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

[Kalash]

Quick side note; constitutionally I committed no crime.


The criminals who have usurped our constitutional government....
They have committed the crimes.

And this case is the embodiment of their crimes against me.


An unconstitutional statute is not a valid law - any statute by which the individual is deprived of their protected rights is unconstitutional.

It's really pretty simple.


The trick here is recognizing that there are no constitutional rights.

You do not have a single constitutional right.

You have constitutionally protected rights that are pre-existent to the government - and limitations on the privileged government (privileged with derived powers from your RIGHTS and your consent) so that no minority group (individual) will ever suffer loss or harm to their rights no matter what majority group (society) may willfully vote to deprive the minority of.



Such is the LAW of the LAND.
Superior to any act of congress...
Any judicial ruling...

Superior to any whim of the majority (of society).



So...
You can argue with your constitutionally invalid "Society's rights" ad naseum; and outside the United States you would be absolutely correct.

However individual freedom and liberty are what make our nation great (or used to.)

To undermine this fundamental principal is to undermine our greatness... Undermine the intentions of the founding fathers...

An act of treason against the free American People.



Repetition and habitual enforcement of an unconstitutional statute do not make the statute valid - nor constitutional.



By basing my arguments on constitutional law the judge is left with two choices...

Rule against me, uphold the statutes in direct violation of the constitution - violating his oath of office...

Or rule in my favor and uphold his oath of office.




The sad thing is how easy this all was to piece together.
The fundamental ideas where planted in my head years ago.

The research came because I needed to find a legal way of expressing the ideas.

Legally, the ideas work.
Constitutionally, the ideas work.


The reason you are mostly correct is that we no longer have a legal, constitutional republic.
We no longer have a legitimate Federal Government.

They are in violation of the constitutional protections of our rights.
They have breached their contract with the free people.

By breaching the contract they invalidate it.
They no longer have any legal authority.

But they have the guns and manpower to force their will on the people - who are no longer free.




It isn't denial about my legal situation - it's an act of defiance against a criminal agency that has replaced our constitutional government through slow, steady encroachment, terrorist attacks upon the minds of the people(not physical - but psychological attacks), and a continual debasement of fact by asserting that we have a democracy - implying an authoritarian form of government.

Yes - we do have a democracy - but it is not legal.
Yes - it is authoritarian/absolute - but it is not legal.

And it is the legal deficiency of the authority pressing charges of "disobedience" whereby they have deprived me of my unalienable RIGHTS in order to benefit a SOCIETY which has no rights of its own...

The crime of not obeying?
The crime of "knowing that THEY didn't want me to..."
The crime of what?

If I am free, I cannot be ordered around by my servant (government = public servant).
The entire concept is so ridiculous I don't even know how to begin to counter against it.


I'm just tired of being a slave.


Congress - nor the government - owns me.
They should not be entitled to 30% of my work/profit/money without compensating me through consensually contracted services.
They should not be entitled to dictate what I may and may not do, as they are the servant - not the master.

Disobedience by the master - when being ordered by the servant - is not a CRIME.
And if the master feels threatened by the servant - whom he has not oppressed, and whom has only ever been in servitude by consent and contract - then the servant must be fired or, in this case, held to trial for their crimes.

 

[Jigsaw]

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.

Yeah, but you are certainly fooling yourself into believing that we have a strong constitutional republic. It is obvious that the government is not doing what it was created to do, and to a lesser extent, that all of our drug laws are in fact, unconstitutional. But just because you are right, does not mean you will make any difference in changing the drug laws, or even get off for your charges at the very least. I've read this entire thread from one point to another, and the basic slide of things is still the same:

Just because something is incorrect, does not mean it will be changed.
I am in no ways putting you down for actually fighting your charges, but I think the more you latch on to the hope that you will even have remote success by claiming it is your right, you just become more delusional.

As jimbord said, it is the responsibility of the justice system to intrepert the laws. They have continually decided that the possession of "illegal" drugs is....illegal. Just because you, as a citizen, decide that they have interpreted them totally wrong, which they may or may not have, does not delude any of their power. At the end of the day, it's their call. And they say no, drugs are illegal.

