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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I mean is,when you agree to probation instead of jail,or paroll, there are stipulations,and one of them is you can't associate with known felons.Now you don't have to agree,which in return,you won't be offered probation,or parol.
What the law is saying,is that probation is a privilage more or less.When you agree to say,probation,your also agreeing to give up certain rights,you don't have to give them rights up,by simply denying the probation.I know it sucks!
 
bigdaddy123 said:
What I mean is,when you agree to probation instead of jail,or paroll, there are stipulations,and one of them is you can't associate with known felons.Now you don't have to agree,which in return,you won't be offered probation,or parol.
What the law is saying,is that probation is a privilage more or less.When you agree to say,probation,your also agreeing to give up certain rights,you don't have to give them rights up,by simply denying the probation.I know it sucks!




That makes sense.

Thanks.

Pity though.
It still seems vaguely wrong... somehow....
Alas....

Never give up your rights?
Give them up to gain a privilege?

I didn't know that rights were capable of being taken away by force or coercion.

This definitely applies...
Legally... I could sue them and say I was under duress - either give up my freedom completely, or give up certain rights because of coercion.
(Yeah... that's an ideal... and not going to happen... It's a thought though...)
 
Drug law constitutionality, jurisdiction, plea bargains (merged)

It's scheduled for the 5th.

Apparently, a proffer session is where you go in, tell them EVERYTHING.

If they decide the information is useful, they don't prosecute you for anything you say.

They can also reduce your charges.



I'd like to go back to my world for a second...

Welcome to my askew view...

Where the War on Drugs is a war waged by the Government against the American people.

Aiding the government (the enemy of the people) in any way is treason.
They are enemy combatants and you are a prisoner of war.
You have no rights, and any information you give them is an act of treason.

How do you proceed with a proffer session?





Here's another little fun tidbit that I want to pull into this whole mess...

The Economic Espionage act of 1996...
Why?

Because they're trying to extract lawfully obtained trade secrets - my contacts, pricing, customer database, etc....
Things I worked hard at building up and maintaining, and keeping away from my competitors.

I'm being tried for participating in Capitalism and meeting a demand by the public.
And now, the government wants my client lists so they can exploit them and use them for their own financial benefit (by obtaining these lists they can increase their visible outreach and effectiveness without doing the research themselves.)



Brilliant, or crazy?

A little of both?



Here's how I'm seeing things...
I'm out on bail (still in their custody... they know where I am, what I'm doing, etc... They have me.)
This "proffer session" is them standing behind me with an automatic weapon and a sword and handing me a written script that I can choose to read and live, or stray from and have my head chopped off (go to jail for a LONG @$$ time for piddly charges - piddly being a quote from the neighborhood DEA agent when discussing my case with him. He said it's not fair and I'm getting f@#^ed >_<)

If I read the script, there's not guarantee they won't kill me anyway...

If I refuse to read the script, I'm dead for sure.
However I won't be committing treason and I may save a few lives if I refuse to read the script.


Talk about a moral dilemma...


Government or citizens?
I'm going to have to commit treason against one or the other.
I'd rather side with the citizens for sure, but I'm being held in the government's terror camp with a gun to my head...

Liberty or death?
I was exorcising my liberty and got arrested for it.
Seems like I should side against those that are violating my rights...
 
I know better but I can't resist...

Walking in here today I have a lot of questions that I would like answered prior to making any commitment towards cooperation or distention in these “criminal” proceedings.

I am aware that we are in the middle of a “Drug War” started over 70 years go, and so named during the Nixon era.
The promotion of this “Drug threat” was created during his bid at presidency in order to create fear amongst the public – and he made promises to protect the people from this threat.
Despite his promises, the drug laws have done nothing but strip the American people of their constitutional rights and further endanger them to ever increasing violent crime and abundantly increasing the amount of adulterated drugs.

I am aware that my country is at war. I understand that it is possible that I was arrested as an enemy combatant.
If this is the case, then I have no issue with my civil rights being denied during my detainment – as they have been suspended unconstitutionally by the Patriot act - specifically in reference to Agent (Name removed) denying me my right to legal council. However I will not be providing you with any further information as we are enemy combatants on opposing sides of a war, and giving you this information would be committing treason against the American people; I would be aiding a known enemy.

