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

Kalash said:
However - they have standing because the Commerce Clause gave them jurisdiction over interstate commerce - after laws claiming this status were made by congress.
in order to have standing, under Article III, there must be a case OR controversey. standing is essential for federal courts to have judicial jurisdiction. so-called "advisory opinions" are not allowed in federal courts.

in order for Congress to have power over a matter, it must LEGISLATE under one of the powers delineated in the Constitution -- here, it's the Commerce Clause.

These two issues are related -- but they are not the same. The Commerce clause, by itself, does not equal standing.
 
Banquo said:
in order to have standing, under Article III, there must be a case OR controversey. standing is essential for federal courts to have judicial jurisdiction. so-called "advisory opinions" are not allowed in federal courts.

in order for Congress to have power over a matter, it must LEGISLATE under one of the powers delineated in the Constitution -- here, it's the Commerce Clause.

These two issues are related -- but they are not the same. The Commerce clause, by itself, does not equal standing.


We're definately on the same page, just different paragraphs, and they're shifting in between...

The commerce clause allows Congress to create a statute that applies to EVERYWHERE - it extends their jurisdiction outside of the federal territories (the federal laws NOT based on the commerce clause cannot be enforced within the states)

I think I've been mixing up my terms...

The commerce clause gives the Federal Courts jurisdiction over the case - it's a special jurisdiction over an area generally outside of the court's control.

This is what the commerce clause does - it extends the federal laws into the states.




As for standing - you're right. It's very different.
And this is where I need to put a lot of pressure and see if I can get the 80+ year petrified precedence to crack.

Attacking the commerce clause under the Lopez ruling is goal #2.

Attacking the drug laws based on the unalienable property, liberty, and contract rights (probably the main focus...) should be goal #3.


Not goals, but side ventures to back my case would be pressing charges against the arresting officer for violating my rights Under Color of the law.

There are also conspiracy charges against the arresting officer, the prosecutor, etc... all the way up to the Drug Czar.
It's a massive conspiracy.
And I think it might just be crazy enough to actually....

Land me in prison for life.
But why not give it a shot? ;)
 
Quick update - Monday morning the Court Clerk called - hearing for me to get assistance of council is going to be Tues (Today) at 1:30.

We'll see how this pans out.

I'm jacking the letter from
http://jusbelli.com/assistance_of_counsel.html

To take with me to present as a motion for assistance of council - not a new attorney.
We'll see what happens.

Today's a small skirmish in the drug war. Hopefully I'll be getting a new General.

The biggest battles are yet to be waged, however, and tension continues to build.
 
drew345 said:
^^^^ hell yea kalash fight the power


You're crazy ;)

My attorney talked me out of changing...

The Judge told me if I ever want to get rid of my attorney, his doors are always open...


But for now - stick with my attorney, wait on the plea bargain...

And if I decide to fight, my attorney WILL be dismissed (he said he isn't willing to risk his law license to defend me the way I want to be defended - that doesn't seem right to me - Assistance of Council? They're my decisions to make, aren't they?)

In which case - the court will appoint me ONE new attorney.


If I'm not happy with my new one...

Then the judge said he'd be more than willing to let me represent myself.


Now - options;

1. Dismiss my attorney, dismiss the second one and be SURE that I state I am not waiving my rights to assistance of council?
And if the court fails to appoint assistance of council the court loses jurisdiction in my case - I get convicted, appeal that I had no assistance of council - the conviction is overturned.


The likelihood of the court agreeing to dismiss the second attorney without me waiving my right to assistance of council?
Eh...



2. Stick with my attorney, let the plea bargain come, sign it, give in, and fight from the outside (with a Felony conviction on my record... no right to vote, hold office... etc... Doesn't seem like there's much I can do from out here under those circumstances...)



3. Give up on my attorney, try to represent, and end up getting hung for treason and standing up against the illegal government.

The sad thing - #3 isn't that far fetched.
Carrying around a copy of the Constitution makes you a terrorist suspect.
A lot of my arguments are based on the Constitution.

I really need to find that Homeland Sec. pamphlet that said Constitutionalists, or those trying to invoke their constitutional rights, are terrorists...
 
The long and the short of it is, all those esoteric arguments are losers.