It's not the government's fault for trying to control it's citizens. It's not the citizen's fault for not standing up for their rights.

What if we started a second civil war, and overturned the nation. We took control, reset the laws and government so that we were all free. Back to the constituion, anyone can shoot up some heroin or go for a nice line of blow. I guarantee you in less than a hundred years, either the government would begin to slowly strips rights away, or it would cease to exist...
But imagine the government giving us all TOTAL freedom. I imagine in the same hundred year time frame, things would fall apart equally fast. The nation would fall into extreme poverty and be at great risk to foreign invasion. Our freedoms would disappear into a need to survive, and would be the ultimate cost in gaining our freedom.

Things happened the way they did. There is no changing that. Just because we were supposed to have a government one way, does not mean that we can magically jump to that old dimension of government. The Constitution was written long before the great world wars, extremely high population rates, and a huge lull in human evolution. We have become so adjusted in our morals and values that survival of the fittest no longer applies. In order for a government to exist, it must create a plan of control and longevity. America's government has evolved from a free nation to it's current state today, and unfortunately, there is nothing you can do about. Maybe it's time to start looking for a better country?

Let me know if you find a good one, because really, like I said earlier, I agree that you are right. I'm just saying, at this point in time, with this established government...you defense won't get you far.

 

[Kalash]

Yeah, but you are certainly fooling yourself into believing that we have a strong constitutional republic. It is obvious that the government is not doing what it was created to do, and to a lesser extent, that all of our drug laws are in fact, unconstitutional. But just because you are right, does not mean you will make any difference in changing the drug laws, or even get off for your charges at the very least. I've read this entire thread from one point to another, and the basic slide of things is still the same:

Just because something is incorrect, does not mean it will be changed.
I am in no ways putting you down for actually fighting your charges, but I think the more you latch on to the hope that you will even have remote success by claiming it is your right, you just become more delusional.

As jimbord said, it is the responsibility of the justice system to intrepert the laws. They have continually decided that the possession of "illegal" drugs is....illegal. Just because you, as a citizen, decide that they have interpreted them totally wrong, which they may or may not have, does not delude any of their power. At the end of the day, it's their call. And they say no, drugs are illegal.

It's not the government's fault for trying to control it's citizens. It's not the citizen's fault for not standing up for their rights.

What if we started a second civil war, and overturned the nation. We took control, reset the laws and government so that we were all free. Back to the constituion, anyone can shoot up some heroin or go for a nice line of blow. I guarantee you in less than a hundred years, either the government would begin to slowly strips rights away, or it would cease to exist...
But imagine the government giving us all TOTAL freedom. I imagine in the same hundred year time frame, things would fall apart equally fast. The nation would fall into extreme poverty and be at great risk to foreign invasion. Our freedoms would disappear into a need to survive, and would be the ultimate cost in gaining our freedom.

Things happened the way they did. There is no changing that. Just because we were supposed to have a government one way, does not mean that we can magically jump to that old dimension of government. The Constitution was written long before the great world wars, extremely high population rates, and a huge lull in human evolution. We have become so adjusted in our morals and values that survival of the fittest no longer applies. In order for a government to exist, it must create a plan of control and longevity. America's government has evolved from a free nation to it's current state today, and unfortunately, there is nothing you can do about. Maybe it's time to start looking for a better country?

Let me know if you find a good one, because really, like I said earlier, I agree that you are right. I'm just saying, at this point in time, with this established government...you defense won't get you far.

Either I mis-spoke or you misinterpreted.

I recognize that we do not have a strong constitutional republic.
However, the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Technically this makes my arguments impenetrable.

Reality, and illegal practices of our government, dictate otherwise.
However accepting that the government is a criminal installation which has completely replaced our legitimate government...
That's where I'm standing. I don't pretend that we retain a constitutional republic - but I refuse to deny our constitutional republic and accept the new criminal regime as a legitimate authority.


The fact that you can recognize the inconsistencies within the execution of the drug laws and the constitutional republic established by the constitution gives me hope.


My expectations are not so high as to be unrealistic.
While the perceived goal is for me to avoid prison, at this point I do not believe that is necessarily a possibility. It is a distant hope, and an idea I will cling to, but this is not the end goal.

