Liberty Watch Section
We got a ruling! But we don’t like it. The judge denied the motion on the grounds that the case Gonzales v Raich applies to Jeff’s motion to dismiss.
My friend Bill was not surprised. His response was that after all these years studying the governments actions, we know they are corrupt. I remember 10 years ago when we were waiting for a response in a case, can’t remember which one, but Bill’s response to that one, when it came was, “OBFUSCATION!”
So, understanding that the government will lie and hold on to any shred of power they can conjure, Jeff saw that if they are going to take jurisdiction when they don’t have it and obfuscate, twist, and deceive, he opted for a deal that will settle the matter completely.
When he was cutting the deal in front of the judge, the prosecuting attorney said he didn’t want Jeff to be able to appeal the judges ruling on the motion. After Jeff asked him if he was going to deny him the right to “due process” he balked and said no, but that he was going to have to spend a week writing the brief to oppose the appeal. (wa, wa, that’s short for wining.) Jeff said if I can’t appeal, the deal is off. Then the judge began to say that she was the one who could decide if the deal was fair or not and Jeff cut her off and said that all parties had agreed and if she wasn’t going to agree, then the deal was off. She said she would agree. Jeff took 45 days in jail to end the almost 6 year battle. He’s already served two years in federal prison.
It wasn’t surprising that the judge let Jeff appeal, I mean, is she really going to go against the federal mafia? Also, I think only the upper courts have the guts to rule on an issue like this or have the knowledge of how the system is supposed to work. Her reasons, which basically were based on the Raich case, failed to show how Raich applied to Jeff’s case. She only made a bunch of presumptions and assumptions. In fact, in her order denying the motion, she said Jeff failed to show how the Raich case did not apply to his case. I guess the appeal will have to decide if the Raich case applies in Jeff’s case or not…
As of this writing, the judge still has not ruled upon Jeff’s Motion to Dismiss his federal marijuana conviction. After telling us she would rule on November 3, 2011, at the hearing she said she would rule A.S.A.P. and that she would rule very quickly. This motion is very big to the prosecution because they see this as a direct challenge to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. This act has never been challenged on Constitutional grounds. It was challenged on “State Law” grounds and found to be Constitutional on “federal law” grounds…. This leaves the Court to decide the Constitutionality of the Act! We will disclose the judges ruling at the seminar on November 12, 2011 at the Butte County Library on the corner of First Avenue and Sherman.
It was pretty disappointing to hear the judge say that she was not going to make a ruling today, after specifically saying that she would rule on November 3rd. She explained that sometimes she rules from the bench and other times she has to think about things and then write up a decision. I know what she means, this is a challenge to the authority of the federal court.
She said that she did have some questions of both sides and asked the prosecution if it was his position that she did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the case. Of course he said yes. From Jeff, about the Motion to Dismiss, she wanted to know how he was bringing the motion. He responded that it was an ‘equity motion’, and explained that if what the prosecution was saying was true, that the judge couldn’t dismiss and there was no statutory remedy, then his only remedy was in equity and he was the only one being injured so he was entitled to the motion. No response to that one accept a lot of eyebrow raising!
The prosecution also explained that Commerce Clause has been declared constitutional and that the Gonzales v. Raich case was precedence for congress to to control commerce inside the states. The judge asked Jeff to explain how this case didn’t apply to his case. The Raich case was civil and she wanted to be engaged in “state commerce” but the Court ruled she was under federal law because the federal has jurisdiction over “state commerce”. Further, Raich was not sustaining any injury or damage but Jeff was.
After Jeff admonished the Judge for not ruling as she said she would, she promised to have the ruling out a.s.a.p. and should be out within a few days, she said. We’ll see!
It’s always a little surreal when you walk out of a courtroom, especially a federal district court. All of the lawyers have suits on and are talking as if they are completely sure of what they are doing and that they are in total control.
I thought, “Wow, that was pretty good. The new judge in Jeff’s federal marijuana case just spent a half hour of the courts time grilling him so that she could determine if she was going to let him proceed in the court without an attorney.”
Both the prosecution and the judge admonished or enlightened Jeff (I wasn’t sure which way they were going) that they had the best lawyers around and that he was making a big mistake proceeding without an attorney. The bombardment of their “you should have a lawyer” mantra was thrown off a little when Jeff informed them that the previous judge would not let him make his motion to dismiss because he had an attorney.
So for a half hour they tried to convince him to get an attorney and in the end they reluctantly decided to allow him to proceed without one. When this happened, the attorney for the government said to the judge, “Do you understand that he is challenging title 21?” “Yes,” she replied, “this is a big motion.”
Wow, I thought again, Jeff had asked for the judge to hear the case today, five separate times, and she finally said she would rule on the merits of the motion on November 3, 2011!
