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

[Kalash]

Hey...

We're all a little loopy.

I'm not relying on him.
That would be foolish. I am petitioning him for assistance in the defense of my rights.



Yes, he's disbarred.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
He explains why - and it wasn't (in my opinion) anything he did wrong.

He's also sued the bar 3 times and won 3 times.
He may not be all there, but his record is pretty solid.


The thing is, he's saying what I've been thinking since I got the first month of studying these laws out of the way.

He believes what he's saying (about the divining rods too )

And he's fought similar battles before.



Honestly, the guys a total prick.
I wouldn't associate with him personally if you paid me to do it.

But he has an outline of exactly what to do, how to do it, and how to do it YOURSELF.

His services are "assistance of council."

He won't represent me.
And that's a good thing.

He'll make the motions I want - because what I WANT are the motions he proposes that I file.
That my current attorney has refused to file.

My attorney stated that he has an obligation to the prosecution and to the court that prevents him from filing these motions.

Well... he's obviously not working in my best interest then...











So...
Sure - I'm following in the footsteps of a crackpot.
But said crackpot was arrested for LSD and got off.

He's a little bit of an extremist.
But he's a peaceful extremist.

He has some crazy ideas...
But don't we all?










As for trial dates, etc...
I have a hearing on the 22nd to get rid of my attorney (again. Hearing #3).

This is the first one my attorney has requested.

The trial date, for now, is set for Nov. 12th.
That won't happen - as I intend to file at least one of these motions on/before Nov. 22nd.

As he says, pace the court.
4 weeks per motion.

I'm not going to trial any time soon.

I also want to file a motion for suppression of evidence...
Covering... EVERYTHING.

Effectively nullifying the Warrant - and making any/all evidence obtained because of the warrant invalid as well.

The only evidence they have against us they obtained by monitoring the informant "though his consent"
Well...
His consent was unlawfully obtained - he was under duress.
They threatened him with violence (imprisonment) if he failed to perform certain actions/commit certain crimes.

His consent was illegally obtained.
The observations were illegally done.
The deals were illegally set up, illegally carried out...
The phone calls were illegally monitored.
The warrant was attained with illegally obtained evidence - the warrant was invalid.

The arrests were illegal - as was any information attained during questioning after the arrests...



It's only a matter of getting this stuff on paper as a motion...
Sending it to the prosecutor, sending it to the court...
And it's filed.

And the court rules state that I get to pick a date (any Monday at 1:30) and do not have to clear this with the clerk prior to filing the motion.

So if I schedule the first hearing 4 weeks out - I'm already passed the scheduled Court date.
If I file more motions - and I intend to - they committed more wrongs that need addressed - then we'll be out to Jan. at least - before I begin to feel any kind of pressure.

If a traffic ticket in state court can be drug out for a year - I'm pretty sure I can drag out a felony offense in federal court over a year without a struggle.

Hold out until Ron Paul gets elected - the drug laws go away - and I'm pardoned or the charges are dismissed.

(See? I have my own crazy ideas/fantasy worlds )

That's pretty much the game plan.
Someone ready to flip the coin? (Or are we past that already?)

 

[Kalash]

Watkins v. Resorts International Hotel & Casino

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.

Very right.

I'm catching on.
Just because something is legislated as "illegal" goes not give the state standing to enforce the law - there still has to be a violation of someone's rights.

I'm getting there.
The pieces are coming together.

I was going back looking for when I first requested a new attorney and re-read your post.
There's a big difference between the way I see things now and the way I saw them then.

The government's acts are still illegal - they have no standing - the court has no jurisdiction because there is no case or controversy (no controversy - as it is criminal, no case as there is no party with standing).

It's starting to come together.



And...
Yesterday morning I got a new attorney!


So things are finally starting to work in my favor. More or less.
The judge stated that he's willing to violate Federal Court Rule 11 - and request that the government re-issue the 5K1.

>_<

I'm still not planning on pleading.

For a rundown of where I am, what I want, and where I'm headed (I just sent this to my new attorney telling him it's what I wanted to do - with or without him...)
http://revolutioni.st/mike/decoffacts.html

The conversion to HTML didn't do it any favors, but it gets the point across.
The bulletin points are just that - points.
The case law inside the point lends credence to the point.

There's always more, but that's the bulwark of my current defense.

Here's the opening of the email I just sent to my new attorney;




Before we meet, I want to make my position clear to you.

The attached file is where I stand, and what I want.
If we can do it through motions, great.

If you want me to work on them, then review them and submit them, that's fine. This is my case, and I understand that no-one will care about it nearly as much as I do. I'm willing to put forth some time and effort into ensuring that I get the outcome I expect to be just, fair, and acceptable to myself and the court.
An acceptable outcome for me is either dismissal through demurrer (which you don't see as applicable - motion to quash is fine. I don't honestly care what it's called - demurrer is descriptive of my intent.), dismissal for lack of a plaintiff, lack of corpus delicti, lack of standing, and lack of jurisdiction due to the previous deficiencies.

Failing all that, interlocutory appeals that the laws are unconstitutional - explained with case law (briefly - there's more >_<) in the attached file.




The rest is just explaining why I got rid of my old attorney (he continually lied to me - that's reason enough...) and the short facts of the case - # of pills, who the co-defendants are, etc...

The attached file is a word doc with the contents of that link.
It's a declaration of fact - the beginnings of a motion.

