The last Power Politics class session went very well. We discussed a very important case, Bond v. U.S., the Standing Doctrine, the 10th Amendment, and the concept of Federalism. This has been a very illuminating and informative experience for all who have attended and we are excited to continue this coming Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at the Butte County Library on E. 1st Avenue. For this session we will be conducting “Mock Court” and “Mock Traffic Stops” and answering all questions that arise. Should you be missing these courses, we will eventually be publishing them on DVD’s to be purchased. Hope to see you!
The second class turned out very good and we have another one on Tuesday March 13, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. at the Butte County Library on First Avenue. Last time we talked about all the different approaches to defending tickets, starting with the officer, the court, and the D.A…. Next week I plan to cover more on the ‘standing issue’ and discuss the major points of the Bond case. This will all be recorded and released in case you are unable to make it in person.
Just wanted to thank all those who helped and showed up to the seminar last Tuesday on Valentine’s day. Since everything went well, we are going to continue the class this coming Tuesday, the 28th of February, at noon in the Chico Library on 1st Avenue. Everyone is invited and for those who cannot make it, and those who can, there will be a dvd made for those who want it. Donations will be graciously accepted.
Albeit short notice, we have just reserved the Butte County Library in Chico for our first Power Politics class to be held on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 from 12:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
This is going to be a historical, knowledgeable and resourceful event which you do not want to miss. However, if you do miss it, there will be a DVD recorded that you may obtain and view later.
Bring an open ear and any of your questions!
This post is to let everyone know that I will be teaching a five part course on exercising judicial power in the court room. Classes will be held in Chico, CA and each class will cover topics ranging from the basic history of the constitution, how it is designed to work and how to work it, the realm of law vs. the realm of equity, study of words and phrases, money and law, and finally, court procedures, strategies, and perspective.
We plan to do this over a period of a few weeks and record each session in order to have an open forum for questions, comments, and input. Please keep your eyes open for the next newsletter which will give the details of these classes.
We’ve also updated the website with a Question & Answer section. Feel free to ask us Power Politics related questions!
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!
Join us for a special seminar event in Chico!
Saturday, November 12, 2011 | 9:00am – 12:00pm
Butte Public Library — 1108 Sherman Ave. Chico, CA
$40 or 1oz. fine silver donation. None Refused.
INFO 530.566.1909 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Zeke has been studying law and equity for near 30 years. Come hear him explain his discoveries regarding our legal system, the Common Law, and the Constitution. His informative seminar is the first step in gaining personal sovereignty and understanding how to exercise Judicial Power in the courtroom.
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.