This basically translates to the judge ruling on the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act that has been putting people in prison, WRONGFULLY, since the early 1970′s. Yes, this is big!
As I grabbed Jeff’s jacket that he’d left in the chair next to me when he went up to address the court, the attorney for the government came up to ME and said that he saw that I had signed a couple of proof of service’s in the case and that he wanted me to “re-consider” and encourage Jeff to not file the motion.
Why would the U.S. attorney do that? Desperation is all I can think of. While we were discussing this “highly unusual request” the attorney showed his hand and now we are looking forward to his response to the motion to dismiss.
I’ve compiled an excellent list of the most potent quotes from the recent case Carol Anne Bond v U.S. and the decision by the Circuit Court that was made September 17, 2009.
The Supreme Court ruled June 16, 2011. The question before the Court is, “whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States.”
It appears that although the answer was obvious to both the government (plaintiff) and the Circuit Court, the question had never been presented to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the federal criminal proceeding, petitioner (Bond) had no standing to challenge the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the States.
It turns out that Courts have been operating on the above presumption for more than 70 years and that the foundation for denying individuals Constitutional Article III standing was based on one line a 1939 case that conflated the “cause of action” doctrine with the “standing” doctrine. This is why, whenever I or anyone I told to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, were denied without any reason. The courts were “automatically” refusing to let any individual make a challenge before they even heard what the challenge was. In other words, we were denied the “standing’ to make a challenge because the “presidents” from this 1939 case was that individuals needed a State to be a party, also. Of course this was found to be erroneous by the court and people have been wrongfully denied their right to challenge since 1939.
As said above, the government and the Circuit Court couldn’t defend their own judgement and the case has been remanded for the lower court to hear Bond’s challenge and make a ruling on it.
Hear are a few of the beautiful quotes that I feel make this case totally remarkable:
“The Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefs on the question whether Bond had standing to raise the Tenth Amendment as a ground for invalidating a federal statute in the absence of a State’s participation in the proceedings.”
“When Bond sought certiorari, the Government advised this Court that it had changed its position and that, in its view, Bond does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of §229 on Tenth Amendment grounds.”
“To conclude that petitioner lacks standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States, the Court of Appeals relied on a single sentence from this Court’s opinion in Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118 (1939).”
“One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain the relief requested, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), and, in addition, an ‘ongoing interest in the dispute’ on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish “concrete adverseness.”
“Even though decisions since Tennessee Electric have been careful to use the terms “cause of action” and “standing” with more precision, the distinct concepts can be difficult to keep separate.”
“Still, the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief “goes to the merits” in the typical case, not the justiciability of a dispute, id., at 92, and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion.”
“The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.”
“The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right.
But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181 (1992) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 759 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).”
“Federalism secures the freedom of the individual.”
“Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of dele gated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.”
“An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.”
“The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well.”
“Just as it is appropriate for an individual, in a proper case, to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and balances constraints, so too may a litigant, in a proper case, challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism.”
“In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government.”
These are some of the main quotes from the Court’s Opinion written by Justice Kennedy. This case was made unopposed and agreed to by the Justices 9-0. Next newsletter, I will discuss the concurring opinion by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer concurred and you won’t believe the things she says after she begins her separately written, but short opinion to make “The Following Observation.”
I’m still blown away by the supreme court ruling discussing the foundation of the Constitution and the concept of federalism that was stumbled upon by the court when it first set out to determine if a person prosecuted for a crime can challenge the law used against them. The court found no other direction, except to drift into the question of whether the law was valid.
Catch up on my previous post, Best Case I Ever Read, if you haven’t read about the Bond case yet.
Everyone agrees that this woman, Carol Anne Bond is a “criminal”. She used chemicals to burn her best friend’s hand. The question is, is she a “state criminal”, a “federal criminal” or in this case, an “international criminal”? What makes this case both a major “letting the cat out of the bag” and “opening pandoras box”, is that this question has never come before the supreme court and it exposes why “we the people” have been denied our Tenth Amendment constitutional right to challenge the federal legislative power of the government, as a defense, for more than 70 years.
When I read this case, I was both excited and a little pissed off! My friends and critics can’t figure me out because I’m saying it should be one way, but it isn’t; it’s the other. Here, the supreme court is going for both, when they admit that the power to challenge has always been in the supreme court, but not in the lower federal and circuit courts. What?
This case ends up defining the limit upon powers of the Tenth Amendment, standing, cause of action, and “federalism.” The very balance of powers of the Constitution! I love it when they get to the very foundation of individual rights as to government. It’s pure beauty that an individual can stand in the Article III authority while relying on Tenth Amendment grounds to challenge the statute as it applies to them in their particular case.