And even if any of them had potential merit, they're not going to get you anywhere at the District Court level. You'll be tried, convicted and sentenced, and since you won't be able to make bail while you appeal (even assuming a bail request would be granted), you'll pull a hefty chunk of your sentence behind bars while waiting for the results of your appeal.

That's the time that you can trot out all those arguments, but they'll still be shot down then too, because in essence what you're arguing is a Supreme Court-level decision (and they wouldn't find in your favor either, unless you had a strong 4th Amendment-based defense). That's just the hard reality of the matter.

I applaud your resolve, but truthfully it's not serving you well in this instance.

Imo, you need to sit down with your attorney and review the feds' evidence for each element of the offense(s) charged. Assuming the feds have enough evidence to satisfy each element and further, that you don't have decent grounds to suppress any of it, you need to be thinking long and hard about your trial prospects and whether you ought not seriously consider cutting a deal.

Because you'll end up pulling all the time you're sentenced to and even if the arguments you're making are eventually heard, they'll still be losers.

So imo, you really need to weigh how much of a martyr you wanna be for a lost cause.
 
HA!

I didn't put a date on that.
I was supposed to meet with my attorney today.

2 days ago his secretary called and pushed it back to the 11th.

I LOVE last minute things ;)

That gives us 14 days before the trial.

14 days to build a defense when I've been on bail - with this attorney - for over 5 months.

That seems fair and reasonable to me.


My arguments have been simplified.

I can sum it up in something that doesn't take 2 years to read any more ;)


1. The purpose of Government is to protect the rights of the individual - namely the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (property and contract).
2. In order to protect these rights, certain powers are granted under the Constitution for the government to create laws against those infringing upon others' rights.
3. Owning property or contracting with it - by mutual consent with another adult - is a protected right; this cannot be a crime (Corpus Delicti/Standing)
4. Prohibiting property ownership or contract rights by creating and enforcing a law that does so is a direct violation of Federal Law (U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law))

5. Statutory Jurisdiction - if I am not being tried under the Common Law (Constitutional Law) then I am being tried outside of the jurisdiction I was arrested in.
If the judge refuses to recognize my constitutional rights of property and contract and proceeds with the hearing, I appeal and press charges for (18, 13, 241) Conspiracy against rights.
For if I'm being tried for owning property, my inalienable rights MUST have been waived without my knowledge or consent.



If I have waived those rights, so has everyone else in the courtroom - and we no longer have a free society - and the court has no authority that I must recognize - as it does not recognize the Constitution as law, it does not recognize its own authority under the Constitution and is a mock court without jurisdiction.


The fundamental argument here is the Liberty and Pursuit of happiness define "property and contract" as unalienable rights.
The 5th amendment aids in this argument - as no man can be deprived of property without due process of law.

I am being tried for owning property.
I never underwent due process of law to make this property ownership illegal - therefore the law violates my unalienable/constitutional rights - and is unconstitutional and unenforceable.


Seem solid enough?
Simple enough?

I can start tossing in analogies that will take up pages if you like :)

For more on Liberty and the purpose of government...
Revolutioni.st/liberty.html

Note: the civil flag mentioned at the beginning of that - it does not have historical value (though that is heavily in debate). I need to re-do the beginning of the video.
A lot of people ARE adopting that flag, calling it the U.S. Civil flag that stands for liberty and peace as opposed to the U.S. Flag (that is rumored to be the Admiralty/War Time flag) that is not a world symbol for war.
Just to clarify before the Civil flag became a debate...

That's the mainstay of my argument.
Banquo - other mods...
Anyone?
Tear it apart.

It's coming down to the wire - if it needs refined any more, I need to do it now.
 
^^You DO understand that all of those highfalutin' arguments-if considered at all in federal District Court-would be heard in a pretrial motion to dismiss and summarily denied in oh, about 5 seconds, don't you?

The kind of refinement you need to be doing is to toss out those arguments COMPLETELY and concentrate on identifying if there are any evidentiary weaknesses in the State's case against you, as well as giving consideration to any plea negotiations.

Because I guarantee you, the judge won't hear more than 2 minutes of that high-minded business before he denies the motion and moves on to trial.

I can understand that this intellectual exercise may be somewhat soothing in the face of your charges, but you're setting yourself up for a major beatdown if you don't start facing what's really at stake soon. Federal narcotics trials aren't conducted like a high school debate club.
 