If this is NOT the case, then I do take offense to Agent (Name Removed)'s criminal acts, and seek justice for his crimes and wish to press formal charges. I also request respect for all of my civil rights, and seek suppression of all information gathered after reaching the police station in (Location Removed) on the night of my arrest as it is “Fruit of the Poisonous tree.”
This dismissal would include all my testimony, my involvement with the sting operation commencing after my request for legal council was made, my written statement, and any evidence gathered because of this information. This information would include the apprehension of (Names Removed) based on the Supreme Court ruling in Brendlin v. California (06/18/07) [attachment #1]. This case upholds that they were unlawfully seized due to the poisonous fruit plucked from my unlawfully created consent under duress.

It is not my desire to be combative.
It is my desire to see justice done in accordance to the Constitution and the will of its authors.

Until the clarification is made describing the circumstances of my arrest, I am unable to participate in any way with requests made from any agency – as I do not know if I am dealing with an enemy of the American people, or if I am dealing with a legal agency, and as such I am incapable of determining where the best interests of the American people lay.

When I was sworn into the United States Air Force, I made an oath to protect the American people from all threats both foreign and domestic.

This oath has never been rescinded.

If there is a domestic agency that has sworn itself to stand against the American people, it is my sworn duty and honor to defend them against any attack or invasion of their Constitutional rights. I will stand in opposition to this agency through all peaceful measures available to me.
If this opposition carries a legal consequence, I will make a determination if I am committing a legitimate crime, or will pursue an act of civil disobedience in protest of the unlawful actions of those committed to the abolishment of civil and economic liberties.
With my current understanding of the entire situation, we are currently residing inside Schrödinger's box stroking his feline companion.
There are two possible scenarios here;
One; I am an enemy combatant – an enemy of the opposing forces in the Drug War with no rights to due process, no recourse, and shall held until the end of the conflict (end of the Drug War). In this case, the opposing faction is an illegal operative inside the government of my country.
Seeing as how my arrest was peaceful and I maintain medical status as well as my Geneva conventions Medical ID card, I cannot be a prisoner of war, I must be considered retained personnel, entitling me to open communications to fellow prisoners of war for specific medical and spiritual functions.
These rights have been suspended by my bail terms, and the judge issuing the bail terms I find guilty of the War crime of violating the Geneva conventions. The prosecutor in my case is also culpable, and ultimately to blame for this limitation of my freedoms, and shall be tried as well.
Both these men, as well as any other judge or prosecutor who have upheld the unconstitutional drug laws, politicians who have voted for the unconstitutional drug laws, police officers enforcing the unconstitutional drug laws, arrestees aiding in the capture of other drug offenders, and other parties not named, are also guilty of treason (aiding a known enemy of the United States), and need to be tried for this offense as well.

How do I define the promoters of the drug laws as enemies of the United States?
They declared open war upon the American public, as well as the liberties of the American people.
If declaring war against the people of the United States does not make them an sworn, known enemy of the United States of America, there is little one can do to become an enemy of the this country.

In this scenario, I request trial for treason for aiding in the apprehension of (Names Removed) upon termination of the War on Drugs.

Two; I am a citizen of the United States of America and am afforded certain freedoms and rights. These rights were violated on numerous occasions as can be referenced from the attached document citing these violations.
The worst violation was an unlawful violation of the 5th amendment stating that, “No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
I was deprived of liberty when I was told I had no right to possess or use MDMA.
I was deprived of liberty when I told I could not sell MDMA to consenting third parties.
This is true of every citizen of this nation today.
Liberty is defined as;
autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
If I have the liberty to feel or do as I please, as well as the liberty to choose whatever occupation I desire, no occupation shall be withheld from me, so long as I am contributing a service or good to meed a public demand.
The laws of the free market would eradicate my business if I was unscrupulous or supplying faulty services, undesirable services, or flawed, mislabeled, or damaged goods.
None of these business practices are illegal, and no complaints about my services or products were introduced. At worst, I would be subject to a civil suit from an unhappy client/customer.
I am being tried for committing a crime against the United States of America – a crime against the government. How is free trade or capitalism a crime against the government?
The government was a large part of my business for 4 months. The only logical conclusion is that they are seeking to control a monopoly and are unlawfully eliminating competition.

