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

[otb01]

Powers gained through war against the American people aren't binding - or shouldn't be.

You didn't get it. We didn't get the power through war. The power always existed since the constitution was enacted. The south seceded because they wanted states to have that power (and they wanted to keep their slaves) so we fought a war.

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.

You're still not getting it. We are not a conquered people. That and they don't have unconstitutional authority. Congress's power to legislate is CLEARLY outlined in the constitution

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 is completely irrelevant. If CSA didn't exist, then your argument would be plausible but CSA does exist so it is irrelevant. CSA is the due process. You have things confiscated because they are illegal. They are seized as evidence. It is a very simple matter.

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.

Irrelevant.

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.

Also irrelevant.

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.

Then prove it. Oh wait, that's right.... 8)

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.

Wrong, I've already been over this.

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

That's why the supreme court has judicial review and in theory CAN rewrite the constitution under the right circumstances.

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."

That would be nice if the CSA was unconstitutional.

And the 8th amendment - where they're claiming no violence, no infringement of rights, no actual loss or harm...

That would still be nice IF THE CSA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

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

First off, it is cruel and unusual. Second, that means that you can't, for example, be sentenced to put your arm into a boiling vat of oil (cruel). This also means that you can not be sentenced 25 years for a crime that carries 5-15 years maximum (unusual). Thus, sentencing someone to prison time for possession of ILLEGAL property, does not violate this provision.

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?

Sorry, you should be old enough to realize why this argument in itself is inherently idiotic.

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."

8). Do I really need to say it again?

Please stop. Whoever you learned from is really misinformed. Honestly, I don't care what you believe but don't go about doing this and critically miseducating the community.

 

[Kalash]

I can't respond to that.

What is the CSA?

Community Supported Agriculture?
Confederate States of America?

I'm not getting something you're saying - and apparently it counters every argument I've ever made...
So... what does CSA stand for?

(Also asked in a PM for expediency...)

 

[Johnny1]

Controlled Substances Act.

See links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html

 

[Kalash]

Controlled Substances Act.

See links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html

You'd think I'd have figured that out.
>_<



Ok...
Otb01 - why do you allege that the CSA is constitutional?

Other than Congress's authority to create laws, where is the power derived from?
Even with the power to create laws as a sole source of authority, that power is held in check by the amendments and the rights of the people.

The government has the privilege of power, derived from the RIGHTS and the consent of the people.
The government cannot exercise its privilege to deprive the people of their rights.


What is the origin of authority?

God -> Individual Rights -> Group Privilege

What you're suggesting is that the state is authoritarian...
Group/Government Rights -> Individual Privileges

That we can only do what the state permits us to do...
That we are PRIVILEGED by the state to possess our private property, the PRIVILEGE of free speech, the PRIVILEGE of freedom from illegal searches and seizures...

We don't have privileges.
The government does.

We have rights...
NOT granted to us/established/derived from the Constitution - but preexistent to the government...

Unalienable rights bestowed by our creator.




http://revolutioni.st/liberty.html
The Expanded Philosophy of Liberty

What RIGHT do I have to demand you NOT buy or sell a rap CD - because it instigates violence in some listeners?

So I'm going to ban you from buying it, producing it, selling it... or listening to it.

Where do I get that right?

Doesn't that conflict with YOUR rights?


What if I get a gang of people and we FORCE you to not produce/buy/sell/listen to Rap music?

Do I gain that right because I'm in a GROUP? A majority?

Of course not.



Congress is nothing more than a group of people.
They cannot claim any right higher than that of any individual.

Prohibition is NOT a power of congress.
The 18th amendment established that power - due process - taking the right away from the people.


You claim that the Controlled Substances Act was due process.
It was not.

And act of congress is NOT due process/the law of the land - as was established LONG ago...

“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Constitution – 5th Amendment

“… statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of personal property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15,25 AM Dec 677 as quoted in Bouvier's Law Dictionary Pg. 947- Defining “Due Process of Law”


Congress CANNOT make a law depriving a citizen of their right to personal property - as it is not due process of law.

The drug laws are an attempt to impose a moral code upon the citizens of this nation - just as sodomy laws are imposed upon the people of this nation. The only difference is that sodomy laws have been abolished...

"Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850

“Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.” Lawrence V. Texas




You allege that the CSA is constitutional.
I challenge this - as one cannot go to bed possessing one's private property, then wake up the next day - to a new law - making him a criminal - and depriving him of the right to possess the property he owned the night before.


The nature of RIGHTS denies congress's privileged power to create laws from creating anything such as the CSA.

Good intentions do not make good law...