Reality dictates that the criminal government will continue in its crimes against the people.
However the victims of the crimes are not aware that crimes are being committed against them.
And it is to this end that I continue to raise my voice - to enlighten the victims of the criminal government - so that they may begin to resist.


I'm definitely looking bigger picture here.
My individual worth...
It's negligible.

I feel I have nothing to lose by going to prison...
The word "martyr" continues to come up, and I continue to not view things that way.


The worst they can do to me is kill me.
They aren't attempting to do that. They're attempting to give me free room and board for a set amount of time.
We're negotiating how long I should receive these entitlements.
I don't believe I should accept them - as they make me a direct beneficiary of the criminal acts of government against the people of the United States.

I do not condone their criminal behavior, and I do not want their entitlements.
So I resist.








As for my disbelief in Democracy - I accept that reality has imposed such a government upon us.
I refuse to accept reality - not because I don't want it to be so...
But because it is ILLEGAL for it to be the way that it is.
And I have the RIGHT to defend myself from the criminal acts against me. I am doing so, peacefully - because that is my nature. Self defense is an argument that would apply in this case - should I walk into court and fire upon the judge, prosecutor, and any who rally to their side.
But I am not violent. Criminals are violent. And the government is violent. If I become violent, I become one of them, and I refuse to resort to violence when there are other venues in which to defend myself and seek retribution for the crimes committed against me.

We are supposed to have equal protection under the law (8th amendment).
When the government commits the crime, we are entitled to see the government - and/or its agents (following orders is not a defense - Nazi Nuremberg trials) - for committing crimes against us.


The problems I'm trying to address are that the government is not held to the same standard as the rest of the population.
They can steal, enslave, and murder with immunity from the laws they attempt to impose upon us.
This is a distinct violation of the 8th amendment (among others...) that needs to be addressed.



My case is not the ideal platform to initiate a complete overhaul of the federal government. I do not expect it to do so.
However it can be the spark - the catalyst - that gets things moving.


My entire life I've worked as a catalyst.
I show up, I inspire/begin changes, then I move on.

I hardly ever become a part of the equation for the duration of the changes.

I'm not trying to overturn the drug laws.
I'm not trying to sacrifice myself for that cause.

I'm working to re-ignite the concepts of individual liberty and freedom in the hearts and minds of the people oppressed by the criminal government that has replaced our legal, constitutional government.


There is ongoing discussion about this in the CEP threads.

Quick concept here;
The constitution is a contract between the government and the sovereign people.

The government has broken the contract (violated the rights protected by the constitution).

The government needs to be fired/abolished and re-established - as it was consensually created with powers derived from the consent/rights of the people.



So the world I'm looking at...
I've fallen victim to a corrupt gang of criminals.
They will do with me as they please, no matter what I say, nor whom I say it to.
However they are criminals - and I intend to expose their actions for what they are - no matter the cost to myself, as I've already fallen into their hands.

If I can spread a warning about what's going on, everyone else will be better off.

The criminals rely upon our ignorance that they are indeed CRIMINAL usurpers of the powers of a legitimate government/the people.

However the dam of ignorance is beginning to break. The patriot act... the national ID card...
People are starting to see what's going on. And knowledge of the criminal cabal that has displaced our lawful government will soon be exposed.



Disclaimer - most involved in government DO INDEED believe they are acting in the best interests of others. They are blinded to the concepts established by the constitution - and they seek to impose a form of communism - or socialism - upon a free people. I do not believe that the government is a single criminal entity. There are those inside the government that wish to see the rights of everyone protected equally. There are those that seek to use unlawful powers of government to further their personal wealth/family power. And each individual's actions should be viewed separate from that of the collective. The COLLECTIVE (government) does not have RIGHTS that are superior to the rights of the individuals making up the collective. This is the fundamental problem with... EVERYTHING. Society does not have RIGHTS superior to those of the individual; the individual cannot be deprived of their RIGHTS for the perceived NEED of society. This is firmly established in the constitution. For the government to deprive the citizens of their RIGHTS for the good of SOCIETY is to commit an unconstitutional act - criminal act - against the Master (the people) by the servant (government).



