Page 1

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

Michael Pohlable with Stand-by counsel

This space reserved for filing stamp.

3836 Lomitas Dr.

Los Angeles, California 90032

mike@ddeal.us

949-280-7333

800-610-0081

The unalienable rights of the people can not succumb to the limited and privileged

powers of a Constitutionally established government.

This document is published

at http://mike.revolutioni.st/9007SR2.pdf , http://mike.revolutioni.st/9007SR2.htm

and http://mike.revolutioni.st/9007SR2.wpd

In the United States District Court for the Central District of California

Southern Division: 411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053, Santa Ana, California, 92701-4516

Judge David O. Carter – Room 9D

Hours: 10-4 - M-F

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/

United States

Michael Pohlable,

et. al.

Case Number: sacr 07 0033

Surrebuttal to Prosecution’s Untimely Opposition to

defendant’s

1 Substantive Motion; Document #9007 Version 1.003.

This Document is Labeled #9007SR2

Table of Contents

Introduction

Statement of Facts

Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Conclusion

Proof of Service.

Proposed Venue for hearing:

Date: Monday 21 April 2008.

Time: 1:30 pm

Place:

Courtroom 9d.

Notice of Surrebuttal. Petition for Relief of Unconstitutional Claims.

To the court: At the venue designated in the caption or at such other venue as the court shall designate

due to issues of timeliness, I will appear and demand the relief set forth herein and such other relief as may be

appropriate. Rule 12: “A party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can

determine without a trial of the general issue.” This motion can be dispositive. As this document is wordy

enough, any appearance of admissions of guilt are to be construed as hypothetical in nature for the sake of

clarifying my points - all admissions or inferences are to be read amended with, “As alleged” - or otherwise per

context.

Signed ______________________

Michael Pohlable.

Monday, April 08th, 2008

Page 2

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

Contents of this Surrebuttal:

Notice of Surrebuttal. Petition for Relief of Unconstitutional Claims.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Brief overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Summary of Surrebuttal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Points.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(1) Prohibition of The Exercise of Property Rights is Unconstitutional. .. . . . . . . . . 10

(2) Congress May not Delegate Authorities it does not have.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

(3) Statute is Void for Vagueness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

(4) Amendments Supersede Grants of Authority.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(5) Possession and Distribution are Inherent Property Rights.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(6) Controlled Substances Act is Void Ab Initio... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

(7) Protecting Society is not Justification for Criminal Acts... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

(8) No Corpus Delicti, No Standing, No Plaintiff, No crime.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

(9) Woes of Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

(10) No Plaintiff, No Jurisdiction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

SUMMARY OF CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Statement of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

MDMA Facts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ARGUMENTS/MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Origin of Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Powers Of Congress/Government.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Argument of Disputes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Federal Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Federal Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Fundamental Things/Other Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

U.S. Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Proof of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Page 3

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

Unconstitutionality is illegality of the highest order. --Board of Zoning Appeals V. Decatur Company of

Jehovah's Witnesses, 233 Ind. 83, 117 NE 2nd. 115

Introduction

This is the entirety of the matter at hand; the prosecution claims my rights of property and

contract have been revoked through an Unconstitutional statute that does not regard my rights as

unalienable. Because I chose, despite violent criminal, terrorist threats to my life and liberty by a

government that rules only through my privileged consent, to exercise my rights of property and

contract with another consenting adult, the prosecution claims that I must be deprived of other rights

to include my: liberty, property, and right to vote or hold office to challenge the criminal protection

racket to which I have fallen victim.

The prosecution makes many claims placing the limited powers of congress above my

unalienable, fundamental, natural, self-evident, God-given rights of property and contract, but fails to

provide a source of authority greater than God or Nature by which my rights were granted, and as

such, its arguments are invalid, and the charges must be dismissed.

If the legislature may suspend my rights at any time, I have no rights; I have government

granted privileges. This is the opposite of what the constitution established, as such is

Unconstitutional, and is criminality of the highest order. Any such enactment is void ab initio, and

the charges against me based on this principal must be immediately dismissed.

As the founding documents make abundantly clear, the individual citizen has fundamental

unalienable rights from which all limited and privileged powers of the government are consensually

derived. The prosecution claims the government, though the U.S. and State Constitutions, has

granted me my rights and may revoke them if it deems this suspension prudent to some greater

cause. The prosecution is incorrect in this presumption, and as this is the most fundamental aspect of

their argument, their entire opposition motion is invalid.

While I will discuss in greater depth the inadequacies of the prosecution’s arguments, this is

the basic underlying truth; all individuals are created with equal rights, and when one individual, or a

group of individuals, attempts to deprive another of their unalienable rights through force, threat of

force, even under false color of legitimate authority, a crime has been committed.

I may be the one who’s liberties are at stake, but I am not the criminal in these proceedings; I

am the victim of criminal oppressors who demand I pay them to protect my rights of life, liberty,

property, and others, yet continually threaten me should I choose to exercise any of these supposed

rights without their express consent and prior licensing of such a “right” to me.

Page 4

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

If the prosecution’s accusations hold, our government has become nothing more than a

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.

It is plainly clear that the government’s actions are criminal under Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 95

§ 1951,and include acts of fraud, acts of terrorism, kidnaping, theft, extortion, and others.

By bringing baseless charges against me without standing, for exercising my rights despite the

government’s threats of violence and enslavement, the prosecution is in further violation of Title 18

Chapter 13 § 241, and is attempting to join this court in its criminal conspiracy in violation of § 242.

The prosecution’s claim that the government’s criminal actions are legitimate and

Constitutional is nothing more than an act of self preservation of the criminal RICO Act the

prosecution benefits and is paid from. Laws of prohibition do not grant powers to federal agents or

agencies to violate other laws, and there is no immunity from these other statues granted by the

Unconstitutional implementation of the CSA, or it’s unlawful enforcement.

The CSA is a criminal attack upon the citizenry that is furthered by RICO means to ensure

their power remains unchallenged, as the victims of this fraud, theft, and violence, are silenced

politically by depriving them of their right to vote and hold public office.

These actions of the prosecution and the government are distinct crimes resulting in palpable

injuries and losses, to either myself, my co-defendants, or the entire populace.

The prosecution claims these truly criminal actions are justified because I chose to disobey an

unlawful order from an agency legally recognized as my servant by exercising rights this agency,

without Constitutional authority, believes itself to have suspended without due process. No other

claim against me has been made.

The prosecution, by its own admission, believes its actions to have been righteous and just,

and does not deny its clearly criminal acts, but defends them with long winded explanations and

excuses.

I ask the court to look through the illusions of words the prosecution presents and see the

base acts for what they are, as only by uncovering the acts beneath the labels can justice be found and

served.

Brief overview

Page 5

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

On Feb. 20 I filed a motion to dismiss 6 counts of an indictment which claims only that I

exercised my rights of property and contract, to the detriment of no one, without first attaining a

license from the government.

