Negative Averment

[Kalash]

1. What exactly is this?

From what I've seen it's a negative assertion - you disclaim the assertion of another party - to place it on the record that you challenge their authority, assertion... and the burden to prove this assertion is placed on the party making the claim (not placed on the party making the negative averment).



2. By what authority does the U.S. government take away the unalienable rights of property ownership and contract - without Due Process?
How can owning property be a crime unless this RIGHT has been taken away with due process?



3. As all powers of the U.S. government are derived privileges derived from the RIGHTS of the people...
How can the government take the authority to deprive people of their rights of property and contract - when the people do not have these RIGHTS to grant privileges from?



4. As the drug laws are based on the commerce clause, does the commerce clause supercede all constitutional restraints upon the government? In effect cancel out all our protected rights, making the constitutional protection of our rights meaningless?


5. If this authority is not justly derived from the rights of the people (as the people do not have these rights, and cannot therefore grant them to the government), how can drug charges, charges for exercising your indefeasible rights of property and contract (pursuit of happiness), be brought against an individual who's rights were not suspended prior to the event leading to their arrest - through due process of law?







Democracy v. Republic...

Democracy - mob rule. 51% of the people vote to deprive you of your right to own property without due process, you lose that right.

Republic - individual rights are supreme to all else, and all authority is derived from the rights of the people. 99% of the people can vote to deprive you of your right to own property without due process, and you STILL retain this right - as the people do not have the power to take this right from you, they cannot grant it to the government.



My attorney today refused to act in the capacity of assistance of council - he would not help me formulate questions or submit a negative averment to the court.

As he has refused to represent me legally, I need to petition the court to replace him with proper assistance of council.
This negative averment thing popped up - and seems entirely too plausible.
He stated that I needed to plea, go along with everything he says, or he will dismiss himself from my case.
He also stated that he had responsibilities to the court that prohibited him from presenting this as a defense.

He also said that he would not look into it, didn't know why it wasn't possible, and didn't care - that I could do it his way or dismiss him as my attorney.

Any thoughts?

[thirdeye]

I'm so glad other people have been through the process and talk about it because I dont have the ability to have trial  runs with this game.  I was supposed to go to court today but my lawyer said I did'nt even have to show up. The charges were so ridiculous that it was canned before he even got to review the case. I was entertaining the idea of representing myself with a plea of guilty unsigned with me and just ask a few questions, but I just now started picking up on this material and am still a bit afraid to just do a one up on the judge.

Have you represented yourself before Kalash?

[Kalash]

Heh...

No

I've only been to court for this case.

My bail hearing my neighbor represented me (an insurance fraud attorney >_< - that had never been to Federal Criminal Court).

He dismissed himself for lack of specialization or something...

And I was appointed the panel attorney that refuses to act in the constitutionally provided capacity. (yeah... I know... it doesn't grant rights - this one, I think is a privilege?  IDK...)




What do you mean "been through the process"?
This was my first time ever being arrested >_<
=P
The trial date is Sept. 25th.

No, I haven't represented myself....
And everyone is telling me to plea - you can't take on the Federal Government.
My reply - "I have no choice when they're committing treason."

>_<

[Darren Dirt]

Kalash Wrote:4. As the drug laws are based on the commerce clause, does the commerce clause supercede all constitutional restraints upon the government? In effect cancel out all our protected rights, making the constitutional protection of our rights meaningless?

Towards the end of Boston T Party's novel "Molon Labe!" there is a discussion amongst some main characters, where they are dealing with a plan to completely remove control of education from the state. They consider the issue from "constitutional" angles, and the one thing that really sticks out in that conversation is that one of them wisely and correctly observed that nearly ALL of the "federal" not-mentioned-in-the-US-Constitution interventions on "state" issues has been based on a very loose application of the so-called "inter-state commerce" clause. To the point where an individual farmer choosing to use ALL the grain that he harvested (instead of selling any of it) is "affecting" inter-state commerce, therefore it could be deemed a federal crime :o That's how bad, and how powerful, the feds' "commerce" arguments can get... recreational drugs (those they choose not to regulate and tax, of course) is only the beginning.

[thirdeye]

I was just talking in general that I like that people have went through the process. For me it would be all about getting the guts to apply it after learning it with a traffic ticket or somthing, not that I would go out and purposely break the law though Do you feel you have enough knowledge to move forward alone all things considered?

[Kalash]

Darren Dirt Wrote:

Kalash Wrote:4. As the drug laws are based on the commerce clause, does the commerce clause supercede all constitutional restraints upon the government? In effect cancel out all our protected rights, making the constitutional protection of our rights meaningless?

Towards the end of Boston T Party's novel "Molon Labe!" there is a discussion amongst some main characters, where they are dealing with a plan to completely remove control of education from the state. They consider the issue from "constitutional" angles, and the one thing that really sticks out in that conversation is that one of them wisely and correctly observed that nearly ALL of the "federal" not-mentioned-in-the-US-Constitution interventions on "state" issues has been based on a very loose application of the so-called "inter-state commerce" clause. To the point where an individual farmer choosing to use ALL the grain that he harvested (instead of selling any of it) is "affecting" inter-state commerce, therefore it could be deemed a federal crime :o That's how bad, and how powerful, the feds' "commerce" arguments can get... recreational drugs (those they choose not to regulate and tax, of course) is only the beginning.

Thanks for that.

However, interpretation of this clause has been limited to the remaining constitutional restraints placed upon the government.

U.S. Supreme Court
Olmstead v. United States277 U.S. 438
Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private individuals. . . . We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution of the United States.
The Eighteenth Amendment has not, in terms, empowered Congress to authorize anyone to violate the criminal laws of a State.  And Congress has never purported to do so. Compare Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9. The terms of appointment of federal prohibition agents do not purport to confer upon them authority to violate any criminal law. Their superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, has not instructed them to commit crime on behalf of the United States. It may be assumed that the Attorney General of the United States did not give any such instruction.

There is no constitutional amendment gifting the authority to prohibit any substance currently deemed law.  (Nor can there be as this is not a right of the people to GRANT to government as a privilege).
As this authority has not been granted by the constitution - and precedence shows that an amendment is necessary for this purpose - as the rights of the individuals to property and contract have been infringed by the laws themselves, and all officers in their enforcement, this is an unconstitutional authority - it is a null authority.


U.S. Supreme Court
LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS
“Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.”

They do not have the authority to impede on private contracts entered into and carried out in private.


U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. V Lopez
The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties."
“...The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.”
“...When cases involving these laws first reached this Court, we imported from our negative Commerce Clause cases the approach that Congress could not regulate activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining." See, e.g., United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 12 (1895) “


While not being charged with manufacturing or production, the ruling in Lopez eliminates the authority of congress to regulate these activities - nullifying the main parts of the drug laws.
Congress may not regulate the production - they may not prohibit the GROWING of marijuana.
Congress may not regulate the manufacturing - they may not prohibit the creation of pressed pills.
Mining... I dunno.

Lopez invalidates congress's authority to CREATE the drug laws - should it not also invalidate the laws currently in existence?






ThirdEye...
Unfortunately, yes.
I do.
This is preventing me from jumping on a plea deal >_<
Guts?
For liberty?

I can be imprisoned physically for a fraction of my life, or I can consent to the SUPREME authority of government - above my INDEFEASIBLE, unalienable God given rights - and live my life without rights of any kind.
I will knowingly and willingly waive all rights and submit to the authority of the government - obtaining only privileges from them at their whim for perpetuity - so long as I may live.


Give me liberty or give me death?
No.
Give me Liberty or give me free room and board? 
This is a mockery of my life and liberty.




As for the standing arguments in the other thread - I find this hillarious...
The prosecution, judge, jury, and my defense are all on the payroll of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff (aside from not having standing - injury or loss from my actions) seeks redress of harboring me; feeding, clothing, and housing me at the expense of society - through robbery (illegal taxation).

The whole thing is a ludicrous farce.