Plea deal is ~33 months (assuming my attorney is correct with the 5K1 outcome).


If he isn't... it's 46-57.

Glowbug - thanks.
I'll take that into consideration.

I have until noon tomorrow (PST) to decide on the plea or not.
 
^
do you know if that means you could still get out earlier for good behavior, overcrowding, etc., should you decide to take the plea?
 
Banquo said:
^
do you know if that means you could still get out earlier for good behavior, overcrowding, etc., should you decide to take the plea?


Realistically my attorney expects the 5K1 to reduce it a little further - somewhere around 30-36 months... but this isn't guaranteed.

Apparently there is a drug program that will reduce the time a little - another few months...


Total - somewhere between 2 1/2 years (30 ish months - with EVERYTHING) and 3 - realistically - but nothing promised under 46-57.
 
Yes, the feds have a drug program that cuts time off your sentence if you qualify.

You can't have a gun related charge or violence.

It's called the Drug and Alcohol Program or (DAP).

If your BOP DAP counselor determines that you had a drug or alcohol program, you may be eligible. The max that you can get off is 12 months early - The average time off for people when I was in was about 9 months. They must also always be on there best behavior as one wrong innicident could get you kicked out of the program.

In the federal system you also get 54 days per year of "good time" as long as you don't do anything to have it reduced. This is about 4.5 days per month of time served.

FYI
 
No gun related or violent charges.

Nothing.

First offense, no priors, nothing.



I'm a good kid.
And it sucks =P

If I have a drug problem I'm eligible?
I'll have to create one ;)


I'm still wondering about that negative averment thing...

Glow - if I'm representing myself, can't I bring up more things in court than I could if I had an attorney?

I mean... if I start to raise these questions and am stopped, can't I just say, "Your honor, I'm sorry... I thought the purpose of this court was to be impartial and allow me to present my defense. Do I not have this right?"

"So I can present my defense but you refuse to let me challenge my accuser?"

"Your honor - you are telling me that this court does not recognize my constitutionally protected rights?"


Play dumb... ask questions.
And if they start contradicting themselves, call them on it, ensure it's on the record, put the court on notice, and state your intention to appeal.

Isn't that how to go about this?

I'm having trouble just giving in when the law/constitution/supreme court rulings back my case.


Just over 12 hours to decide.

Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks to everyone that's commented so far.

PM's are acceptable too - as this is moderated and there's no guarantee your post will come through before I have to make up my mind.

Good advice and bad advice are equally welcome.
-Kalash
 
Incapable of signing it.

"No one has threatened or forced me in any way to enter into this agreement. Finally, I am satisfied with the representation of my attorney in this matter."

I was almost gonna go for the rest.

That bit was hidden on the signature page.

I need a hearing to dismiss him as inadequate council - for refusing to hear my arguments, answer my questions, and stating that he would not represent me in court - that I had to enter this plea, or represent myself.

45 minutes late (15 min before my extended deadline...)
Not signed.
Need to contact the court.
>_<
 
And...

I got ahold of the prosecutor - and got yelled at... "The rules don't allow for you to..."
STOP!
I just want to assert to you that I am NOT unwilling to plea - but that I refuse to plea without proper assistance of council - as my attorney has not satisfactorily answered my questions.
"I'll wait to hear from your attorney."
Thanks.
Click.


My attorney is getting a hold of the court to schedule another hearing for his dismissal.

It's gonna be a long war >_<
 
Wow you got balls man I just hope you dont end up getting fucked. If you are going to fight you need to start filing your pre-trial motions asap. Alot of your constitutional arguments will have to be filed pre-trial or they wont be admissable until after you lose on appeal. Im not sure how feeral court works but in my state case it took 8 months of pre-trial mptions before I lost and would have had a trial.
 
And... my attorney called back a few min ago...

The prosecutor called him, said he's trying to push back the trial date so I can get new council.
=D

>_<

By the time this is all over, someone's gonna ask the court for a Psych eval, and they'll just commit me :p
 
^
it might also be because the prosecutor is not ready for trial either.
 
Banquo said:
^
it might also be because the prosecutor is not ready for trial either.


Push for the plea, pray they all take it...

If not, freak out and reschedule?

Interesting thought...
I like it.






"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon." - George Washington

"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln
 
Top