The prosecution responded on March 10 , 11 days late, resulting in the continuance of the

hearing set for March 17 to April 21st, and an extension of time for the filing of this surrebuttal due

on April 8th.

In its opposition, the prosecution argues trivialities and ignores the greater concepts

presented, as well as making absurd assertions that the Constitutional limitations on the government

may be waived at the government’s leisure in complete absence of due process; the government may

invalidate any amendment the government deems an obstacle in their pursuit of absolute power with

complete disregard to the rights of the people. The prosecution also heavily relies upon personal

attacks and its claim that I am not an attorney to discredit me.

I find this to be a diversionary tactic and hope that the court will not be swayed by their open

contempt of an American citizen desperate to see his Constitutional Republic restored.

There is no crime alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution does not claim otherwise in its

opposition. They merely claim that the exercise of my rights may be denied me without due process

because the provisions of the Constitution enable Congress to do whatever it pleases regardless of the

amendments if it is for the furtherance of some greater cause labeled as a “legitimate governmental

interest.” Yet the prosecution’s explanation of this supposedly legitimate interest is based on

invalidated scientific data from over 20 years ago.

The prosecution has yet to state a claim for which relief may be granted, has yet to establish

standing, has yet to accuse me of a criminal act, and is in violation of federal law in its attempt to

deprive me of my rights for choosing to exercise these rights in the first place.

The prosecution accuses me of possessing items which I owned. The prosecution does not

challenge my ownership of these items, nor does it claim that my ownership of the items in question

was illegal, nor that these items were criminally obtained.

The prosecution accuses me of no crime, only of disobedience to an authority that it believes

to hold all power over myself and my personal property. The prosecution condemns me for choosing

to possess and distribute property which I owned, through consensual. The prosecution’s claims

seem to me to claim we have communist state holdings of all property, by which the people are

privileged to use any property the people appear to own themself. Communism is clearly

Unconstitutional as it is in violation of the 5 amendment, and undermines the very rights of the

people that the government is tasked with protecting.

Page 6

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The prosecution claims that I did not receive a license permitting me to possess private

property which I owned, alleging the state has some higher claim to my personal property than I do

myself. I find this claim to be fraudulent and criminal in nature; an attempt to deprive me, and the

citizenry, of their property through robbery and extortion as defined in § 1951

“(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or

obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of

another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or

violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or

property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or

property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his

company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from

another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or

threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right”

The prosecution also claims that it, or Congress, may make it unlawful for me to possess my

private property, and also unlawful for me to dispose of it, by prohibiting my relinquishment of

ownership through consensual contracts with another adult. The prosecution claims that any such

property, regardless of ownership, is forfeit, along with the rights and privileges secured to those

desiring to possess such property, should they actually come to possess it. The prosecution claims that

robbery and extortion are legitimate functions of the government if they serve a further interest of the

state.

Contract rights are a fundamental aspect of property rights, as the rights of property would be

meaningless if one could not utilize his property for his own benefit. I see no difference between

possession and distribution to another private entity.

Nothing the prosecution claims I have done is criminal, or even allegedly criminal. The

prosecution claims only that my claim and exercise of my basic fundamental property rights was

unlawful. This claim does not provide standing, and the allegations against me are not allegations

that I have committed a crime. There is nothing to defend against, as no crime exists in the

indictment, resulting in my confusion and grasp to dismiss the allegations for being vague.

The prosecution’s claim that their allegations must be considered criminal despite there being

no party with standing showing or claiming personal injury or loss is nothing more than an attempt to

defraud the court into taking action in this matter. Without a corpus delicti, no party with standing

exists, or, in this case, is even alleged. As such, the prosecution has failed to invoke jurisdiction of this

court, and continues to attempt to use fraud to endorse its criminal attacks upon me.

Page 7

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The exercise of my unalienable rights cannot be a crime despite any attempt of the legislature

to make them licenced privileges. No criminal allegation is laid against me. No plaintiff with

standing has been presented, and the prosecution makes no claim to the contrary.

As such, I request immediate dismissal with prejudice of these meritless allegations.

Summary of Surrebuttal

An honestly represented consensual act cannot be criminal in nature, as there is no party

suffering injury or loss with which to raise standing in order to bring charges. To claim standing

without a loss or harm being suffered by the person raising the claim is a fraudulent claim which fails

to raise jurisdiction of any court. The prosecution claims it does not need a party with standing to raise

jurisdiction of the court, and I question this claim.

The accusations of the prosecution claim that I was in possession of my own private property.

They also claim that my possession coupled with intentions to distribute my private property were

criminal. No claim is made that I did not own the property in question. No claim is made that I

infringed upon another’s rights, nor placed another party under duress to ensure my transaction was

made. No criminal allegations exist in the indictment, nor have been raised since.

The prosecution is attempting to deprive me of my property, and rights associated with my

ownership thereof, by using emotionally driving terminology, threats against my person, and claiming

that I have no right to possess that which I own. By choosing to ignore the violent threats of the state

and its agents and exercising my fundamental property rights, and aiding others in the free exercise of

the same rights, the prosecution claims that I have “severely affected interstate commerce” and must be

punished.

Their vague notion of “affecting interstate commerce” is hypothetical, conjectural, and vague,

and cannot establish standing for them to bring charges against me. I have done nothing to affect

interstate commerce in violation of Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 95 § 1951, but the very statues raised

against me are directly in violation of that section.

The prosecution speaks as if I had severely wronged the government; those threatening my life,

liberty, and property, as well as society by merely possessing and consensually contracting with my

private property. The prosecution can provide no victims, nor parties with standing raising complaint

against my actions. The prosecution relies solely upon the mandates of Congress which it believes to

be superior to the 5 Amendment, to provide the basis for its standing, calling this, “Statutory

Standing” in violation of the case or controversy clause establishing the Judiciary.

All rights are inherent in the individual and cannot be taken through legislation nor majority

decision. The purpose of the Amendments was to ensure that the rights of even one individual could

Page 8

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

not be forsaken for the sake of the majority. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the

people.

The prosecution claims the State may serve its own interests and ignore the rights of the people,

then punish the people for exercising rights it had prohibited in violation of the Amendment’s restraints

upon the provisional powers granted in the Constitution.

The usurpation of another’s rights by simply labeling their private property as something other

than “property” is an act of enslavement, theft, or at a minimum, an attempt to defraud. The use of

deceit and threat of force to deprive another of his Constitutionally protected rights, while hiding

behind the authority, or color, of law, is criminal in nature, and is, in fact, a crime under U.S. Code

Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 242. Civil remedies may also be sought for this criminal deprivation of

rights under Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I Section 1983.

As no claim that I have committed a crime by violating the rights of another has been raised, I

wonder why I am placed in a position where I must defend my actions; the innocent exercise of

fundamental unalienable rights. I wonder what claims I am to defend against, as no criminal

allegations have been raised.

Not only am I placed in the position of attempting to defend innocent actions, I must also

defend myself from those accosting my life and liberty while the government pays them to

aggressively pursue further suspensions of my rights, and ensure my political silence should I ever

become free from their unlawful restraints.