One thing at a time...
Get an attorney to recognize that the government is committing the crimes...
Then proceed to argue and challenge the unconstitutional authority that has been seized by our government while we lay silent.

As my world lay broken and failing, I grasp hold of a promise centuries old - that things will be ok, that my rights will be respected, and I will be free to live as I choose.
I won't let the government break that promise.

Sorry for the lack of updates, but I was getting paperwork together to start filing motions on m own.
Hopefully that won't have to happen now, but I'm prepared just in case it does.

Later,
Kalash


Case law of the day;
“Standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal.” Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 591 A.2d 592, 601 (N.J. 1991).

Interpretation - "Just because an act is illegal/unlawful/violates a statue does not mean that the act is criminal. A third party must be injured or suffer loss because of the act. Mere criminality is NOT standing, nor a replacement for it."

 

[Kalash]

In the rush to speak the words inside my head I often confuse one thing for another, and my point ends up getting lost.

*CORRECTION*

Case law of the day;
“Standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal.” Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 591 A.2d 592, 601 (N.J. 1991).

Interpretation - "Just because an act is illegal/unlawful/violates a statute does not mean that the act is criminal. A third party must be injured or suffer loss because of the act. Mere ILLEGALITY does NOT establish standing, nor is it a replacement for it."



And that was somewhat of an apology to Banquo.
I was emotional and blinded at the time.
I see the error of my ways.
I'm sorry.

And thank you for trying to show me the picture the light was shining upon - not just the light itself.


- Peace -

 

[ValeTudo]

Kalash, with all due respect, have you ever actually considered getting a real attorney? you've posted for months on end about the shortcomings of your current lawyer; perhaps its time to spend some money on a real one. (you'll need it, having admitted your guilt to anyone and everyone who will listen)

 

[Kalash]

Kalash, with all due respect, have you ever actually considered getting a real attorney? you've posted for months on end about the shortcomings of your current lawyer; perhaps its time to spend some money on a real one. (you'll need it, having admitted your guilt to anyone and everyone who will listen)

You kinda don't get where I'm coming from...
Cash wise, a real attorney isn't a viable option - $50K for a retainer, $100K+ to go to trial. (Federal Court is in a different league than state or county...)

I'm $70K in debt, with lousy credit.
A real attorney isn't going to happen.


I did get a new court appointed attorney.
So far I'm 100% happier with him than I was with my old one.



But guilt or innocence is irrelevant...

There is no CRIME charged against me - just charges of an unlawful act.

There is no allegation of a crime...
There is no plaintiff with standing (only "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" - a corporate entity with no "rights" to be infringed upon. No rights, no infringement upon these rights, no corpus delicti, no crime...)

Even if all the allegations are TRUE and CORRECT, there are no CRIMES listed in the charges against me.


A crime requires a party that has suffered an injury or loss due to someone else's unlawful conduct..

There was no injured party.
There is no party with standing.
There is no crime.

The last post - the case law quote - "Mere illegality does not create standing."

The FBI agent that wrote the affidavit - the "complaint" against me does not allege than anyone's rights were violated - just that I had possessed and/or distributed MDMA.

Mere illegality does not create standing.

If you walk down the street with a bag of weed in your pocket...
Have you committed a crime?

Really?

Who's rights did you infringe upon?

If you did not infringe upon the rights of anyone...
And you are ARRESTED, have your property STOLEN from you, and are then IMPRISONED and/or ENSLAVED by the state...

Simply for exercising your RIGHT to possess private property - an unalienable RIGHT that is superior to all acts of government...

Aren't they infringing upon YOUR rights?
Isn't that a crime?



This whole, "You had drugs, you're guilty. Suck it up." attitude BLOWS.
Seriously.
If you DO NOT think that you SHOULD BE ABLE to use drugs - and USE drugs anyway, you're a hypocrite.

If you were arrested for having drugs, would you just suck it up - knowing that you committed no crime? That you, as a FREE sovereign individual, who is not answerable to ANYONE unless you violate their rights...
Are being persecuted for having different moral beliefs than your government?


Does the 1st amendment mean nothing?
Do the 18th and 21st amendments mean nothing?

Are we a free nation or not?


The whole, "You have to be guilty or innocent!" thing - you're assuming that the drug laws are constitutionally valid. That's the mainstay of my challenge - the allegations do not matter - true or not, I lay claim to innocence based upon the lack of a victim; lack of corpus delicti; lack of a CRIME.

I don't intend to argue my innocence - I do not intend to purger myself by attempting to disclaim actions I have taken, if I have, indeed, taken them.


There can be NO GUILT NOR INNOCENCE if there is no crime; no valid charges; no standing of the plaintiff; no case; no jurisdiction...

And all of those things are missing in this case.


If there is no case or controversy there is no jurisdiction over the proceedings.
If there is no plaintiff - with EVIDENCE of an ACTUAL injury or loss due to the alleged acts - there is no corpus delicti; no Standing (ability to bring charges against someone), and no crime.
If there is no crime, the charges are frivolous and invalid.

The only thing I need to be innocent of is infringing upon the RIGHTS of someone else.


Consensual private acts cannot be criminal acts - Lawrence v. Texas (paraphrased)
Rights are superior to governmental privilege - The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Shick v US
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights], the Amendments must control." Schick vs U.S. 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826

What amendments control?
18 and 21 seem fairly pertinent to me.
As do the 4th, 5th, 1st, 9th....