Again - my case is just a small part of this whole picture.
But it is an integral part of the awareness process - as the fundamental CRIMES are those in which we are deprived of our rights of property and contract.

Without either we are nothing but slaves.

And I'm so tired of being a slave.
All I have to lose is a life of "freedom" in which I am a slave - directed and controlled by a gang of criminals who wish to seize my property, freedom, and earnings.

If that's the freedom I'm going to lose by going to prison, I see no difference between being free and being locked away.
Except that in prison, I'll be sure to have food, clothing, and housing provided for me.



If I'm not risking freedom to begin with - just a facade of freedom - then I am risking nothing.
A martyr is respected because they give something they hold of value for their cause.
I value freedom and liberty, but I do not retain them. I can not give them up for any cause, though I would be willing to do so in this case.

So again - I ask you - is that denial, or is it just a sick way of looking at things - for which I should probably be locked away to protect me from myself?

 

[Kalash]

"That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation
of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon
mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all
laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any
institutions formed by his fellow men without his consent." CRUDEN v.
NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796.

 

[Kalash]

It's midnight.

The prosecutor failed to respond to my motion to dismiss.


Welcome to limbo.



QUESTIONS;
Must the court rule by default in my favor (i.e. dismiss the case) because the prosecution failed to respond?

Can the prosecution - after the deadline has passed - file for more time to respond to the motion?


Can the prosecution make an argument at the motion hearing raising challenge to the motion when they did not raise challenge per the court appointed deadline prior to the hearing?




The bastards are going to slip up on a detail and I'm going to lose my ability to argue constitutionally - in a court that could effectively alter policy.

And I'm not happy about it.
But I'll take it if I can get it at this point.

There's too much work to be done out here.
To include the class action suit against the government under Chapter 42 section 1983.

 

[Kalash]

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure #12 (e)


(e) Waiver of a Defense, Objection, or Request.
A party waives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense, objection, or request not raised by the deadline the court sets
under Rule 12(c) or by any extension the court provides. For good cause, the court may grant relief from
the waiver.



English translation; by not responding to my motion to dismiss the case, the prosecution has waived any ability to challenge my motion.


Looks like a win.
4th quarter has begun... I'm way ahead.
Unless they pull of some miracle, we're not going into over time, and this game is mine.

 

[johanneschimpo]

"For good cause, the court may grant relief from the waiver."

does that part mean what I think it means? I don't speak legalese, but it seems that they can pull "relief" out of their ass anytime they want. "good cause" to you/me vs. the law are very different. "good cause" sure, because throwing more people in prison is good cause, to them.

"took another one off the street, god job guys!" (high five slaps)

(I hope you detect some amount of sarcasm, I'm on your side)

 

[Banquo]

English translation; by not responding to my motion to dismiss the case, the prosecution has waived any ability to challenge my motion.

have you the chance to ask your attorney about this?

in some courts, judges are very lenient with extensions, though i have no clue what will happen here.

 

[Kalash]

have you the chance to ask your attorney about this?

in some courts, judges are very lenient with extensions, though i have no clue what will happen here.

Define "your attorney"


Lawyerdude seems to think it's over, pending no challenges from the prosecution and requests for more time.


Mr. Early has not responded to my question of, "So... what's next?"

Along with my guess of writing a proposed order to dismiss the case (with prejudice).



So...
I don't know yet.


I'm thinking that tomorrow's Monday.
I might hear something.

Then again, I might not.


While I'm mentally preparing for a win (because I've been mentally preparing for another year of legal battles...) I'm still not throwing the towel to the cheering audience and turning my back on my opponent.

I know they're sneaky.
And vile.

But I think they might just want to let me go to get me to shut up and leave them alone.

They never really wanted me in the first place.
It was an FBI arrest because of the ATF - nothing to do with drugs.

I was incidental.
I was a bonus.

And I don't think they're willing to fight to keep me.