As no due process of law has taken my rights of property, the very nature of the claims against

me are criminal their attempt to punish me for the free exercise of my fundamental rights, I am

incapable of accepting they have any merit. If one must seek permission to exercise his fundamental

property rights, he has no rights at all.

As no right may be licenced to the people, the statutes claiming to permit one to possess and/or

distribute that which he owns are Unconstitutional, and must not be obeyed.

“And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with

such an Unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with

impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law

purports to require a license. "The Constitution can hardly be thought to

deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to

attack its Constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands."

Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted

per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103, 104 . [394 U.S. 147, 152]”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1969) 22 L Ed 2d 162, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S

Ct 935

Page 9

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The prosecution also claims that the statutes waive the Standing requirement of the courts,

and as such, are Unconstitutional. The prosecution also claims that the provisions of the Articles

supercedes the authority of the Amendments when the exercise of the privileged authority is

rationally related to a government interest. This argument renders the Amendments null and void,

as such, is both Unconstitutional as well as ignorant of prevailing case law.

The prosecution defends this position by claiming that the Constitutions of the States grant

specific enumerated rights to the people. This is flawed reasoning, and is in conflict with the

Constitution of the United States.

The sole purpose of the Constitutionally established government is to protect the rights of

the people, not to destroy them in furtherance of its own devised plans. If the government has a

legitimate interest, it must be the protection of individual liberty, not the undermining of it through

licensing statutes which expressly forbid the exercise of an individual’s unalienable rights. Our

Declaration of Independence was written because of this very type of oppression, and the

Constitution written to ensure the rights of the people were not violated by their limited and

privileged government.

The prosecution also appears to have a difficult time understanding the difference between a

right and a privilege, as it argues that I have no fundamental right to distribute a controlled

substance. The prosecution is correct in its vague statement, as one only has a fundamental right to

distribute property which he owns and ownership of any specific property is not universally

bestowed upon anyone at birth, there can be no fundamental right to distribute anything. The

prosecution’s claim states that because one is not born with the right to distribute property which he

comes to own later in life, such a right is waved or invalidated for not being “fundamental”.

If what the prosecution claims is true, there can be no rights of property, religion, speech,

contract, liberty, travel, etc. as one waives such rights at birth because he is incapable of exercising

them at birth. This being understood, the only fundamental rights anyone may have are to life and

expression, as living and crying are all a newborn is capable of doing of its own volition.

This reasoning undermines the Constitutional protections of the unalienable rights of a free

people. No authority to dictate moral codes, nor prescribe prohibitions on the exercises of one’s

rights without first attaining permission through a government license, exists within the

Constitutional American government.

The only way for the prosecution to raise challenge to my possession of this property is for

me not to have been the owner of the property.

The prosecution fails to challenge the ownership of the property in question. The

prosecution makes no claim that the ownership of the property was illegal. As such, its arguments

Page 10

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

are moot, as one does indeed have a fundamental right to possess and distribute his private property.

The prosecution’s claim to the contrary comes off as a criminal attempt to control another

through use of force and threats of force. If one deems it prudent to abandon one’s rights for his

own safety that is one thing. For the state to threaten a free citizen’s life and liberty for choosing to

exercise his rights of property and contract, that is another entirely.

This is the entirety of the matter at hand; my rights of property and contract have been

revoked through an Unconstitutional statute that does not regard my rights as unalienable. Because

I chose, despite the duress imposed by a government that rules only through my privileged consent,

to exercise my rights of property and contract with another consenting adult, the prosecution claims

that I must be deprived of other rights, and be politically silenced so that I may not work to change

or speak out against this criminal oppression.

One need not understand the manipulations of language and expression used by attorneys to

comprehend the simple positions I intended to raise. A legal background seems to have obscured

the simple concepts presented in my original motion with exceedingly long definitions, labels, the

opinions of communist leaning activist judges, minor technicalities diverting away from the major

issues raised, and manipulations of facts in an effort to pervert my demand for equal protection and

justice into a merit-less legal catastrophe.

I appreciate the court’s willingness to hear my reply, and its acceptance of the Constitution

as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Points of Contention

As this is a rebuttal to the prosecution’s opposition, I will copy the enumeration from their

response for clarity;

(1) Prohibition of The Exercise of Property Rights is Unconstitutional.

The prosecution is correct in its determination that I believe the statues alleged to be in

excess of the Constitutional grants of power afforded to Congress. I find this to be a fact not

subject to great debate. They are arguing technicalities while the obvious facts, and my rights, are

being over looked and trampled through Unconstitutional exercise of the Constitutionally limited

and established powers of government..

Relevant authorities are on pages 30-33

(2) Congress May not Delegate Authorities it does not have.

Page 11

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The prosecution is partially correct in its determination that the delegation of the power to

prohibit MDMA by the DEA is an Unconstitutional delegation of congressional power, however

due to a lack of clarity in my initial motion they have misconstrued this point, and again I hope to

clarify with my comments found herin. What is Unconstitutional is the prohibition of the

possession of private property. Congress cannot delegate such authority, nor exercise it itself.

As for petitioning the legislature for a change in the laws claiming to prohibit the possession

of MDMA, the DEA violated the law to place MDMA into schedule I. This was done in defiance

of the rulings of Administrative Judge Young. According to Young, MDMA could not legally be

prohibited; not be legally placed into schedule I or schedule II.

Congress may only delegate powers afforded it, and once delegated must be strictly adhered

to. Congress ignored the Amendments when creating the CSA. The DEA ignored the law, the

limitations upon its powers, and Judge Young’s rulings against it twice in order to unlawfully

schedule MDMA. Both actions render any enactments under them void ab initio.

The prosecution claims the legislature is not bound by the Amendments, no limitations

upon delegated powers are to be enforced, and the courts will not rise up to strike down such

blatantly Unconstitutional exercises of limited, privileged, enumerated powers. If the purpose of

the courts is not to ensure the legislature does not exceed its authority, and strike down enactments

that violate the rights of the people, yet the courts cannot or will not do so, what is the purpose of

the courts?

If we have no rights which Congress cannot take away because of a “rational

Governmental interest,” that is vague and hypothetical, how can we possibly petition Congress to

restore rights it has already taken, as to do so would be seen as an uprising, and immediately

condemned and prohibited by the unrestrained powers seeking to protect themselves, as self-

preservation is a legitimate interest of any party?

The picture the prosecution paints of the government is very different from that painted in

the Constitution, and it is my belief that the Constitution still remains supreme over any laws or

rulings either invalidating it or contrary to it. If I am correct in this assumption, the prosecution’s

arguments must be dismissed for frivolity and Unconstitutionality, and the allegations against me

dismissed.

