Kalash
Bluelighter
So... uhhh....
I've been posting on http://theDEA.org forums about this - Nathan has been very helpful, but finally stopped responding... so I'm coming here...
I'm being tried for conspiracy to distribute MDMA, as well as possession and distribution. I was arrested by the FBI in California and have around 6 months before my trial date.
I don't believe the free lawyer I've gotten from the court is doing anything to defend me, so I've been doing research myself.
I'm hoping I can find people that will either assist me in making my stance more solid or ripping it apart completely so that I can plea and not take this to trial.
Any help is appreciated.
I hate to copy paste things, however... new forum, new topic... and I might as well save you all from clicking on that link. Besides - I wanted to edit a few things in there anyway...
Challenge to the drug laws/DEA/Patriot Act/congressional authority to prohibit drugs;
U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (4 Wall.) (1866)
“Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of Constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.”
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.
This amendment was repealed and the rights of making alcohol legal or laws for distribution was specifically re-assigned to the States, from where this power was stripped by the 18th amendment.
Federal Scheduling of illicit substances is unconstitutional and invalid, as are federal laws criminalizing their possession or sales.
Schedule I drugs are not only prohibited in the general sense, they are prohibited beyond the extent alcohol was prohibited in the 1920's. Alcohol was permitted in medicines, and could even be prescribed by doctors. Schedule I drugs, according to the guidelines have no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
1.Accepted medical use is currently determined solely by the DEA.
2.MDMA's schedule I status was taken to administrative hearings twice.
3.In 1986, Administrative Judge Young declared that MDMA could not legally be placed higher than Schedule III.
4.The DEA overruled the judge's decision and claimed that there was no interstate commerce permit filed with the FDA, therefore there was no acceptable medical use.
MDMA is not a patentable chemical, therefore it is not profitable.
A single dose of MDMA can be made for around 20 cents.
It was easier and cheaper for MDMA to be made by the psychiatrists using it than creating an interstate commerce for MDMA.
An interstate shipping license would have taken on average 30 months for approval; with MDMA being so cheap to create, this step would have proved redundant, inane, and was not necessary.
NDA (new drug application) costs have doubled over the last five years and now stand at $1.7 billion placing the cost at a minimum of $500 million in 1986; far beyond the ability of a few psychiatrists to pay, especially for a drug with no profit potential.
5.When taken to court again in 1988, the administrative judge again ruled against the DEA.
6.The DEA's response was that its opinion in the matter was the only valid opinion and MDMA would be permanently placed in Schedule I despite testimony from psychiatrists currently using MDMA in their practices, and despite the judge's findings that MDMA did not meet the schedule I criteria.
Another note on this – as MDMA was not being shipped across state lines, it was not part of an interstate commerce. The clause permitting congress's involvement in interstate commerce does not permit it to interfere with intrastate distribution where interstate commerce is not substantially effected.
1.United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.
2.Nowhere is Congress given the right to prohibit interstate commerce – only to regulate it.
3.Congress is not given the authority to determine what can be shipped across state lines – only HOW the items are shipped across state lines.
4.Regulation of activities substantially effecting interstate commerce is not permission to stop interstate commerce, but to stop the actions upsetting the interstate commerce – Congress is at fault for upsetting interstate commerce through the appointment of the DEA, not regulating a disturbance.
5.Despite the findings in Gonzales v. Raich, MDMA should not be subject to this ruling on the following grounds;
Marijuana must be grown in areas where it may grow.
Cultivation in an area permitting its growth would change the availability of marijuana on an interstate level.
MDMA is cheap enough to produce that shipping costs would deter interstate commerce where cultivation costs of marijuana are much greater making shipping and interstate commerce necessary.
MDMA is chemical in nature and can be made anywhere.
Before the DEA made it a schedule I substance in accordance with the Interstate Commerce clause, there was no interstate commerce, invalidating their right to regulate it.
Gonzales v. Raich was not determining the legality of the drug laws, they were determining if private cultivation of marijuana effected interstate commerce.
According to the Supremacy clause, the federal laws do indeed trump the state laws, however;
1.The clause permitting regulation of interstate commerce does not allow for the regulation of goods, merely their transportation.
2.The regulation of interstate commerce does not permit the Federal laws of prohibition.
3.The DEA does not have any constitutional authority to create laws yet continues to do so; these laws are invalid.
4.This clause was wrongfully used as a legal loophole to grant Congress executive powers.
5.History has proven through the 18th and 23rd amendments that these rights are not granted to the Federal Government.
6.Congress itself is not regulating scheduled substances, the DEA is.
The DEA is part of the executive branch.
The DEA determines what schedule to place all substances in with no check or balance of powers and complete disregard for the Judicial review process.
With this ability, the DEA is creating laws without legislation and without legislative oversight.
The constitution does not permit congress the ability to delegate regulation to the executive branch of the Federal Government.
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.
I promise it looks better formatted in an office program with the bullets lining everything up...
Sorry it's so sloppy.
Anyway...
Thoughts?
Opinions?
And... more importantly, legal documentation holding up what I'm saying or ripping it apart completely?
