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

Status
Not open for further replies.
* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Like Simon said, there is no protection for contracts based on an illegal bargain, such as dealing in contraband. Moreover, the Contracts Clause has an extremely narrow reading. Since 1934 (Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell is the case), it has only been government contracts that get any meaningful scrutiny under the clause.

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."

The Supremacy Clause. This basically means that laws of the federal government are supreior to those of state or local governments. However, federal laws can still be challenged on the basis that they conflict with other parts of the Constitution.

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

no clue

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."

yeah. Congress regulates illicit drugs under the Commerce Clause, so the power has been delegated to the U.S. by the Consitution.

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."

you're not a slave.

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

there are several types of post-trial motions you can file for ineffective assistance of counsel.
 
Banquo, I'm no longer praising you and you've been promoted to the position of "Official Buzz Kill"

>_<

I'm not a slave - the government cannot take away my rights without convicting me in a court of law.

In this case, the contract itself is considered illegal - not the effects of the contract.
In order for there to be no laws restricting contracts, and in this case, having a law specifically defining a forbidden contract contradicts itself.

An illegal contract - Contract for muder, contract for kidnapping, etc...
Are illegal because there is a CRIME associated with the contract.

In this case, the object of the crime is not a crime - it is punishment for executing your protected right to own property and your right to contract.



No?
You're not budging?
Yeah... Buzz Kill :(
 
I hate the no editing rule in here >_<


I mean - the object of the contract itself is not a crime - the contract IS the crime.

As there can be no laws against creating contracts, this law is illegal.
Anyone trying to enforce this law should be held accountable under Title 18 Chapter 13 section 242 (and 241 if in conjunction with others.)

That's where I was going with that.

You're still not buying it, huh?
Se la vie.
Buzz Kill :p
 
No, the possession or supply of illegal drugs is the crime. So you can't make a contract for such supply.
 
Infinite Jest said:
No, the possession or supply of illegal drugs is the crime. So you can't make a contract for such supply.


I blames Banquo but you started it.
You're the Buzz kill =P


However you have to look back - prior to drugs becoming illegal, those contracts were permissible.


They could not make the laws preventing those contracts.
Therefore the laws are invalid on that basis - the inhibited the obligation of contracts when they were implemented.


The laws are preventing ownership of property and the ability to contract with that property.
The government does not have rights - the people do.
The government has to ensure that individual rights are protected.

As long as you are not infringing upon another's rights, the government has no standing to get involved.

The drug laws were not created with, nor do they give the government standing to prohibit the right to contract or property.


The creation of the laws violated Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution.
(along with lots of other bits...)
Therefore the laws themselves are incorrect and inapplicable.

When I was born, MDMA was legal.
I had every right to contract with it.

They created a law inhibiting my right to contract in MDMA.
If nothing else, I can argue for a grandfather clause.

(If you're were born after 1985, don't make this argument :-X)

Is that any better?
How am I doing? Can I refine this argument?
Or does it just need dropped?
 
i admire what your standing up kalash, but i personally think your reaching.

i have many friends with experience with the feds... and they have a 98%+ conviction rate.... i would'nt try to go too far out on a limb... though it seems from your posts that you might do better with a fed public defender tahn the lawyer you already have... though i am not in your shoes, maybe your lawyer is just acting this way because he knows the same shit i am telling you hear.

either way good luck bro...

here is a link to a good friends exp. wit the feds during the ttokkyo bust... if mods think this is interesting... i hope they make it a new thread... ill post it in the drugs in media forum

[edited link]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
considering your circumstances, ie. broke, but denied a PD i dont blame you for doign your research... i could see why your attorney is brushing you off.. you gotta pay to play in this game sadly.

i think you could raise some sort of dispute about not having proper counsel... though the judge may think since a private attorney is repping you for free you dont deserve a PD, you shoudl still be able to argue he isnt' giving you proper counsel.

i dont know all the proper terms, but i know the general ideas, hopefully the mod in this forum can chime in on here.... cuz it sounds like your getting bent over hard!

PS. this is why i tell everyone who considers getting into the game "put your first 25-50k away for bail and lawyer fees, if you dont want to do that, dont play"

i learned the ahrd way when i was only 20
 
BTW take a couple of days break from what you've been researching ( i think you've got your ideas down pretty well if oyu need to present them to the judge or a new lawyer).... and research your rights to competent representation to argue with your lawyer or the judge....

it might just save your ass
 
^
post the text from that link if you want...but the site looks like a sourcing site, so i edited it out
 
Right now I have a panel attorney - appointed private council.
The public defender is defending one of my co-defendants - I can't get one.

