Power Politics

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!

Hi Everyone,

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.

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 | info@powerpolitics.com

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.

View Flier PDF

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.”