Of course... that won't prevent me from trying to get the proposed order to say something along the lines of, "For failing to allege an actual crime and relying upon unconstitutional abuses and extensions of administrative law in an effort to deprive the citizenry of their unalienable rights, I hereby order this case dismissed with prejudice, while allowing for civil and criminal charges to be filed by the defendant against those conspiring to illegally usurp his rights."


Of course...
I doubt the judge will sign such a thing...
But it's what I'm going for.

Step one.
My first legal battle.

Step two will be the civil case - and filing of formal criminal charges.
The criminal charges most likely won't go anywhere (as the government won't press charges against itself/its criminal agents), but the civil case has some potential - especially if the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim.






As for the extension - the prosecution should have filed for one prior to the deadline.

Their failure to do so doesn't look good.
They not only have to explain why they want the extension - they have to explain why their request for an extension wasn't made by the deadline.

Judge Carter is also very reluctant to grant extensions - though this is a screwed up special case where it appears that pretty much anything goes.


My self representation with standby counsel - first time my attorney's seen it done (and he's experiencing it.)
He's heard of it - but never talked to anyone personally who's been retained as standby counsel before.

So...
I seem to have unusual circumstances gravitate to me.

Anything is possible now.
Including me winning, unchallenged, by claiming there is no legitimate law prohibiting the possession or distribution of MDMA/ecstasy.

(Repercussions for my co-defendants? If my case is dismissed for there not being a law against what we're accused of doing? That should be interesting.)

 

[Kalash]

"For good cause, the court may grant relief from the waiver."

does that part mean what I think it means? I don't speak legalese, but it seems that they can pull "relief" out of their ass anytime they want. "good cause" to you/me vs. the law are very different. "good cause" sure, because throwing more people in prison is good cause, to them.

"took another one off the street, god job guys!" (high five slaps)

(I hope you detect some amount of sarcasm, I'm on your side)

You have a valid point...
However it is going to be hard for them to prove that they couldn't request more time prior to the deadline.

The general rule seems to be, "file your motion, or file a request for more time before the deadline."

Anything coming after the deadline is harder to get.

Monday will already be 3 days past the due date.
They're encroaching heavily upon my allotted time to respond.... (By the 10th)
Giving us with a wost case scenario (for me) of them responding last minute, leaving me with little to no time to prepare a response.

Leading me to request more time - as they failed to abide by the court's ordered schedule, and demanding the trial date be pushed back because of their failure to follow the schedule.



Of course - if the motion fails, we're still filing for a Writ - interlocutory appeal (appeal prior to trial) to attempt to have the denial over ridden... and the trial date must be vacated anyway, but hopefully it won't come to that.


The court knows this though.
And again, I think it's one of those things they want to just go away.



When it ultimately comes down to what the charges allege (I possessed/contracted with my private property - and the government claims I have no RIGHT to possess/contract with my private property) they're going to run into constitutional issues that the courts DO NOT want to address.

They'll want to let me off on a technicality so that I cannot continue to pursue this line of challenging which threatens to expose the criminal cabal for what it is; a criminal seizure of the rights of the people in the interest of governmental growth and power...
An attempt to regulate the actions of the public (enslavement) so that the government may thrive and subject them to further deprivations of their rights in an attempt to become the next supreme power (think Nazi Germany. That's the wet dream of every government - complacent people who do what you want. Period. No second thoughts, no challenges to your commands).




The whole, "BUT THEY'RE DRUGS!!!" thing only works for so long.

You're telling me that the government can put a label on something and it instantly becomes something other than property?

All they have to do is prohibit the ownership of a house, and a house is no longer property - it is contraband?
You can then be arrested for possessing a house?
"But that's ridiculous! A house isn't the same as drugs!"
They're both property, aren't they? I fail to see the difference.

Rights > privileges.

And I'm not letting go of that thought till I'm dead.
Prison or no, I'm standing strong in that belief - come what may.

 

[Kalash]

I just received notice that the trial date has been changed from April 8th to April 3rd...
And advancement of 5 days.

This was from the court clerk - the prosecution has still not responded to my motion.


I still have one co-defendant that has not plead.
If they are going to dismiss the charges against me, I think they want to tighten things up on the back end so that a similar motion cannot be filed in her defense.


