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

Status
Not open for further replies.
and it's as cut and dry as that? Positive mentioning of drug use, regardless of anything, is no good?
 
^Yes, its against their guidelines, and any showing of such activity or discussion is normally only permitted after 9pm, and must be accompanied by parental advisory disclaimers between commercial breaks and be rated TV-MA, etc. Since the local newscasts are typically not rated, they can get away with a bit, usually with only their reporters/anchors briefly warning viewers, etc.and plus it is the news after all, first amendment strongly applies, but they also might not want to show a story about someone trying to beat the government laws on drugs since their typical drug stories are about big busts and such, but maybe in some freer-thinking areas they might, like IDK, parts of Oregon maybe...
 
Bearing in mind that portraying drug use in a positive light is against FCC regulations
Click to expand...
News stories and political speech about drugs cannot be censored based on pro or con viewpoint. In the recent "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court majority even went so far to say that pro-drug political speech in public schools is protected under the First Amendment. (However, the student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner in this case was not considered political speech, thus not protected by the First Amendment.)

Drug use portrayed in entertatinment programming is another matter.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify so people aren't misunderstanding my suggestion... In no way do you need the local media to put a positive spin on your story. All you need is coverage. Based on how you present the story to them, they can certainly tell the public how *you* view things (without endorsing your view).

Presumably in the process of getting coverage there would be those who come out against your stance, and those who come out to agree. If you're lucky, one or more of the ones who agree will have some kind of credibility.

This is one of those situations where I would argue there's no such thing as bad publicity. If you get any kind of attention by the media you've accomplished your goal of bringing the issue into the public eye. It's then up to the public to decide whether to support you and how.
 
[B said:
Kalash[/B], from page 10]Lawyerdude wants to go at it from a, "Federal police powers are not granted in the Constitution."
Click to expand...

You should have gone this route.

The problem with your arguments not being sound isn't that they're so totally unsound as to be laughable, but by their apparent strength. You're quite obviously biased, which isn't surprising, but you're not giving enough energy into the consideration of the merits of their statements. If you would, you'd realize that their claims aren't weak either. They did have weak arguments, or at least arguments they didn't want to be raised upon appeal (ie: interstate commerce, no one wants that argument before an appeals court, though looking recent medijuana US SC rulings, seems to grant them unwaivering power in this respect), so they dropped them early. They're refining their arguments the same way you are, but every time they seem to be a step ahead of you.

I would have taken lawyerdudes advice if I were you. Argue it from the lack of federal police powers as granted by the constitution. I'd be willing to bet that the prosecution wouldn't want that argument made before an appeals court if they could avoid it (especially if you had a good attorney, I'm not so sure one with limitless time will be good enough).
 
Ham-milton said:
You should have gone this route.

The problem with your arguments not being sound isn't that they're so totally unsound as to be laughable, but by their apparent strength. You're quite obviously biased, which isn't surprising, but you're not giving enough energy into the consideration of the merits of their statements. If you would, you'd realize that their claims aren't weak either. They did have weak arguments, or at least arguments they didn't want to be raised upon appeal (ie: interstate commerce, no one wants that argument before an appeals court, though looking recent medijuana US SC rulings, seems to grant them unwaivering power in this respect), so they dropped them early. They're refining their arguments the same way you are, but every time they seem to be a step ahead of you.

I would have taken lawyerdudes advice if I were you. Argue it from the lack of federal police powers as granted by the constitution. I'd be willing to bet that the prosecution wouldn't want that argument made before an appeals court if they could avoid it (especially if you had a good attorney, I'm not so sure one with limitless time will be good enough).
Click to expand...


Biased...
Here's a quick stipulation of facts for you...
The government contends that I was exercising my fundamental rights of property ownership without permission.
The government claims my rights have been "controlled" and "regulated" and "licensed" through the CSA.
The court refuses to recognize my fundamental property rights, by its own admission...
Ruling in favor of the reckless and unlimited exercise of Congress's limited and privileged powers - derived from the rights of the people, without citing from what right these powers are derived, without regard for the rights of the people at all, and without showing that any due process of law has taken place.


Rights cannot be licensed back to the people - and any statute claiming to do so is unconstitutional and I can exercise said rights with impunity. (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham).

The claim that Congress may take a man's property without his consent, for his own good, to eliminate any risks associated with the ownership of that property, under threat of violent force or the use of violent force, without due process of law, is clearly prohibited by both the Constitution and federal statute (Title 18 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242). This is a terrorist threat against the people to dissuade them from engaging in the exercise of their fundamental rights - to control them through threat of/use of violent force.
Click to expand...