“Good intention will always be pleaded for every assumption of power . . . The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Daniel Webster

 

[otb01]

Otb01 - why do you allege that the CSA is constitutional?

Because there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Other than Congress's authority to create laws, where is the power derived from?
Even with the power to create laws as a sole source of authority, that power is held in check by the amendments and the rights of the people.

The government has the privilege of power, derived from the RIGHTS and the consent of the people.
The government cannot exercise its privilege to deprive the people of their rights.

Yes, and the CSA is in violation of NONE of those.

What is the origin of authority?

God -> Individual Rights -> Group Privilege

What you're suggesting is that the state is authoritarian...
Group/Government Rights -> Individual Privileges

That we can only do what the state permits us to do...
That we are PRIVILEGED by the state to possess our private property, the PRIVILEGE of free speech, the PRIVILEGE of freedom from illegal searches and seizures...

We don't have privileges.
The government does.

We have rights...
NOT granted to us/established/derived from the Constitution - but preexistent to the government...

Unalienable rights bestowed by our creator.

I don't think that I need to tell you why that argument is completely flawed, irrelevant and convoluted. 8)

What RIGHT do I have to demand you NOT buy or sell a rap CD - because it instigates violence in some listeners?

So I'm going to ban you from buying it, producing it, selling it... or listening to it.

Where do I get that right?

Doesn't that conflict with YOUR rights?

What if I get a gang of people and we FORCE you to not produce/buy/sell/listen to Rap music?

Do I gain that right because I'm in a GROUP? A majority?

Of course not.

Yes, it conflicts with the first amendment right to free speech. That is why that is illegal. Notice how it is not against the law for kids to see rated R movies but it is the choice of the theater. But controlling substances doesn't violate any of the rights set forth.

Congress is nothing more than a group of people.
They cannot claim any right higher than that of any individual.

Prohibition is NOT a power of congress.
The 18th amendment established that power - due process - taking the right away from the people.

Congress has plenty right to declare prohibition. The 18th or 21st amendments have nothing to do with this! They just show a case in which congress instated and repealed a prohibition. They have nothing to do with the constitutionality of prohibition itself.

You claim that the Controlled Substances Act was due process.
It was not.

No, I claimed that CSA establishes a due process for the prosecution of those in possession of illegal drugs and their confiscation pertinent to an investigation as evidence.

“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Constitution – 5th Amendment

If CSA didn't exist, this would be applicable. However, CSA does exist and thus your drugs being seized is from due process. Your drugs were seized as you were charged with violating laws pertinent to those drugs. Let's be serious now!

“… statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of personal property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15,25 AM Dec 677 as quoted in Bouvier's Law Dictionary Pg. 947- Defining “Due Process of Law”

Congress CANNOT make a law depriving a citizen of their right to personal property - as it is not due process of law.

Notice the part where it says "without a regular trial"? The fact that you have been charged with the crime allows them to hold your drugs as evidence. Once you are convicted, which you will be because the drugs were clearly in your possession, they aren't yours because you will have been found guilty in the court of law. They also can't give you your drugs because they would in doing so be incriminating/entrapping you.

The drug laws are an attempt to impose a moral code upon the citizens of this nation - just as sodomy laws are imposed upon the people of this nation. The only difference is that sodomy laws have been abolished...

Welcome to life, that's what laws in general are meant to do. Laws are around to set moral codes. People don't commit murder because they know it's wrong. Why? Because they know they will go to jail if they do.

"Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850

“Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.” Lawrence V. Texas

Neither of those cases are applicable in the slightest bit.

You allege that the CSA is constitutional.
I challenge this - as one cannot go to bed possessing one's private property, then wake up the next day - to a new law - making him a criminal - and depriving him of the right to possess the property he owned the night before.

Yes, you allege so on grounds as stable as a toothpick holding up an elephant. Also, if you could prove that you were in possession of said articles before the passing of the CSA, you could possibly get off.... Oh wait, you weren't in possession of it beforehand. So that doesn't matter either.

The nature of RIGHTS denies congress's privileged power to create laws from creating anything such as the CSA.

Good intentions do not make good law...

Irrelevant. There is no right that the CSA infringes.

“Good intention will always be pleaded for every assumption of power . . . The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Daniel Webster

Oh come on, you are going to cite a antebellum federalist on a late 20th century issue? 8).

Stop this now. People will read you and believe you and as a result become critically misinformed. For the sake of our community, please keep it to yourself.

 

[Kalash]

Otb01 - alright...
This just seems backwards...
The CSA establishes that your private property may be seized as part of an investigation...
And the only charges needed to be brought against you at the conclusion of the investigation are for the possession of said private property which was seized from you?


You're saying that the CSA establishes a procedure for due process by which your private property may be seized lawfully during an investigation.
That's fine. That makes sense...