I could probably go on.


There is a crime being committed here - it's been an ongoing crime for over 40 years - "Conspiracy against Rights" - and nearly all of the Federal Government is involved.

When the possession of private property becomes a crime, you no longer have a RIGHT to own property - you have a PRIVILEGE of owning property.

What do you know about privileges?
They can be taken away.

So what would you rather have? A right, or a privilege?

As an American citizen, you have RIGHTS - not privileges.
The government has privileges.
And if the government uses their PRIVILEGES to deprive you of your RIGHTS, the government is acting illegally/unconstitutionally, and is committing TREASON against the RULERS of this nation - the sovereign citizens.


There are no facts about the case to argue.
The allegations are that we dealt with an FBI informant - on a consensual basis for over 4 months.
There is not a single allegation that ANYONE at ANY TIME infringed upon anyone else's rights.

The initiation of force or fraud to deprive someone of their RIGHTS is a federal crime - Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241 and or 242 - as well as a civil remedy in Title 42 section 1983...

But this is how ALL crime originates.


Someone infringes upon the RIGHTS of another when they falsely represent a product they are selling - this is THEFT through fraud/deception.
This is a crime.
Someone infringes upon the RIGHTS of another when they threaten them with violence if they fail to comply with the demands of the person making the threat.
This is a crime.

BOTH of these things were done by the government - according to the allegations, listed in the affidavit of the FBI agent - the "complaint" - and I don't have to prove or disprove anything. They handed me 120 pages of "facts" stating that the Federal Government has been conspiring to deprive me of my rights - using force and fraud to ensure that I do not exercise these RIGHTS.
It's all in there. If the "complaint" is enough to indict me, it's surly enough to indict the arresting officer (ironically, the person making the complaint - willfully and in the full knowledge that he was doing so - thereby waiving his rights of self incrimination...)

No government officer/official is above the law.
They cannot commit a crime to prosecute a crime.

Falsely representing yourself as a customer; fraud.
Falsely representing your intentions with the product; fraud.
Arresting someone without a criminal complaint against them - initiation of force.

The government committed crimes listed plainly in the "complaint" - they're outlined in detail.

Not to mention the entire Racketeering scheme set up by the government...

Racketeering - where you PAY someone to protect you, whether you want to pay them or not...


The purpose of the government is to protect the RIGHTS of the citizens.

The have imposed a TAX upon the people that if you refuse to pay, you lose their protection - THEY have their cops (henchmen) come and make trouble for you - you lost your protection, and you'll suffer.

That is racketeering.

It gets worse...
You're paying for protection from YOUR OWN ACTS.

You cannot choose what risks you want to take.

Unless this is COMMUNISM - and the government OWNS YOU - you are their PROPERTY - there is NO WAY the government can step in and protect you from yourself.
In communism, the people are OWNED by the government - they have a vested interest in your health and well being.

We're supposed to be free.
No one can lay a higher claim to our life or well being than ourselves.

If we do so, this is SLAVERY, and it is a crime.




I have not infringed upon the rights of another.
I have not committed a crime.

Period.

And the burden of proof lays upon the prosecution.

Possession of private property is a RIGHT.
If they can take that away from me, what else can they take?

If the only charges against me are for exercising my RIGHTS of property ownership and contract, the charges are unconstitutional and invalid.

I don't need to change the alleged facts to prove my innocence.
I don't need to prove my innocence at all.
There are no credible charges to plea to - guilty or innocent.

There is no case to defend against.
Commission of the alleged acts is not commission of a crime.

Demurrer - "So what if I did those things? Even assuming all your allegations are 100% true, I still have not committed a crime."
I want to file one. My new attorney said that I cannot (in Federal court - you still can in State).

So we wait and see.

Best case scenario - motion to dismiss.
It's the only way to file a demurrer in Federal Court.

He's going over what I gave to him today - and the email.
We'll see what he says soon.

 

[Kalash]

Alright...
My new attorney doesn't want to do anything.

I'm not surprised.

He told me flat out that there is a plaintiff in my case, and they do not need standing.

He also said that he object ethically to my arguments and will not raise them.

And that we'll talk once he gets the revised plea agreement.


I haven't heard from him in 2 weeks.
I'm working on the motions myself.
Starting now.

I don't think I'll be able to get the money to have Lawyerdude write them.
And I'm not impressed with his attitude overall anyway...
He might be good at what he does, but he's fairly cruel to everyone.

Anyway...
Still plodding away for justice.
I'm still hanging in here.
Figured it was about time for an update.

 

[Kalash]

And still... nothing.

After being promised the revised plea at the beginning of last week - or the end of the week before that.

I think it's time to start filing motions.


http://revolutioni.st/audio/ffrmike.wma

In the mean time...
I had about a 7 minute interview/rand on Freedom Fighter Radio during the Santa Monica Tea Party for Ron Paul on Dec. 16th.
That link is to my 7 minute segment.

I need to re-write my motion, probably split it into a few motions...

And I've already revised it some - it needs more work.
But it's here;
Revolutioni.st/mike/002.html

Mods - it's up to you to edit that link out if you feel it needs it.
I find there to be nothing self incriminating - and as it will be filed with the prosecutor and judge in the near future (after being revised and re-written) I feel no need to keep it out of the hands of the public.