Thanks,
Kalash
I've been posting on http://theDEA.org forums about this - Nathan has been very helpful, but finally stopped responding... so I'm coming here...
I'm being tried for conspiracy to distribute MDMA, as well as possession and distribution. I was arrested by the FBI in California and have around 6 months before my trial date.
I don't believe the free lawyer I've gotten from the court is doing anything to defend me, so I've been doing research myself.
I'm hoping I can find people that will either assist me in making my stance more solid or ripping it apart completely so that I can plea and not take this to trial.
Any help is appreciated.
I hate to copy paste things, however... new forum, new topic... and I might as well save you all from clicking on that link. Besides - I wanted to edit a few things in there anyway...
Challenge to the drug laws/DEA/Patriot Act/congressional authority to prohibit drugs;
U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (4 Wall.) (1866)
“Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of Constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.”
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.
This amendment was repealed and the rights of making alcohol legal or laws for distribution was specifically re-assigned to the States, from where this power was stripped by the 18th amendment.
Federal Scheduling of illicit substances is unconstitutional and invalid, as are federal laws criminalizing their possession or sales.
Schedule I drugs are not only prohibited in the general sense, they are prohibited beyond the extent alcohol was prohibited in the 1920's. Alcohol was permitted in medicines, and could even be prescribed by doctors. Schedule I drugs, according to the guidelines have no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
1.Accepted medical use is currently determined solely by the DEA.
2.MDMA's schedule I status was taken to administrative hearings twice.
3.In 1986, Administrative Judge Young declared that MDMA could not legally be placed higher than Schedule III.
4.The DEA overruled the judge's decision and claimed that there was no interstate commerce permit filed with the FDA, therefore there was no acceptable medical use.
MDMA is not a patentable chemical, therefore it is not profitable.
A single dose of MDMA can be made for around 20 cents.
It was easier and cheaper for MDMA to be made by the psychiatrists using it than creating an interstate commerce for MDMA.
An interstate shipping license would have taken on average 30 months for approval; with MDMA being so cheap to create, this step would have proved redundant, inane, and was not necessary.
NDA (new drug application) costs have doubled over the last five years and now stand at $1.7 billion placing the cost at a minimum of $500 million in 1986; far beyond the ability of a few psychiatrists to pay, especially for a drug with no profit potential.
5.When taken to court again in 1988, the administrative judge again ruled against the DEA.
6.The DEA's response was that its opinion in the matter was the only valid opinion and MDMA would be permanently placed in Schedule I despite testimony from psychiatrists currently using MDMA in their practices, and despite the judge's findings that MDMA did not meet the schedule I criteria.
Another note on this – as MDMA was not being shipped across state lines, it was not part of an interstate commerce. The clause permitting congress's involvement in interstate commerce does not permit it to interfere with intrastate distribution where interstate commerce is not substantially effected.
1.United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.
2.Nowhere is Congress given the right to prohibit interstate commerce – only to regulate it.
3.Congress is not given the authority to determine what can be shipped across state lines – only HOW the items are shipped across state lines.
4.Regulation of activities substantially effecting interstate commerce is not permission to stop interstate commerce, but to stop the actions upsetting the interstate commerce – Congress is at fault for upsetting interstate commerce through the appointment of the DEA, not regulating a disturbance.
5.Despite the findings in Gonzales v. Raich, MDMA should not be subject to this ruling on the following grounds;
Marijuana must be grown in areas where it may grow.
Cultivation in an area permitting its growth would change the availability of marijuana on an interstate level.
MDMA is cheap enough to produce that shipping costs would deter interstate commerce where cultivation costs of marijuana are much greater making shipping and interstate commerce necessary.
MDMA is chemical in nature and can be made anywhere.
Before the DEA made it a schedule I substance in accordance with the Interstate Commerce clause, there was no interstate commerce, invalidating their right to regulate it.
Gonzales v. Raich was not determining the legality of the drug laws, they were determining if private cultivation of marijuana effected interstate commerce.
According to the Supremacy clause, the federal laws do indeed trump the state laws, however;
1.The clause permitting regulation of interstate commerce does not allow for the regulation of goods, merely their transportation.
2.The regulation of interstate commerce does not permit the Federal laws of prohibition.
3.The DEA does not have any constitutional authority to create laws yet continues to do so; these laws are invalid.
4.This clause was wrongfully used as a legal loophole to grant Congress executive powers.
5.History has proven through the 18th and 23rd amendments that these rights are not granted to the Federal Government.
6.Congress itself is not regulating scheduled substances, the DEA is.
The DEA is part of the executive branch.
The DEA determines what schedule to place all substances in with no check or balance of powers and complete disregard for the Judicial review process.
With this ability, the DEA is creating laws without legislation and without legislative oversight.
The constitution does not permit congress the ability to delegate regulation to the executive branch of the Federal Government.
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.
I promise it looks better formatted in an office program with the bullets lining everything up...
Sorry it's so sloppy.
Anyway...
Thoughts?
Opinions?
And... more importantly, legal documentation holding up what I'm saying or ripping it apart completely?
Thanks,
Kalash