But what due process have you undergone PRIOR TO the seizure stripping you of your right to possess your property, making the exercise of this RIGHT criminal?

You're skipping a fundamentally important step.
Before you're arrested or charged, your right to possess your private property has not been taken through due process of law... and any subsequent due process cannot retroactively deprive you of the right to possess your private property PRIOR TO the initiation of the due process.

To allege that once this property is seized - taken through the established procedures created by the CSA - that you can retroactively be charged with the crime of possession; as your right to your private property was not taken prior to this seizure...



Either I'm missing something here, or you're skipping a step...
So... please let me know where this missing step is...


Here's how I'm seeing this.

Jack is in possession of his private property, X.
He has not undergone due process making his possession of X illegal - as an act of congress is not due process.

Cop A seizes Jack's X.
This seizure, as part of an investigation, establishes the due process for Cop A to seize the property, retroactively applying due process to Jack so that he could be deprived of X prior to his loss of his right to possess X through due process.


Because Cop A took Jack's X without Jack's permission, Jack is now retroactively deprived of his right to possess X because the seizure encompasses due process?


I don't understand this.


That's like me taking your money and saying that once I have it, that you can't have it back because it's in my possession NOW, so it's rightfully mine...
And YOU going to jail because you UNLAWFULLY possessed the money I took from you.
Your right to possess your own money was taken by me (the government) and converted into a privilege, you could keep your money so long as you were able to prevent me from taking it from you.
AFTER the money left your possession, you lost your PRIVILEGE of possessing the money...
But the loss of this PRIVILEGE is retroactive to before I took your money?

Therefore you are guilty of... illegally possessing MY property?





At what point does Jack lose his RIGHT to possess X?

That's what I want to know...

The possession of your private property CANNOT be a crime unless a crime is committed with that property, the property is stolen, or you have lost the right to possess such property though due process of law (i.e. a felon cannot possess a firearm).

Where is the due process by which one's RIGHT to possess one's private property is taken PRIOR TO the point of arrest?

This is where you're losing me.
Your effect is coming before your cause, and that doesn't sit right in my head.
Congress cannot legislate away the rights of the people - such acts are unconstitutional.


The argument you're making is that congress can pass a law making the possession of a car illegal...
The next day, a police officer may confiscate any car possessed by ANY citizen - and the citizen will go to jail because the law establishes the due process for which that citizen may be deprived of his RIGHT to possess the car which he owned.

That violates the very concept of a RIGHT.
It means we have NO RIGHTS AT ALL - merely privileges granted to us by the government.

Rights cannot be taken...
Privileges may be granted or taken at will...





That's how things look in my head.
Can you clarify where I'm wrong?

 

[Kalash]

Why I'm confused; a shorter example...

You're saying...
Because A is followed by B, C is true.

And then stating that C is true BEFORE B has taken place, simply because B will take place at some point in the future.

Here's EXACTLY why I'm confused.

C isn't true unless/until B takes place.
C cannot apply to A UNTIL B has taken place.
Therefore C cannot apply to A prior to B taking place.

B is Due Process
C is Criminality of possession of private property
A is Possession of private property


Now can you tell me where I'm mixed up?

 

[otb01]

Otb01 - alright...
This just seems backwards...
The CSA establishes that your private property may be seized as part of an investigation...
And the only charges needed to be brought against you at the conclusion of the investigation are for the possession of said private property which was seized from you?

That is like arguing that customs seizures (even in pure cash which is illegal to bring in/out in large ammounts), foreclosures, illegal arms busts and even FINES are unconstitutional. Well, it is your privately earned money, HOW DARE the government charge a fine?! Iono, maybe because they need to ENFORCE laws. If you commit an illegal action in a place, the gov't can legally take it and sell it. Example: If you grow a lot of marijuana on your farm, you can be sent to jail and the gov't can sell your farm. Constitutionally. It might not sound "right" but its legal.

But what due process have you undergone PRIOR TO the seizure stripping you of your right to possess your property, making the exercise of this RIGHT criminal?

You don't have a right to property that is in violation of the law you are not getting this. The supreme court has ruled that your rights only exist when you are practicing them while not violating the rights of others or the law. For example, this is why slander and yelling fire in a movie theater are illegal although that theoretically violates the first amendment.

To allege that once this property is seized - taken through the established procedures created by the CSA - that you can retroactively be charged with the crime of possession; as your right to your private property was not taken prior to this seizure...

This would be true if your possession was not in violation of the law.

Either I'm missing something here, or you're skipping a step...
So... please let me know where this missing step is...