The court contends that the possession of drugs is malum in se. This is ludicrous. If drugs were not malum prohibitum, there would not be exceptions for religious use.
Drug laws are mere moral legislation - this is also prohibited under the Constitution.

What the government claims, is that the inherent "perceived dangerousness" associated with drug use and distribution grants the government the authority to prohibit the possession and distribution of drugs.

This, with complete disregard to the liberty (right to choose what risks one is willing to take for a perceived benefit) of the people, the property rights (inherent ownership rights - to use, possess, and distribute one's property) of the people, and the safety (as the creation of the black market increases the ACTUAL dangerousness of use, possession, and distribution of drugs) of the people.

All without any lawful authority. (No power of government may overtake the rights of any individual; Congress may not permit any agent of Government to BREAK laws in order to punish violations of other laws. Again, see title 18 chapter 13 sections 241 and 242 - property ownership = possession and distribution RIGHTS)

The government claims to PROTECT the general health and welfare from something that is inherently evil - and the government is permitted to use data from 20 years ago, based upon inconclusive studies stating that more research need be done, that has been debunked and disproved scientifically in the last 20 years. (This alleged "perceived" harm is irrelevant anyway as drug use does not IN ALL CASES lead to the violation of another's rights. One may harm himself without any regard, so long as he harms no one else in his attempts upon his own health and welfare.)

The government may mandate that a "risk" associated with something is too great for anyone to take - for any perceived benefit.
They may make statistics validating such a prohibition, and these statistics, though they be repealed for invalidity, fraud, or simply for being contrary to reality - these statistics may be used by the government to legitimize any criminal conduct (deprivation of rights of the people without due process) and not be brought into question.


The government contends that a "distinct and palpable loss or harm" must only be proved in civil cases; that in criminal cases, no "crime" must take place - only the violation of Congressional mandate (i.e. law).
This means a "RIGHT" of congress to be obeyed without question has been created by statute - without regard for the rights of the people, has created false "standing" by statute rather than standing by victimization...
The United States, as a party, must still prove standing - not through statute alone, but by actual loss or harm being suffered. Without such loss or harm, no crime against the United States exists, no federal prosecutor has standing to raise claim that such a crime has taken place.
The courts have jurisdiction over all violations of laws of the United States, but mere statutory violations do not provide for a "crime against the United States." This means the prosecutor does not have standing - as no crime against the United States has taken place. Congress has no right to be obeyed - violating this false right is not a crime.



So...
Congress must be obeyed without question.
Congress/the Govt. may make up statistics and use them to validate the creation of laws - and regardless of scientific input, these statistics, even should they prove to be completely invalid, cannot be refuted in order to challenge the laws created utilizing such statistics as validation for the laws in the first place. (The government makes up "facts," uses them to deprive the citizenry of their rights, and can use these made up "facts" as irrefutable evidence in any case being tried.)
The government will not recognize RIGHTS of the people that stand in its way to pursue what the government - through its made up statistics - deems a "legitimate interest" with complete disregard for the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional restraints upon it.

And we continue to claim we live in a free society...

I don't think that's biased.
That's what they're doing.


They can slap whatever labels they want upon my property. It does not change the nature of my ownership of the property.
It does not affect my rights of ownership; possession, use, and distribution.


Unless my possession, use, or distribution infringes upon the rights of another against their will, no crime has taken place - only the free exercise of my fundamental property rights.
No "regulation" may prohibit the exercise of one's fundamental rights, nor require them to attain a license from the government prior to the exercise of such a right.
The contrary claim of the government means that my rights are not fundamental nor unalienable, but are mere privileges granted at the whims of Government - a government that is all powerful, unquestionable, and rules supreme over its citizens without regard for their lives, property, liberty, nor ability to pursue happiness.

Police powers of the Fed. Government? Irrelevant. It's another arguing point I may raise in my next motion (because I'm dead set on filing another one. This battle is far from over.) - but I don't see it as being the winning argument I'm looking for.

The facts are simple.
I possessed and distributed my private property.
The government claims I had no "right" to possess nor distribute property which I owned.
Powers of Government are derived from the rights of the people - and no right not possessed by the people may be granted as a power of government.

