U.S. Constitution)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
All the controversy cases are civil, not criminal.
However - they have standing because the Commerce Clause gave them jurisdiction over interstate commerce - after laws claiming this status were made by congress.
Congress created laws under this clause - they are a sort of "special" jurisdiction that extend anywhere Congress wants them to extend.
Seeing as how these laws apply to ALL interstate commerce, the U.S. Federal Courts have jurisdiction over the ENTIRE WORLD when it comes to DRUG POSSESSION.
If growing pot at home for your personal use "Effects Interstate Commerce" (Gonzalez v. Reich) makes it so that the drug laws can be applied to you - imagine a country where it was being grown LEGALLY. What kind of effect does THAT have on interstate commerce?
Under this reasoning, the United States has the authority to apprehend and try citizens of that nation for violating U.S. Federal law.
Anyway...
Standing; I keep arguing that the government has no standing in my case - they were not harmed by my actions, therefore they do not have standing.
There are 3 requirements for standing;
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
Again, as there was NO HARM, there is no corpus delicti and there is no way for the government to have standing.
There is NO CRIME without HARM or INJURY - where CRIME is defined as a violation of an individual's rights.
The government has no rights for me to violate - they cannot claim standing unless I am being tried for treason.
To claim that I am committing a crime and INJURING the United States, there should be some evidence of LOSS OR INJURY that can be proven by the United States.
Without evidence of this loss or injury, there is no Corpus Delicti, and the United States has no standing in my case.
The ONLY crime against the United States is the crime of Treason.
(Drug WAR - selling drugs, adhering to their enemies? Giving the enemies Aid and Comfort?)
Other than in a case of treason, the United States DOES NOT HAVE STANDING in a criminal case.
All crime must infringe upon the rights of another individual.
There are no rights being violated here (except for mine.)
Simply expressed philosophy -
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/52/27/
Using only the Declaration of Independence and the constitution we can come to a simple conclusion (jacked from that link...)
(1) the government was established/instituted for one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(2) the courts being a part of the government have the same singular purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(3) the courts' jurisdiction has one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(4) Standing to invoke a court's jurisdiction requires the allegation a right is being violated.
Right now, I NEED to sue the government for violating my rights (under color of the law).
I need to sue them for taking away my right to liberty, property, privacy, pursuit of happiness, and contract -
BY IMPLEMENTING THE DRUG LAWS -
And trying me for violating them.
As my rights CANNOT be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, there is no way for me to have given up these rights to become subject to the drug laws.
I have standing because I WILL suffer if the drug laws hold.
My rights ARE being violated by these laws.
I have already suffered loss of liberty and privacy for OWNING PROPERTY and CONTRACTING WITH IT.
I agree with you (Banquo - since I got WAY off topic there for a minute...)
I don't believe I can get the jurisdiction of my case dismissed from the Federal Court.
I've run around those circles enough times that it just doesn't seem feasible.
However taking a civil suit against the United States for violating my rights to property, etc...
Filing a formal complaint against the arresting officer, et. al for violations of U.S. C. 18, 13; 241 and 242
Seem like the next logical and NECESSARY steps to take.
Since this is my first offense, I've never been arrested for ANYTHING before - there is no way I lost my rights of property, liberty, or contract prior to my arrest.
Since I retained these rights, I cannot be tried for exercising them.
One of the first things my lawyer told me was,
"You don't have a constitutional right to do drugs."
He was correct. I do not have that constitutional right.
The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS.
It is a NATURAL unalienable right granted by my creator.
The Declaration of Independence defines the purpose of government in this way;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The purpose of Government is to protect my rights.
They are in violation of their purpose if they begin to infringe upon my rights.
As I have violated the rights of no one else, I have not committed a crime.
I am a sovereign individual that does not find myself to be in servitude of my government - therefore the government cannot rightly violate my sovereignty by telling me what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
No man can take away the rights of another.
The drug laws do just that - they take away the right to property, pursuit of happiness, and the liberty to do with yourself as you see fit.
"Drug induced crime" is still crime - it can still be punishable under the law without the Drug Regulations.
Drugs themselves are merely property.
As long as theft is not involved, ownership of property cannot be a crime.
If owning drugs cannot be a crime, neither can their sale.
If I were to sell FAKE drugs to someone, THAT would be fraud... A crime.
If I were to misrepresent my product, that would be fraud... A crime.
Merely selling something (like your TV set in order to pay this month's rent...) is perfectly legal. It is your property and you have unlimited right to contract with your property.
To define property ownership as a crime is a direct violation of the 5th amendment.
What is the purpose of the Constitution?
To place restraints on the Government from seizing power and violation the rights of the citizens.
The Bill of Rights is NOT granting rights to the people - it is PLACING RESTRICTIONS upon the government.
If a controversy arises between the rights of an individual v. the rights of the State (governing authority), the ruling must always be in favor of the rights of the individual.
To rule otherwise is to rule/claim that the State is superior to the individual/individual's rights and sovereignty and they can control the individual's actions.
Unless we are all born as slaves of the state, we cannot be subject to their rules governing our actions - so long as our actions DO NOT infringe upon the rights of another individual.