I'm happy to accept corrective criticism and suggestions on things to leave out or put in.

I don't feel the need to hide; therefore I'm not looking out for my own safety.

The crime committed was committed against me by the federal agents.
My actions are not criminal in nature.

The constitution and Federal Law prohibit the government from depriving me of my rights of property and contract without due process of law.

Legislative acts ARE NOT due process of law.

As such, it is irrelevant if the accusations against me are true or not.
There is no crime for which relief may be granted that the court may preside over.

The court is utterly without jurisdiction - and for them to continue is for the court to knowingly and willingly become part of the criminal conspiracy against the rights of myself and my co-defendants.

The only acceptable plea to the allegations is a Demurrer.
The federal court has denied me my RIGHT to Demur the charges - i.e. deprived me of my RIGHT to challenge the laws facially.

- this part needs expanded/work -

And that's what I am demanding the court do - revoke my not-guilty plea, and allow me to enter a plea of demurrer...

At which point the prosecution MUST provide proof of standing (loss or harm that is distinct and palpable, not theoretical or conjectural), as well as the fundamental elements of corpus delicti (crime) for which the charges are being brought against me.

There is no alleged loss or harm suffered by the plaintiff...
It is merely a criminal attempt to deprive me of my sovereignty and RIGHTS - a criminal act to which I will not concede.


If the court refuses to play fair - and acknowledge my rights - then the court will find itself on the receiving end of a civil lawsuit (Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I section 1983) as well as potential criminal charges after I file a formal complaint for violations of my rights (Title 18 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242) - as well as alleging their parts in the criminal protection racket of taxation.

I'm done playing the game by the unwritten rules.
I'm starting to play by the rules that are written.

I was going to wait on the plea agreement to come - but now, I'm not sure I will.
If they're not going to get it to me until Jan (which looks more and more likely) then I need to start acting now.

 

[IcarusRisen]

Doesn't the government have to grant you permission to file a civil lawsuit against it?

It seems to me you have to play by their rules either way.

 

[Kalash]

Doesn't the government have to grant you permission to file a civil lawsuit against it?

It seems to me you have to play by their rules either way.

Nope. (Conditional - see below...)

The CRIMINAL suit against them, yes... I can file a formal complaint with the FBI and wait for formal charges to be brought against the... well... everyone.

The civil suit - no.
I can file that against anyone I want at any time I want, so long as I have standing.

I lost my job, place of residence, stability, friends, the love and support of my family...
All because of the criminal acts of the government - namely the prosecutor, the arresting FBI agent, and the Judge ruling against me without jurisdiction or authority.

Those I can file whenever - so long as it's within 2 years of the incident.

As for fileing against the government itself;
You're right - they can claim sovereign immunity - but this is fraudulently based - as the government is NOT sovereign - it MUST answer to the people.

Like I said before, I want to file a class action against the government - one person isn't, "The People" - but a couple thousand of us... yeah.


I'm coming upon 1 year now... The arrest was in Feb. of last year.
I need to file them before the fraudulent case against me gets to court... and/or before Feb. 09.

The class action should be done SOONER - as anyone arrested/charged/imprisoned within 2 years can sign onto it... but for me to take it up and charge with it - before Feb. 09... or before I go to trial.


The judge only has immunity so long as he rules inside his jurisdiction.
He is outside his jurisdiction as there is no plaintiff with standing, no stated cause of action, and he is part of a criminal conspiracy to deprive me of my rights/and or punish me for exercising my rights - as is clearly defined and outlined in U.S. code title 18 chapter 13 section 241 - while under "color of law" - his position of authority in violation of section 242.


The whole demurrer thing needs broadened.
I need to go work on my messy motion >_<

I just petitioned LawyerDude to look over it for $50 and give me tips on where to break it up into separate motions, where to expand, what (if anything) to cut, and give me an order to file the motions in.

It's pretty much all I can spare >_<



I'll have to look more into filing civil suits against the government.
It's a criminal conspiracy - as individual members are part of the conspiracy, they may have to be individually named.
I don't know.

There is also privileged immunity in public office - so they must be sued in a personal capacity, not in a capacity of public office...
But others have already figured out how to do these things...
I just need to petition them for aide in filing and writing the motions properly.

Option #2 - Get Ron Paul Elected... get myself pardoned and have the Federal Drug laws disapear.

Option #3 - Proclaim our Sovereignty, and revoke our consent for the government to rule us - take back their privileged powers, abolish them, and start over - remaining consistent with the original declaration of independence and the Constitution.
Those in office are in breach of contract with the sovereign (the people) of this nation. As such, the contract (constitution) by which they gain authority is null and void.

It's just a matter of calling it in. (That's beyond me, has 0 precedence to base any actions upon, and becomes more necessary daily... To ensure that we do not end up at war with a government that believes itself to be unquestionable and authoritarian in nature.)

http://new.revolutioni.st

I'm working on that as well (at the request of others. They were getting trigger happy and this was an attempt to calm them... It's worked thus far... But I'm being asked to keep working on it... to finish it... so they can run with it and we can begin to start over. We'll see what happens with that.)


Two backup plans...
One is feasible and doesn't rely upon my actions.

The other is (apparently) impossible, meaning it is the more likely to succeed.
It's more work on my part (or work for whomever decides to step up and do it...) with a thousand points of failure (Guantanamo is one of them...)