The government claims that such a right exists - logical extreme...
I decide that watching T.V. is bad for you. I call the cable company, find out you are a willing paying cable subscriber.
I burst into your home with guns, take your TV, rip out the cables from your walls, and take you, then lock you into my basement until I feel you have satisfactorily been punished for your transgression from what I believe to be acceptable behavior (that does not violate my rights in any way.)

If I were to do this, it would clearly be criminal. Yet the government claims its own actions, of even greater use of violent force, is a legitimate pursuit/function of government in the "protection" of the "rights" of the people.

This right clearly does not exist. Therefore the government clearly cannot have derived such a power from the rights of the people.
The rest of the arguments are more or less moot.
Watching one's T.V. in the privacy of one's own home does not violate the rights of anyone.
Taking one's drugs in the privacy of one's own home does not violate the rights of anyone.

No party may claim standing to bring charges against anyone committing either act. No crime has taken place.
No third party can deprive the person committing the act of their enjoyment of the free exercise of their rights to use their property as they wish.
To do so is to infringe directly upon their liberty.
To take their property - as that is allegedly "wrong" - is to commit theft.
To punish them for innocuously exercising their fundamental rights is, again, criminal.

The nature of the property is irrelevant - so long as its nature does not bring immediate and direct danger to the health and well being of those in its immediate area. (as the Court claims my argument would lead to - the possession of nuclear weapons or chemical waste without proper storage. This claim is unrelated - as the mere presence of these items causes a distinct and palpable injury to those in the immediate area. There is a CRIME taking place - not the possession of the item, but the actual infringement upon the rights of others.)

Drugs - mere objects... property - pose no such threat - and without the black market created by the unconstitutional laws - no threat of violence would follow in the wake of drug use or distribution.





Poke holes.
This is what I intend to say to the court.
Find the flaws that I may fix them.
Please.
Thanks ;)
 
I actually really like and respect where your arguments have evolved to Kalash. At first I gave you a hard time and thought your fight was hopeless and you were barking up the wrong tree so to speak. But I can respect the position you've come to and how you are approaching the argument.

I completely agree with the argument you're making and I think MOST people do fundamentally - even most people in law enforcement and the judiciary I bet. You've basically put into words and legal/constitutional context what most people think but don't find the words to say right.

Good luck man.
 
They gave black men Syphilis. **** them, their courts are meaningless. Amerika is one "terrorist attack" away from finally having that King George after all.
 
Johnny1 said:
^ The courts are meaningful enough to send him to prison.
Click to expand...

Kangaroo courts and bad doctrine....
Where the facts are as ordered, and the truth doesn't prevail?

There can't be a fair and meaningful hearing when the facts are rigged, cannot be questioned, and have been proved false by science.

The courts are meaningless - it's just a sham to make things appear legitimate.
There is no substance to their proceedings - it's all a show to keep the masses believing the lie that they are free.
 
I've been up writing.

And it's too long to post here.

It's a rough draft of the motion I plan on turning in.
It's more flushed out than what I posted above.

I'm still looking for flaws in the logic/legal arguments.

I'm pushing the rights v. governmental powers thing to an extreme.
The court's arguments ignore the facts in favor of misleading labels and emotionally stirring examples that do not pertain to the case at hand.

And....
I'm not afraid to point that out.

Anyway...
It needs some work. I'm tired... And didn't proof read.

I'll look at it tomorrow.
I just don't trust this computer - I just got rid of the stupid Virtumonde virus after re-installing windows..... twice.

So...
It's uploaded as a preliminary draft.

http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/9010.html
 
I'm being stonewalled by my attorney - who will not schedule a hearing to relieve himself as counsel to allow me to file this as a motion.

He is telling me that my arguments - already raised - can be retained for appeal if I take a conditional plea.

If I take a conditional plea, that's it. The appeal won't get anywhere, as the judge has already ruled on my motion and the higher court will accept his ruling and not even read my arguments.

I need to get this filed - and can't.
Pretty soon I'm going to run out of "timely manners" to file under.

Suggestions on how to force this issue?

My attorney keeps saying to wait for a conditional plea - knowing how the prosecution has worked in the past, this conditional plea will not be presented until the week before (maybe 2 weeks before) trial.

I can't wait that long.
>_<
 
You mention in that latest document that possession of child pornography cannot be a crime, but that it is different from drugs in that it is evidence of a crime. Why isn't possession of drugs evidence of the crimes of either purchasing drugs, manufacturing drugs, trafficking drugs, etc.?
 