I uphold that these laws are illegal on the following constitutional basisses:
1.The 5th amendment to the constitution provides for the protection against the government placing restrictions upon the deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process.
2.The 18th and 23rd amendments showing that the Federal Government does not have the authority to prohibit “intoxicating” substances – this power is reserved by the states.
3.The War on Drugs creates a prohibition of 0 tolerance – this is greater than the prohibition of alcohol which allowed for medical uses without governmental oversight. For the complete prohibition of drugs to be legal without an amendment to the constitution while the partial prohibition of alcohol required an amendment is ludicrous.
4.The federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to assume a law enforcement role.
5.The Interstate Commerce clause used to create the drug laws has been reinterpreted and would no longer allow the creation of these laws – a loophole used to create them has been closed yet the unconstitutional laws persist and need reexamined. (U.S. v. Lopez)
6.The Interstate Commerce clause does not allow for the banning or prohibition of interstate commerce, merely its regulation.
7.The drug laws violate the constitutional protections of privacy as upheld in Lawrence v. Texas.
8.The DEA (as part of the Executive branch of the government) does not have any constitutional authority to create laws yet continues to do so with every substance they schedule; these laws are invalid.
9. There is no legislation banning possession or distribution of MDMA.

If it is clearly established that I have the liberty to choose my occupation (pursuit of happiness), and that I was running a virtuous and ethical business based on mutual consent and the supply and demand laws of a free market in a capitalistic society, then this proffer session is illegal based on the Economic Espionage act of 1996 Title 1 Section 1832; (Trade Secrets include customer databases)
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--
`(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
`(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
`(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
`(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
`(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
In this scenario I cannot aid in your conspiracy to commit economic espionage and respectfully decline to engage in further discussions.
 
good luck with that... dont you have a lawyer???

dont say shit unless you've got a gauranteed deal on paper.

otherwise the only words coming out of you rmouth should be, i want a lawyer iwnnalawyeri wanta alawyer
 
I don't know exactly what your situation is but your post are INCREDIBLY difficult to follow. [be respectful towards others. -bq] You may want to write things in a more clear fashion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As your lawyer has (hopefully) already told you, these sessions can be innocuous or an outright nightmare and it depends to a large degree on the reputation of the prosecutor in charge. Some prosecutors see these sessions as a sort of necessary evil, a chance to pick up some general intelligence without expecting names to be dropped on other people. They hold their word not to use stuff said in them to dig you in deeper, and don't play other funny games.

Other prosecutors will use them as fishing expeditions and will use what you say in them to throw more charges at you.

While it'd be nice if you could sign a document in advance guaranteeing the latter won't take place, it doesn't happen. The government won't tie it's own hands - they have all the cards and they'll play them as they see fit.

Most people would say there's a big difference between going into one of these sessions and telling a general story about the drug business - and going in with a list of names and SS#s and sending a bunch of other people to prison. Some people are able to do the former and not the latter, but it's a delicate game.

Oh, and if it's the DEA running the session. . . don't go. Your prosecutor is the only one with an incentive to hold to his/her word, and he isn't running the session, don't go.

Just my $0.02 after a trip through the system. I'm no lawyer and don't plan to become one.

Peace,

Fausty
 
Ah, Fausty...

Where were you before I went...


My lawyer has done nothing for me.
All he did was lie to me in order to get me to go along with the proffer session thing.

Nothing was signed... nothing was offered.

And now, I've caught him in his lies.

I sent a letter to him requesting he relieve himself and request the court appoint me new council.

He called upon receipt and sounded happier than any other time he'd talked to me.
Didn't defend himself - didn't challenge my position, didn't ask why...

Just said that he was waiting on a time from the clerk (he'd already called her) for the hearing and would let me know as soon as he had it.

The government holds all the cards in my case because my attorney is a lazy bastard that has violated my rights almost as much as the FBI agent that arrested me.