You're right... kind of...
But that 98% conviction rate is unfounded.

About 97% are "convicted" by pre-trial arrangements.
The 3% that go to trial settle somewhere in the high 70's-low 80's% conviction rate.

Somewhere around 78-83%
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/dojstats.htm

So... things aren't quite that bad ;)

If I reach far enough I may eventually find something to hold on to.
Maybe.

Though everyone keeps telling me to just let go.

I'll probably do this in the end, but I'd like to work on on all my options and figure out just how backed into a corner I am >_<

Right now I still think there's a straw sized drain I can turn into a puddle and seep through.
People keep reassuring me that even though the hole is there, I'm pretty solid and the chances of getting through it are pretty slim.


I'll keep pulling for Judge Carter being a member of LEAP.
That'll be one small battle won.
 
dirtmcgirt said:
BTW take a couple of days break from what you've been researching ( i think you've got your ideas down pretty well if oyu need to present them to the judge or a new lawyer).... and research your rights to competent representation to argue with your lawyer or the judge....

it might just save your ass


Fine. ;)

Yeah - I can use a break.

Lysander Spooner.
Check him out.

Especially his bit that "Vices are not Crimes"
It's a good read :D

I just need to do the research to bring that up in court - but... a break. For a day or 3.
Or more.

It doesn't look like there's anything I can really use that's a sure bet.
I'm going to have to try to regroup, think about filing motions and pushing back the court date until the drug laws are repealed ;) or come at it from a different angle.

Thanks for the advice.
 
RE: Aryan Brotherhood: I did a Lexis search and there is a case involving the AB and your judge (I edited his name out) that is currently before the courts.

You might want to be careful about what statements you make on here; police and other govt agencies are watching this board. Maybe not your particular thread, but on the other hand maybe they are.

A note on your MAPS argument: the NIH states that MDMA can be addictive, and there are (of course) instances of people who have died from it. So I'm not sure your argument will go down too well. (Let me say I agree 100% with your arguments that MDMA should be legal; but I'm not sure you'll convince a judge of that. Seems like the wiretapping/denial of attorney/procedural issues might be more successful - IANAL of course).
 
Kalash said:
Right now I have a panel attorney - appointed private council.
The public defender is defending one of my co-defendants - I can't get one.

You're right... kind of...
But that 98% conviction rate is unfounded.

About 97% are "convicted" by pre-trial arrangements.
The 3% that go to trial settle somewhere in the high 70's-low 80's% conviction rate.

Somewhere around 78-83%
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/dojstats.htm

So... things aren't quite that bad ;)

If I reach far enough I may eventually find something to hold on to.
Maybe.

Though everyone keeps telling me to just let go.

I'll probably do this in the end, but I'd like to work on on all my options and figure out just how backed into a corner I am >_<

Right now I still think there's a straw sized drain I can turn into a puddle and seep through.
People keep reassuring me that even though the hole is there, I'm pretty solid and the chances of getting through it are pretty slim.


I'll keep pulling for Judge Carter being a member of LEAP.
That'll be one small battle won.

Seriously, Kalash, with the time you're looking at, you have nothing to lose. You've got an intelligent brain on your shoulders -- continue to apply it! I really want to see how this pans out, and I hope that you can at least make some kind of bold statement, if not reduce your sentence drastically. Hey, maybe we're both dreaming, but again... nothing to lose here!
 
Infinite Jest said:
RE: Aryan Brotherhood: I did a Lexis search and there is a case involving the AB and your judge (I edited his name out) that is currently before the courts.

You might want to be careful about what statements you make on here; police and other govt agencies are watching this board. Maybe not your particular thread, but on the other hand maybe they are.

A note on your MAPS argument: the NIH states that MDMA can be addictive, and there are (of course) instances of people who have died from it. So I'm not sure your argument will go down too well. (Let me say I agree 100% with your arguments that MDMA should be legal; but I'm not sure you'll convince a judge of that. Seems like the wiretapping/denial of attorney/procedural issues might be more successful - IANAL of course).


I read that the Aryan Brotherhood stuff ended in 2002 (wikipedia) but read more recently that they are still ongoing.

The court clerk also called me and claimed they were too busy to hear my motion.
I'm still wondering why they have on their website's "Court Rules" page that on Mondays at 1:30PM they are open for criminal motions - and scheduling with the clerk is not necessary for this time.

Alas, there's nothing I can do about that.

The wiretapping/denial of attorney/procedural stuff will all dismiss evidence, set free 2 of my co-defendants, but will do nothing for me.

That doesn't mean I don't want to stop fighting it.
I've been looking at it this way from day one; benefit to them, nothing for me, just more risk of being perceived as "combative" and/or a "threat" by standing up for their rights.


So... Sure.
I want this stuff to be challenged - if nothing else, because it's the RIGHT thing to do.
My attorney has NO right to sit there and not challenge these things - THAT'S HIS JOB.
And if HE'S doing it, representing me, it isn't ME being combative - it's my attorney sticking up for my rights.

So again - I can't represent myself.

These circular arguments continue to progress round and round - I need an attorney, I could represent myself, but that would benefit no-one (aside from making things harder on me, it would only piss off the court and give them cause to ignore me and/or simply deny my motions) but I can't do that, so I should get a new attorney, but the court won't even let me make a case to get a new one.

My boss is telling me that if I stand and fight I'll regret it.
He's probably right.

He's trying to get me away from researching the laws because he only sees me hanging myself with this knowledge.

In a way, he's right.
In a way, without proper council, I need to be doing the research I can.

(Boss note, I'm a live-in personal assistant, so I have no down time really... Or lots of down time if you look at it in a different way, but none of it unsupervised. He thinks the law stuff is a waste of time and is starting to hound me about it more and more. >_<)

I know I need to do more research on the MDMA statistics, but nearly all the deaths related to MDMA (not caused by) are either polydrug or hyperthermia.

Even assuming MDMA is the cause, it doesn't kill too many people.
9 deaths in 1998? Really? (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/ecstasy.pdf)
I can't find the DAWN report now >_<
Anyway....
9 deaths out of how many users/doses that year?
Deaths per users...
"Deaths relating to ecstasy use are poorly documented in the US. Gore (1999) estimated that 0.21 ecstasy-related deaths per 10,000 illicit users occurred annually in England from 1995-96 and 0.87 ecstasy-related deaths per 10,000 illicit users occurred annually in Scotland from 1995-97." (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdm...cience_1/2002_ricaurte_science_1_review.shtml)

So... That's per USERS... not per USE.

If the average user uses once every 2 months - one in a 2 year span England - .21 per 480,000 uses..... Or, less than a one in a million shot.

And again - most likely, MDMA is NOT the cause of those deaths reported as "Ecstasy" deaths as it's more likely overheating, polydrugs, or adulterants with the word of the victim or witnesses that they took "Ecstasy"

I'd love to pull that AU article that just popped up saying that there are pills going around that are PMA - the stuff that killed "Ecstasy" users leading to its current legal status.

Again - legalize and regulate with quality control, you avoid a lot of unnecessary deaths.

The most dangerous part of Ecstasy is that you never know what's going to be in it. I'll stand by that argument - as a direct result of the drug laws - until I die.

I'll give you that MDMA can be addictive - however not in recreational doses, and not in theraputic doses.
It becomes addictive with abuse/overuse wherein you get the amphetamine effects instead of the entactogen effects.
I still argue that it isn't addictive because at this point, the transition to another amphetamine makes financial and physical sense - MDMA/Ecstasy in doses giving DAILY amphetamine effects are MUCH worse for the body than most amphetamines.

So... addictive? To a point, yes, but not if used properly.


Though I'm getting WAY off legal topic here.

I still challenge that punishing me for ownership of drugs is a violation of Title 18 chapter 13 section 242.
Along with this, selling my personal property is my right to contract - again a violation of the same Federal law.

Seeing as how there are no victims, what I have done is not a crime.
The crime is being committed by the government by them infringing upon my rights.

If I can't figure out how to bring that one up (other than a motion for dismissal), then I need to start begging for a plea bargain.

And think about pressing charges against the arresting officer for denying me my right to an attorney during questioning.
Because that was a DIRECT violation of Federal law.
The fun part is picking who gets tagged for 18:13;241 (conspiracy) along with him ;)
 
Indelibleface said:
Seriously, Kalash, with the time you're looking at, you have nothing to lose. You've got an intelligent brain on your shoulders -- continue to apply it! I really want to see how this pans out, and I hope that you can at least make some kind of bold statement, if not reduce your sentence drastically. Hey, maybe we're both dreaming, but again... nothing to lose here!


Just 6 1/2-9 years ;)

But every day life seems more and more like a prison every day.
Monitored communications? Check.
Limited freedoms? Check.

Differences between "freedom" and "prison"?

In prison, I'm guaranteed free room and board.
;)

In a sense, you're right - I have nothing to lose. I don't see prison as a threat to my mental/spiritual well being.

I can see it hurting my family, but only because they don't see things the way I do. They've imprisoned themselves in their own fears - of the government, terrorists, and twisted lies that effect their perceptions.

I've tried to enlighten them.
They don't want to see things any differently than they do now.

My mom still claims, "You're guilty and deserve to go to prison."
I keep asking her where the victims of my crimes are - she points to herself and my school debt - claiming my actions are preventing me from paying my bills and are making her life worse.
I counter that my actions allowed me to pay my bills for another 4 months after losing my job.
She tells me that "crime" is not a job/business, and it doesn't matter what bills I paid, it doesn't count.


So - the actions of the government, stripping me of my god given liberties (the constitution merely places restraints upon the government - it does not GRANT rights), are what are causing her harm.
I cannot get her to see this.

The only thing that worries me is that my jury will be commoners - much like my mom - that know nothing of the harms of the drug war.
They only know the propaganda spread to increase the fear.

Either I'll have to give a full report on the lies and the scandal - and as the defendant, a common criminal with no rights, no standing, and beams of suspicion and hatred coming my way...
Or succumb to the forceful oppression of the government.

Standing witness as a "criminal" - What credibility does that leave me with?

Could I really convince a jury that my actions were not crimes?
That the LAWS create the problems?
 
thats why you need a lawyer who is gonna be on the ball during jury selection if you go that far.

maybe at least if the prosecutor thinks you have a slight chance at one of your defenses panning out they will offer you a much better deal just to guarantee they get some sort of conviction and get you into the system and get your money.

crossin my fingers for ya
 
Alright, Banquo - you're WRONG!!!

HAHAHHAHA!!!

Ok... I'm done :p
That felt good though :D

It isn't Federal Question Jurisdiction (that's civil - requires Controversy)
It isn't U.S. as a party jurisdiction (requires Controversy - again, that's civil).

You're right though. Those bastards still have jurisdiction.

Want to guess what it is?
It took me... what?
3 days to find it?


And my only source?
Wikipedia >_<

Though, now that I know what I'm looking for I'm sure I could find a better one...

It's the Interstate Commerce Clause jurisdiction.
And I, personally, want to know what kind of #@%&ed up jurisdiction that is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_jurisdiction

WikiPedia said:
For a federal court to have jurisdiction, the crime to be prosecuted must either have been created pursuant to an express or implied constitutional grant of authority, or must have been committed in an area owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government. Examples of crimes that are based on constitutional grants of authority include tax evasion (implied from the Article I grant of power in the Taxing and Spending Clause, and in the Sixteenth Amendment); possessing illegal substances (under the Commerce Clause), and conspiring to violate civil rights (under the Fourteenth Amendment). Courts have given a particularly broad interpretation to the Commerce Clause power, permitting Congress to make a federal crime of many common law crimes such as kidnapping or murder if state lines are crossed during commission of the crime, and such as embezzlement and blackmail using instrumentalities of commerce such as telephone lines or the U.S. mail.


It's a good thing I wasn't happy with your answer.
I just found out today that it was wrong (it only covered civil matters).

Another loophole pulled tight.
Another lesson learned.
Time well spent - now I can focus on something that might actually work ;)
Thanks for dissenting.
Keep it up!


... I should go register http://DownWithTheCommerceClause.com ...
Though I doubt that would be effective.

Here's my latest take on this;

So it doesn't look like I can have the case tossed for jurisdiction (though if I file the motion and the prosecution cannot challenge it, does it get admitted?)


That other special jurisdiction... Conspiring to violate Civil rights...
Now that I can work with :D

The drug laws have been upheld to be constitutional based on the interstate commerce clause.
I challenge them based on the 18th and 21st amendments.
I challenge further that the drug laws are a conspiracy to violate citizen's civil rights (Right to privacy, contract, equal protection under the law (drug laws are very racially selective))
They also violate the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.
These willful violations of Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 are a CONTINUING CONSPIRACY OF CRIMES committed by law enforcement and the legal system. (Violating Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241 of the United States Code.)

The rights of a sovereign individual always trump the rights of the government.

If they fail to trump the rights of the government, the government shall lose consent of the governed and be disbanded.

Using the commerce clause to infringe upon the rights of an individual is immoral, unjust, and in direct contradiction to the purpose and scope of the Constitution - to prevent the government from infringing upon the rights of its citizens.


Back to Corpus Delicti (I'm not giving up on you YET oh Latin phrase of salvation ;) )

The concept of corpus delicti involves two component parts of a crime, including,
(1) the occurrence of the specific injury or loss and
(2) somebody's criminality as the source of the loss.
United States v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917, 918–19
(10th Cir. 1989).

My actions were not crimes because there was no loss or injury.

ENFORCING THE DRUG LAWS IS A CRIME.
The harm or loss is immeasurable (Drug Law enforcement related deaths, wrongful imprisonments of victimless offenders, infringement upon Liberty and Property rights, denial of pursuit of happiness.... The list, if itemized, would be nearly endless.)

Anything?
Please tell me there's some mother dough left in this bakery of resistance!
I can't imagine I baked every loaf possible.
Sure - most of my baking was inedible, but by the GODS I'll make something you can stomach before my trial date!

(No idea why the bakery metaphor came into play. Honestly. I think I need another break >_<)
 
be careful what you read in Wikipedia. it is filled with errors. moreover, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of jurisdiction, which is not a singular conept. there are different types of jurisdiction, all of which you are using interchangably. personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and legislative jurisdiction are all different concepts. your situation does involve a case or controversey, since you allegedly broke a federal statute. "federal question" may have been a misnomer -- you haven't really described every detail of your case, so it's tough to know exactly what you're talking about sometimes (like whether you are being tried in state or federal court) -- but it does not change the fact that the courts have well-established authority to prosecute felony drug offenses.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your points 100% Kalash, I'm amazed at your personal strength and fortitude researching and fighting for your right :).

But I think you'll have about as much luck arguing that the original drug laws are invalid as state independance and tax protestors have had showing how the original law in their cases was invalid. Even if it was courts aren't going to throw out 100 years of case law and inertia, that was an argument for the first cases.

I support you 100%, and the research you're doing is damn interesting.
 
Banquo said:
be careful what you read in Wikipedia. it is filled with errors. moreover, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of jurisdiction, which is not a singular conept. there are different types of jurisdiction, all of which you are using interchangably. personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and legislative jurisdiction are all different concepts. your situation does involve a case or controversey, since you allegedly broke a federal statute. "federal question" may have been a misnomer -- you haven't really described every detail of your case, so it's tough to know exactly what you're talking about sometimes (like whether you are being tried in state or federal court) -- but it does not change the fact that the courts have well-established authority to prosecute felony drug offenses.


It just felt good to find out an inaccuracy in your statements.

;)

Facts;
Federal court - U.S. District court

Charges;
Chapter 21 section 846 (Conspiracy) - one count
Chapter 21 section 841A (distribution and possession with intent to distribute)- 5 counts

Conspiracy - offense level 28 (offenses 1-5 combined weight total, plus other pills possessed by other co-defendants I never touched or saw)
Distribution count # - offense level
1 - 18
2 - 20
3 - 20
4 - 18
5 - 20




My situation does involve a CASE - not a CONTROVERSY.

"CONTROVERSY - A dispute arising between two or more persons. It differs from case, which includes all suits criminal as well as civil; whereas controversy is a civil and not a criminal proceeding.

By the Constitution of the United States the judicial power shall extend to controversies to which the United States shall be a party. Art.2, S.1. The meaning to be attached to the word controversy in the Constitution is that above given."
(source = http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c304.htm )


Therefore the applicable subject matter jurisdiction (Article III section 2, U.S. Constitution)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made
, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."


All the controversy cases are civil, not criminal.



However - they have standing because the Commerce Clause gave them jurisdiction over interstate commerce - after laws claiming this status were made by congress.
Congress created laws under this clause - they are a sort of "special" jurisdiction that extend anywhere Congress wants them to extend.
Seeing as how these laws apply to ALL interstate commerce, the U.S. Federal Courts have jurisdiction over the ENTIRE WORLD when it comes to DRUG POSSESSION.

If growing pot at home for your personal use "Effects Interstate Commerce" (Gonzalez v. Reich) makes it so that the drug laws can be applied to you - imagine a country where it was being grown LEGALLY. What kind of effect does THAT have on interstate commerce?

