what u talkin bout rights?

[tokeprep]

question...is anyone here interested in being involved (in whatever capacity) in helping to file a civil suit in fed court going to the effort to reestablishing our human rights in the area of possessing seeds and growing plants for your own use/needs outside of commerce etc?
a small window of opportunity still exists with regards to 'standing' but that window will be effectively closed when feds pass a law granting access through regulation etc...
the time to file is now...
theres some good folks here imo (not all lol) that i think could truly help to make a big difference...
a shot heard round the world is the idea, no mater the outcome of the litigation...
thanks, gooday'

Your law suit would certainly fail.

 

[DNAprotection]

Your law suit would certainly fail.

clearly written by someone who knows almost nothing about it lol
u r typical of how most opinions in the usa r formed...usually based on little or no info...
no doubt we could shave u and make a good winter coat though

 

[DNAprotection]

Your law suit would certainly fail.

it seems i woke up jusalil grumpy today so all apologies for my last comment...
all the same though, if u r 'expert' enough to make such a definitive statement then it might b helpful to the forum here if u would now actually give a definitive basis for your claim?

 

[tokeprep]

clearly written by someone who knows almost nothing about it lol
u r typical of how most opinions in the usa r formed...usually based on little or no info...
no doubt we could shave u and make a good winter coat though

No, I understand the law, and based on that law, your suit would fail. 100% chance of failure. People are bringing suits of the kind you suggest all the time (or making the same arguments in criminal cases) and they all fail.

 

[DNAprotection]

No, I understand the law, and based on that law, your suit would fail. 100% chance of failure. People are bringing suits of the kind you suggest all the time (or making the same arguments in criminal cases) and they all fail.

thats interesting because going by your statement (assuring 100% of something lol) above it seems u dont even know the basics like the difference between criminal and civil law?
further and aside from that on what basis is this statement made??? lol "People are bringing suits of the kind you suggest all the time" and deserves another lol unless u can site some cases 2 back up your empty words???
seriously im inclined at this point to think u actually know close to nothing about the law...just going by your own words (as in what u have spewed so far)

 

[tokeprep]

thats interesting because going by your statement (assuring 100% of something lol) above it seems u dont even know the basics like the difference between criminal and civil law?
further and aside from that on what basis is this statement made??? lol "People are bringing suits of the kind you suggest all the time" and deserves another lol unless u can site some cases 2 back up your empty words???
seriously im inclined at this point to think u actually know close to nothing about the law...just going by your own words (as in what u have spewed so far)

You're telling us that the same constitutional argument couldn't be made in a civil and criminal case?

No, I don't have any citations, but I guarantee the argument is made all the time and rejected because people are constantly being arrested on drug charges. It's in the way you framed it. You suggest that there is some right to do a certain thing; the courts have conclusively determined that there is no such right. Bound to that precedent, all other courts are going to agree that no such right exists.

 

[DNAprotection]

You're telling us that the same constitutional argument couldn't be made in a civil and criminal case?

No, I don't have any citations, but I guarantee the argument is made all the time and rejected because people are constantly being arrested on drug charges. It's in the way you framed it. You suggest that there is some right to do a certain thing; the courts have conclusively determined that there is no such right. Bound to that precedent, all other courts are going to agree that no such right exists.

as doc might say 'wtf are u talking about???' lol...
first off u have no cases to reference because there is no cases to reference, its not just do to your laziness lol...
and if u knew even the first thing about criminal court you would know that the far majority of people plead out no matter the 'crime' (that means no trial lol)
further, crimes such as 'marijuana' related r considered 'general intent crimes' which means that basically why u did what u did becomes irrelevant and inadmissible at trial and so unless a judge rules otherwise (which is almost never successful in pretrial deliberations of a 'criminal case') the only relevant questions of fact at issue are 'did u have it?' or did u do it?' etc...not 'why'...and we r just scratching the surface on what u seem to not know about the 'law' or the courts...

