From: alanb@sonic.net   
      
   Hey guys ...   
      
   The GOP has the majority given to them by Diebold not counting the votes.   
      
   The GOP just has to write a Controled Abortion Act word for word with the   
   Controled Substances Act of 1972.   
      
   The Supremes has just affirmed the Controled Substances Act as legal and   
   proper to arrest medical marijuana patients and toss them in jail for   
   getting in the way of commerce and making a buck.  After all the blackmarket   
   marijuana domestic drug lords who make $200,000 a weekend Corporate Cash   
   Deposits is who runs the drugs, buy the Judges, Cops, and the Elected.   
      
   The House will pass it - the Senate will pass it - the Idiot N Charge will   
   sign it like they did to Terry Scheivo.   
      
   Unborn children are being killed right now and the Controlled Abortion Act   
   of 2005 must be passed ... Abortion is not prohibited just like Marijuana is   
   not prohibited ... just controlled.   
      
   You can get medical marijuana from the Feds out of the Univeristy of   
   Mississippi and sure to get medical abortions the same way.   
      
   George Bush will help you.   
      
   The Koolaid Kristians and Pat Robertson have to jump on this.   
      
   sumbuddie on da watchtower   
      
   :()   
      
   Federal Law on Medical Marijuana   
      
      
      
      
      
   The following is from Attorney Allison Margolin’s brief of December 2004 to   
   a federal district court judge, and was restated in a brief to the Ninth   
   Circuit Court of Appeals.  This is from an active criminal case, US v.   
   Stephanie Landa, involving prison time for a patient and has yet to be   
   addressed by a judge.  This concerns the most fundamental issue at law:  Our   
   Right to the Due Process of Law[1] re the Commerce Clause of the US   
   Constitution.  This all started with Farmer Filburn who was found guilty by   
   the Supreme Court and had to pay a fine ... never spent a day in jail for   
   violating the Commerce Clause.   
      
      
      
   Begin Quote   
      
      
      
    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 often 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 Enforcement   
   Act. The Act set up quotas for farmers and imposed penalties for farmers who   
   while taking advantage of the federal subsi! dies 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.   
      
   End Quote   
      
      
      
      
      
   FN[1] Due Process of law:  Implies the right of the person affected thereby…   
   to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of   
   controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of   
   right in the matter involved.   If any question of fact or liability be   
   conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.   
      
      
   End Page 1 - include this page with each letter to judges   
      
      
      
      
      
   We the People Upholding the Law   
      
      
      
   This issue of federal jurisdiction over non-registered persons was never   
   raised in the Raich case.   After 60 years of judicial misapplication of the   
   principles of the Wickard v. Filburn case, Allison Margolin is the first   
   attorney to formally file a brief on this simple and basic issue.  Aren’t We   
   the People due a formal written response by Our courts?   
      
      
      
   The Agricultural Adjustment Act (as amended) is still in effect with   
   subsidies for wheat farmers who choose to cooperate for benefit under the   
   federal wheat program.  The Social Security Act is still in effect for   
   persons who choose to cooperate for benefit under the federal social   
   security program.  If a person signs up for SSI monthly subsidies, is that   
   person regulated regarding allowable monthly income from other sources?   
   What about those persons who have not signed up with SSI?   Are they free to   
   make as much money as they would like?   Farmers registered for ! wheat   
   subsidy are regulated by the rules of the program from which they are   
   benefiting.  Can a person still grow all the wheat he wants if he doesn’t   
   accept benefit from an agency that regulates wheat (Dept. of Agriculture)?   
   Is it our god-given unalienable right to grow whatever plant we like?   
      
      
      
   The same argument had been presented in 2001 and again in January 2004 to   
   the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case US v. Alden, in which the   
   patient is appealing his conviction for marijuana cultivation.   The   
   government failed to respond to the issue of agency jurisdiction (lawful   
   authority) and the court has yet to rule on a motion filed over 1-1/2 years   
   ago.  Where is the due process of law here?  If an issue at law is presented   
   and is not heard and considered, how could there be due process?  If the due   
   process of law is not upheld, do we even have a system of law?! nbsp; Aren’t   
   we left with only a moral political agenda that’s being upheld by Our   
   federal judges and justices, who present it to We the People as if it were   
   the law?   Without this most important right to due process how can we   
   retain our liberties and rights from becoming mere privileges granted by an   
   unaccountable government, including our courts?   
      
      
      
   The concept is difficult to grasp at first because it is so simple.  It is   
   outside the box of our thinking that the government owns us and controls us.   
   In our Republic, however, We the People formed our government to which We   
   delegated only certain limited powers to work for the benefit of the People.   
      
      
      
   Why is our government including our courts stonewalling us on this simple   
   issue?  If the government had such jurisdiction or authority, why can’t they   
   show this authority for the People to see?   Why is due process being   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)