(3) Statute is Void for Vagueness

I was willing to concede on the vagueness argument as it was not my own and I was

uncertain of its strength and validity, however a clarification of my argument on page 21, backed

by the conflict between the prosecution’s actions and their own statements in their opposition seem

to show that the statute is, indeed, invalid under the vagueness doctrine. As such, I would be

Page 12

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

loathe to abandon it, as the prosecution has made my case for me in this instance. This is further

addressed on page 21.

(4) Amendments Supersede Grants of Authority

The prosecution is again, correct, that I believe the Controlled Substances Act is in direct

violation of the 5 amendment. Regardless of their numerous quotations of Judicial Activists

promoting the Communist concept of “state owned” property and “state supremacy” over the

rights of the common man, common sense and a cursory reading of the Constitution show that my

claim is both solid, and sounded upon the constitution itself. The prosecution erroneously claims

this document grants Congress unlimited powers to strip every American of his unalienable rights,

should the mood of the majority swing in that direction, negating the intent of the founders, and

opposing case law prohibiting this very conduct.

This is addressed in the authorities below, and is an underlying theme of this surrebuttal;

the unalienable rights of the people are greater than the limited privileged powers of

government. The caselaw backing this statement may be found on page 44.

As the enactments used to bring the charges against me are void, the charges must be

dismissed.

To further clarify my point I have a few other arguments to make, in light of the

prosecution’s insistence upon citing details and ignoring the obvious issues, as well as their

fraudulent assertion that I have enumerated Constitutional rights.

(5) Possession and Distribution are Inherent Property Rights.

The prosecution’s allegation that I am not being charged with “possession” of my private

property but am being charged with “distributing” my private property is ridiculous and inane, a

mere technicality while ignoring the greater issue of my unalienable rights in an effort to divert

attention from them. Property rights include the right to contract with one’s private property, and

to dispose of it at one’s will. I will address this on page 11.

They are also incorrect in their reading of the statute as it clearly states the alleged offense is

“possession with intent to distribute.” I am indeed being charged with the mere “possession” of

my private property and committing a crime by intending violation of their alleged right to control

me, my actions, and my state of mind.

This entire argument is moot, however, as one cannot be deprived of his rights of property

without due process, and the prosecution makes no claim that I did not have ownership of the

property in question. Therefore the charges must be dismissed.

Page 13

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

(6) Controlled Substances Act is Void Ab Initio.

An act of congress is not due process, and the entire Controlled Substances Act, is void ab

initio, for being Unconstitutional.

The CSA is based entirely upon the communistic idea of “State-sole-proprietorship”

established as operating procedure of Congress by Senate resolution 63 from April 24th,1933.

Congressional resolutions are not law, not due process, and cannot affect the court’s in any way.

The slow encroachment and usurpation of the rights of the people through the communist

principles established with Senate Resolution 63, and the idea of societal “rights” superior to the

rights of an individual, have lead us to forsake our freedoms and Constitutional foundations. If the

government insists on portraying itself as a Constitutionally established public servant, it must be

reigned in by the provisions of the amendments, and begin to do the job it is contracted to do by

swearing to uphold and protect the Constitution.

This oath, to protect and defend the Constitutionally established limitations upon the

government, supreme in authority to all other oaths, is all that differentiates our nation from a

nation of subservient subjects.

Violations of this oath are not to be taken lightly, as they lead us towards a despotic

government that completely disregards the rights of the individual citizenry.

No measure of ingenuity or misconstrued efforts to protect the PEOPLE of the nation will

be tolerated under the Constitutional provisions ensuring a limited government of enumerated

powers. The government’s purpose is not to protect the people of this nation, particularly from the

people’s own acts proving to be detrimental to themselves, but their purpose is to protect the

indefeasible RIGHTS of the people, ensuring their ability to choose for themselves what is best for

themselves.

Yet the prosecution claims that this is a legitimate government interest; to revoke personal

liberty for the good of the individual.

“Section 841(a)(1)’s prohibition on the distribution,

and possession with intent to distribute, MDMA is rationally

related to the interest in minimizing the use of MDMA.

”

[Page 19 Line 18 of Opposition]

People will undoubtedly make mistakes and suffer at times for their actions. This is not the

province of the state, and the state must remain neutral and passive at these junctures, or it will

become destructive of the very rights it is sworn to protect. The state has not done so, and has

become criminally involved in the usurpation of the very rights it is sworn to protect.

These criminal enactments against the citizenry must be reversed, and all charges

originating from these Unconstitutional and void enactments must be dismissed.

Page 14

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

(7) Protecting Society is not Justification for Criminal Acts.

Criminals need to make excuses for their actions. This is all the prosecution appears to have

accomplished with their untimely response; justification of their criminal attempts upon my life,

liberty, and property.

They have not dismissed the accusations against them, but have accepted them and credited

their actions to be valid under Constitutional provisions without reservation or respect for the

amendments. It appears they have done this in an attempt to convince the court to join in their

criminal conspiracy, punishable under U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.

My actions, freely taken with other consenting adults, with a reasonable expectation of

privacy; simple exercises of my Constitutionally protected rights, do not need to be excused, nor

must I seek permission from the government (DEA licenses, Bar licenses, business licenses, etc.)

prior to exercising these rights.

To claim otherwise is to completely deprive me of my rights and criminally convert these

fundamental rights into mere privileges through Unconstitutional licencing statutes. Any statute

requiring a license by which one may exercise his unalienable rights is Unconstitutional and must not

be obeyed.

The prosecution, however, claims that I have no rights - that the government can do what it

wishes and dictate what is to be acceptable conduct, and threaten the populace with force and

violence if they fail to comply with the State’s demands. This is the very definition of Terrorism, and

cannot be tolerated by a privileged government.

Specifically, they claim that I only have rights issued to me by the government - mere

privileges granted to me from an ultimate state-derived source of power with the right to grant and

revoke all such privileges.

The prosecution is incorrect in their arguments as my rights are unalienable, indefeasible, and

protected by the Constitution, not enumerated within it, and are not mere privileges bestowed upon

me by the privileged government carefully constructed in the Constitution with powers derived from

the consent and rights of the people.

If, indeed, congress and the courts have co-conspired over decades to undermine the

protections of the rights of the American people through a slow steady encroachment, this does not

excuse the continued criminal usurpation of the people’s rights.

To violate the Constitutional protections of the people’s rights is to breach the contract with

the American people, waiving any and all implied powers or authority derived from the

Constitutional contract each public official swears to uphold. Through such a claim, one invalidates

the very foundation of the office from which they speak, rendering both the office and it’s enactments

void.

Page 15

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

This motion is not being made in reference to a personal matter; it is not a personal vendetta

against the controlled substances act. While it may have begun that way, it is now a desperate fight

for liberty, a fight in which I am willing to give my life should it become necessary, as I have never

rescinded my oath of Enlistment to the U.S. Airforce, an oath by which I swore to protect and defend

the Constitution of the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic, at whatever cost

necessary.