 

[tokeprep]

as doc might say 'wtf are u talking about???' lol...
first off u have no cases to reference because there is no cases to reference, its not just do to your laziness lol...

It's not a matter of laziness. If I had access to a commercial case database, I could easily pull some, but I don't. I'll do the best I can for you with Google.

US v. Kremetis: "The superseding indictment charges the defendant with conspiracy...possession with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting in the unlawful distribution of cocaine... The First Circuit has not considered the constitutionality of either § 846 or § 841(a)(1) since the Lopez ruling was handed down. However, in September the Fourth Circuit ruled that § 841(a)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied against a defendant who was charged with the intrastate manufacture of marijuana plants. United States v. Leshuk...The court is persuaded that the Fourth Circuit, as well as the district courts cited supra, properly construed Lopez in rejecting the constitutional attacks on the Drug Act. The court finds that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 are constitutional as enacted and as applied against the defendant in the superseding indictment."

From Leshuk: "This Court, as well as other courts, has relied upon these findings in concluding that Congress may regulate intrastate drug activities under the Commerce Clause. Moreover, contrary to [the defendant's] alternative contention, the Drug Act is not unconstitutional as applied if his possession and cultivation were for personal use and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. Although a conviction under the Drug Act does not require the government to show that the specific conduct at issue substantially affected interstate commerce, Lopez expressly reaffirmed the principle that "where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence."

and if u knew even the first thing about criminal court you would know that the far majority of people plead out no matter the 'crime' (that means no trial lol)

Irrelevant. 99% of them could avoid trial and there would still be a substantial number of trials and opinions.

further, crimes such as 'marijuana' related r considered 'general intent crimes' which means that basically why u did what u did becomes irrelevant and inadmissible at trial and so unless a judge rules otherwise (which is almost never successful in pretrial deliberations of a 'criminal case') the only relevant questions of fact at issue are 'did u have it?' or did u do it?' etc...not 'why'...and we r just scratching the surface on what u seem to not know about the 'law' or the courts...

Again, you're displaying your lack of knowledge. You can always argue that the law is unconstitutional. This won't get you very far with drug charges because the courts have concluded the laws are constitutional. See the cases I just posted, which are constitutional challenges in criminal cases. Come on now, saying that the constitutionality of a law cannot be challenged would itself be a blatant violation of the constitution!

 

[DNAprotection]

It's not a matter of laziness. If I had access to a commercial case database, I could easily pull some, but I don't. I'll do the best I can for you with Google.

US v. Kremetis: "The superseding indictment charges the defendant with conspiracy...possession with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting in the unlawful distribution of cocaine... The First Circuit has not considered the constitutionality of either § 846 or § 841(a)(1) since the Lopez ruling was handed down. However, in September the Fourth Circuit ruled that § 841(a)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied against a defendant who was charged with the intrastate manufacture of marijuana plants. United States v. Leshuk...The court is persuaded that the Fourth Circuit, as well as the district courts cited supra, properly construed Lopez in rejecting the constitutional attacks on the Drug Act. The court finds that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 are constitutional as enacted and as applied against the defendant in the superseding indictment."

From Leshuk: "This Court, as well as other courts, has relied upon these findings in concluding that Congress may regulate intrastate drug activities under the Commerce Clause. Moreover, contrary to [the defendant's] alternative contention, the Drug Act is not unconstitutional as applied if his possession and cultivation were for personal use and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. Although a conviction under the Drug Act does not require the government to show that the specific conduct at issue substantially affected interstate commerce, Lopez expressly reaffirmed the principle that "where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence."




Irrelevant. 99% of them could avoid trial and there would still be a substantial number of trials and opinions.



