This is against the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - and my public defender will not let me even ask for it.
What Lawyerdude said;
"Yes I can state your position with regard to the inherent defects in the statutes as used against ecstasy. It is even worse than the laws against LSD which was tested on 9 year olds. Lotsa people don't know about that test. LSD found safe and effective for treating 9 year olds."
What is a demurrer?
It's making a statement that even if all the evidence presented is true, that no crime has been committed.
In drug cases, there is no crime...
There is no harmed or injured party. There is no party with standing to bring the charges.
For more, see Marc Steven's standing cross reference on AdventuresInLegalLand.com
Constitutionally - the drug laws are laws of prohibition.
The 18th and 21st amendments prove that prohibition is NOT part of the authority of Congress.
These laws are nothing more than the PRIVILEGED STATE issuing COMMANDS to the sovereign citizens who rule over the privileged state.
These laws are invalid, as they are the servant trying to usurp the rights of the master.
In this country we have property RIGHTS.
The possession of your private property CANNOT be a crime.
Schick vs United States [(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826]
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights, 18th and 21st], the Amendments must control."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Clearly, any law prohibition the possession of one's private property is unconstitutional.
Prohibition of any intoxicating substance is not a power of Congress - if one looks at the 18th amendment.
In order to prohibit alcohol, a constitutional amendment was necessary.
Without a constitutional amendment, any prohibition of any substance is power forbidden to be exercised by Congress.
Marbury vs Madison [5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)]
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Miranda vs Arizona [384 US 436 p. 491]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton vs Shelby County [118 US 425 p. 442]
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
I want to raise these arguments - and move the court to dismiss my case - as it is a criminal attempt to deprive me of my rights using threats and violent force while claiming an immune position of authority.
For more info on how the actions of the government are illegal, take a look at U.S. Code title 18 chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.
Please help me raise the money to have these motions written.
This is step one in the reversal of these liberty dissolving unconstitutional laws.
Wed - Jan 3rd
Howard Woolridge - the founder of (maybe not founder, I might be mistaken...) L.E.A.P. (Law enforcement against prohibition) was on for about two hours.
The first 16 minutes is a mix of technical difficulties, comments about me showing up late >_<, and some comments about future guests, voter fraud, and Ron Paul promotions.
After Howard gets off the line we got WAY off topic, and never really got back.
I got in a few comments and questions...
We talk about the effectiveness of the drug laws, if they prevent or cause crime.
We talk about the financial costs of the drug war.
We talk about statistics - and it's mentioned that LEGAL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS kill 7 people for every 1 person killed by illegal drugs...
And that the majority of ILLEGAL DRUG DEATHS are due to prohibition - either adulterants or unknown quality/purity of the drugs.
Prohibition is NOT regulation.
Congress is shirking their responsibility to REGULATE interstate commerce - and is leaving the regulation to street dealers.
Howard seems to think all dealers are bad.
That's about the only point we really disagree on.
We agree that pushers are bad... But dealers vary from honest and moral to deceitful and criminally intentioned.
The download link is working - but was giving me trouble...
But it streams from there with no problems.
Christie had a few facts mixed up.
And... I talked more on the 16th about specifically what's wrong in my case.
It's all a matter of RIGHTS.
We're supposed to have them in this country.
If we don't have rights - or we can be punished for choosing to exercise our rights in spite of ORDERS from our Public SERVANTS (the government)not to exercise those rights...
We are no longer a free people.
I haven't necessarily made up my mind to fight.
I'm talking to my attorney on Friday.
If it had been possession of 4 pills...
I'd be fighting till I bled to death from the opposing fire.
And while I still stand by my position...
I still stand by my constitutionally protected unalienable RIGHTS that the government may not take away...
I do not know if I'm prepared to create the documents necessary that my public attorney will not help me with.
I don't have the finances to seek other legal aide.
If I can fight - and see a chance of winning - I will take it.
The link I mention - Adventures in Legal Land - Marc Steven's site - the standing cross reference page is here.
The NIDA page on "Club Drugs" is here.
A quick comment on that page - "Emergency Room Mentions" are not "Deaths" and are not "deaths related to..."
The most dangerous aspect of MDMA is that it inhibits your body's ability to regulate temperature... sometimes causing overheating if you aren't paying attention, aren't drinking enough water...
And dance for 6-8 hours without taking a break.
Harm reduction measures - which were outlawed with the passage of the RAVE act rider on the DAWN warning bill - would eliminate nearly all "emergency room mentions" of MDMA.
Ecstasy is also noted as MDMA more times than not - despite the fact that ecstasy RARELY is pure MDMA, and sometimes isn't MDMA at all.
MAPS - Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies - is another thing I mention during the interview.
Their ecstasy PTSD study can be found here.
The U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 13 sections 241 and 242 that I mention...
TheDEA.org is another GREAT resource for simple facts, warnings that are realistic, what to expect, and further research into MDMA (mostly) and prohibition (mostly as compared to alcohol prohibition.) Nathan (the site owner) is very knowledgeable and helpful - if you have anything to ask - just post it on the forums.
For my 7 minute overview from the 16th you can either find the podcast on the site - it's the Dec. 16th show...
Or you can download the 7 minute clip from here.
I go more into the legal stance and case law in that.
The main focus tonight was on Howard.
A cop of 18 years and I agree on nearly every point in the drug war.
It's common sense.
I don't know why more people aren't opposed to the policy of prohibition.
If you have questions or comments, feel free to emailme or send a message on here.
I'll reply as long as I'm free to do so.
I am a Revolutioni.st
And I would love for you to join me.