If the motion is denied I'm going to demand the trial date be vacated - as I have not had adequate time to prepare for trial - as 11 months of the last year have been spent defending myself from my counsel - not preparing nor fighting my case.

 

[fatstep]

If MDMA were regulated then it would be purely economic in nature, also, the Interstate Commerce thing won't work because eventually someone will transport it across a state line, it's inevitable.

 

[Johnny1]

Good luck with the dismissal, Kalash. Keep up the fight. Just because we have disagreed at times about strategy and had to edit some of your posts in other threads doesn't mean we are not rooting for you.

 

[Kalash]

Good luck with the dismissal, Kalash. Keep up the fight. Just because we have disagreed at times about strategy and had to edit some of your posts in other threads doesn't mean we are not rooting for you.

I know.
I overstep boundaries occasionally.

I just talked to Lawyerdude - he's going to write up a proposed order requesting a default ruling in favor of the motion.


I've been thinking about this - there is really no way for the court to deny the motion without violating due process...
As the judge must be impartial and cannot practice law from the bench, he cannot step in for the prosecutor and make a case against my motion.


He'll either have to deny the motion - without any reason... without cause...
And deny me due process - opening things up to appeal...

Or usurp the position of the prosecutor - side with him - denying me due process....

Or dismiss the case.



With the problems created by the first two actions, a dismissal seems likely.

I'm getting anxious waiting on the proposed order...
I want it filed - and possibly ruled upon prior to the hearing date...
And making it so I don't have to take the train back to Santa Ana.

That'd be nice.
But I don't expect it to happen.


Even if my case is dismissed I'm not getting out of the legal forums. (Until you ban me )
One of my friends has asked for help with their case.

They haven't been arraigned yet.
I'm encouraging them to (after consulting with an attorney) to enter a demurrer plea.

That way we can get this whole process started before he enters a plea making things harder.





I've subverted him >_<
He strongly believes he didn't do anything wrong.
The whole property rights thing rings a few bells.

He's willing to fight - he just doesn't want to have to stop going to school.

One case at a time - and I'll be filing the civil suit against the arresting agent and prosecutor as well.

 

[Kalash]

If MDMA were regulated then it would be purely economic in nature, also, the Interstate Commerce thing won't work because eventually someone will transport it across a state line, it's inevitable.

If it's regulated - it's civil.
Not criminal.

I'm not sure where you're going with that...

Prohibition is not regulation...
It's de-regulation.

Drugs are regulated by the black market now...
The government doesn't regulate them.

They just get upset when someone disobeys their order NOT to use/distribute drugs because it shows that they're shirking their responsibilities and avoiding their duties.


If that doesn't answer/counter/whatever what you were trying to say, clarify and I'll see what I can do.

 

[*Love*Lite*]

Just wanted to say good luck as well.... seems like your really trying to do the best you can. If more people stood up for OUR rights like this maybe our country could begin heading in the right dirrection. Thank-you and again good luck.

 

[drew345]

yea just wanted to say Kalash I have followed this since you first posted a long time ago you got alot of fight thats a quality you cant teach goodluck everyones rooting for you

 

[indelibleface]

Well, Kalash, like I told you over MySpace --

You beat this, and a victory round of drinks is in order, on me.

Actually, even if you don't, I'm sure you could use some drinking.

But yeah, time to stay optimistic. *crosses fingers* Good luck, my friend.

 

[Kalash]

Thanks for the support guys.

I'll give up when I'm dead...

Or there's no more oppression to fight.


Getting people to realize they have rights is the hardest thing I'm coming up against.
You all can help with that.


We'll get there.

 

[Banquo]

If MDMA were regulated then it would be purely economic in nature, also, the Interstate Commerce thing won't work because eventually someone will transport it across a state line, it's inevitable.

And sometimes state lines don't even have to be crossed.

Congress has had almost no limitation when it comes to regulating via the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. The regulated activity need only involve one of the following:

- channels of interstate commerce.
- instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
- activities that substantially affect interstate commerce

Pre-1930s, the interstate commerce clause had a much narrower interpretation. Minimum wage and work hour regulations, for example, were struck down under the "right to free contract" found in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obviously, a lot has changed since then.

further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich