I'm getting Lawyerdude to write a motion demanding my right to demur in federal court.
This is against the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - and my public defender will not let me even ask for it.

What Lawyerdude said;
"Yes I can state your position with regard to the inherent defects in the statutes as used against ecstasy. It is even worse than the laws against LSD which was tested on 9 year olds. Lotsa people don't know about that test. LSD found safe and effective for treating 9 year olds."

What is a demurrer?
It's making a statement that even if all the evidence presented is true, that no crime has been committed.

In drug cases, there is no crime...
There is no harmed or injured party. There is no party with standing to bring the charges.
For more, see Marc Steven's standing cross reference on AdventuresInLegalLand.com


Constitutionally - the drug laws are laws of prohibition.
The 18th and 21st amendments prove that prohibition is NOT part of the authority of Congress.

These laws are nothing more than the PRIVILEGED STATE issuing COMMANDS to the sovereign citizens who rule over the privileged state.

These laws are invalid, as they are the servant trying to usurp the rights of the master.

In this country we have property RIGHTS.
The possession of your private property CANNOT be a crime.

Schick vs United States [(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826]
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights, 18th and 21st], the Amendments must control."


Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."


Clearly, any law prohibition the possession of one's private property is unconstitutional.
Prohibition of any intoxicating substance is not a power of Congress - if one looks at the 18th amendment.
In order to prohibit alcohol, a constitutional amendment was necessary.

Without a constitutional amendment, any prohibition of any substance is power forbidden to be exercised by Congress.


Marbury vs Madison [5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)]
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Miranda vs Arizona [384 US 436 p. 491]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Norton vs Shelby County [118 US 425 p. 442]
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
"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."



I want to raise these arguments - and move the court to dismiss my case - as it is a criminal attempt to deprive me of my rights using threats and violent force while claiming an immune position of authority.

For more info on how the actions of the government are illegal, take a look at U.S. Code title 18 chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.


Please help me raise the money to have these motions written.
This is step one in the reversal of these liberty dissolving unconstitutional laws.

Thanks,
Kalash/Mike