garuda said:
You have to realize though that any good lawyer will encourage you to plea if its in your best interest, doesn't matter if you have to rat out your momma a lawyer is looking at the best possible outcome for his client and no one else.
Something to keep in mind.
Yeah - I know this...
However there are issues that he has not addressed at all.
The Proffer session started about 40 minutes "late" (the prosecutor had it scheduled for an hour after my attorney had it scheduled... for whatever reason - and wasn't there "on time").
I talked to him before the proffer session - brought up a few of my concerns.
The main one being that if I go through with the proffer, that all evidence that would otherwise be dismissed after my arrest due to them denying me my right to council would be admitted and there would be nothing I could do about it.
He lied to me about what would be suppressed if I challenged their evidence.
He told me it would be practically nothing.
In truth, it's everything.
So... he lied to me to get me to do the proffer, or he doesn't know the law well enough to represent me. Either way, he's got to go. That was my choice to make, not his. I was misinformed by him - I could not make a valid decision.
If your lawyer is using deception on you, he's not on your side.
NOW (today, his secretary called...) he's telling me that the court can't schedule a hearing to replace him for, "Probably a couple of months."
The reasoning? "The judge is wrapped up in the Aryan Brotherhood case and doesn't have time to schedule the hearing."
"A couple of months" is after my trial date.
The Aryan Brotherhood case was wrapped up in 2002.
(edited; probably best if we keep the judge's name out - IJ)
So I'm REALLY doubting his story.
I think he knows a plea bargain is coming, wants me to chill for a week or so, wait, sign the papers, so that he gets paid.
For all he's done, I don't want him to GET paid.
And I think I'm going to refuse to sign the plea - if there's any time on it at all.
Drew;
Time in; 6 1/2-9 year for the conspiracy (largest charge). Rumor is the 6 counts total will not be stacked (5 actual, plus the conspiracy) so 6 1/2-9.
Jurry Nullification; if the plea isn't to my liking, yes.
If the plea IS to my liking and I'm in a pissy mood, yes.
If I can find out for certain that my judge is a member of LEAP (strongly believe him to be), find out that he WILL admit constitutional evidence, and will allow me to present a case and REQUEST a jury nullification, YES... Though this requires those motions to be submitted. Still need a new lawyer for that :-/
Lawyer filing motions for suppression - he stated that this would show me to be "combative" and would eliminate the chance of getting a plea.
Again - he doesn't know the facts of the case, and challenged a stupid point at the proffer session because of his ignorance. He wouldn't know what to request suppression FOR - and doesn't care to.
This is what I'm getting anyway.
I made a list of all the points I thought were wrong and want challenged.
His response; "You brought up a lot of good points, but I'm not going to look into them. It isn't worth it."
"Isn't worth it?" And that's for YOU to decide? Without looking into them?
Eh?
Hire an attorney - it's Federal Criminal court.
Retainer fees start around $100,000.
If I want them to show up at court? You're talking a LOT.
So... that's out.
Thanks. A 4 month crash course in law with a focus on very specific laws and rulings pertaining to them can do that
Self Representation; Yes... I have... though I have been told I would be a fool to do so.
Present case scenario - no... I wouldn't be a fool. I'd be MUCH better off if I was able to talk to the court myself.
If I can't get a new attorney, then this is an option - cutting off the dead weight that is only holding me back from actually acting. Self representation is a last resort however, as I'm very ignorant of procedural protocols, etc... And doubt I could master them in the time I have left. Especially since my law research is not yet complete.
Date of trial though - even if I do retain my current attorney as "Assistance of Council" he does NOT represent me. I can and WILL speak for myself. I want a lawyer that will aide me in following proper procedures, assist me with the creation of properly formatted motions, etc... but ultimately will allow me to represent myself.
That was a bit of research too - assistance of council DOES NOT have to be REPRESENTATION.
I never waived my right to represent myself KNOWINGLY - therefore I have not waived this right.
There has been no plea bargain offered yet.
However I have heard rumors (through about 5 people, so the information is diluted - one final reporting source) that one of my co-defendants has plead and does know their sentence.
I have 4 co-defendants.
2 of them REQUIRE the testimony I gave the night of my arrest to be prosecuted.
I believe this evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be suppressed.
This will also drop 3,000 pills off the evidence list.
I believe the conspiracy charge would still hold, but the pills would not be evidence - reasonable doubt anyone? :D
Those 2 kids SHOULD walk free by letter of the law.
I need a copy of my interrogation to find out if my request for an attorney was recorded. My lawyer has denied me this request 3 times.
Failing the recording, it's my word versus the agent's.
That never ends well.
However, I have 4 co-defendants.
Postponing the trial is pretty much out of the question.
However, if I cannot get a new attorney within 2 months, then I will appeal for mistrial for "inadequate council" or... whatever it is.
Yes Drew, I agree this case is interesting.
WHY THIS CASE IS INTERESTING (my opinion...)
It involves ONLY MDMA.
It is a Federal case on a level that should be state or local.
4 months of charges were stacked on top of each other with the full knowledge, cooperation, encouragement and funding by the FBI. (Thanks guys. Your taxes helped pay my bills for 4 months
)
To my knowledge, no one has been to federal court for ONLY MDMA charges and challenged the illegal scheduling of MDMA.
To my knowledge, no one has challenged the "Ecstasy Prevention Act" which raised the punishments for MDMA 1500% in 2001 - using Dr. Ricuarte's research as the SOLE basis for the increase and dismissing all other scientific research - this IS the research he retracted for FRAUD 2 years later.
To my knowledge, no one has challenged MDMA's scheduling based on medical use - since the FDA approval of its use for PTSD (see
http://maps.org for more info). FDA approval overrides DEA's requests in scheduling - if it's used medically, the DEA cannot overrule its medical use.
MAPS has also done safety tests on MDMA showing it is perfectly safe in clinical environments and non-addictive.
It barely fits in schedule III at this point.
To my knowledge, no one has been to federal court and challenged the drug laws based on the commerce clause not granting congress permission to create the laws since the ruling in US v. Lopez (points listed - the formatting/bullets get sloppy on here. Sorry for that.)
Another note on this – as MDMA (at the time of scheduling) was not being shipped across state lines (cost prohibitive - $0.06-$0.20 per pill - it was cheaper to make than to ship - the "recipe" was shared amongst colleagues - to my knowledge it was not shipped - it was easy enough to make when the chemicals were not outlawed), 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.
I go through a few further points touching on a few other topics...
One of the other ones is that Congress is not regulating the drug trade.
No one is regulating it.
The DEA is struggling (and failing) to keep it in check.
Congress does not have the power to delegate it's constitutional authority to the DEA... Further proving that the constitution does not allow for prohibition as congress would be unable to enforce this "regulation" of interstate commerce.
The 18th and 21st amendments PROVE that congress cannot prohibit drugs without a constitutional amendment - the laws are unconstitutional.
I want to involve LEAP and bring them in as an expert witness - I'm still struggling to get a response from them.
I want to show that the drug laws themselves are more harmful than my actions - which were done between consenting adults behind closed doors (Lawrence v. Texas).
I believe it is unique in its Federal level, the low level of involvement of all 5 co-defendants, and the singular substance of MDMA.
The judge teaches a class on the "Legal Implications of the International Narcotics Trade" at a local college - the focus of the class is;
"This course examines United States policy to combat domestic and international narcotics trafficking. The national drug policy and program implementation by federal and state agencies will be analyzed.
A principle focus will be the effects of these policies on our individual constitutional rights and the criminal justice system."
I'm liking my judge already, and I don't even know him.