But if it's liberty or death...
And they're just threatening me with physical discomfort, free food, shelter, medical, and dental...
It's not even up for debate.

Liberty with no concessions...
I'll not rest until my countrymen are free from the illegal grasp of our criminal government.
(ESPECIALLY so long as it's a legal, non-violent resistance. If it gets violent, I'll have to decide at the time, but the first shot will not be from the people (assuming it hasn't been fired by the government AGAINST the people already (See Kent State May 4th 1970... See the drug war victims list... See those killed by Tazers recently... They're already killing us.)))

 

[Kalash]

http://revolutioni.st/mike/

Motions, as written, will be uploaded and linked from that page.
(I'll probably remove all the revolutioni.st links at that point...)

For now, that's it.
The plea agreement is also there...
http://revolutioni.st/mike/plea.html (google formatting of a PDF)


In drug cases, apparently there is no corpus delici.
There is no alleged CRIME.
There is no body of the crime to prove.

All that MUST be proven is that you possessed something the government prohibits you from possessing.

I LOVE the way the plea agreement is worded.
Prohibition isn't even covered up as a "regulation" - it's prohibition.
Period.

18th and 21st amendments... Don't those rule?

Lawyerdude said he'd write a motion to enter a demurrer plea for $800.

I really want to get that done... hence the chipin gadget (widget... whatever...) on that page.
I don't think it's realistic.
I'm asking closer to home to see if I can borrow what I need.

I can get it paid back - even if I plea, there's 8-10 weeks before sentencing... and another 2-3 weeks after that to get my "Affairs in order."

I have a job - I just don't have the cash on hand NOW.

And... hopefully - if I get the cash, I won't be getting locked up anyway.

Rights v. Privileges...
That's all this is.

Do my rights to possess property that I have paid for in a consensual transaction with another party SUPERSEDE congress's privilege to create laws?

And if the mere possession of my private property is a crime, what RIGHTS do I really have? Are any of us free?

Schick vs United States [(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826]
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights, 18th and 21st], the Amendments must control."

It's so clear cut I can't imagine no one trying it before.


Then...
I had this epiphany the other day...

Prohibition is NOT regulation - it's DE-regulation.
Congress is skirting its OBLIGATION to regulate interstate commerce by limiting the rights of the sovereign citizens without authority.

Deregulation of the internet was a big thing...
IT sounded good, but wasn't.
This is exactly the same thing...

The government isn't REGULATING drugs - they deregulated them and passed off the power of regulation to third parties who just picked it up.
Sure - it's officially against congress's will that those 3rd parties picked it up...
But congress gave up their authority because they were too lazy to deal with it.

The people shouldn't be forced to suffer because congress refuses to live up to its obligations.

 

[otb01]

U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (4 Wall.) (1866)

Ex Parte Miligan has nothing to do with your issue.... It pertained to the president's right to suspend Habeas Corpus during war.

Prohibition of any plant, substance, or chemical is not a power afforded the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Prohibition of Alcohol required an amendment to the constitution.

But it is also not a power out of its reach. The congress isn't afforded the power to require a switchover from analogue to digital cable but does so. The congress doesn't need to be afforded the power to make certain kinds of laws. If that were the case, very few laws would be passed in general.

Federal Scheduling of illicit substances is unconstitutional and invalid, as are federal laws criminalizing their possession or sales.

Not really. Theres nothing that prohibits congress from criminalizing the sale or possession of drugs. Congress passed laws requiring that states criminalize the sale and possession of alcohol to minors. This is just how congress criminalizes the sale of drugs to those who don't have a prescription or a license.

7.Prohibition is not regulation; it is prohibition - as determined by historically looking at the 18th and 23rd amendments, prohibition by the federal government is illegal.

The 23rd amendment allows DC to select electors...... 18th establishes prohibition.... Neither have anything to do with limiting the govt's power to create prohibition.

Don't get me wrong, I think drug laws are really unfounded and waste time but they are in no way unconstitutional. If you try to get anything done, you will need to spend tons of money. Either way, even if there was concrete basis that it was unconstitutional, the supreme court would not overturn your case or strike out CSA due to the political climate. If you fight this to that level, you will just be guilty and poor instead of just guilty.

My 10 cents.

 

[Kalash]

The 23rd amendment allows DC to select electors...... 18th establishes prohibition.... Neither have anything to do with limiting the govt's power to create prohibition.

That was a typo >_<

21st amendment.

18th established the authority to prohibit at the federal level.
The 21st took it away.

Don't get me wrong, I think drug laws are really unfounded and waste time but they are in no way unconstitutional. If you try to get anything done, you will need to spend tons of money. Either way, even if there was concrete basis that it was unconstitutional, the supreme court would not overturn your case or strike out CSA due to the political climate. If you fight this to that level, you will just be guilty and poor instead of just guilty.

My 10 cents.

Point taken.
I'm still standing up for myself.

Federal alcohol laws - they aren't mandatory.
They are suggestions - created by congress - and threatening the states choosing not to implement them with federal fund withholding.

They also only apply to selling alcohol to persons under 21 - not their use of alcohol.

There's a big difference - as blanket prohibition bans all USE - while the alcohol laws only ban sales to "minors."


Ex Parte Milligan - they cannot proclaim that an emergency necessitates stripping the people of their rights.