The prosecution’s actions and assertions are direct threats to the Constitutional protections of

the rights of the American people. I cannot stand by idly, consent to their mistreatment of myself

and my co-defendants, and retroactively waive my rights of property and contract so that I may be

tried for the “crime” of exercising my rights without express consent from the government.

This surrebuttal is but a request for the privileged and limited Constitutional government to

recognize the origin of its authority, and be bound by the contract it has taken with the people who’s

rights and consent grant all powers to which the government may lay claim.

(8) No Corpus Delicti, No Standing, No Plaintiff, No crime.

All crime requires a corpus delicti - the body of a crime, to be defined as consisting of 2 parts,

a) loss or injury suffered by a party with standing, and b) someone’s unlawful conduct resulting in the

specific and palpable injury or loss expressed by the plaintiff with standing. As only the second

aspect of the corpus delicti is alleged by the prosecution, no crime exist. This case is invalid on its

face for failure to state a claim for which relief may be acquired.

The allegations raised against me are for the allegedly “criminal” act of possession and

intent, as well as actual entry into a consensual contract, to distribute my private property.

I find the nature of this property to be irrelevant, as property rights are immutable and

indefeasible. Rights do not get more fundamental than the basic right to possess the property which

one owns. That which one exchanges, one asset, in a mutually consensual contract with another is

the only honest way to come into the ownership of property. Possession may be either be by

ownership or consent of the owner; consent of the owner amounts to privileged use.

The possession I am alleged to have committed was of my own property, which I had by

right of ownership the ability to both possess and distribute as I saw fit.

This is not being debated here, as no claim of ownership is being raised, only the issue that I

possessed the property in question.

Possession by ownership is by divine or natural right.

Page 16

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

No allegation is made that the prosecution or undefined plaintiff has a higher claim to this

property. Because of this, they lack standing to raise complaint of my possession or the manner in

which I may have chosen to discard of the property in question.

(9) Woes of Society

The prosecution claims that uninhibited flow of MDMA to society would cause undo woes

and dilemmas with which society would not be able to cope. This is an erroneous claim based on

outdated science that was inconclusive at the time and called for more in-depth research, not

prohibition, as the findings were too inconclusive.

The intervening time between the addition of MDMA, unlawfully, to the CSA, and today,

the government has funded and influenced much research of this chemical. The majority of the

negative findings were from government sponsored facilities or grants, and nearly all of them have

been proved fraudulent or flawed.

The claim that the use of a product with reduces depression in nearly 30% of its occasional

users, reduces violent tendencies in occasional users, has shown to cause no brain damage or other

physiological harm in recreational doses, increases empathy, is non-addictive, non-lethal in

recreational dosages, and other than through adulterants, is otherwise safe will cause undo societal

woes, creating a need for congress to deprive the citizenry of their unalienable rights in an effort to

prevent its use is preposterous.

Without the laws prohibiting the possession or distribution of MDMA, no criminal elements

are implicated in its use or distribution. MDMA reduces the likelihood of violent crime in users, and

users are generally self supportive, stable members of the community with full time jobs.

Without the laws prohibiting the possession or distribution of MDMA, ecstasy pills would

not come in unknown potencies, or with adulterants.

Every pill the prosecution alleges I possessed without their permission was tested as positive

for MDMA and negative for any dangerous adulterant.

The prosecution claims I should be punished for seeking to provide a demanded service to

my friends in an effort to ensure their safety, by ensuring a clean and tested source for their chosen

vice.

This claim has no merit as no one was harmed by my actions against their will. No crime has

been committed. No complaint has been filed against me.

If the prosecution can present a party willing to file suit against me I will accept whatever

punishment they request for my crimes against them. As no party exists, I request dismissal of the

false allegations of criminal activity to be dismissed.

Page 17

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

If Congress or the state had any initiative to protect society from the woes associated with

drug use, they would ensure safe environments for such use knowing that they will never eliminate

drug use completely.

Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges have stepped up and said, “NO!” to

prohibition. I have done a 2 hour interview with Howard Wooldridge, an officer of over 16 years

and one of the speakers of LEAP, and we agreed on nearly every point. This interview may be found

at http://mike.revolutioni.st/ffr/.

They cite the problems of prohibition, the redundancy and pointlessness of the

execution of the laws of prohibition, and the unnecessary risks the laws create for both users,

society, and law enforcement that cannot be rationalized by a reduction in use because the

laws do nothing to reduce the use of the drugs they seek to prohibit.

I take their contention further by exposing the criminal nature of the laws, the

Unconstitutional deprivation of the individual’s rights by the government thought unlawful

policy making.

The only benefactors of prohibition are 1) the pharmaceutical companies that outlaw

unpatentable drugs from competing in a closed market, and 2) the street dealers who rely

upon the fear of the populace to prevent competition in an artificially inflated monopolistic

market.

The truest woes of society are that the state, in its efforts to protect the people from

their own desires, criminally depriving them of their right to pursue happiness, have only

benefitted those most likely to cause society harm.

The words of the founders come to mind here;

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a

little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

I refuse to relinquish my liberty to attain some vague notion of security offered by

the State wherein I am free to exercise certain rights, but if I choose to exercise many of

these rights without permission, my rights will be violated through use of violent force by

the state itself.

The laws create more

problems than they solve. I will cover this in more depth on page

33.

Page 18

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

(10) No Plaintiff, No Jurisdiction.

As there is no plaintiff with standing, the very jurisdiction of this court is called into

question, and if it is to be shown that this court is without jurisdiction, my presence here is not an

act of consent, but is an act of self preservation made under duress.

I do not believe the court is willingly involved in the conspiracy against me. I believe the

court has been deceived in the same manner as the prosecution into acting in a manner inconsistent

with the Constitution while believing firmly that their actions were just, necessary, and proper.

The prosecution’s claim of legitimacy in the usurpation of my inalienable property rights is

utterly without merit, as no limited enumerated power of congress may supercede the unalienable

rights of any minority group or individual, judicial rulings not-withstanding, as they are over-ruled

by the Constitution itself, the Supreme Law of the Land.

My experiences over the last year have shown me that the federal government no longer

respects the rights of the people, rights which it is sworn to protect. The government has no place

nor duty to defend the people from themselves, and it is a direct violation of their oath to protect

the rights of the people should they propose measures which do so.

It is my intent to rectify the wrongs against the American people and restore freedom and

liberty to this nation that is suffocating in their absence.

I find the statements above to be correct and true. This document, both above and below,

by my own hand with exception of those quoted, express my views and my contentions of the

exercise of the prosecution in this case. I swear under penalty of perjury that these statements are

both nice and accurate. The statements above are validated through case law as cited and

expressed in depth below, precluding their dismissal for being frivolous or unfounded.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us

from the support of a cause we believe to be just."

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound

to succeed but I am bound to live the best life that I have. I must stand

with anybody that stands right and part from him when he goes

wrong."

Abraham Lincoln

______________________

Michael Eugene Pohlable

April 08 , 2008

Page 19

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

SUMMARY OF CASE

For a four month duration, agents of the federal government contracted

with and monitored the actions of defendants Pohlable and others through the

fraudulent and deceptive use of an informant and non-consensual, undisclosed,

hidden video and audio monitoring equipment inside of a private apartment in

violation of defendant’s protected 4 amendment right to privacy where it is

reasonably expected.

During this time no charges were pressed against the defendant, any of

the co-defendants in this case, nor were any criminal complaints filed related to

the conduct of defendant Pohlable, nor any other co-defendant in this alleged

case.

There was no pending warrant for the arrest of defendant Pohlable at

this time. Defendant Pohlable had never been charged with a crime, nor

arrested prior to the issuance of a warrant based upon the prosecution’s claim,

without standing nor presentation of a plaintiff, that the defendant was

conducting unlawful activities.

As no plaintiff is alleged to have been harmed or suffered from the

alleged acts, the prosecution fails to invoke jurisdiction of this or any court.

“There are three requirements for Article III standing:

(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally

protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b)

actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal

relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which

means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action

of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action

of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that

the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means

that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a

favorable ruling is not too speculative.” Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992)

Page 20

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

In stark contrast to Mr. Keenan’s allegations that the statute provides

standing in this case, the courts have ruled otherwise.

“Standing in no way depends on the merits of the

plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal.”

Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 591 A.2d 592,

601 (N.J. 1991).

Also;

"Proof of the corpus delecti is required in all

criminal cases...There are three basic elements in the proof

of a crime: (1) the occurrence of loss or injury, (2) criminal

causation of that loss or injury and (3) the identity of the

defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. However, it is

firmly established in this State that the term corpus delecti

embraces only the first two of these elements-loss or

injury and criminal causation." State v. Hill, 221 A.2d 725,

728.

As well as;

“Component parts of every crime are the occurrence

of a specific kind of injury or loss, somebody’s criminality

as source of the loss, and the accused’s identity as the doer

of the crime; the first two elements are what constitutes the

concept of “corpus delecti.” U.S. v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917,

919 C.A. 10 (Utah).

And;

“The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by

the challenged action of the defendant. The injury may be

indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 688, 93 S.Ct.

2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), but the complaint must

indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the defendant’s

acts or omissions. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426

Page 21

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976);

O’Shea v. Littelton, 414 U.S. 488, 498, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38

L.Ed2d 674 (1974); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617,

93 S.Ct. 1146, 1148, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).” Vil. of Arlington

Hts. v. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262.

Even Further;

“First we must address the issue of standing, a judge-made

doctrine based on the idea that ‘[a] court may and properly

should refuse to entertain an action at the instance of one who

rights have not been involved or infringed.’ 59 AmJur.2d

Parties § 30 (1987). In state law it parallels the Constitutional

restriction on federal court jurisdiction to “cases and

controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 2. It has been said that no

case or controversy is presented where the plaintiff lacks standing

to sue. Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1…“In determining whether

the plaintiff has a personal stake sufficient to confer standing, the

focus should be on whether the complaining party has alleged an

injury in fact, economic or otherwise…” Mayhew v. Wilder, 46

S.W.3rd 760, 767.

The prosecution fails to allege an injury or harm has even taken place,

let alone one which is distinct and palpable.

Their accusation that by exercising my rights of property and contract,

i.e. engagement in commerce, is an act for which Congress has the authority to

prohibit outright as it “severely affects (interstate) commerce”, is to claim that

Congress is capable of committing crimes.

“Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or

affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity

in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so

to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or

property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in

violation of this section shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” Title 18 Part 1

Chapter 95 § 1951 of the U.S. Code.

Page 22

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The affects of my actions on interstate commerce are both hypothetical and conjectural.

“Severely affects” interstate commerce... HOW? If the affects of my actions severely affect

interstate commerce there should be distinct and palpable evidence of this affect.

The actions of the Government and the prosecution DO affect interstate commerce in a

criminal manner, as they commit and threaten physical violence, robbery, and extortion under

false color of authority in order to obstruct commerce. They make no claim otherwise, but seek to

justify their actions under Unconstitutional statutes and unlawful seizures of authority over the

unalienable rights of the American public.

There is a continual threat of physical violence imposed by the very statute raised against

me, which falsely grants authority to agents of the state to steal rightfully owned property from

individuals for merely possessing it. We are supposed to be a free people in a free country, but

our own government terrorizes us, commits crimes against us, and keeps us under duress.

These laws are a travesty upon the American people as they undermine the Constitutional

securities of their freedoms and make the exercise of fundamental property rights allegedly

criminal acts. Any law which deprives the individual of his fundamental rights is a criminal

enactment, not a valid law, and no one must be required to obey it, nor any court to enforce it. For

a court to do so is to operate without jurisdiction, as no plaintiff exists in the case. If there is no

plaintiff with standing, jurisdiction cannot be established.

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; an Unconstitutional law, in legal

contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An

Unconstitutional law is void ab initio. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

The very laws the prosecution raises against me are in violation of federal law, and I

am a victim with standing to raise claims against them. My actions, however, do not provide

standing for the government at all, and the false charges raised on the fictitious concept of

“Statutory Standing” must be dismissed.

“In order to establish standing, a party must

demonstrate three essential elements. Metropolitan Air

Research Testing Auth. Inc., v. Metropolitan Gov’t of

Nashville and Durston County, 842 S.W.2d 611,

615…First, the party must demonstrate that it has

Page 23

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

suffered an injury which is ‘distinct and palpable,’…and

not conjectural or hypothetical…Second, the party must

establish a causal connection between the injury and the

conduct of which he complains…Third, it must be likely

that a favorable decision will redress the injury…These

elements are indispensable to the plaintiff’s case, and

must be supported by the same degree of evidence at each

stage of litigation as other matters on which plaintiff

bears the burden of proof. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560…”

Petty v. Daimler/Chrysler Corp., 91 S.W.3d 765.

The prosecution’s claim that Congress may prohibit that which they are tasked

with regulating, so that they are no longer required to regulate it, is a criminal act of

negligence on behalf of congress, as the Constitutional clearly prescribes this as one of

the duties and obligations of Congress.

If Congress does not wish to fulfil the duties they have been contracted through

the Constitution to do, there is no reason to consent to their existence, and Congress

ought to be abolished as it no longer protects the rights of, nor serves the people as it is

sworn by oath to do.

After contracting with the informant, funding the informant, and consenting to

permit the informant to act on their behalf, demanding the informant commit what the

prosecution alleges as “criminal conduct” and a “dire threat” to interstate commerce, for a

period of four months, did an consenting and co-conspiring observer deem it important

enough to file what they allege is a criminal complaint against my consensual conduct.

As precedence for providing for the prohibition of such conduct by Agent James

Donovan - as he was a contributing co-conspirator in these alleged “criminal” acts,

“Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor

thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private

individuals. . . We are concerned only with the acts of federal

agents whose powers are limited and controlled by the

Constitution of the United States.

The Eighteenth Amendment has not, in terms,

empowered Congress to authorize anyone to violate the

Page 24

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

criminal laws of a State. And Congress has never purported

to do so. Compare Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9. The terms of

appointment of federal prohibition agents do not purport to

confer upon them authority to violate any criminal law.

Their superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, has not

instructed them to commit crime on behalf of the United States.

It may be assumed that the Attorney General of the United

States did not give any such instruction.” Olmstead v. United

States 277 U.S. 438

As a co-conspirator in these acts, Agent Donovan was in violation of both Federal and

State laws. There is no statutory provision for an agent of the government to persist in the

allegedly criminal activities prohibited outright by the statute. Even if he is granted immunity

to the federal laws from his position in the federal government, a blatant act of favoritism and

a violation of the equal protections clause, he is not made immune from state statues also

claiming to prohibit such conduct.

There is also no statutory provision allowing for the employ or utilization of private

citizens to commit these acts at the behest of government agents. To do so imposes the very

void for vagueness doctrine the prosecution claims does not exist. By their own admission,

the statue is invalid as it is void under the concept of arbitrarily discriminatory and selective

enforcement.

If the state may consent and encourage allegedly unlawful conduct, punish those that

interact with the state’s agents being granted immunity from enforcement of the statute they

are violating, the state is being discriminatory and selective in its enforcement of the law.

The case for vagueness was provided by the prosecution in their attempt to discredit it;

I’ll not quote all of their case law, but here is an example;

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal

statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness

that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited

and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and

discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S.

352, 357 (1983).”

If certain conduct is criminal, one may not be licenced to do it (If one can imagine a

license to rob banks, commit murder, or rape...). The state has no rights greater than those of

the individual, and each claim above another’s rights is a crime. The state is not above

Page 25

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

committing crimes, as is evident of the last 40+ years of oppression under these

Unconstitutional statutes.

The vagueness doctrine invalidates these statutes again by the governments use of,

encouragement of, and consent to breech the law by the informant, who was given

discriminatory immunity to the laws. Agent James Donovan was also granted

discriminatory immunity.

“We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents

whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution

of the United States.

The terms of appointment of federal prohibition

agents do not purport to confer upon them authority to

violate any criminal law” Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S.

438

It is both arbitrary and discriminatory to enforce a statute against those the

government seeks out through fraudulent misrepresentation in what is perceived as a

mutually consensual contract, yet they fail to enforce the law against those that know they

are contracting with the government in violation of the same law. This is an act of fraud to

deprive another of his property and freedom. This is an act of extortion leading to robbery as

defined in U.S. Code Title 18 section 1951.

Unless both Agent James Donovan, the mastermind and instigator of the entirety of

the allegedly criminal conduct, and the informant, who is not licensed by the DEA and

committed the exact same consensual transactions I am being tried for, have identical charges

pressed against them as co-defendants in this case, the prosecution is discriminating against

my rights and the rights of my co-defendants by enforcing this statute only against us. This

discriminatory enforcement is not isolated to this particular case, it is widespread and

commonplace, showing that the law is, indeed, executed in a discriminatory way.

Agent James Donovan, while being in contact with, contracting with, and funding

the informant to purchase, possess, and distribute the property in question, is also a co-

conspirator in this case, equally liable for his conduct under Title 21, United States Code,

Section 841(a)(1) and 846.

The informant is also equally liable under these same statutes for conspiring to,

possessing, possessing with intent to distribute, and distribution of the allegedly “controlled

substance.”

Page 26

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The prosecution is choosing where and when to enforce these laws with complete

disregard to the 8 amendment, and upholding the invalidity of the laws under the vagueness

doctrine.

After four months of invading the defendant’s privacy without probable cause and

without a warrant, FBI Agent James Donovan filed an alleged “complaint”. For this

“complaint” to have merit and provide standing, Agent James Donovan must allege personal

loss or injury suffered from the actions listed in the complaint. Without such allegations, this

“complaint” is nothing more than an “information” attained through an observing party - a

potential witness of an actual crime, and in this case, the questionable word of a co-

conspirator.

Agent James Donovan did not allege personal injury or loss. Agent James Donovan

failed to provide standing to file a complaint against my consensual actions with a third

party.

Agent James Donovan has no authority to raise the rights of another to attain

standing.

“The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured

by the challenged action of the defendant.” Vil. of Arlington

Hts. v. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262.

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must

allege a distinct and palpable injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.

490, 501.” Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1998).

"When a party without standing purports to

commence an action, the trial court acquires no subject

matter jurisdiction. Barshop v. Medina County Underground

Water Conservation District, 925 S.W.2d 618, 626…(‘standing

is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction’). See

also Rames v. Bryd , 521 US 811…(‘“standing is perhaps the

most important of [the jurisdictional] doctrines’”); National

Organization for Women, Inc., v. Scheidler , 510 US

249…(‘standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which

remains open to review at all stages of the

litigation’)…(‘standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to

Page 27

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

every case and may be raised at any stage of the

proceedings’)…” Ex parte James, 836 So2d 813, 871, 872-873.

The only person with standing to make a complaint would be the informant, however

the prosecution’s case is more confounded by their use of the informant. The informant, while

committing other known crimes, has not only been granted immunity from prosecution for

these crimes, but has also been encouraged and one can reasonably believe rewarded either

monetarily or otherwise for committing these criminal acts.

The informant’s false representation as a private entity is an intentional act of criminal

fraud amounting to extortion. The government’s informant committed commissioned acts of

fraud when falsely representing his interests and intentions and engaging in otherwise

consensual contracts.

These contracts should be governed under the Uniform Commercial code, and I have

yet to find any provisions of the UCC by which my actions were in violation of any governing

statute.

However, as the informant accepted the goods after inspecting them then resold

them/re-distributed them, and after having another party verify that the products were as

claimed, neither myself nor my co-defendants can be held liable for any complaints raised at

this point.

The matter of establishing standing of the informant is immaterial as his consent alone

would over rule any allegations of loss or injury - as only an individual may choose to waive

his rights, and to what extent he chooses to waive them. A consensual waiver of one’s rights

cannot be used to later criminalize another’s acts committed with one’s consent.

If this were not the case, piercings, tattoos, and other voluntary harm suffered at the

consent and will of the party being injured would be criminal as well. If voluntary harm can

be criminalized it is reasonable to expect the government to prohibit fast food as it is

detrimental to the health of the public, and for the greater good needs to be stopped.

There are some that make this case, but they are opponents of liberty, as are those

championing the laws prohibiting ones free choice with regards to MDMA and other items

listed in the Controlled Substances Act.

The prosecution alleged in court on January 11th that they had statutory standing, and

did not have to prove that a “crime” - corpus delicti - had been committed in order to bring

criminal charges against me.

Page 28

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

The prosecution claims that a “crime” must not be proven for statutes falling under the

Controlled Substances act. They claim that in this case for there to be criminal charges

brought against me, no crime must be proved, nor even alleged. I find this rather disturbing,

as only crimes should be punished through criminal court proceedings, and only in execution

of common law crimes are the courts Constitutionally permitted to deprive one of his life or

liberty without his consent.

Again, the corpus delicti includes a specific loss or harm suffered by a party with

standing, and someone’s unlawful acts resulting in such injury or loss.

The prosecution also seems to fail to understand the derivation of rights as he

consistently claims that I have no “fundamental Constitutional right” to possess “prohibited”

property.

I agree fully with the prosecution that I have no fundamental Constitutional right to

possess MDMA.

However I find his position to be wholly in error, flawed in it’s conclusion, and

fraudulently misleading in its use.

For a fact I have no fundamental Constitutional rights to do anything.

I have no Constitutional rights at all, fundamental or otherwise, nor do I make such a

claim. Only the prosecution claims that I have rights established by Constitutions of the

states, and it is, again, in error. Rights are not created by government, they are pre-existent to

it.

What I do have, and lay claim to, are unalienable rights protected by the amendments

of the Constitutions; natural rights which may not be taken from me even if I should wish to

give them up myself .

As is made clear in the 9 amendment, rights are not enumerated, nor granted by the

Constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights

shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by

the people.”

The prosecution’s allegation that a label derived from congress may be placed onto one’s

private property and thus deprive him of his Constitutional right to possess it consumes me with utter

dread. The 5 amendment provides the only manner by which Congress my take away one’s rights of

property and liberty; through due process of law. No clause nor provision elsewhere may over ride

this amendment for any reason, contrary to the prosecution’s claim.

Page 29

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

"If there be any conflict between these two provisions, the

one found in the Amendments must control, under the

well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the

lawmaker prevails over an earlier one." Schick vs United States

[(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826

If the prosecution firmly believes that my rights are derived from the Constitution; i.e. mere

privileges granted to me after the creation of an all powerful state, then the prosecution and myself are

not operating under the same Constitution, do not have the same definition of “freedom,” and I worry

that its definition of “liberty” is the ability to do that which I am told to do.

My mother makes similar arguments stating that she is, “Free enough” and does not see the

need to question authority - even when she feels strongly that it is being abused and needs reformed.

This is a prime example of Stockholm Syndrome, where the victim begins to side with the criminal

agents that have wronged them through a constant barrage of criminal idealism numbing the good

sense and character of the victim.

I apologize, but I cannot adopt the reverse mind set that it is better to be “Free Enough” while

being victimized through the Unconstitutional usurpation of my unalienable rights through licensing

laws and the use of regulatory powers that are supposed to be limited by the amendments of the

Constitution. This is a criminal protection racket, and I refuse to give in to criminal threats of force.

For over a year I have been denied my rights by the court and the prosecution with no

legitimate criminal claim against me. I have lost my housing and job due to travel restrictions

arbitrarily imposed upon me preventing travel 20 miles outside of a restricted privileged area of

freedom so that I may go to my employer’s 2 home and fulfil my duties as his assistant.

I have spent more time fighting against my own counsel, demanding my rights be recognized,

than I have appealing to the court for relief.

I have asked continually for someone to tell me who’s rights I have violated so that I may offer

up sufferance for the crimes I have committed against him, but have continually been told that I

committed no “crime” but must be punished for the good of society, which I have wronged

hypothetically, vaguely, and under a conjectural theory based upon flawed science that is outdated

and incorrect. This is but another subject that is moot, as my rights of property are unalienable, but I

will cover it again in depth on page 30.

The call for all Americans throughout history has been, “Liberty or Death!” In this case it is

“Liberty or free housing, free food, free education, and free clothing!” There is no incentive for me to

back down, other than that I do not believe I am entitled to these benefits to the cost of my

countrymen, tax payers, who would be billed in excess of $85,000 per year for me to receive such

entitlements.

Page 30

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

If I have, indeed, wronged society in some way, then I am sorry, however I do not see

removing me from the workforce and bestowing me with benefits resulting from an increase in tax-

payer resources of over $80,00 per year as enabling me to work off the debt to society I may have

incurred.

As the prosecution has failed to convince me, however, that any crime has been committed, I

cannot permit the prosecution to continue in their attempts upon my liberty and commit a distinct and

palpable financial harm to society on my behalf. The figure of $85,000 per year for a federal prisoner

is a low average. I would not wish to impose such a penalty upon the American people for no good

cause, and desire strongly to avert inflicting this additional financial burden upon the tax payers.

I cannot accept the allegations and allow these criminal attempts to overthrow the

Constitutional constraints upon government to go unchallenged. To do so would be entirely un-

American, and in violation of my Oath of Enlistment in the U.S. Air Force - to protect the

Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic.

The prosecutor is not alone in his belief that the Constitution grants rights, and commonly

held belief is a dire threat to our rights, and the Constitutional foundations of this nation. A quick

glance at the declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself will quickly resolve this issue if it

is called into question.

If one has property rights, they have the right to contract with their property. To claim that

congress may prohibit contracts with one’s property is to claim that congress can prohibit one’s right

to possess or own property. If the prosecution’s opinion is correct, the Constitutional protections of

the rights of the people are completely meaningless, the 9 amendment is utterly null and void, and

the “few,” “limited,” enumerated powers of Congress have become so numerous and undefined that

no one knows their limitations.

Unless the prosecution can state a claim for which relief may be granted, present a plaintiff

with standing, and explain how my actions were criminal in nature and not mere exercises of my

rights in defiance of Unconstitutional licencing laws, then I must continue to fight these false

allegations, through either writs or other forms of appeal should these allegations not be dismissed.

Statement of Facts

I have unalienable rights of property and contract.

“That property which a man has honestly acquired he

retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he

Page 31

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not

mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that

if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to

control that use; and third, that whenver the public needs

require, the public may take it upon payment of due

compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW

YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

I do not have Constitutional rights, nor rights granted by the Constitution.

“WHEREAS the powers granted under the proposed

Constitution are the gift of the people, and every power not

granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will; No

right therefore of any denomination, can be cancelled,

abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the

Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by

the President, or any department or officer of the United

States” Continental Congress WEDNESDAY, the 25th of

JUNE, 1788.

Congress cannot create rights, as rights are pre-existent to the creation of Congress.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights,

governments are instituted.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE

OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Congress cannot criminalize the claim nor exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot

be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

The government’s powers are derived from my rights and consent.

No powers of government may supersede the rights of myself, nor another person, as those

powers are not vested in the person attempting to grant those powers to the government.

"If there be any conflict between these two provisions,

the one found in the Amendments must control, under the

well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the

Page 32

Surrebuttal #9007SR2 - Demurrer Motion Surrebuttal by Michael Pohlable

lawmaker prevails over an earlier one." Schick vs United States

[(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826

No party with standing has made a claim against myself or my actions.

“Standing in no way depends on the merits of the

plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal.”

Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 591 A.2d 592, 601

(N.J. 1991).