With only 2 months left before the trial I'm getting antsy...
I want to be doing something.

If that's sitting down and signing a plea deal, so be it.

Though... the more I study the laws, the more I want to stand and fight.

I did some research on my judge - I think he's a member of LEAP (LEAP.cc)
If I can file motions of limite asking for suppression of all the illegally obtained evidence (unwarranted phone taps, denying me an attorney during questioning, etc...), and file a motion for dismissal based on constitutional violations by the laws and their enforcers, I want to do it.

If there's a chance I can talk my way out of all this in writing, I want to do it.

If the judge seems apprehensive about allowing constitutional standings as evidence, I'll want to plea out.

However currently, my lawyer was working harder holding me away from his throat than he was at building a defense.

I can't wait until he's gone.
 
Hey Kalash I have been following your case since you posted about it a while ago. I dont have any advice but I have a few questions if you dont mind answering them? First how much time are you looking at? second are you still planning on arguing for jury nullification at trial? Why wouldent your lawyer file the motions to suppress evidence this is a routine thing to do right? I mean my lawyer did it for me in a misdeminor marijuana case. Do you have no funds to hire any kind of private attorney sounds like you got a public dump? You sound intelligent and well read have you considered self representation? I think you should file a motion to postpone your trial to give more time for your new council to review evidence and build a defense. Has the prosecutor offered a plea? I feel sorry for you sounds like your getting strait railroaded. not trying to be nossy I just find your case very interesting
 
You have to realize though that any good lawyer will encourage you to plea if its in your best interest, doesn't matter if you have to rat out your momma a lawyer is looking at the best possible outcome for his client and no one else.
Something to keep in mind.
 
garuda said:
You have to realize though that any good lawyer will encourage you to plea if its in your best interest, doesn't matter if you have to rat out your momma a lawyer is looking at the best possible outcome for his client and no one else.
Something to keep in mind.


Yeah - I know this...
However there are issues that he has not addressed at all.
The Proffer session started about 40 minutes "late" (the prosecutor had it scheduled for an hour after my attorney had it scheduled... for whatever reason - and wasn't there "on time").

I talked to him before the proffer session - brought up a few of my concerns.

The main one being that if I go through with the proffer, that all evidence that would otherwise be dismissed after my arrest due to them denying me my right to council would be admitted and there would be nothing I could do about it.

He lied to me about what would be suppressed if I challenged their evidence.
He told me it would be practically nothing.
In truth, it's everything.

So... he lied to me to get me to do the proffer, or he doesn't know the law well enough to represent me. Either way, he's got to go. That was my choice to make, not his. I was misinformed by him - I could not make a valid decision.
If your lawyer is using deception on you, he's not on your side.

NOW (today, his secretary called...) he's telling me that the court can't schedule a hearing to replace him for, "Probably a couple of months."
The reasoning? "The judge is wrapped up in the Aryan Brotherhood case and doesn't have time to schedule the hearing."

"A couple of months" is after my trial date.

The Aryan Brotherhood case was wrapped up in 2002.

(edited; probably best if we keep the judge's name out - IJ)

So I'm REALLY doubting his story.

I think he knows a plea bargain is coming, wants me to chill for a week or so, wait, sign the papers, so that he gets paid.

For all he's done, I don't want him to GET paid.
And I think I'm going to refuse to sign the plea - if there's any time on it at all.



Drew;

Time in; 6 1/2-9 year for the conspiracy (largest charge). Rumor is the 6 counts total will not be stacked (5 actual, plus the conspiracy) so 6 1/2-9.

Jurry Nullification; if the plea isn't to my liking, yes.
If the plea IS to my liking and I'm in a pissy mood, yes.
If I can find out for certain that my judge is a member of LEAP (strongly believe him to be), find out that he WILL admit constitutional evidence, and will allow me to present a case and REQUEST a jury nullification, YES... Though this requires those motions to be submitted. Still need a new lawyer for that :-/


Lawyer filing motions for suppression - he stated that this would show me to be "combative" and would eliminate the chance of getting a plea.
Again - he doesn't know the facts of the case, and challenged a stupid point at the proffer session because of his ignorance. He wouldn't know what to request suppression FOR - and doesn't care to.
This is what I'm getting anyway.