Again, you're displaying your lack of knowledge. You can always argue that the law is unconstitutional. This won't get you very far with drug charges because the courts have concluded the laws are constitutional. See the cases I just posted, which are constitutional challenges in criminal cases. Come on now, saying that the constitutionality of a law cannot be challenged would itself be a blatant violation of the constitution!

seriously bro everything you offer only shows that you have no idea of what kind of case i am talking about lol...
just the mere fact that u actually posted the above thinking it in any way relates to an actual 'human rights' case shows not only that u simply dont understand the concept but it also continues to show that such cases do not exist in the usa...
oh and challenging something on its 'constitutionality' is currently a far cry from filing a 'human rights' case and if u actually knew the first thing about the court room u would understand at least that...and more specific, challenging the corpsgovs definition of the word 'commerce' does not in the least equate to filing a human rights case of the type being referenced in this thread...
and ps..."If I had access to a commercial case database" this also shows your lack of understanding...any existing case under the category of 'human rights' thats been adjudicated bases on a cause of action stemming from the 9th would be easily googlable if it actually existed, but it doesnt...
so sorry 2tell ya but your still shootin blanks bro

 

[DNAprotection]

in effort to help in your understanding i thought this clue from https://www.rollitup.org/politics/771900-if-you-were-president-whats-2.html might help

easy 1...
simply reestablish and create 'standards' concerning what is a 'human right' and how to intemperate such by way of the 9th amendment would not only solve the prison industrial complex prob but it would also go to solving most of the seemingly gridlocked issues we currently face, not the least of which being outlawing plants etc..
right now to get anywhere near the subject of 'human rights' in court you are for the most part limited to filing a 'discrimination' case because the 9th amen and the term 'human rights' are for all practical purposes not valid references in constructing causes of action.

ps 4got this...heres the 9th amen...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and heres what it looks like when u summon the corpsgov into court and acuse them of human rights violations (as in steeling all the doritos etd)

[video=youtube;oMdwJ7fyp00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oMdwJ7fyp00[/video]

 

[tokeprep]

seriously bro everything you offer only shows that you have no idea of what kind of case i am talking about lol...
just the mere fact that u actually posted the above thinking it in any way relates to an actual 'human rights' case shows not only that u simply dont understand the concept but it also continues to show that such cases do not exist in the usa...oh and challenging something on its 'constitutionality' is currently a far cry from filing a 'human rights' case and if u actually knew the first thing about the court room u would understand at least that...and more specific, challenging the corpsgovs definition of the word 'commerce' does not in the least equate to filing a human rights case of the type being referenced in this thread...

There's no such thing as a "human rights" case apart from the constitution. All rights in the United States are derived from the constitution. That's my point. Only your ignorance tells you otherwise.

and ps..."If I had access to a commercial case database" this also shows your lack of understanding...any existing case under the category of 'human rights' thats been adjudicated bases on a cause of action stemming from the 9th would be easily googlable if it actually existed, but it doesnt...
so sorry 2tell ya but your still shootin blanks bro

Again, no, it shows your ignorance. There's no such thing.

You keep demanding evidence of me, but you've provided zilch in support of yourself. Because there is none. What you want is impossible and does not exist.

 

[tokeprep]

in effort to help in your understanding i thought this clue from https://www.rollitup.org/politics/771900-if-you-were-president-whats-2.html might help

Thank you. With that you proved that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The courts have been interpreting that part of the constitution for hundreds of years now. There is absolutely no doubt about what it means in the settled law.

Only in your mind. And no one cares what's in there. Sorry.

 

[DNAprotection]

There's no such thing as a "human rights" case apart from the constitution. All rights in the United States are derived from the constitution. That's my point. Only your ignorance tells you otherwise.



Again, no, it shows your ignorance. There's no such thing.

You keep demanding evidence of me, but you've provided zilch in support of yourself. Because there is none. What you want is impossible and does not exist.

lol again bro wtf ru talking about??? anyone who can read has seen that u r the one who said such cases were everywhere and being filed all the time...how about first learn how to b consistent and get your stories strait etc (not 2mention learning about the law and the courts) in your own head b4 engaging in a discussion that your so clueless about

No, I understand the law, and based on that law, your suit would fail. 100% chance of failure. People are bringing suits of the kind you suggest all the time (or making the same arguments in criminal cases) and they all fail.

