Briefly - I was arrested in Feb. 2007 for MDMA distribution along with 4 co-defendants (including my supplier, my investor, and 2 kids I hadn't ever met.)
The charges include 5 counts of actual sales - amounting to 1,857 pills, for a total amount of $12,890.
The conspiracy charge is for 4,857 pills (and includes 3,000 pills that the other 2 kids had when arrested).
As the charges are federal, this is converted into weight - and we're charged with 1,117g of MDMA.
The offense level is 28.
I fought to get rid of my attorney for about 3 months, finally succeeded, only to be given another one against my will.
After another 4 months, I finally won the "right" to represent myself in court - so that I could file a demurrer (motion to dismiss the case, because the charges do not cite an actual "crime").
I filed one on my own...
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/9007.pdf
The government's reply is here;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/opposition.pdf
I followed up with a reply brief that introduced additional arguments - in violation of criminal procedure - this violation being voluntarily waived (permitted) by both the court and the prosecutor.
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/9007SR2.htm
Their follow up reply is here;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/suppop.html
The court denied my motion;
http://mike.revolutioni.st/docs/motiondenial.html
I signed the 5th revision of the plea agreement offered by the prosecutor - a conditional plea putting me at offense level 23; this is about 46ish months, but I retain my right to appeal.
The court's denial of my motion has a lot of inconsistencies with the law, invalidates itself a few times over, and uses the effects of the law to justify the creation of the law.
The main objection I have to the court's ruling is that the court claims it is "hesitant" to recognize any property right not subject to governmental control.
This ruling - as worded by the court - invalidates any and all property rights of the people... claiming that there is no property government cannot seize and control, regardless of private ownership - and they may punish anyone for possessing their private property after government agents have taken this property by violent force.
The nature of the claim is that all property is "owned" by government and no one may use/possess/manufacture/distribute/destroy/buy/sell/etc. any property without first obtaining permission (license) from its true owner - government.
This means that there are no property rights at all, only the "privilege" of property "ownership" granted to the people by Government.
This is in direct opposition to the Constitution - particularly the 5th Amendment... And is one of the fundamental pillars of Communism.
The court also says that the government's statistics (from the 1980's - as well as 2001, based upon Dr. Ricaurte's fraudulent research) can be presented as fact, and no scientific evidence countering these statistics may be provided by myself in my defense.
This is paramount to permitting government to bear false witness/commit perjury with impunity, while I'm expected to defend myself against all their fictitious claims without resorting to any facts.
The court also claims that "crimes" do not require victims - and relies upon a gun possession case where a convicted felon is convicted of illegal possession of a gun.
The case quoted has no bearing upon the current situation because I was/am not a convicted felon that has had any right suspended or revoked by due process of law.
The government cannot charge me with the "crime" of exercising a Constitutionally protected right when this right has not been alienated via due process.
I maintain that I did nothing other than control my private property without governmental approval.
This is a fundamental exercise of my property rights - the right to control property regardless of the approval of others, so long as my control of the property in question does not violate the rights of any non-consenting person.
The court also claims that the federal prosecutor must press charges in all "crimes against the United States" yet waives the requirement that a crime must have taken place which causes "distinct and palpable harm" to the United States.
Here is where the court uses illogical circular reasoning (drug sales take money from legitimate commerce and put it into an illicit market - therefore drugs harm the economy and may - by means of "rational review" - be prohibited by Congress under their Interstate Commerce powers. Prior to the enactment of the law, however, drug sales WERE legitimate commerce. The law's existence justifies the creation of the law; without the law, the justification for the law dissolves.) to make the claim that Congress may violate ANY Constitutionally protected right if a "rational review" shows that this may assist Congress in achieving a "legitimate purpose" - i.e. fulfill one of their enumerated responsibilities/powers.
This ruling is in direct conflict with the Constitution - as well as the supreme court ruling in Schick vs. United States {(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L. Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826}.
The 3rd district court has no authority to over-rule the Supreme court.
The court also makes a claim that violations of the drug laws are "malum in se" not "mala prohibita"
In other words, the drug laws cite an "actual wrong" that is not subject to review...
Drugs are BAD because they are BAD. Period. This is not subject to challenge.
Mala prohibita would mean that the drug laws made drugs bad... That drugs are BAD because they are prohibited.
The court relies upon 2 Circuit court rulings to back its contention in this matter.
However, a Supreme court ruling from 1922 shows that the attempted regulation of "drugs" is not law that defines acts which are malum in se, but defines acts of a "police power" - power that does not exist within the federal government (as all powers of the Federal Government are enumerated within the Constitution) - that seek to punish a "social betterment"
The supreme court ruled, essentially, that drug laws are laws against class mobility... Laws of oppression that surely must be over turned if the Constitution is to remain the Supreme Law of the Land.
The court makes comment that the purpose of the bill of rights was to protect against oppressive legislation. I don't know how much more oppressive legislation can be than to "prohibit" and/or punish social betterment (ensure that the poor remain poor, the wealthy remain an elitist class that cannot be attained by means which have proved to elevate one from the "lower classes" to the ranks of the "upper classes" or wealthy - or punish one for having done so).
That's my current position (more or less) on my appeal.
I NEED HELP WITH THE APPEAL.
If anyone knows any Federal Appellate attorneys that want to take up a case against ever expanding government powers, as well as attempt to repeal the drug laws (Dec. 5th was the 75th anniversary of the repeal of the 18th amendment's prohibition of alcohol), PLEASE let me know!
My attorney has told me that no public defender (appointed counsel) is going to be able to (by Bar license restriction) make these arguments.
Therefore I MUST have some other source of counsel if I'm to proceed with the appeal (at the very least I need assistance of counsel to aide me with the procedural process.)
mike (at) revolutioni (dot) st
Sentencing is currently scheduled for Dec. 15th (pushed back from Oct. 20th) - but this is likely to be pushed back due to inconsistencies between what the prosecutor has agreed to with my attorney, and what they have actually filed.
Due to this inconsistency (as well as false information being in the prosecutor's recommendation, namely related to the monetary amounts), my attorney is requesting a delay in sentencing.
The prosecutor agreed to the postponement of sentencing - however the judge may deny this request.
I should find out by Wed. next week.