I made a list of all the points I thought were wrong and want challenged.
His response; "You brought up a lot of good points, but I'm not going to look into them. It isn't worth it."
"Isn't worth it?" And that's for YOU to decide? Without looking into them?
Eh?


Hire an attorney - it's Federal Criminal court.
Retainer fees start around $100,000.
If I want them to show up at court? You're talking a LOT.
So... that's out.


Thanks. A 4 month crash course in law with a focus on very specific laws and rulings pertaining to them can do that ;)
Self Representation; Yes... I have... though I have been told I would be a fool to do so.
Present case scenario - no... I wouldn't be a fool. I'd be MUCH better off if I was able to talk to the court myself.
If I can't get a new attorney, then this is an option - cutting off the dead weight that is only holding me back from actually acting. Self representation is a last resort however, as I'm very ignorant of procedural protocols, etc... And doubt I could master them in the time I have left. Especially since my law research is not yet complete.

Date of trial though - even if I do retain my current attorney as "Assistance of Council" he does NOT represent me. I can and WILL speak for myself. I want a lawyer that will aide me in following proper procedures, assist me with the creation of properly formatted motions, etc... but ultimately will allow me to represent myself.
That was a bit of research too - assistance of council DOES NOT have to be REPRESENTATION.
I never waived my right to represent myself KNOWINGLY - therefore I have not waived this right.


There has been no plea bargain offered yet.

However I have heard rumors (through about 5 people, so the information is diluted - one final reporting source) that one of my co-defendants has plead and does know their sentence.

I have 4 co-defendants.
2 of them REQUIRE the testimony I gave the night of my arrest to be prosecuted.
I believe this evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be suppressed.
This will also drop 3,000 pills off the evidence list.

I believe the conspiracy charge would still hold, but the pills would not be evidence - reasonable doubt anyone? :D

Those 2 kids SHOULD walk free by letter of the law.
I need a copy of my interrogation to find out if my request for an attorney was recorded. My lawyer has denied me this request 3 times.
Failing the recording, it's my word versus the agent's.
That never ends well.

However, I have 4 co-defendants.
Postponing the trial is pretty much out of the question.

However, if I cannot get a new attorney within 2 months, then I will appeal for mistrial for "inadequate council" or... whatever it is.





Yes Drew, I agree this case is interesting.


WHY THIS CASE IS INTERESTING (my opinion...)
It involves ONLY MDMA.
It is a Federal case on a level that should be state or local.
4 months of charges were stacked on top of each other with the full knowledge, cooperation, encouragement and funding by the FBI. (Thanks guys. Your taxes helped pay my bills for 4 months ;))

To my knowledge, no one has been to federal court for ONLY MDMA charges and challenged the illegal scheduling of MDMA.

To my knowledge, no one has challenged the "Ecstasy Prevention Act" which raised the punishments for MDMA 1500% in 2001 - using Dr. Ricuarte's research as the SOLE basis for the increase and dismissing all other scientific research - this IS the research he retracted for FRAUD 2 years later.

To my knowledge, no one has challenged MDMA's scheduling based on medical use - since the FDA approval of its use for PTSD (see http://maps.org for more info). FDA approval overrides DEA's requests in scheduling - if it's used medically, the DEA cannot overrule its medical use.
MAPS has also done safety tests on MDMA showing it is perfectly safe in clinical environments and non-addictive.
It barely fits in schedule III at this point.

To my knowledge, no one has been to federal court and challenged the drug laws based on the commerce clause not granting congress permission to create the laws since the ruling in US v. Lopez (points listed - the formatting/bullets get sloppy on here. Sorry for that.)