You're telling us that the same constitutional argument couldn't be made in a civil and criminal case?

No, I don't have any citations, but I guarantee the argument is made all the time and rejected because people are constantly being arrested on drug charges. It's in the way you framed it. You suggest that there is some right to do a certain thing; the courts have conclusively determined that there is no such right. Bound to that precedent, all other courts are going to agree that no such right exists.

lol...moving on...

Thank you. With that you proved that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The courts have been interpreting that part of the constitution for hundreds of years now. There is absolutely no doubt about what it means in the settled law.

Only in your mind. And no one cares what's in there. Sorry.

at this point im convinced the only thing u know about the 9th is that which u took time to read on the web hehe...but i dare ya to go ahead and explain the 9th anyway, why its there and how it practically operates in litigation etc...?
if u choose to defer then i can give u a rundown based on my own real world experience in court

 

[DNAprotection]

There's no such thing as a "human rights" case apart from the constitution. All rights in the United States are derived from the constitution. That's my point. Only your ignorance tells you otherwise....

ooops i missed this bit b4
u r the only one who seems 2b talking about a human rights case 'apart' from the constitution lol...i'm talking about human rights cases that go directly to the heart of the constitution in effort to start that heart beating again for it is the in bold statement of yours above that seems to have hijacked our fact finding rooms, the key word being derived...
?just exactly what do u mean when u personally state:
"All rights in the United States are derived from the constitution"

 

[schuylaar]

So my comment above is something I feel strong about, but can easily be turned into a straw man or a slippery slope argument. so an example would be; driving a beat up old junker. I can do it sure. But if the thing is pissing out toxic exhaust fumes, I am affecting more than just myself, thus the EPA has put regulations around that and has forced states to mandate mandatory minimum standard emissions. Cigarettes would be another example. Hunting laws another. The list goes on and on.

See, without these regulations in place, people, knowingly or unknowingly would abuse the "system", we would be living in an animal extinct, exhaust fumed, nicotine smoking world. Yea, it can be done, but do we really want that?

Same holds true for oil & gas and public health.

But just because you personally don't see the upside to having these things regulated doesn't mean it shouldn't be. That would be very selfish and narrow minded, ignorant if you will.

which raises the question about how the right forces their agenda: the bible on everyone else.

the right's beliefs need to be recognized for what it is: a belief; not a governmental entity nor shall we craft our law on ones personal beliefs.

no one should be subject to any particular groups god or lack thereof in government because it's offensive.

 

[DNAprotection]

which raises the question about how the right forces their agenda: the bible on everyone else.

the right's beliefs need to be recognized for what it is: a belief; not a governmental entity nor shall we craft our law on ones personal beliefs.

no one should be subject to any particular groups god or lack thereof in government because it's offensive.

and such (in part) is precisely why the type of 'human rights' litigation going to the 9th amen im suggesting is so vital at this point imo...

there is also a desperate need to revisit the 1st amen and redefine the key word 'religion' to equate more directly to an 'individuals' conscience rather than a persons 'choice' to join a club etc...such work was beginning during the vietnam era and was hard fought and won in effort to extend the military 'conscientious objectors' status to all folks equally even if not consigned to an 'organized religion' etc or even if they did not believe in 'god' etc...but that work ended there for the most part and has not been built upon unfortunately so basically outside of the military your 'conscience' holds little or no weight in court because it has no reach to the 1st amendment etc...
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_WelshUS.htm

 

[tokeprep]

lol again bro wtf ru talking about??? anyone who can read has seen that u r the one who said such cases were everywhere and being filed all the time...how about first learn how to b consistent and get your stories strait etc (not 2mention learning about the law and the courts) in your own head b4 engaging in a discussion that your so clueless about

lol...moving on...