The answer to that question is pretty obvious taken in the context of the rest of Kalash's arguments (which I agree with wholly). The things you've listed, drug trafficking, purchasing, manufacturing, etc, cannot be crimes, because they are simply attributes of one's right to possess something. All of those things are inherent rights that are assumed to go along with possession, which can not be a crime in itself.

If you own something, of course you can give it to someone else (trafficking), or course you can sell it (purchasing), and of course you can make something else out of it (manufacturing). Child pornography (except for drawings) can be criminal because it is evidence of an illegal action, which is the prior exploitation of a child.
 
jimborg said:
You mention in that latest document that possession of child pornography cannot be a crime, but that it is different from drugs in that it is evidence of a crime. Why isn't possession of drugs evidence of the crimes of either purchasing drugs, manufacturing drugs, trafficking drugs, etc.?
Click to expand...

Because purchasing, manufacturing, trafficking (consensual contract with) drugs isn't criminal.

It is unlawful.
The law is what I'm questioning - because it defines no crime (demurrer).

The law doesn't define a "crime" - violation of someone's rights.
Child porn shows a child (who cannot consent to a sexual act) being submitted to infringement upon the child's rights (body) - a crime.

Even if the child porn is a home recording of statutory rape (i.e. consensual), it is evidence of a crime - as, somehow, anyone under 18 cannot consent to have sex.

Is this prohibition (on sex) a legitimate exercise of congressional power? Eh. That's debatable...
I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, but I know I'm not capable of drawing that line.

With drugs, there is no line to draw - as one is not acting in concert with another person.
No consent must be obtained prior to consuming drugs...
Only in giving drugs to someone else.

If you drug someone without their consent, that is assault. Drugging a child - who is incapable of consenting - statutory assault?


However those allegations do not exist in this case - only consensual contracts with another party of legal age.



The possession of drugs is not evidence of CRIME - unless the drugs are stolen or taken through extortion.
The drugs have no rights to violate - nor do they show that someone's rights have been violated (as in child porn).
There mere existence is not criminal - as many drugs are natural anyway, and it cannot be criminal to have a weed growing in your back yard, with or without your knowledge or consent.

It cannot be criminal to harvest the weed in your back yard - as it is your property.
It cannot be criminal to sell the weed from your back yard - as it is your property.

You just produced (via your property/the ground) a plant - a drug - without assistance from any 3rd party... without using another's resources.
As such - the fruit of your labor (the weed) is your property - yours alone.
You retain all rights to it (possession/distribution/use) and have all rights to control that property.

Turing you property into a joint does not put your ownership into question - it remains your property...
With all rights of possession/distribution/use.

Giving the joint to your friend isn't a CRIME - their possession isn't a CRIME - as ownership - and all rights associated with ownership - have passed to your friend.
For your friend to sell this joint that you gave him - for a profit - is not a crime, as he has ownership rights to possess and sell the joint.

For the state to come and take the joint through use of/threat of force - is armed robbery. To take you or your friend hostage is kidnapping under color of law (Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241/242 of the U.S. Code).
They have no RIGHT to the property.
No one other than the OWNER has a RIGHT to the property.

As the owner has not relinquished this RIGHT, the government cannot take their property without due process.
Acts of Congress are not due process - nor can they be legitimate acts if they deprive one person of their property rights because everyone else wants their property rights to disappear.

This is organized criminal behavior to deprive the people of their rights to further the power and control of the state.
That is not a legitimate interest of the state.

The state claims to protect no one's rights through the CSA - they claim to Control and Regulate interstate commerce.
Congress's right to regulate commerce must concede to the rights of the people.

Prohibition is beyond the lawful scope of Constitutional authority - as it deprives the people of their property rights in pursuit of a



THAT is why drug possession is not evidence of a crime - there is no crime evidenced by the existence of drugs.
Unlawful acts are not necessarily criminal. This is where the CSA becomes dismantled - as it prohibits the exercise of one's rights regardless of criminality.
As such it cannot be valid law.
 
Prohibition is beyond the lawful scope of Constitutional authority - as it deprives the people of their property rights in pursuit of a
Click to expand...

Whoops.
Pursuit of a "legitimate governmental interest."
While regulating Commercie is a power of Congress, that power is held in check by the rights of the people - no governmental interest can be used by Congress to deprive people of their rights... Especially when that interest is incompatible with the interest written in the Constitution itself (to secure the rights of the people).

(Feel free to edit the other post instead of adding this one...)
 