Another note on this – as MDMA (at the time of scheduling) was not being shipped across state lines (cost prohibitive - $0.06-$0.20 per pill - it was cheaper to make than to ship - the "recipe" was shared amongst colleagues - to my knowledge it was not shipped - it was easy enough to make when the chemicals were not outlawed), it was not part of an interstate commerce. The clause permitting congress's involvement in interstate commerce does not permit it to interfere with intrastate distribution where interstate commerce is not substantially effected.
1.United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.
2.Nowhere is Congress given the right to prohibit interstate commerce – only to regulate it.
3.Congress is not given the authority to determine what can be shipped across state lines – only HOW the items are shipped across state lines.
4.Regulation of activities substantially effecting interstate commerce is not permission to stop interstate commerce, but to stop the actions upsetting the interstate commerce – Congress is at fault for upsetting interstate commerce through the appointment of the DEA, not regulating a disturbance.



I go through a few further points touching on a few other topics...
One of the other ones is that Congress is not regulating the drug trade.
No one is regulating it.
The DEA is struggling (and failing) to keep it in check.
Congress does not have the power to delegate it's constitutional authority to the DEA... Further proving that the constitution does not allow for prohibition as congress would be unable to enforce this "regulation" of interstate commerce.
The 18th and 21st amendments PROVE that congress cannot prohibit drugs without a constitutional amendment - the laws are unconstitutional.



I want to involve LEAP and bring them in as an expert witness - I'm still struggling to get a response from them.

I want to show that the drug laws themselves are more harmful than my actions - which were done between consenting adults behind closed doors (Lawrence v. Texas).



I believe it is unique in its Federal level, the low level of involvement of all 5 co-defendants, and the singular substance of MDMA.
The judge teaches a class on the "Legal Implications of the International Narcotics Trade" at a local college - the focus of the class is;
"This course examines United States policy to combat domestic and international narcotics trafficking. The national drug policy and program implementation by federal and state agencies will be analyzed. A principle focus will be the effects of these policies on our individual constitutional rights and the criminal justice system."

I'm liking my judge already, and I don't even know him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Federal Jurisdiction

2 questions. More or less.

The drug laws - criminal matter.
A criminal matter - according to the common law - is determined by an injured party.

Can the United States be an injured party in a drug case?

The case or controversy clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy - that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the court. The Court and legal scholars commonly refer to the issue of whether a "case or controversy" exists as the concept of standing.




Then... I cam across this crazy thing;
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua13.shtml
Supplemented with
http://www.freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.html
And some WikiPedia stuff on the constitution, law etc...
Namely;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy (Quoted above)


So... the crazy stuff...
Basically stating that the courts are operating in an Admiralty jurisdiction that they are calling a "Statutory jurisdiction" - something that doesn't exist.

If a proceeding is criminal - it is either common law or admirality
Criminal conduct cannot be a case of equity - agreeing to do something, breaking a contract, or limiting ones actions - these are civil proceedings.

Common law requires an injured party.
Admiralty does not - it can be a breach of contract, like an Equity case.

The Constitution is common law.

If I'm being tried under common law, without an injured party, the government has no standing (see wikipedia link) to press charges against me.


Thoughts?
Is this stuff real?
 
Kalash said:
Common law requires an injured party.
Admiralty does not - it can be a breach of contract, like an Equity case.

The Constitution is common law.

Not really. Some common law is older than the Constitution. Much of common property law, for example, has been inherited from medieval England and anicent Roman law. The common law is used to fill in the gaps where statutes don't cover (or abrogate) the common law material.

Admiralty and equity cases are not considered to be "suits at common law" for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment jury requirement, but they still have judge-made law to follow (aka common law) -- some of it decades and centuries old. There are different definitions for common law, depending on the context in which the term is used.

If I'm being tried under common law, without an injured party, the government has no standing (see wikipedia link) to press charges against me.
The government (I think) is trying you under a federal drug statute. Thus subject matter jurisdiction is established under federal question jurisdiction, which is a matter arising under the Consitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The government's injury stems from you allegedly breaking federal law, satisfying the live case or controversey requirement of Article III.

Is this stuff real?
Absolutely. Subject matter jurisdiction is crucial to American jurisprudence. It is one of the only issues that can be raised at any point during an appeals process. A court can even raise the issue itself.
 
