Court
Filings on Federal Jurisdiction and Non-Registrants
The U.S. District
Court in San Francisco has ordered Keith Alden to report on July 25, 2006 to
Federal Bureau of Prisons and serve the remainder of his sentence in prison, in
spite the delay of the 9th Circuit ruling on the Raich case, which could have
bearing on Keith's case. The District Court, the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have refused to consider the violation of his
right to due process of law, and continue to withhold to rule on his filed
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The U. S. Supreme Court
has refused to accept Keith Alden's petition for certiorari which he filed on February 13, 2006.
Click
here for Petition for Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court - filed
February 13, 2006 - pdf
Keith Alden's Petition for
Rehearing by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Denied
The Petition for Rehearing (see below) was filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on October 7, 2005, by Keith Alden and subsequently denied by
the judges. The
case involves three convictions, two trials, and numerous hearings.
The issue of agency jurisdiction under the Controlled Substance Act has been raised since the beginning (May 2001), and has
yet to be heard, responded to, or ruled on in our
Federal Courts. The Court again failed to uphold Our Right
to the Due Process of law. This is a crime (see Criminal Code
18
USC §§ 242
and 1001), calling
for prison time.
Click
here for pdf of Petition for Rehearing - filed October 7, 2005 - denied
DENIED
Case Numbers 02-10356, 02-10673, 02-10674
Appellant hereby petitions for rehearing of
his appeal for the issue at law, which this Court has failed to
hear, and has failed to rule on.
“Conclusive presumption” is not due process of law.
This Court’s “presumption”, that there is a law that is applicable
here, is a violation of my God-given right to due process, secured by Our
Bill of Rights at Article 5.
Due
Process of Law :
to have the right of controverting, by proof, every
material fact... If any
question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this
is not due process of law. – Black’s Law Dictionary
Since May of 2001 I have
“controverted by proof , every material fact.”
I have brought up an issue at law, which has not been responded to
by the Government, not heard by this Court and not ruled on by this
Court. In this moment
this criminal deprivation of my Rights continues.
Perhaps there is a misreading
of my argument, that led this Court to affirm my convictions?
This Court stated:
Third,
Alden argues that the CSA cannot be applied to him because it lacks
implementing regulations. - Page
4, paragraph 2 of this Court’s appellate ruling
However, as I have presented in my
briefs, there are implementing regulations for the statutes 841 and 856
of the CSA. --
In my first conviction I argued :
This group of statutes all have a published
regulation at 21 CFR Part 5. This
would include §841. – Page
3, paragraph 2 of my brief
It is also
a fact that §841 of the Act (CSA), has been implemented by regulation as
called for at §821 of the Act). – Page 1, paragraph 2, of my reply brief
In my appeal for my second (and third) conviction I argued:
This would
include §841 as well as §856. This
group of statutes have a published regulation at 21 CFR Part 5. – Page
3, Paragraph 1 of my brief
The government states the defendant persists in a contention that §841 lacks
regulations. This is incorrect.
§841 (and §856) have been implemented by regulation at 21 CFR
Part 5. – Page 1, paragraph 2 of my reply brief
In
addition to the 4 briefs, I have also presented this issue in Rule 28j letters.
My argument is and has been that §§841 & 856 are implemented
by administrative regulations at 21 CFR Part 5
(Food and Drugs). The Controlled Substance Act’s administrative statutes
and their implementing regulations comprise an “Administrative Code
of Regulation” for registrants.
Farmer Filburn in the famous Wickard case, as a registrant
for benefit, violated the regulations of the Wheat Program.
In contrast, I am not a registrant.
Am I not one of the “others” the Supreme Court referred to in the
Wickard case (317 U.S. 111)?
Contrary
to what I was told in a closed hearing at the Ninth Circuit, that attorneys
would not file or argue this issue, an attorney has stepped forward and filed a
motion on the issue of lack of agency jurisdiction for non-registrants.
Being pro se, perhaps I can make myself clearer with the same argument,
written by an attorney, a member of the bar:
THE PRECEDENT UPON WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S
ABILITY TO GOVERN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, IS
PREMISED UPON THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT CASE REGISTERED IN A FEDERAL
PROGRAM; BECAUSE DEFENDANT NEVER TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A FEDERAL PROGRAM, AND
BECAUSE THERE IS NO FEDERAL PROGRAM REGULATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA, THE WICKARD
BASIS OF JURISDICTION IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.
Wickard
v. Filburn,
317 U.S. 111 (1942), is considered to be the controlling precedent upon which
Congress has relied to expand the definition of interstate commerce. The common
notion is that nearly any aspect of commerce can be regulated if a piece of
wheat could be governed by the federal government. In fact, in that case, the
federal government had developed a subsidy system to help farmers in a
particular field, that of wheat farming. One farmer, the plaintiff in the Wickard,
317 U.S. 111, filed a complaint asking to enjoin enforcement of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act. The Act set up quotas for farmers and imposed penalties for
farmers who while taking advantage of the federal subsidies dolled out by the
agency, wanted to be immunized from the penalties associated from not following
the conditions required to take advantage of these benefits.
There
is no federal government organization regulating medical marijuana. Therefore,
the federal government lacks the jurisdictional basis asserted in Wickard,
317 U.S. 111. As the Wickard court wrote, acknowledging the role the
plaintiff had in bringing about federal jurisdiction over his activity, “We
can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances,
particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee’s burdens under the
program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the
Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” 317 U.S. 111 at 130.
-
Excerpt from Motion in U.S. v. Landa
Hopefully I have made this issue clearer.
The convicting of non-registrants by using the CSA as “criminal
statutes” are proceedings done under the color of law.
CSA statutes may call for potential
criminal sanctions, but only for registrants of this
Administrative Code of Regulation.
These statutes do not apply to every person, but to “only
everyone subject to such legislation,
not all that the legislator subsequently may be able to catch.”
- American Banana Co. v United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347.
For almost 200 years the Department of Justice was without jurisdiction
to regulate marijuana, as the Government’s attempt was ruled unconstitutional.
Through legislation, in the form of the Controlled Substance Act, the
Government fraudulently claims jurisdiction over non-registrants, thereby
filling our prisons. This
fraudulent claim is upheld by Our Federal Judiciary, including this Court in
this case, currently.
This Court’s failure to hear and failure to rule on jurisdiction is a
violation of my Fifth Amendment right to the due process of law.
Isn’t the Deprivation of Rights, while pretending there is a
“law,” that establishes jurisdiction applicable to an unregistered
individual like myself, a “Deprivation of rights under color of law?”
Isn’t this deprivation of Right (due process) a crime
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §242 and §1001? Why
would Our Federal Judiciary turn Our delegated sacred trust, to uphold Our
law (due process), into a crime?
Wasn’t the independence of Our Judiciary established to secure the
right of due process for All? Is
now the time to uphold Our “rule of law” and stop the crimes against
the People?
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Alden
October
6, 2005
Pro
Se
Click
here for pdf of Petition for Rehearing to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
(subsequently denied)
Click
here for Petition for Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court - filed
February 13, 2006 (subsequently denied) - pdf
Click
here for pdf of Federal Law on Medical Marijuana
You can
contribute to upholding our rule of law and liberties by spreading the news of
the Wanted Posters with Reward!
Click
here for pdf of Reward re. Marijuana for easy printing and distributing
Click
here for pdf of Reward re. Substances for easy printing and distributing
We want to hear from
you, contact us:
commonsenselaw
@ yahoo.com