While regulating Commercie is a power of Congress, that power is held in check by the rights of the people - no governmental interest can be used by Congress to deprive people of their rights... Especially when that interest is incompatible with the interest written in the Constitution itself (to secure the rights of the people).
Click to expand...

By that reasoning, Congress cannot regulate commerce, as any regulation would be depriving the people of their 'rights.'

This seems to be the crux of your argument, but it's quite obviously deficient. The constitution obviously allows congress to regulate interstate commerce, and obviously those regulations do impose on the rights of the people, so it follows that the founders understood this and allowed for these fairly minor interferences with rights.

Prohibiting the sale of drugs (which is what you were charged with, no?) is simply a restriction of commerce, and following the recent supreme court case, just about anything is interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to federal restriction.

We all know it's a horrible ruling, but as it is, it is precedent and will be followed.

And you're stuck.
 
Isn't there a difference between a regulation of an item's commerce, and a strict prohibition of an item's commerce?
 
Ham-milton said:
By that reasoning, Congress cannot regulate commerce, as any regulation would be depriving the people of their 'rights.'

This seems to be the crux of your argument, but it's quite obviously deficient. The constitution obviously allows congress to regulate interstate commerce, and obviously those regulations do impose on the rights of the people, so it follows that the founders understood this and allowed for these fairly minor interferences with rights.

Prohibiting the sale of drugs (which is what you were charged with, no?) is simply a restriction of commerce, and following the recent supreme court case, just about anything is interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to federal restriction.

We all know it's a horrible ruling, but as it is, it is precedent and will be followed.

And you're stuck.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between regulation and prohibition.
Prohibition is de-regulation; we don't want to know about it, don't tax it, and don't tell us about it.

It's a lot like the don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue policy in the military.
You can't be asked directly (your admission of guilt isn't sufficient for indictment, there has to be some proof), you can't tell (or you get arrested), you can report harassment without too much fear of being arrested (though you could be, just like in the military...), and you can't pursue dealing drugs or you'll be taken in if they find out.

The difference here, is that you, as a member of the military, are under contract with the government to behave in a certain way. You waive certain rights in order to attain the privileged status of "Member of the U.S. Armed Forces"

Any violation of that contract can be grounds for punishment.
No civilian has any such contract with the government - therefore the average citizen cannot be controlled as if they were mere property of the state.

Congress can only regulate interstate commerce within the confines of their Constitutional grants of authority.

...

Let's do it this way...
Regulation - A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority's control.
Click to expand...

So now...
We have to ask...
Are we, the people, subject to Congressional control?
Bearing in mind that property ownership gives full rights to control an item, can Congress take away our control of our own private property and criminalize it?

You (and the court)- relying on the scope rulings of the interstate commerce clause does not validate the actual creation nor substance of the CSA.

The court's reliance on Gonzales v. Raich as validation for the CSA is wholly in error - as it did not validate the CSA, only the scope of the interstate commerce clause to non-economic activity.
Gonzales v. Raich - majority opinion;
Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. Brief for Respondents 22, 38. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents’ challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA’s categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

As the Supreme Court only rules on what challenges come before it - and the challenge was not that the CSA violates the rights of the people - only that private conduct is beyond the scope of interstate commerce - the court did not legitimatize the CSA at all in its ruling.




So...
Hear me out one more time.

Congress can regulate commerce all it wants... To whatever scope the judiciary deems acceptable...
So long as Congress does not alienate the people of any of their rights, to include their right to property, protected under the 5th amendment.

The CSA deprives people of their rights of control over their personal private property acquired honestly.
“That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Click to expand...

For Congress to take that right away through legislation is NOT due process.
It is within Congress's authority listed in the Constitution, but is beyond Congress's ability to exercise that authority because of the limitation on the Federal Government by the amendments.

"If there be any conflict between these two (ability to make laws, and the Rights of the People) provisions, the one found in the Amendments must control, under the well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earlier one." Schick vs United States
[(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826
Click to expand...




Unlike the respondents in Raich, I do challenge the Constitutionality of the CSA entirely - as it prohibits the exercise of one's property rights without first attaining special permission (license) from the government.

This is an Unconstitutional licensing statute - where the government usurps the rights of the people and turns them into mere privileges to be granted or suspended at will.

These statutes can be ignored with impunity (complete disregard for the statute without fear of punishment.)

“And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an Unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license. "The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its Constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands." Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103, 104 . [394 U.S. 147, 152]” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1969) 22 L Ed 2d 162, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S Ct 935
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top