Maybe I'm off here.
I was thinking that the supreme court cases could be read widely... by limiting the government to force it to obey the constitution in similar manners no matter what the specific case.

To do otherwise is to enable them to impose a moral code upon the citizens of this nation by ruling on certain substances or practices of religion/sexual acts one way...
And ruling another way on a similar case with a different form of vice/act.

I don't know...
Lawyerdude says there's a chance if I file the proper motions.

It makes sense that the drug laws are crimes against the American people - a broad conspiracy against their property rights.

There are laws against the creation of and enforcement of the drug laws.





It all comes down to rights v. privileges.
http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html - constitution class with Michael Badnarik.

People have rights...
The government has privileges.

When the government tries to limit the rights of the people it is committing an unconstitutional act.

I cannot prohibit you from purchasing anything.
That isn't in my power - I have to respect your right to choose what you want to purchase and consume.

I cannot get a group of people together and prevent you from buying anything.

I cannot pass an authority I do not have to the government - as all their powers are privileges derived from our rights.


Slow, steady encroachment...
They've taken a little power away from the people at a time for 200 years.
You can justify what they're doing - in blatant violation of the constitutional restraints upon the government - or you can challenge it.

I'm done justifying.
And I'm already broke.

I might as well stand up for what I believe in.
Silent acceptance will never change anything...
I might as well sign a consent form waiving all my rights.

 

[Kalash]

The congress doesn't need to be afforded the power to make certain kinds of laws. If that were the case, very few laws would be passed in general.

That, actually, was exactly what was supposed to happen.
Congress wasn't supposed to make many laws at all.

This power was supposed to be left to the states.

Congress was only supposed to create laws for D.C. and other federal territories.
They NEVER were intended to create laws for the states.

Just because they've been regulating drugs through prescriptions does not make this regulation legal.
Prior to 1903 they didn't do this.

It was crazy to think they could.

The FDA wasn't created until 1930. (As named. Its prior form was mostly for regulation of insecticides and chemical contamination of food supplies...)
They didn't really get any power until 1938.

Only 70 years of FDA existence.
And our rights have been flushed out the window nearly entirely.

1933 was a bad year for the American people - as Senate Resolution 62 was passed stating that all property was the province of the state and the people's apparent ownership was nothing more than a privilege granted by the state.

Not a law - but a procedural rule for how Congress would operate.

If the people have no right to possess property - only a privilege granted to them by the government...
Then YES, the government may prohibit the possession of anything - as this would be possession of government property without permission/consent of the government.

This is utter insanity.

And if the court wants to play that game, I'll gladly go down rolling the dice hoping for freedom.

Holding them in my hand and refusing to thrown them leaves me in chains anyway.

Inside or outside of prison, I'm not free.
The rights promised to me by the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution...
The rights I was taught I had - that were unalienable - throughout school...

They're gone.
And no one is going to try to stand up for these rights if I don't.
So I'm left with no choice but to stand up for them.

Freedom is all inside your head.
Right now, the chains of enslavement weigh me down beyond what I can bear.
It's time to shed them... Or stop dragging their weight willingly behind me.


When the government acts illegally, you cannot become a criminal...
You are only a victim of a criminal conspiracy. (Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights)

There is no such thing as a "crime of possession" other than theft.
You cannot be a "drug criminal" - Only a "drug war victim"

 

[Johnny1]

This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

You only get one life. Please, Kalash, change your position and seek the best plea bargain you can. Then you can get out and have a life. It's not worth spending your life in prison. You won't be able to change the system, it's much bigger than you. Don't throw away your life for a principle when you can't even make a dent.

 

[Kalash]

This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

You only get one life. Please, Kalash, change your position and seek the best plea bargain you can. Then you can get out and have a life. It's not worth spending your life in prison. You won't be able to change the system, it's much bigger than you. Don't throw away your life for a principle when you can't even make a dent.

The plea agreement has NOT been an honest attempt by the prosecution to level with me.

I was told in Nov. (around the 5th) that they would write out the 5K1 and have it approved before being asked to sign the plea agreement.

They said this approval was the reason it took so long to get the plea back to me to sign...

I didn't get the plea till Jan. 3rd - 2 months after it was promised "within a week" - and the 5K1 is still not on there.



U.S. v. Gall - just ruled in the supreme court - said that the judge can sentence anywhere they want depending on the circumstances of each individual case - the sentencing guidelines are nothing more than a starting point to be taken into consideration.

The plea agreement places me at offense level 23.
This is utter insanity.

By signing the plea agreement I am accepting that what I did amounts to that offense level.


A couple of examples...
Offense level 23...
Robbery of $250,000 or more.
Offense level 22....
Criminal sexual abuse of a minor/Statutory Rape (Under 16, over 12) - while the child in in the care of the adult committing the offense...

The 5K1 (further downward departure) is not promised in the plea. It is mentioned only briefly by stating that the state will not appeal if a further departure is granted because of a 5K1 motion made by the prosecution.

They've lied to me before.
They're lying to me now.

A consensual act between adults, done with a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated by the FBI (Private conduct inside a private apartment inside a gated area), with a monetary value of over $10,000 but less than $15,000 is worse than rape?
I can't accept that.

By signing the plea agreement I'm waiving my right to challenge their recommendation.
I don't agree with their recommendation.

In order to preserve my right to challenge the sentence, I cannot take the plea.