Kalash, I seriously admire you for your extensive research into this topic. If everyone arrested for drugs did as much as you, then I could foresee a future change in the laws. People need to take your case as an example and bond together, only then can things get going. Good luck with your case. :)
 
are you broke enough to get a public defender?

i normally advise people to hire their own attorneys, but my buddy got burnt by his badly after dropping 30k fed retainer, and his public defender did a much better job.

do you not have any other court dates before your trial?
 
Zagenth said:
Kalash, I seriously admire you for your extensive research into this topic. If everyone arrested for drugs did as much as you, then I could foresee a future change in the laws. People need to take your case as an example and bond together, only then can things get going. Good luck with your case. :)
Thanks. :D

And Banquo - thanks again for the logic and knowledge I'm lacking.


Zagenth - the only reason I post on Bluelight is because I started asking these kinds of questions on the rave boards I frequented for over 2 years.

To me, those boards WERE the rave scene.

People told me to shut up and go to jail already.
They didn't want to hear any challenges to the laws - "You broke the law, suffer for it."
Irony coming from drug users.

I don't think being arrested should be a prerequisite for studying this stuff.

And if you'll read it, I'll keep posting it up.
Someone should compile all these things and make a manual out of it ;)
 
dirtmcgirt said:
are you broke enough to get a public defender?

i normally advise people to hire their own attorneys, but my buddy got burnt by his badly after dropping 30k fed retainer, and his public defender did a much better job.

do you not have any other court dates before your trial?



Broke. Completely.
But I have a panel attorney - my co-defendant has a PD and I can't get one...
So I have a private attorney that's working for free.

Trouble is, he keeps lying to me and refuses to pose questions I raise...
Won't file motions to suppress evidence, won't file for me to travel outside my pre-trial limited area (even for work purposes)...

He's worthless.

Honestly, I don't want an attorney.
I want "assistance of council."
http://jusbelli.com/assistance_of_counsel.html
http://jusbelli.com - The Jefferson Party.

There's some other good stuff on there.


As for the court date...

The Trial date is Sept. 25th.
It was set back in April.
The only hearing we had wasn't a hearing...
It was, "Everyone show up, get disclosure (evidence) from the prosecutor, participate in a roll call, waive your right to speedy trial, and shove off till Sept."

That was it.
In the meantime, NOTHING has happened other than the proffer session...
And me begging for travel "privileges" my attorney refuses to grant, my lawyer refusing my requests for evidence (mainly a copy of my interrogation to find out if me requesting an attorney was recorded or not), and the occasional drug test with my pre-trial services officer.

And my research.
Because I'm not ready to go down without a fight.
 
Here's another one, in the same line of thought (kind of...)

The drug laws are not part of the U.S.C. CRIMINAL code.
The CRIMINAL code is Title 18.
The drug laws are listed under title 21 - Food and Drug.

They are "regulatory" law - not criminal law.
Shouldn't these be civil cases?


Now... a few quick counters for the drug laws;

* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
* Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
* Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
* Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


From this we learn that all men (not convicted of a crime) are free - not slaves.
They own themselves (sovereignty)
They have Unlimited Right to Contract.

Selling drugs is a contract - a consensual exchange between knowing parties.

An agreeable payment for a service or product is a contract - like buying a latte at Starbucks - it's a contract - you "buy" the latte with your money, they "buy" your money with the latte.
A contractual exchange takes place.

Selling drugs is no different.

So - if I own myself and have unlimited right to contract, and the government cannot make a law impairing my right to contract, isn't this a right protected by the constitution? (http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml - prostitution, same deal more or less...)

If so, doesn't this mean that there IS a crime being committed?

Title 18 Chapter 13 section 241 - Conspiracy against Rights of citizens
(http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/chapters/c7.html)
Failing that, 18, 13, 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Crimes that are being BLATANTLY committed by the judge, prosecutor, possibly the jury (conspiracy), arresting agents, in my case, my attorney...

These laws define CRIMES.
What do the Food and Drug... whatziz? Regulations? Statues? What? define?

Can I create a counter suit against the government officials denying me my liberties and right to contract?
 
Kalash said:
Now... a few quick counters for the drug laws;

* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

You can't contract to do something illegal. Such contracts are automatically non-binding. Therefore, no contact exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top