Yeah, you're missing something here. I finally realized what you meant. Your rights apply when you are not committing a crime or violating the rights of others. This is why you have freedom to speech but not freedom to slander (which is still speech). In the same way, you can possess property but you can not possess property that is in violation of the law.

Jack is in possession of his private property, X.
He has not undergone due process making his possession of X illegal - as an act of congress is not due process.

That is like saying that murder isn't illegal until you've killed someone.

Because Cop A took Jack's X without Jack's permission, Jack is now retroactively deprived of his right to possess X because the seizure encompasses due process?

I'm sick of this. Look up law enforcement right to seize evidence pertinent to an investigation.

That's like me taking your money and saying that once I have it, that you can't have it back because it's in my possession NOW, so it's rightfully mine...
And YOU going to jail because you UNLAWFULLY possessed the money I took from you.

The big difference here is that you having that money isn't infringing on a law.

Your right to possess your own money was taken by me (the government) and converted into a privilege, you could keep your money so long as you were able to prevent me from taking it from you.

Nowhere in the constitution do you have the right to own property that infringes the law.

Therefore you are guilty of... illegally possessing MY property?

If your property wasn't illegal and evidence in an investigation.

At what point does Jack lose his RIGHT to possess X?

When X is ruled as illegal/contraband.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because this is taking up too much of my time every day. I'm just begging you right now to stop critically misinforming people here and look up some actual case law around the CSA and case law over seizure. You will see quickly that you're wrong.

 

[otb01]

By the way, this should be archived somewhere as "The Great Kalash-Otb Debates" (ie. Lincoln-Douglass ) But one more thing, I find it ironic that this guy is arguing against a law when he didn't even know what it was called in the first place.

 

[Kalash]

By the way, this should be archived somewhere as "The Great Kalash-Otb Debates" (ie. Lincoln-Douglass ) But one more thing, I find it ironic
that this guy is arguing against a law when he didn't even know what it was called in the first place.

I never got up to that level...

I've been browsing through here...

They don't list the bill names or common terms - just the legal jargon that the court uses.

For me, it's been U.S.C. Title 21 Section 841 from the beginning.

You made my argument for me.
Component parts of EVERY crime include;
1) An injury or harm suffered by a complaining party AND
2) Someone's criminality resulting in that loss or harm.

Who's RIGHTS have I infringed upon by possessing my private property?
Congress's RIGHT to make laws?
“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).

Well... there goes that idea...

Congress does not have the authority to strip the people of their rights without a constitutional amendment.
Even if congress DOES strip someone of their RIGHTS through legislation, there is no party with standing to bring charges against someone for violating that ORDER from congress.

That's the beauty of living in a free country - unless you're infringing upon another's rights or knowingly subject someone to danger without their consent, you haven't committed a crime.

So how is the possession of one's private property a CRIME?
Where is the corpus delicti?

And as the corpus delicti (Loss or harm AND someone's criminality resulting therein) is non-existent, where does the government attain the authority to waive this requirement, established in the constitutional common law?




So... YES - I see what you're saying... (Finally...)
They made it a crime to possess private property, therefore you no longer have the right to possess private property.

But that isn't due process.
And that is not a power of Congress.

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.


Right to private property - so long as you are not violating the rights of another - is a sacred inalienable right.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.



Your entire position rests solely upon the RIGHT of congress to deprive people of their lives, liberty, or property by merely creating a law prohibiting the people from exercising their protected rights.


Congress cannot authorize the commission of a crime against the people; i.e. Congress may not authorize the police to break one law in order to enforce another.

To do so would be to legalize theft, murder, and a slave trade by the police.

And there's also this;
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [rights of the people], the Amendments must control." Schick vs U.S. 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826




So... let's look at this case exactly as it happened...

Congress took away my rights to possess and distribute any substance in the CSA away before I was born...

Alright... That's not a problem - I didn't have/possess/distribute any of the prohibited substances...

The DEA - when I was 4 - stripped me of the right to possess, use, or distribute MDMA. (Not congress - and in violation of the law as interpreted by the Administrative law judge... Twice.)

You contend that that is the equivalence of due process.
I say it does not...

"The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.

At the age of 4, what opportunity did I have to defend my right to possess MDMA?


Anyway...
I (allegedly...) possessed and distributed MDMA - my personal, private property, to a consenting adult.

The FBI encouraged this transaction by tempting the consenting adult to commit a crime (there is no statutory limitation stating that "those working for or in conjunction with law enforcement shall not be prosecuted under this title..." and the Conspiracy charges apply to everyone KNOWING about the transactions and doing something to further it. The arresting FBI agent is culpable in this matter if, indeed, the mere possession or distribution of MDMA is a criminal offense against the rights of another...)