In the next few newsletters I’ll breakdown this case and discuss each area and how the analysts break it down stating that the “confusion” which the court “wondered” into, “seemed to conflate the merits and the standing issue.” Then they ended up discussing the Tenth Amendment, which takes us back to the original writers and how they viewed the Constitution.
One of them, Thomas Jefferson, said, “The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution.” Incredible.
I think I first grasped the ‘separation of powers’ concept when I realized that I could use these power for my own benefit.
This made me feel powerful towards the government. At the time, I didn’t realize that the power was to be used not only individually by me, but also against an individual who would be the one violating my rights whether in government or not.
Knowing how the court works also gives one the feeling of power. To gain this knowledge, paralegal skills and knowledge of the rules and procedures are necessary. Along with knowing how the court works requires the understanding of ‘equity’ and the many aspects of judicial power relating to the case or controversy.
It’s been almost 30 years and one of my conclusions for a quasi-criminal jurisdiction, is that there is no remedy “at law.” Therefore the remedy would be a ‘separate civil action’. A separate civil move to restrain the original action by the individual that is violating one’s rights.
Last Friday, the Supreme Court came out with an opinion on June 16, 2011, ( Bond v U.S. ) stating that an individual, under certain circumstances, may challenge the federal jurisdiction. This meaning there are limits to the federal laws and those limits arise because of the powers being separated.
I had accepted the concept that each individual had a right under the Tenth Amendment to those rights enumerated to the United States and those denied to the states, are reserved to the states or the people respectively. I didn’t know that in 1937, dealing with a familiar party of the time, Tennessee Valley Authority, which we know from the Ashwander Doctrine ( Ashwander v TVA ), the court mixed the concept of ‘standing’ and ’cause of action’ in an improper way, and the appellate court, in this case, Bond, relied on that one single sentence to deny Bond. It’s in the opinion and everyone should read and try to comprehend it.
So, now I see that a separate civil action can be made to pursue violations of one’s rights and further direct challenges to the jurisdiction of the legislative power. The Article III standing now allows for not only this, but appears to allow the challenge directly to the lower court and can be taken up by appeal or interlocutory appeal.
A guy I new 30 years ago came into my office yesterday and wanted to hear my views on “medical marijuana”. When I told him that “medical” means “commercial” and is regulated by congress, he nodded and said that is what he thought.
He said he had read both of my books on the website and that he thought they were “brilliant”, and that if I had written them myself, then that was very impressive to him. I told him that if he understood what I wrote, then that would put him into a level or group that very few people are in.
Then he stated a fact that I knew, but it still sent chills down my back and again revealed to me that there are VERY FEW people who are going to understand what freedom and liberty are, and that even fewer people are going to be able to take THE personal action that is necessary to defend one’s freedom and liberty.
He said, “Zeke, I’ve read them each more than three times and I find that I ‘get it’, and then after a day or two of being back in the ‘zombie’ world, and listening to the public media, I fall back into the ‘brainwash’ thinking.”
This reminded me of my own experience of having knowledge of the truth about the Constitution and Common Law, and seeing how the system doesn’t do what it is supposed to do. I new I was brainwashed, but it took me about 6 years to really overthrow the “status quo” concepts that I was brainwashed with from early childhood.
I am a rebel. I have an extremely strong mind and have studied the history of this country, the Constitution, and the Common Law. I have asked many “leaders” and people that are oriented towards “patriots”, but NO ONE seems to actually grasp or understand these principals that were founded by the framers of our country. I didn’t make up any of the points, just put them in a reasonable and logical format to make it easy to comprehend.
So, when my friend asked how many people “get it”, I told him “NO ONE!”
“What about your friends?” he asked, do they get it? I finally had to tell him, If you really want to get this stuff, you have to practice! Is anyone practicing? Anyone scared to go to court? Anyone have any time for this? Isn’t it easier to get an attorney?
For those who have been waiting, we are just about ready to open “the store” part of our website where we will have various past seminars that I have done over the years. We should have some great deals and a lot of knowledge available. Keep watching for this. Keep practicing.
Unfortunately after waiting more than three years, the Liberty Dollar, actually the Liberty Dollar founder, Bernard von NotHaus went to trial and was found guilty by the government in a government court. Do I sound surprised? I’m not. It appears that the process is exactly the same for a traffic ticket. The prosecutor tells the jury the governments story and the jury buys it; hook, line, and sinker! Sometimes, if the case is difficult, the government will play dirty.
Of course Mr. Von NotHaus, does not have anywhere near the understanding or experience that I have in the courts, he thought (although he knew different) that he was going to get a fair trial. WRONG!
This is from the private BESC email list and is about 2 hours long. Dr. Livingston talks about extraordinary writs, the power of the Constitution, how the federal government failed to be properly created and the necessity of amicus curix. Please try to understand what Dr. Livingston is trying to convey.