OP,
It sounds like you have substantial time ahead of you, but that you can make use of it, survive, and live a happy life. These are things it might be wise to focus on, and invest in.
Regarding your constitutional arguments... trade in drugs affects interstate commerce, and therefore it may be regulated by Congress under the interstate commerce clause. It does not matter whether the drugs in question were ever intended for interstate commerce, whether it would make economic sense for them to enter interstate commerce, etc.
Why is this important?
Schick v. U.S. makes it clear that Congressional powers must yield to the rights of the people. Commerce? Fine.
Prohibiting the exercise of one's property rights for the purposes of regulating commerce?
Exceeds their authority and is invalid law.
Step outside the box. There's more to this than is presented in past arguments. There is no way to overcome the interstate commerce clause by challenging it or its scope.
The only way to raise this issue is to attack it from a different angle - not one of "not interstate commerce - not applicable to my conduct" but
"Irrelevant if it's commerce or not, as it is the exercise of a fundamental right to property - without consent of Government."
Deprivation of rights is a serious crime. Government cannot commit crime in the lawful exercise of its privileged powers.
I find this point simple - and have a hard time understanding why it is insufficient.
Is there a case you know of where this has been presented in this manner? I haven't found one.
I would caution you about becoming too emotionally invested in these constitutional arguments. If you agree that these are legal arguments, and that the law is a complex subject, then you should also agree that you might be incorrect in your arguments. Is that fair? Can we also agree that if someone lacks legal training, and were forced to learn about the law in his particular case under pressure, with limited access to resources, that he might be more likely to be in error in his legal arguments?
Absolutely I may be in error.
But I've yet to hear HOW I've errored.
While I rely heavily upon the Constitution to question the legal authority of the CSA, and the Constitution no longer seems to hold sway over government, that doesn't mean I'm going to give up on its supremacy - as that is, still, the law of the land.
There isn't much emotion to consider in light of the Judge's opinion.
He makes it very clear that there are no property rights he is willing to recognize that are not subjected to absolute control by government.
Any "right" that can be taken and granted at whim is no right at all, but a mere privilege. If the Constitution still has any meaning, the judge is clearly in error.
Sometimes, particularly when we're under a lot of emotional pressure, we can become extremely invested in an argument that serves our interests. If your attorney thinks you have nothing to lose by proceeding with the appeal, then do so. But beware of completely losing objectivity about this. Even if you have nothing to lose legally by proceeding with the appeal, intense emotional investment in these arguments may divert you from putting your energies towards more fruitful activities, keep you from dealing with various tasks and realities, etc.
Various tasks and realities? What are you on about?
My reality is that I'm in a self-sustaining existence with little excess and little worth keeping.
The only reality I'm facing is imprisonment for a period of ~2 years (maybe a little more or a little less).
What is important right now?
Aside from overturning these unjust laws?
How's this for objectivity - if I don't get the laws over turned, government will continue to treat the rights of the people as though they are mere privileges derived from a governmental source.
If I don't get the laws overturned, no RIGHT to property will exist in America - there will be no land of the free - as without any right to property, you have no right to the fruits of your labor, nor of your labor itself.
It matters little if I'm in prison or out if I am nothing more than a slave to government - fully subject to their whims, and only given the privileges they're willing to grant me (and/or charge me a licensing fee for).
Also... such an investment may blind you to the realities, effects, and consequences of the crimes for which you have been convicted. That, in turn, may have ramifications for parole, for acceptance and adjustment to a new set of circumstances, and so forth.
Realities - false information was given to Government to cause them to make a determination that MDMA should be scheduled. (It's being used recreationally! OHS NOES!!!)
According to the Administrative law judge, MDMA could not LEGALLY be placed higher than schedule III.
Scientific fact disproves the Government's position.
The current (and ongoing) MAPS studies have disproved them even further.
The sentencing guidelines are based upon Dr. Ricaurte's retracted "meth" research that showed "mdmd puts holes in the brain" that was either falsified or so inaccurate that it required a published retraction - AFTER the laws were changed to incorporate this data.
The effects and consequences of "drug possession and distribution" are nothing like Government claims.
Yes, while there is a black market, there will be consequences of the black market activities.
The criminalization of the mere possession - and non-violent re-distribution of drugs - is akin to criminalizing "being in a bank during an armed robbery."
The criminalization of drug POSSESSION alone is akin to criminalizing the possession of ANY property on the assumption that "theft cannot exist if there is nothing to steal" - and that this prohibition prevents all theft, as no one can steal what is not being possessed.
The very act of criminalizing drugs IS legislated theft. It cannot be done - as theft (depriving someone of their property, its use, or sale) is not a RIGHT of any person. The collective powers of government cannot exceed the rights of any individual. If there is, as the court proclaims, "no right to control MDMA" then government cannot derive powers from a right that does not exist.
In this case, Government claims that no criminal activity is required to be convicted of a crime, and no consequences of these activities must exist to punish for the hypothetical and conjectural consequences that may or may not come to pass.
The nature of the consequences is not due to drug possession or distribution, but rather the criminal creation of the black market where rights are not protected BY LAW - and social disorder (anarchy - personal protection of personal property through whatever means necessary) is a product of the criminalization of the exercise of one's property rights...
Not a product of the exercise of those rights themselves.
But what do I know? I'm just a drug dealer.
Surely no one else believes this.
Oh... wait... have you heard about
http://leap.cc ?
(Sorry. Sarcasm runs naturally through my veins.)
I've ASKED for the consequences of my actions - the government produced none.
The judge - in his denial of my motion - came up with hypothetical harms to interstate commerce, not to individual people or their rights.
Interstate commerce, while being regulated by (privileged) Congress, is not a RIGHT of government which can be violated (crime against the U.S.)
Even if it WERE a Right of Government (which simply does not exist in America), the hypothetical and conjectural nature of the plaitiff's claims fails to provide standing for a civil claim...
A criminal claim - which has higher standards than civil claims - obviously cannot be made with such arguments.
But again - what do I know? Obviously an attorney would know how a privilege of government could be raised against the right of a person and prevail.
It's a pity I'm not an attorney and I don't understand how this works.