The FBI agent, a willing and knowing participant in the transaction (a co-conspirator) filed a witness testimony alleging that the actions were prohibited and I did not possess a license permitting me to exercise my rights of property and contract.

He called this a "Criminal Complaint" and immediately became the plaintiff...

“A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief... The injury alleged must be, for example, 'distinct and palpable,' Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 and not 'abstract' or 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,' Los Angles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102; O'Shea v Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494.” Allen v. Wright 486 U.S. 737


The purpose of doing this was so the FBI agent could gain additional authority to use weapons and force to kidnap me and steal whatever other property I possessed - for exercising my constitutionally protected rights (depending on the due process thing - that I either retained, or were stripped from me at the age of 4)

That's a crime - Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 242. And section 241 - as the judge must sign the warrant, and there were other parties interested in depriving me of my other rights and properties...

The FBI agent assaulted me as I was alone and unarmed with a horde of law enforcement officers with a host of weapons and manpower, threatening my life.

They detained me, took from me all my possessions, and left me for the courts to determine how long I should be held against my will.


And my consensual act - with another adult under reasonable expectations of privacy - is the entire justification for this violent assault upon my person?
I don't understand that.






The prosecutor, at the hearing last Friday, stated that the Statute provides Standing for the attorney general to bring charges against ANYONE for violations of the statute.

I think this is inherently flawed reasoning, as the supreme court has ruled in opposition to such nonsense on numerous occasions.


The problem with malum prohibitium crimes is that they are NOT constitutional - and unless you're going to re-write caselaw and amend nearly every supreme court ruling with, "except for malum prohibitum crimes..." then there's a very real problem with whole chunks of the criminal codes.
And yes - this would include striking down the laws prohibiting you from crossing borders with your lawfully acquired money.

Foreclosures are CIVIL - for a failure to fulfill your obligations in a contract - it cannot be a criminal procedure.

Illegal arms busts; define an illegal fire arm under the 2nd amendment. (Bearing in mind that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that the individual citizen may defend himself from criminal infringements upon his rights by the government...)

Fines; it depends on the purpose of the said fine...
But without due process (arrest or notice of violation of the claimed code AND a lawful trial wherein you have the ability to defend yourself) NO- a fine is NOT legal.
Traffic fines - many people waive their right to a trial - and pay the fine...
You cannot be fined and denied a trial.



All crimes require a party who has experienced loss or harm.
Any case not meeting this requirement cannot be heard in court - as there is no subject matter jurisdiction (the necessary parties do not exist.)


Ultimately it comes down to defining due process...
And defining and act of congress AS due process - wherein we grant congress the unlimited authority to write a law making it illegal to be alive past the age of 9 - and thereby depriving everyone over the age of 10 their right to LIFE... And legalizing the murder of every man, woman, and child over the age of 10 - and this becomes a LAWFUL act for any police officer or member of the executive branch of the government...

And you claim this is due process.

We'll see.

I get to file my motion.
The court will rule on it.

If I'm right - the charges get dismissed.
If I'm wrong, I get my attorney back, and we start working on the plea agreement again.

You still haven't satisfied for ME that the CSA was due process (and the whole fiasco of MDMA's scheduling... HA!).

And the whole CSA is in violation of U.S. code Title 18 Chapter 13 section 241.
When did Congress get the power to violate the law while making a law?

Those are the things I cannot just accept on blind faith - trusting in the government blindly.



And this turned out about 1,500 words longer than I intended.
>_<

 

[Kalash]

That is like saying that murder isn't illegal until you've killed someone.

No it isn't....

It's saying that you cannot be TRIED for murder unless there is a MURDER VICTIM.

It isn't the ACT that's illegal - it's the violation of another's right to LIFE that is illegal.


Malum prohibitum crimes (drug laws, prostitution, and custom's seizures...) are nothing more than ACTS.
There is no mens re (criminal intent).
There is no corpus delicti (loss or harm, and someone's unlawful acts resulting in this loss or harm).





It still comes down to rights v. privileges...

It is a criminal act to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property (or the rights to the same, or to punish someone for exercising the same).

Congress has taken our RIGHTS through legislation - Congress has committed a felony crime against the people.

And that is where my mind breaks down...
How can my rights be suspended by congress - and my free exercise of these rights - to the detriment of no one - is now CRIMINAL, while congresses blatant disregard for the law is accepted and supported?

Where is the original crime? The initial deprivation of rights?
Is it congress's act to deprive me of my rights of property and contract...
Or my attempt to violate Congress's RIGHT to make any law they please?




I can't believe I didn't trip over that line the first time.
Right...
Life to go live and all that... >_<
(For a while anyway...)
Thanks for the debate!
Kalash

 

[Kalash]

The prosecutor agreed to push back my motion due date to Feb. 20th.


