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

[Kalash]

So... uhhh....
I've been posting on http://theDEA.org forums about this - Nathan has been very helpful, but finally stopped responding... so I'm coming here...

I'm being tried for conspiracy to distribute MDMA, as well as possession and distribution. I was arrested by the FBI in California and have around 6 months before my trial date.

I don't believe the free lawyer I've gotten from the court is doing anything to defend me, so I've been doing research myself.

I'm hoping I can find people that will either assist me in making my stance more solid or ripping it apart completely so that I can plea and not take this to trial.

Any help is appreciated.

I hate to copy paste things, however... new forum, new topic... and I might as well save you all from clicking on that link. Besides - I wanted to edit a few things in there anyway...


Challenge to the drug laws/DEA/Patriot Act/congressional authority to prohibit drugs;


U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (4 Wall.) (1866)
“Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of Constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.”

Prohibition of any plant, substance, or chemical is not a power afforded the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Prohibition of Alcohol required an amendment to the constitution.

This amendment was repealed and the rights of making alcohol legal or laws for distribution was specifically re-assigned to the States, from where this power was stripped by the 18th amendment.

Federal Scheduling of illicit substances is unconstitutional and invalid, as are federal laws criminalizing their possession or sales.

Schedule I drugs are not only prohibited in the general sense, they are prohibited beyond the extent alcohol was prohibited in the 1920's. Alcohol was permitted in medicines, and could even be prescribed by doctors. Schedule I drugs, according to the guidelines have no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
1.Accepted medical use is currently determined solely by the DEA.

2.MDMA's schedule I status was taken to administrative hearings twice.

3.In 1986, Administrative Judge Young declared that MDMA could not legally be placed higher than Schedule III.

4.The DEA overruled the judge's decision and claimed that there was no interstate commerce permit filed with the FDA, therefore there was no acceptable medical use.

MDMA is not a patentable chemical, therefore it is not profitable.
A single dose of MDMA can be made for around 20 cents.
It was easier and cheaper for MDMA to be made by the psychiatrists using it than creating an interstate commerce for MDMA.
An interstate shipping license would have taken on average 30 months for approval; with MDMA being so cheap to create, this step would have proved redundant, inane, and was not necessary.
NDA (new drug application) costs have doubled over the last five years and now stand at $1.7 billion placing the cost at a minimum of $500 million in 1986; far beyond the ability of a few psychiatrists to pay, especially for a drug with no profit potential.

5.When taken to court again in 1988, the administrative judge again ruled against the DEA.

6.The DEA's response was that its opinion in the matter was the only valid opinion and MDMA would be permanently placed in Schedule I despite testimony from psychiatrists currently using MDMA in their practices, and despite the judge's findings that MDMA did not meet the schedule I criteria.



Another note on this – as MDMA was not being shipped across state lines, 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.




5.Despite the findings in Gonzales v. Raich, MDMA should not be subject to this ruling on the following grounds;
Marijuana must be grown in areas where it may grow.
Cultivation in an area permitting its growth would change the availability of marijuana on an interstate level.
MDMA is cheap enough to produce that shipping costs would deter interstate commerce where cultivation costs of marijuana are much greater making shipping and interstate commerce necessary.
MDMA is chemical in nature and can be made anywhere.
Before the DEA made it a schedule I substance in accordance with the Interstate Commerce clause, there was no interstate commerce, invalidating their right to regulate it.
Gonzales v. Raich was not determining the legality of the drug laws, they were determining if private cultivation of marijuana effected interstate commerce.
According to the Supremacy clause, the federal laws do indeed trump the state laws, however;
1.The clause permitting regulation of interstate commerce does not allow for the regulation of goods, merely their transportation.
2.The regulation of interstate commerce does not permit the Federal laws of prohibition.
3.The DEA does not have any constitutional authority to create laws yet continues to do so; these laws are invalid.
4.This clause was wrongfully used as a legal loophole to grant Congress executive powers.
5.History has proven through the 18th and 23rd amendments that these rights are not granted to the Federal Government.



6.Congress itself is not regulating scheduled substances, the DEA is.
The DEA is part of the executive branch.
The DEA determines what schedule to place all substances in with no check or balance of powers and complete disregard for the Judicial review process.
With this ability, the DEA is creating laws without legislation and without legislative oversight.
The constitution does not permit congress the ability to delegate regulation to the executive branch of the Federal Government.


7.Prohibition is not regulation; it is prohibition - as determined by historically looking at the 18th and 23rd amendments, prohibition by the federal government is illegal.





I promise it looks better formatted in an office program with the bullets lining everything up...
Sorry it's so sloppy.
Anyway...
Thoughts?
Opinions?
And... more importantly, legal documentation holding up what I'm saying or ripping it apart completely?

Thanks,
Kalash

[Banquo]

If you are not happy with your public defender, you should go into debt and get a better attorney. These look like serious charges. Your commerce clause arguments have an exceptionally low chance of working. Your efforts would be much better spent towards challenging FBI procedure, like search and seizure involved with your case.

Also, if you want a narrow reading of the commerce power, look to U.S. v. Morrison (overturning violence against women act). You already have U.S. v. Lopez. But again, your arguments are nearly impossible.

[Kalash]

Originally Posted by Banquo

If you are not happy with your public defender, you should go into debt and get a better attorney. These look like serious charges. Your commerce clause arguments have an exceptionally low chance of working. Your efforts would be much better spent towards challenging FBI procedure, like search and seizure involved with your case.

Also, if you want a narrow reading of the commerce power, look to U.S. v. Morrison (overturning violence against women act). You already have U.S. v. Lopez. But again, your arguments are nearly impossible.

Ok...

So... Lopez determined that congress could only use the commerce clause to regulate things that were directly economic in nature...

Does that apply to MDMA - again using my arguments that financially it doesn't make sense to ship it across state lines?

And... Morrison...
I'm having trouble finding the links to my case that you are...
In their arguments - stating that the commerce clause was being used to give Congress state police powers... - I can see that, creating the DEA and the drug laws to prohibit substances - a right of the states but not of the federal government...


How can I prove that MDMA would only be a state or local concern or that it wouldn't be directly economic in nature?



I have stuff about illegal search and seizure, but don't believe any of it would hold up in this case, and I'm hesitant to bring it up because of the details involved.
I think challenging the establishment of the drug laws and the DEA is honestly my best chance.
Ironically - violations of the constitution are now so commonplace that my challenge would probably go unnoticed and be completely ineffective...


As for the attorney - I have a panel attorney... not a public defender (I have a co-defendant with a public defender) so I'm not THAT screwed.

It just seems like he isn't doing his job.
I was denied a lawyer during questioning after requesting one, and he said he'd look at the evidence, listen to the tapes, and get back to me on it.

While I understand he has a lot to go through, this is something that he should have prioritized in my case...
Possibly he has... I don't know...
I need to call him tomorrow and see where he's at with the evidence.
He's only had it a week...

[MahanAtma]

Banquo is right, the Commerce Clause argument isn't going to fly.

Re your attorney, is there something specific you think he needs to be doing right now? If your trial date is six months away, he may simply not be in full gear yet.

Some panel attorneys can be very good. My firm takes panel cases, and we've got one of the best reputations around.

[Kalash]

My neighbor (a fraud attorney) showed up and represented me at my bail hearing.

He was dismissed and I was assigned the panel attorney at my second hearing (a little over a month ago.)

A week before last Friday, my neighbor received a call from the prosecuting attorney (stating he was the attorney on record) BEGGING him to request disclosure before the hearing last Monday.

My current lawyer had my case for over a month and didn't request disclosure until the pre-trial hearing where we were supposed to challenge the evidence.

Is he doing his job?
Now?
I don't know...
But that's made me VERY suspicious.

And the trial date was originally set for May 1st.
One of my co-defendants was not present at the hearing last week - the calender was mixed up or something - and the postponement of the trial date to September was pending their consent to waive their right to a speedy trial - otherwise the May date would still hold.

While realistically, yes... we have 6 months or so...
My lawyer has repeatedly told me he doesn't expect the case to go to trial (while I continue debating the positives and negatives of going to trial...) and we COULD only have 3 weeks.

Is he doing his job now? Maybe.
Was he for the last month? Definitely not.
It sure makes me wonder if he's doing anything now...

[Banquo]

Originally Posted by Kalash

My lawyer has repeatedly told me he doesn't expect the case to go to trial (while I continue debating the positives and negatives of going to trial...) and we COULD only have 3 weeks.

The vast majority of criminal cases do not go to trial. If you're a "small fish," then it could be that the feds have more important things to do. Or maybe the feds are having a slow month and they need to keep busy. However, it's always cheaper and more efficient to keep these things from going before a jury.

On the issue of your panel attorney -- it's tough to know. There are expensive private attorneys who will put on a show for their client and waste a court's time just to show how hard they are working. There are also brilliant public defenders. It can go different ways, which is why it's best to ask around and find an attorney who is reputable.

My current lawyer had my case for over a month and didn't request disclosure until the pre-trial hearing where we were supposed to challenge the evidence.

Different courts handle evidentiary issues at preliminary hearings differently. Some judges won't allow it to be raised at all (owing to the low burden for establishing a case here), so the fact that your attorney didn't raise evidence issues at a preliminary hearing is not cause for alarm.

or was this after your prelim hearing?

[Kalash]

This was the pre-trial hearing - the preliminary hearing was April 2nd.

Again - it wouldn't bug me, but my neighbor got that phone call 3 days before the hearing (the 2 days between were the weekend) begging him to request disclosure.

If the prosecuting attorney feels this was neglected - enough to contact whom he thought was my attorney and request him to do his job - it seems fairly obvious that my attorney isn't doing his job correctly.

[MahanAtma]

Preliminary hearing? Doesn't sound like this is federal court.

[Kalash]

Wasn't a preliminary hearing...
I just have my terms messed up...
The arraignment was April 2nd...
Pre-trial hearing was last Mondy...

[Kalash]

I got ahold of my attorney today...
And (big surprise) he knows nothing more about my case than he did when we started.

HOWEVER, he did receive a call from the prosecuting attorney requesting my cooperation and to begin talks of plea bargaining.


My lawyer's comment - if you bring up any of this constitutional stuff, he's going to push for you to go to prison.
If you cooperate, you'll get a good deal.


So... I guess... what are my options?

Legally I'm entitled to a trial.
A trial would make things fair, however with mandatory minimum sentencing and things of that nature, it wouldn't be fair if I'm convicted.

I'm entitled to my constitutional rights (even those deprived of my by the patriot act) and again, I can challenge these - if not in court, in an appeal.
I have numerous arguments about constitutional violations.

Why is it WRONG for me to bring up constitutional violations of the government in my case?
Why would bringing up these arguments PRECLUDE me from making a deal and cooperating?
Why couldn't these be used to entice the prosecutor to give me a better deal?

Is this just my lawyer saying, "I'm a lazy bastard that doesn't want to work, so make the plea and get over it." or is there some merit to his words?


If he wanted my cooperation, he should have discussed it with the FBI agent interrogating me (the FBI agent called him during my questioning telling him I was cooperating, and they were going to be digging in for more information) before telling them to use me, and using the knowledge they gained to double my bail and increase the charges against me after telling me explicitly that it would be helping my case.

He's already had my cooperation and he used it to stab me in the back.
Why should I continue to cooperate when all it's gotten me so far is more charges against myself?

I'll stop now to keep from ranting and getting pissed off...

But basically - why would me bringing up constitutionality of the laws make the prosecutor unwilling to work with me?
Why would questioning their evidence make it so I'm not capable of getting a plea bargain?
Is this stuff true, or is it my lawyer trying to get out of doing his job?

[Banquo]

Originally Posted by Kalash

Why is it WRONG for me to bring up constitutional violations of the government in my case?

It's not wrong in the moral sense, but it would appear confrontational and wouldn't be helpful in reaching a plea deal. The constitutional claims are not good arguments. Sorry.

If your case goes to trial, it would be a better time for longshot defenses. Argue your constitutional claims there, and they will be preserved for appeal. (And then all you need are some new more sympathetic Supreme Court justices and you'll be set.)

If he wanted my cooperation, he should have discussed it with the FBI agent interrogating me (the FBI agent called him during my questioning telling him I was cooperating, and they were going to be digging in for more information) before telling them to use me, and using the knowledge they gained to double my bail and increase the charges against me after telling me explicitly that it would be helping my case.

Prosecutors can cut deals. They are held to a higher standard of conduct. Law enforcment cannot. They should not be trusted.

[Banquo]

merging with other thread. let's keep all the posts on this case in one thread so that they are easier to find.

[Kalash]

Originally Posted by Banquo

Prosecutors can cut deals. They are held to a higher standard of conduct. Law enforcment cannot. They should not be trusted.

They called him before continuing with the interrogation...

I guess it's just a sign of manipulation...
Bastards

[Kalash]

Originally Posted by Banquo

It's not wrong in the moral sense, but it would appear confrontational and wouldn't be helpful in reaching a plea deal. The constitutional claims are not good arguments. Sorry.

So... he would be less willing to work with me because I was attacking him?

My thought process on all this;
I cooperated during questioning (and regret it).
They gained a LOT of valuable information during my questioning.
Without that information, 2 of my co-defendants will most likely walk, and the charges against me are cut in half.

Just to bring it up again - there's the question of them denying me an attorney during questioning.
I see the point with the Davis v. US case - however the judges ruled that if an ambiguous statement that MAY be requesting an attorney is made, clarification should be made if the accused is requesting an attorney or not.

No clarification was made in my case. I made an ambiguous statement and was told a one word answer, "No."
It was reasonable to interpret this answer as a denial of my right to council.
Just as it is reasonable to interpret my request for a phone call to get an attorney as a request for an attorney.

So... do I cooperate, let them have everything I feel they wrongfully obtained, and take what's coming, or do I fight to have that excluded and try to help 2 of my co-defendants?

How is it confrontational to require acknowledgement of my constitutional rights?
Again - I see what you're saying... but I think there are things that need to be said before I go signing any kind of deal.

I still challenge that MDMA is wrongfully scheduled - the DEA has no checks and balances - and that I should be tried (or at least offered as a plea bargain) as though it were a schedule III substance.


Ok... next question (because I can't get enough of them answered...)
With the plea process... is there a going back and forth, or is it just a, "Here. This is the best your getting kid. Suck it up and sign on the line, or go to prison for a LONG time."?

I want to know if I get a chance to say ANYTHING or if I'm pretty much just screwed.

[DarkCode]

Originally Posted by Kalash

So... he would be less willing to work with me because I was attacking him?

My thought process on all this;
I cooperated during questioning (and regret it).
They gained a LOT of valuable information during my questioning.
Without that information, 2 of my co-defendants will most likely walk, and the charges against me are cut in half.

Just to bring it up again - there's the question of them denying me an attorney during questioning.
I see the point with the Davis v. US case - however the judges ruled that if an ambiguous statement that MAY be requesting an attorney is made, clarification should be made if the accused is requesting an attorney or not.

No clarification was made in my case. I made an ambiguous statement and was told a one word answer, "No."
It was reasonable to interpret this answer as a denial of my right to council.
Just as it is reasonable to interpret my request for a phone call to get an attorney as a request for an attorney.

So... do I cooperate, let them have everything I feel they wrongfully obtained, and take what's coming, or do I fight to have that excluded and try to help 2 of my co-defendants?

How is it confrontational to require acknowledgement of my constitutional rights?
Again - I see what you're saying... but I think there are things that need to be said before I go signing any kind of deal.

I still challenge that MDMA is wrongfully scheduled - the DEA has no checks and balances - and that I should be tried (or at least offered as a plea bargain) as though it were a schedule III substance.


Ok... next question (because I can't get enough of them answered...)
With the plea process... is there a going back and forth, or is it just a, "Here. This is the best your getting kid. Suck it up and sign on the line, or go to prison for a LONG time."?

I want to know if I get a chance to say ANYTHING or if I'm pretty much just screwed.

There is a lot of back and forth within the negotation. Get yourself a lawyer to handle the negotiations, or atleast start talking to some of the ones out there about hiring them giving details on your stance to figure out costs, and whether they can or can not help your opinion.

Be strong, but don't be stupid.

[Kalash]

I cannot find any cause or precedence for a violation of my freedom of speech as part of my bail conditions...

However it's listed as part of my bail terms;

"Do not personally communicate directly or indirectly with co defendants"


This limits my free speech.

I can understand the conflict of interest - in a sense...

Wherein I say one thing and it effects the possible defense of my co-defendants...

However, whom does this conflict of interest harm?
The co-defendants who otherwise may come as a united front against the prosecution?

This seems... wrong....

Legally... can I challenge this infringement on my first amendment right?

[Banquo]

You voluntarily consented to the terms of the bail. Bail terms often include loss of certain liberties, especially where there is a danger that communication with witnesses, victims, and others could lead to more crime or interfere with administration of justice.

From the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, 341:

If the [magistrate] determines from affidavit or testimony, or a [magistrate] [or grand jury] has determined, that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the crime charged, the [magistrate]...shall impose the least onerous one or more of the following conditions necessary to ensure the defendant's appearance in court, protect the safety of the community, and prevent intimidation of witnesses and interference with the orderly administration of justice:

...

(3) impose reasonable restrictions on the defendant's activities, movements, associations, and residences, including prohibitions against the defendant approaching or communicating with particular persons or classes of persons and going to designated geographical areas or premises;

[bigdaddy123]

I believe your freedom of speech has something to do with about what you say,not who you can hang around with.For ex. if your giving a speech,and a folon is in the audience,oh well,or,if your talking to a complete stranger.But what your saying I don't believ has anything to do with freedom of speech.

[Banquo]

^
wrong. freedom of association (i.e. who you hang out with) has been inerpreted to be part of the First Amendment.

[drew345]

I have a question can the law ever take away any of your constitutional rights before a conviction? arent you innocent until proven guilty or does that only apply to the trial itself?

[bigdaddy123]

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!

[Kalash]

Originally Posted by bigdaddy123

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...)

[Kalash]

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...

[Kalash]

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.

[dirtmcgirt]

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