I didn't realize you were suggesting some extra-constitutional basis for a law suit. Of course, even though you implied that in your previous post, you've gone on to reference the 9th amendment, so I'm still not exactly sure what your argument is. If you're claiming a right under the 9th amendment, your case would not be extra-constitutional.

at this point im convinced the only thing u know about the 9th is that which u took time to read on the web hehe...but i dare ya to go ahead and explain the 9th anyway, why its there and how it practically operates in litigation etc...?
if u choose to defer then i can give u a rundown based on my own real world experience in court

You're saying that you have some right based on the 9th amendment. The precedents suggest that there are some rights not specifically enumerated that cannot be violated by either the federal or state governments. But if the federal and state governments are properly exercising some of their enumerated powers found elsewhere in the constitution, you cannot construe the 9th amendment to block legitimate exercises of those powers.

Your 9th amendment argument was made in the lower courts in Gonzalez v. Raich. They dismissed it and the supreme court didn't even touch it.

 

[tokeprep]

ooops i missed this bit b4
u r the only one who seems 2b talking about a human rights case 'apart' from the constitution lol...i'm talking about human rights cases that go directly to the heart of the constitution in effort to start that heart beating again for it is the in bold statement of yours above that seems to have hijacked our fact finding rooms, the key word being derived...
?just exactly what do u mean when u personally state:
"All rights in the United States are derived from the constitution"

This is the source of the confusion: "oh and challenging something on its 'constitutionality' is currently a far cry from filing a 'human rights' case and if u actually knew the first thing about the court room u would understand at least that"

If you're claiming to have a right under the 9th amendment, you are challenging the validity of the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional under the 9th amendment, which reserves to you a right. Thus challenging the constitutionality on that basis is not "a far cry from filing a 'human rights' case." That's exactly you're doing.

 

[DNAprotection]

I didn't realize you were suggesting some extra-constitutional basis for a law suit. Of course, even though you implied that in your previous post, you've gone on to reference the 9th amendment, so I'm still not exactly sure what your argument is. If you're claiming a right under the 9th amendment, your case would not be extra-constitutional.



You're saying that you have some right based on the 9th amendment. The precedents suggest that there are some rights not specifically enumerated that cannot be violated by either the federal or state governments. But if the federal and state governments are properly exercising some of their enumerated powers found elsewhere in the constitution, you cannot construe the 9th amendment to block legitimate exercises of those powers.

Your 9th amendment argument was made in the lower courts in Gonzalez v. Raich. They dismissed it and the supreme court didn't even touch it.

not quite....but two years before robert filed that case i gave him two hours+ on how to write up the causes of action and if he had linked a cause of action as i suggested directly to the 9th (growing any plant is a human right etc not just cannabis) then u would be correct about the raich case, but robert instead chose to lean on the commerce clause...
long story short, no raich did not construct as i am speaking to here...

 

[DNAprotection]

This is the source of the confusion: "oh and challenging something on its 'constitutionality' is currently a far cry from filing a 'human rights' case and if u actually knew the first thing about the court room u would understand at least that"

If you're claiming to have a right under the 9th amendment, you are challenging the validity of the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional under the 9th amendment, which reserves to you a right. Thus challenging the constitutionality on that basis is not "a far cry from filing a 'human rights' case." That's exactly you're doing.

u started tossing around the commerce argument as an example of a 'human rights' case and such is a 'far cry' from the case im talking about here...
also at this time the 9th has been adjudicated effectively into an unreachable place for any plaintiff because fed judges have held that it only exists for judges to use as a measuring tool for interpenetrating the rest of the constitution in the adjudication of cases but not there to be reached for in constructing a cause of action etc..
as far as i know a plaintiff may currently construct a cause of action around the 10th...
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
but not the 9th

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and i think its way past time for the courts to be forced by litigation to create 'standards' for determining 'human rights' that would be 'protected' under the 9th amen...