New schedule;
Feb. 20th (Wed.) -- for filing the motion.
Feb. 29th (Fri.) -- for govt’s opposition
March 10th (Mon.) -- for your reply brief, if any
March 17th (Mon.) – hearing on motion, at 3:00 p.m.



Trial will remain on calendar for April 8.

 

[bladescar]

u playin wit fire...FEDS dont F around... take the plea and do ya time, dont let the time do you.

 

[Kalash]

u playin wit fire...FEDS dont F around... take the plea and do ya time, dont let the time do you.

I know.
But I like my meals cooked.

I have claimed my right to file my demurrer motion.

If the motion fails, a plea agreement is still negotiable.



As it is, I don't see the CRIME that I've committed.
I see an act of disobedience that lead to CRIMES being committed against me by the government.

They used fraud, enticement, and other means to ensure that I fell into their trap - and are now holding me in a criminal conspiracy to deprive me of my rights.



I'm filing the motion.
What happens then is up to the court.

If the motion fails, then I'll be entertaining the plea agreement.

Until then, it isn't even crossing my mind.
It is not my intention to go to trial and get hung.

I'll bargain out before that point.
But I'm entitled to due process, and I'm going to get what I'm entitled to.
My views will be heard.
My rights asserted.

And if the government comes and tramples upon my rights by criminally persecuting me under these laws, ultra vires the federal government, it is they who are at fault for committing crimes...

 

[Kalash]

Less than a week till my motion's due.

I'll post a link to it once it's finished and delivered.


I'm sticking with my theme - openness and honesty.
If the government doesn't like it - I want to know what it is they have to hide.



Every day that passes the more insane the enforcement of these "laws" seems to me.

And the more insane every American is, in my mind, for believing they are free.



I may be pushing back the motion hearing date and/or changing things around so that I can have time to get transcripts of the Jan. 8th hearing.

The prosecutor made a few big mistakes there - 1) admitting there is no plaintiff with standing (other than statutory) and 2) admitting that there is no corpus delicti - no CRIME.

From the mouth of the man tasked with proving I committed a crime...
No crime has been committed...

Disobedience isn't a criminal offense if you're a free person.
Congress is not your master, you are not Congress's slave.

No crime - no time.

And anyone wanting to challenge that - on its face; not challenge it because the law says so, but challenge that an act of disobedience requires violent retaliatory force and deprivation of Unalienable rights because of the free exercise of those unalienable rights without PERMISSION - has some serious explaining to do.

 

[jimborg]

Wow. You have developed a very interesting coping mechanism for dealing with your grief, friend. I hope you realize that is all this is - a form of denial. If it increases your sense of calm, then ignore all the naysayers on this thread. Otherwise, you might try moving on with your life...

 

[Kalash]

Wow. You have developed a very interesting coping mechanism for dealing with your grief, friend. I hope you realize that is all this is - a form of denial. If it increases your sense of calm, then ignore all the naysayers on this thread. Otherwise, you might try moving on with your life...

Actually I've moved beyond that.
I've coped with the idea of going to prison.

If it happens, it happens.

Free room and board, free time, and access to a library.

It sounds like heaven.

There will be pitfalls, sure, but I loved the structured life of the military.
I don't see this as being too different - except that exercise will be optional, and I won't be told to go kill people.



I'm very adaptable, I always have been.
If I end up in prison for standing up for what I believe to be right, then I go to prison for standing up for a principle...
Not because I've done something WRONG.


That right there is the constitutional reason the drug laws are invalid.
They do not prescribe punishment for an act that is WRONG - an invasion upon the rights of another resulting in their injury or loss.

There is no plaintiff with standing in any drug case (generally. There are exceptions, but a typical dealer/consumer transaction leaves no plaintiff with standing to bring charges.)

The nay-sayers have been welcomed in this thread.


I know what I'm saying isn't common practice, but it is constitutionally and historically (case law at the Supreme Court Level) backed.

Dealing/using drugs is not a CRIME...
It is an act of disobedience.

If we are truly a free nation, the master (congress) telling us how to behave has no authority to punish us - nor dictate to us to begin with - for failing to follow their orders.





I don't care if I end up in prison at this point.
There is nothing I can do to prevent some sort of legal outcome in this case.

I've accepted it.
I've recognized that there is a slim chance that I can alter that legal outcome in favor of personal liberty - namely mine - while offering me a strong position to go and liberate the rest of my countrymen from the criminal pursuit of our government.




I am more than willing to discuss legal arguments.
I'm happy to have opposing views to debate - as they make my arguments stronger, and assist me in dealing with situations I'm sure the government will present me with.