Offense level 23;
46-57 months.
3.8 - 4.75 years.

Offense level 28
78-97 months
6.5 - 8 years


It looks like there's only about a 2-3 year difference.

That isn't throwing my life away.
That's a calculated risk.

I can throw away 3.8-4.75 years of my life...
Or I can risk another 2-3 years and see if I can come out ahead in this whole criminal conspiracy against me, my rights, and the constitutional restraints upon the government.



I may have unrealistic expectations - having the case dismissed and charged brought against the FBI agent and prosecutor - but I'd settle for somewhere in the middle...
Probation... possibly 6 months...
Something reasonable for the offense alleged (not that there IS an offense alleged, but a disobedient act).

All I want is for the government to provide standing in this case.
By filing the demurrer they must prove that there is a loss or injury directly traceable to my actions for which they seek relief.

A consensual act between adults does not and CANNOT constitute a crime.
Possession of one's privately owned property CANNOT constitute a crime.

They need to allege an actual crime and produce an actual victim, or there is no corpus delicti for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...
They have no standing to bring the case before the court...
And the court is utterly without jurisdiction as there is no plaintiff with standing.


Once the court drags me over that hurdle and PROVES to me that a crime has been committed, I'll take whatever plea or punishment the victim requests.
If there is no victim, no crime has taken place, and I cannot admit guilt to an non-criminal act, as there is no guilt to take.


Unless the mere act of disobedience is a crime in what we consider to be a free country.

If that's the case, why don't they tell us how we have to vote - and punish us for not obeying?




Thanks for your concern.
I won't claim to know what I'm doing - because I don't.
I've never gone through the criminal system before.
I don't know what to expect or what's going to happen.

I just see my rights being trampled upon - and the rights of my friends and family suffering under an oppressive government that doesn't respect their lives, liberty, nor property.

And I can't stand it any more.
This may not be the best time for me to try to take a stand, but it's the only time I have left.
After conviction I will lose my right to vote.
I will lose my right to possess a firearm.
I will lose the right to defend myself from criminal encroachments upon my rights by the government.

I retain those rights NOW (firearm excepted - it was taken through the pre-trial release agreement).
I won't EVER get them back.
I won't be a full citizen again...

EVER.
If they're going to strip me of those rights, they're NOT going to do it with my consent.

Getting out of prison and being FREE are not one and the same.
I can be physically restrained and KNOW that I am a prisoner...
Or I can be physically free and still feel the weight of the chains of oppression.

I truly see no difference at this point, other than in one scenario my world echoes the vision in my mind.

Knowing that - I risk nothing.
There's no reason not to take a chance of gaining my freedom - and paving the way for those around me to find their path to liberty at last.

 

[otb01]

That was a typo >_<

21st amendment.

18th established the authority to prohibit at the federal level.
The 21st took it away.

That still doesn't say anything about the constitutionality of the issue.

Federal alcohol laws - they aren't mandatory.
They are suggestions - created by congress - and threatening the states choosing not to implement them with federal fund withholding.

They also only apply to selling alcohol to persons under 21 - not their use of alcohol.

Point taken, but congress still mandated the use/sale of a substance. By the way, drinking in minors IS illegal because it constitutes possession, which is illegal. So is public indecency by people of all ages.

Ex Parte Milligan - they cannot proclaim that an emergency necessitates stripping the people of their rights.

I am sorry but that is so fundamentally wrong. Ex parte milligan upheld the president's decision. "Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled suspension of Habeas Corpus by President Abraham Lincoln as constitutional."

That, actually, was exactly what was supposed to happen.
Congress wasn't supposed to make many laws at all.

This power was supposed to be left to the states.

Congress was only supposed to create laws for D.C. and other federal territories.
They NEVER were intended to create laws for the states.

Actually, according to the federalists, who won, it is. That and we fought a war which upheld congresses right to legislate for the whole nation.

Just because they've been regulating drugs through prescriptions does not make this regulation legal.
Prior to 1903 they didn't do this.

Your point? I didn't say the use of prescriptions made it legal.


You are still ignoring the fact that congress can make any laws within the limits given to it by the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution forbidding this kind of law. All you are saying is that we had a failed prohibition which was eventually repealed. Big whoop. That still doesn't say anything about its constitutionality.

 

[drew345]

^ well said man but its like in the movie Traffic the dealer who eventually narcs it talking about the futility of the drug war the DEA agant asks him wheres the cameras man this isnt a talk show. The public doesnt give a shit the judge doesnt give a shit the goverment sure as hell doesnt give a shit your just another number to them a drug dealer common criminal. Your not gonna beat the system from within you wanna draw your line in the sand look up John brown and harpers ferry you wanna do something drastic go for it otherwise man up take the plea we dont need anymore martyrs we got a prison system full of them. I respect what your trying to do hell I respect your resolve to fight but sometimes you gotta know when to fold its part of being intelligent.

 

[otb01]

^ And that has nothing to do with his argument about the constitutionality of the CSA. I also think drug laws are retarded but they are constitutional regardless.