Under this reasoning, the United States has the authority to apprehend and try citizens of that nation for violating U.S. Federal law.

Anyway...




Standing; I keep arguing that the government has no standing in my case - they were not harmed by my actions, therefore they do not have standing.

There are 3 requirements for standing;
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

Again, as there was NO HARM, there is no corpus delicti and there is no way for the government to have standing.

There is NO CRIME without HARM or INJURY - where CRIME is defined as a violation of an individual's rights.

The government has no rights for me to violate - they cannot claim standing unless I am being tried for treason.

To claim that I am committing a crime and INJURING the United States, there should be some evidence of LOSS OR INJURY that can be proven by the United States.

Without evidence of this loss or injury, there is no Corpus Delicti, and the United States has no standing in my case.

The ONLY crime against the United States is the crime of Treason.
(Drug WAR - selling drugs, adhering to their enemies? Giving the enemies Aid and Comfort?)

Other than in a case of treason, the United States DOES NOT HAVE STANDING in a criminal case.
All crime must infringe upon the rights of another individual.
There are no rights being violated here (except for mine.)

Simply expressed philosophy - http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/52/27/

Using only the Declaration of Independence and the constitution we can come to a simple conclusion (jacked from that link...)

(1) the government was established/instituted for one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(2) the courts being a part of the government have the same singular purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(3) the courts' jurisdiction has one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(4) Standing to invoke a court's jurisdiction requires the allegation a right is being violated.




Right now, I NEED to sue the government for violating my rights (under color of the law).
I need to sue them for taking away my right to liberty, property, privacy, pursuit of happiness, and contract -
BY IMPLEMENTING THE DRUG LAWS -
And trying me for violating them.
As my rights CANNOT be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, there is no way for me to have given up these rights to become subject to the drug laws.

I have standing because I WILL suffer if the drug laws hold.
My rights ARE being violated by these laws.
I have already suffered loss of liberty and privacy for OWNING PROPERTY and CONTRACTING WITH IT.



I agree with you (Banquo - since I got WAY off topic there for a minute...)
I don't believe I can get the jurisdiction of my case dismissed from the Federal Court.

I've run around those circles enough times that it just doesn't seem feasible.



However taking a civil suit against the United States for violating my rights to property, etc...
Filing a formal complaint against the arresting officer, et. al for violations of U.S. C. 18, 13; 241 and 242

Seem like the next logical and NECESSARY steps to take.



Since this is my first offense, I've never been arrested for ANYTHING before - there is no way I lost my rights of property, liberty, or contract prior to my arrest.

Since I retained these rights, I cannot be tried for exercising them.




One of the first things my lawyer told me was,
"You don't have a constitutional right to do drugs."

He was correct. I do not have that constitutional right.
The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

It is a NATURAL unalienable right granted by my creator.
The Declaration of Independence defines the purpose of government in this way;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The purpose of Government is to protect my rights.
They are in violation of their purpose if they begin to infringe upon my rights.

As I have violated the rights of no one else, I have not committed a crime.
I am a sovereign individual that does not find myself to be in servitude of my government - therefore the government cannot rightly violate my sovereignty by telling me what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.



No man can take away the rights of another.
The drug laws do just that - they take away the right to property, pursuit of happiness, and the liberty to do with yourself as you see fit.

"Drug induced crime" is still crime - it can still be punishable under the law without the Drug Regulations.



Drugs themselves are merely property.

As long as theft is not involved, ownership of property cannot be a crime.

If owning drugs cannot be a crime, neither can their sale.

If I were to sell FAKE drugs to someone, THAT would be fraud... A crime.
If I were to misrepresent my product, that would be fraud... A crime.

Merely selling something (like your TV set in order to pay this month's rent...) is perfectly legal. It is your property and you have unlimited right to contract with your property.

To define property ownership as a crime is a direct violation of the 5th amendment.

What is the purpose of the Constitution?
To place restraints on the Government from seizing power and violation the rights of the citizens.

The Bill of Rights is NOT granting rights to the people - it is PLACING RESTRICTIONS upon the government.

If a controversy arises between the rights of an individual v. the rights of the State (governing authority), the ruling must always be in favor of the rights of the individual.

To rule otherwise is to rule/claim that the State is superior to the individual/individual's rights and sovereignty and they can control the individual's actions.
Unless we are all born as slaves of the state, we cannot be subject to their rules governing our actions - so long as our actions DO NOT infringe upon the rights of another individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top