If you can't offer opposing views backed by legal facts, then please refrain from resorting to personal attacks.

If this is my way of coping, it's working well for me.


To be honest, I've given up on society.
I don't expect a legal outcome in my favor - as I believe the system is too far gone for justice to ever be served by it.

I've written a 2nd declaration of independence, calling for the immediate abolishment of the Federal Government.

And people are SIGNING it.

I'm not the only one that's thinking that our personal liberty has been taken from us through a criminal usurpation by our government.

And it has.

Head over to the current events and politics thread.
Read some of the discussions we're having over there.



This is bigger than just drugs.
It's bigger than my case.

And I realize it is a distinct possibility that my case will be devoured by the bigger picture and the momentum of the criminal machine I am standing in front of.

However I'm not going to lay down in front of it.
I will stand.... And fight...
And if it runs over me, I will know I have done my best - not just for myself, but for everyone oppressed by the U.S. government - my countrymen, and brothers and sisters in humanity throughout the world.





But please - I've offered this up to my mom numerous times...
Other than, "I believe what you did was wrong."

What case do you have against me?
Where is the plaintiff with standing?
Where is the corpus delicti - body of the crime - that is a REQUIREMENT in all criminal cases?


My terminology has improved, but to keep it simple...
The only request I've been making of my mom - and am now making formally to the government is this;

Show me the victim of my alleged crime.
I will do whatever time - accept whatever punishment - they ask of me, and I will accept it gladly.


That isn't denial...
That's an assertion of the facts.

No CRIME is alleged.
No CRIME has been committed.
No CRIMINAL case exists.

And the burden of proof rests on the government if things are, indeed, not as I perceive them.


However the prosecutor on Jan. 8th stated plainly that the corpus delicti does not exist, and is not part of his burden of proof.

Without the corpus delicti there is no legitimate claim against me - providing I am a free man.


There is no case.
There is no jurisdiction of the court.

And the entire process is a criminal attempt to deprive me of my unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness without due process of law.



Prove to me otherwise.
Or at least argue one of those points with specifics on why you believe it to be wrong.


Opinions do not matter in court - and allegations of unlawful activity are not enough to provide standing.

 

[Kalash]

A slightly different spin...

Apparently the whole standing/corpus delicti thing - while fundamentally correct - is not legally plausible.

So... we're going in a slightly different direction.

The motion has been served (to the prosecution) and filed (with the clerk of the court - this is not usually the case but was a special arrangement ordered by the judge.)


The first time through I wasn't impressed at all.
I got caught up in all the randomness in the first 9 pages and didn't actually get the point of the meat - the main argument.

So here's a link to the main part.

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/9007.html#TOC1_7

The whole thing is there - just scroll up - along with links to PDF and WPD versions.

The request has also been made to vacate the trial date.
I didn't believe this to be necessary, but it's in there to be denied or approved.


Instead of being a death-stroke to the drug laws, this may only knock MDMA off the list of prohibited drugs - as it was not legally scheduled.

I still intend to find case law backing my position on standing/corpus deliciti - but Lawyerdude does not believe that I can find criminal rulings to back this position.

I'll start looking.

While it isn't quite what I intended, I appreciate the slightly different viewpoint.

While I don't believe it's a strong argument (and would not have pursued it on my own) Lawyerdude believes it is a strong enough position have the case thrown out.

We'll see.

Waiting till the 29th - for the prosecution's response.

Then I'll figure out what to do from there.

Bright side - I'm $100 up with Lawyerdude.
The motion only took him 9 hours - $300

I pre-paid $420.
I still have credit left for the other 2 proposed motions.

 

[jimborg]

That isn't denial...
That's an assertion of the facts.

No CRIME is alleged.
No CRIME has been committed.
No CRIMINAL case exists.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let me explain to you why:

-They would not have arrested you if no crime was alleged. Whether or not you see what you did as a crime is irrelevant.

-The fact that you truly believe that no crime has been committed is case and point for your denial.

-Do you really think that they would expend so much time and resources on your case if they even had a shred of doubt about whether their case would hold up?

Or at least argue one of those points with specifics on why you believe it to be wrong.

You are essentially arguing that the justice system is infringing upon your rights to privacy and personal property. When in fact, the job of the justice system is to interpret laws created by the people, to protect the people.

We as a society have made the decision to give up certain personal freedoms in order to ensure our safety and well-being. One of the personal freedoms we as a society have chosen to give up is the right to possess certain substances. By being in this country (not to mention being a citizen), you have agreed to obey the laws of the land, whether or not you agree with, or even acknowledge them.

No specifics are necessary. The legal system isn't a game that can be beaten. You don't plug in an equation and suddenly "ding ding ding" you're a winner! You are contradicting countless, countless people, and you will be viewed as a junkie with too much time on his hands. I'm sorry, but I think 99% of the people you ask will believe that the most you can hope for is amusing the judge. After he goes home from work and tells his family for a good laugh, you'll go right back to just being another junkie.

The fact is, you knew the risk when you took narcotics into your possession. You knew the laws, you knew what could happen, you knew what the consequences would be. You made a conscious decision to disobey the law because you didn't really think you would get caught (although you knew that you might). Once caught, you began frantically searching for an escape route.

In the process, you found that the research, philosophy and debate were a good outlet for your anxiety. Devising an argument, you suddenly attained some sense of control at a time when the authorities left you feeling helpless. Better yet, now when you go down, you can feel like it was on your terms. You can look at yourself as a martyr, as fighting for a bigger cause.

I'm sorry. I'd love nothing more than to be proved wrong. But if I had just won $100 million in the lottery, I would bet every penny that your entire argument is rejected as soon as it leaves your lips.

 

[Kalash]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let me explain to you why:

-They would not have arrested you if no crime was alleged. Whether or not you see what you did as a crime is irrelevant.

-The fact that you truly believe that no crime has been committed is case and point for your denial.

-Do you really think that they would expend so much time and resources on your case if they even had a shred of doubt about whether their case would hold up?



You are essentially arguing that the justice system is infringing upon your rights to privacy and personal property. When in fact, the job of the justice system is to interpret laws created by the people, to protect the people.

We as a society have made the decision to give up certain personal freedoms in order to ensure our safety and well-being. One of the personal freedoms we as a society have chosen to give up is the right to possess certain substances. By being in this country (not to mention being a citizen), you have agreed to obey the laws of the land, whether or not you agree with, or even acknowledge them.

No specifics are necessary. The legal system isn't a game that can be beaten. You don't plug in an equation and suddenly "ding ding ding" you're a winner! You are contradicting countless, countless people, and you will be viewed as a junkie with too much time on his hands. I'm sorry, but I think 99% of the people you ask will believe that the most you can hope for is amusing the judge. After he goes home from work and tells his family for a good laugh, you'll go right back to just being another junkie.

The fact is, you knew the risk when you took narcotics into your possession. You knew the laws, you knew what could happen, you knew what the consequences would be. You made a conscious decision to disobey the law because you didn't really think you would get caught (although you knew that you might). Once caught, you began frantically searching for an escape route.

In the process, you found that the research, philosophy and debate were a good outlet for your anxiety. Devising an argument, you suddenly attained some sense of control at a time when the authorities left you feeling helpless. Better yet, now when you go down, you can feel like it was on your terms. You can look at yourself as a martyr, as fighting for a bigger cause.

I'm sorry. I'd love nothing more than to be proved wrong. But if I had just won $100 million in the lottery, I would bet every penny that your entire argument is rejected as soon as it leaves your lips.

That's a collectivist argument in a free society based upon individualism.

There is no due process of law by which my rights of property and contract were legally abridged.

The LAW was not created "By the people" as it is an unconstitutional law - it deprives the individual of their rights without due process.




Go read the declaration of independence and the Constitution, then get back to me.


"We as society" is precisely what the constitution was written to protect the individual from.

Collectivist ideals turned into law are prohibited by the constitution - a document of specific grants of authority to establish a privileged government.

The bill of rights was written as a means of restraint upon this privileged government.

Certain RIGHTS cannot be taken, nor any individual deprived of these RIGHTS without due process of law.
Due process is either a constitutional amendment (see the 18th) or a guilty verdict in a criminal trial.


"We as society" has no authority to waive my rights for their benefit.

You're describing an absolute democracy.
We do not have an absolute democracy.

We don't even have a democracy.
We have a constitutional republic.
The operative word being "constitutional" wherein the powers afforded to the government are few, specific, and enumerated...
And the rights of the people which the government may not infringe upon in their duties are NOT enumerated, nor completely listed. (see the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

)




I'm not fooling myself into believing I won't go to prison.

But I'm not fooling myself into believing we have an absolute democracy and waiving my rights just to make "society" feel better about itself.



It sounds like you're in denial of your unalienable rights...

You believe you have privileges granted to you by the state/government which may be taken from you at the whim of the legislature.

You're in denial about having a constitutional republic.





And - you're in denial of FACT OF LAW - while being firmly anchored in reality.


I recognize that a constitutional republic is not our reality.

That isn't denial - it's insanity...
Insisting that the world I live in is not the way the world exists....


That's not denial - that's insanity.