 

[Kalash]

^ well said man but its like in the movie Traffic the dealer who eventually narcs it talking about the futility of the drug war the DEA agant asks him wheres the cameras man this isnt a talk show. The public doesnt give a shit the judge doesnt give a shit the goverment sure as hell doesnt give a shit your just another number to them a drug dealer common criminal. Your not gonna beat the system from within you wanna draw your line in the sand look up John brown and harpers ferry you wanna do something drastic go for it otherwise man up take the plea we dont need anymore martyrs we got a prison system full of them. I respect what your trying to do hell I respect your resolve to fight but sometimes you gotta know when to fold its part of being intelligent.

I've drawn my line.

I'll file a motion to demur - state that there is no criminal offense alleged, no party with standing, etc...



I had a GREAT day in court on Friday.



I retained my counsel - as standby counsel - and claimed/asserted/was granted the privilege of exercising my right to demur in Federal court (despite Federal Court rule 12 (a)1 - which abolishes Demurrer's in Federal Criminal (and civil - same rule number) court.)


In English...
The court is allowing me to break the rules in order to file my motions challenging the laws as they are written.
I can file motions, talk to the court, all without the hindrance of an attorney that refuses to bend certain non-binding rules in order to assert an unalienable right. (While retaining him to fall back upon if my motions fail.)

The trial date was pushed back to April 8th (from Jan. 29th) and I have opened communications with the court.



The court is aware that I intend to plea if there is a legitimate legal claim against me.
I just do not believe that there is.

I get to make a fuss, demand my rights, and challenge the laws.
I'll be content to plea after I have done so - should I fail.

And I still have my attorney (if I fail) to assist me in the plea bargaining process.


So far, so good.
I get to state my case, and the only possible downside is the loss of the 5K1 that wasn't promised to me anyway.

 

[Kalash]

Point taken, but congress still mandated the use/sale of a substance. By the way, drinking in minors IS illegal because it constitutes possession, which is illegal. So is public indecency by people of all ages.


I am sorry but that is so fundamentally wrong. Ex parte milligan upheld the president's decision. "Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled suspension of Habeas Corpus by President Abraham Lincoln as constitutional."

I need to go read that again then.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I didn't read what you posted correctly last time.

Actually, according to the federalists, who won, it is. That and we fought a war which upheld congresses right to legislate for the whole nation.

Powers gained through war against the American people aren't binding - or shouldn't be.
http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html

I'm just going with what I've learned.

If we are a conquered people - and congress has gained unconstitutional authority over us, then they should have destroyed the constitution after the war and laid claim to the rights reserved to the people.

They did not - therefore they have no claim to those rights.
Our rights are still superior to the privileged powers of congress.

Your point? I didn't say the use of prescriptions made it legal.
You are still ignoring the fact that congress can make any laws within the limits given to it by the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution forbidding this kind of law. All you are saying is that we had a failed prohibition which was eventually repealed. Big whoop. That still doesn't say anything about its constitutionality.

They cannot.
This is a law against possessing one's private property.
4th and 5th amendment violations.

They are depriving the people of their property without due process.
There wasn't a MASS buy off of all drugs when the laws were implemented...
People just went to bed innocent, in possession of their private property, and woke up felons because they still possessed their private property.

That isn't just compensation.
That's a CRIME against the people.

Schick vs United States [(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826]
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights], the Amendments must control."


The statues violate the constitution - 4th and 5th amendments.
At the time of creation they were in violation of rulings on the negative commerce clause prohibiting Congress from using the Interstate Commerce clause to make laws regulating the "manufacture, production, or mining" as those were PRE-commerce, not commerce itself.

Prohibition of possessing something you have created?
Theft.
And...
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

So where does that leave us?
The possession of privately owned property is now a CRIME?
How can that be?


And I kind of get where you're going with the 18th and 21st amendments...
However prohibition is NOT a power of congress.
To claim this authority is in violation of the constitutional restraints upon government.

A constitutional amendment was necessary for them to claim this power - as it was depriving the people of their rights.
The only way to deprive the people of their rights? Due process of law; conviction at trial, or constitutional amendment.

This is where I'm coming from when I cite those two amendments.
If prohibition of intoxicating private property was a power of Congress, the 18th amendment would not have needed to be made.

The Supreme court cannot re-write the constitution.
Congress can pass an unconstitutional law...
As many as they want...

However,


Marbury vs Madison [5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)]
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Norton vs Shelby County [118 US 425 p. 442]
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."





Not to mention the 9th amendment...
And the 8th amendment - where they're claiming no violence, no infringement of rights, no actual loss or harm...

And then they use threats of death, brandish firearms, deprivations of rights, takings of property...

All these are not considered "cruel or excessive" punishment for someone entering into a consensual contract with his own private property?

What about Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights?
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution... or because of his having so exercised the same...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both..."

What is Congress, if not a group of more than 2 persons conspiring to intimidate and threaten the people into NOT exercising their right to private property?

Even better...
Is an arrest a kidnapping? It's taking someone against their will using force...
"And if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap... they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

So which LAW is controlling?
The LAW in which there is no victim - just an allegation that the possession of private property is prohibited...

Or the LAW in which there IS a victim - someone persecuted for exercising their protected rights...

There are a LOT of errors in due process when the drug laws are involved.
It's a matter of exposing these errors in a manner which will make the laws invalid on their face.

The blatant unconstitutionality is challenged, but dismissed because MOST people just accept the laws as they are.


But PLEASE - keep it coming.
I'd rather debate with you than the prosecutor!

If I can pull things from my motion now and make it more solid, I'd LOVE to do it.
Thanks Otb01.
Sincerely.