Once again it has been over a week since I last communicated about the marketing of BUSTED, and once again I have a lot to report. But before going over my actions and the responses that they have generated, let me tell you a little bit about my marketing plan.
The market for BUSTED is large if not vast. The information that it contains about crime is relevant to the estimated 50,000 criminal defense attorneys in America. Every single one of these attorneys should read my book merely to avoid committing malpractice. I have mined the emails of the top 2 percent of these attorneys in America and have emailed them twice.
The information in BUSTED is also relevant to the other half million attorneys in the United States 1) because it defines the republican form of government that each took an oath to secure, and 2) because it defines the subject matter jurisdiction (power) of all of America's courts, with which they are not familiar.
Then there are probably 50 million drug users and about a quarter of America's prison population who one would think also might be interested in the book. Chief interest in the book would naturally come from the advocates and attorneys for these drug users in private practice as well as from anti-prohibition organizations. At least, that's what I thought.
The above is not to overlook the millions of government workers who are directly involved in false enforcement of drug laws. Every Attorney General, prosecutor and law enforcement officer in the United States has reason to read the book 1) because none of them have read the drug laws and 2) because they are enforcing drug laws falsely, illegally and under color of law.
Given the above market for BUSTED, my plan has been to first market the book to private defense attorneys and anti-prohibition organizations who can best use its legal technology to defend or free drug defendants. Since publishing the book a month ago, I have spent almost all my time marketing the book to this group, who can gain the most utility from it. As far as I know, I have not directly shared the thesis of the book with anyone in any government, although they are welcome to garner such information from my other public correspondence.
To reach this primary market of private drug defense attorneys and anti-prohibition organizations I have mounted an email, Twitter and Facebook campaign. During the past two weeks, via email, I have twice directly contacted the 800 criminal defense attorneys in my database. They have all received a sugar letter which benignly offered them free information. (See “A look inside” letter here) As well, more than half of the list have also received a letter suggesting that they are committing malpractice. (See the “Are you and your clients being duped?” letter here).
Whether using sugar or spice, my direct email marketing to those 800 attorneys who – of all people in America – should take the most interest in my book has generated ZERO response – negative or positive. Can you believe that? ZERO.
This is likely due to three reasons: 1) that my claims are so preposterous to them that they do not believe my claims, 2) that my claims are so foreign to them that they don't understand them, or 3) that they so fundamentally understand my argument that they are afraid of it. Their fear would be 1) to be exposed as never having read the Controlled Substances Acts and America's constitutions, and 2) to be exposed as having falsely defended their drug clients.
Without a response to my email, I cannot determine which of the above reasons motivates these attorneys. However, my campaign on Twitter might shed light on these factors.
Over the past ten days I have put-out likely 300 Tweets. These Tweets went to all major drug and marijuana organizations, to journalists and media organizations, and to some celebrities. I have also used the forum to respond to news from America's major media outlets, always seeking to drive them to the book's estore or website.
If you have a Twitter account, then you can read these various Tweets here. Most of these Tweets went directly into the Notification box of the recipients, which means that they likely won't be overlooked. I have been getting a rather good response from all sorts of people and organizations, including that of Willie Nelson and various marijuana news feeds. Although Twitter limits messages to 140 characters, it does provide a means to directly reach out to people of importance, who might be interested in the message or topic.
Among these are repeated Tweets to all the major anti-prohibition organizations, such as NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance and StopTheDrugWar, also with no response. Weird, huh? Not really. They are more interested in self-preservation than in ending the drug war.
For those without Twitter or Facebook accounts, there is always snail mail. This week I wrote formal letters about my book to two influential academics and to former (and probably the original) Drug Csar William J. Bennett. With regard to the latter, I relished the opportunity to tell him that statutes and constitutions support our natural and legal rights, but that uninformed officials have been violating this good republican law, which he has always claimed to support. Because the war on drugs is a fraud (a deliberate misrepresentation of law), there is neither a written or moral basis for it.
I am grateful for your support of my efforts to both market my book and end the war on drugs. If you have any suggestions, please send me an email. Twitter and Facebook posts are also always appreciated.
It has been more than a week since last posting to this blog, which is mostly about the backstage scenes of marketing BUSTED. As you may recall, I appealed to San Francisco Attorney Tony Serra to move to dismiss his Kettle Falls Five case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Unfortunately for his clients, Mr. Serra did not respond to my email.
What I have since learned, however, is that his non-response is not atypical of arrogant, know-it-all defense attorneys. During this past week, to both test my marketing letters and self-compiled lists, I sent three batches of emails on three separate days to three separate lists of 200 attorneys (half of which were associated with NORML)
As with my direct letter to Tony Serra, these three emailings generated zero demonstrable response (in book purchases, web hits, or angry accusatory letters). They only generated failure notices (at a rate of about 10 percent) You can read some of my marketing letters here. I don't think they are half-bad.
So I raise the question: why would professional defense attorneys not respond to my messages of either 1) hey look, my book can help you get your drug clients out of jail, or 2) stop, you're doing it wrong on behalf of your drug clients. I'm sure that their non-response has something to do with a) the unbelievability of my claims, b) a blow to their professional pride and / or c) their fear of the unknown. But whatever the motivation is, it is apparently pathological and rampant. It affected all 600 attorneys with whom I directly corresponded.
Pathological means to involve, to be caused by, or to be of the nature of a physical or mental disease. I am not a psychologist, but something either physical or mental is preventing criminal attorneys from taking immediate interest in a book that they all should not only read, but in which – you'd think – they would be interested. I shall leave you to ponder why, as a government-regulated group, they are not.
This is a letter that I sent this morning to Mr. J. Tony Serra, a San Francisco criminal defense attorney for the so-called Kettle Falls Five. These defendants were medical marijuana growers in the state of Washington, three of which who received federal prison terms. As you will see below, the information in my book BUSTED - A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs is directly applicable to this case.
Dear Mr. Serra,
I am a 59-year old retired attorney in Indiana who just spent three years writing a book about American drug law. I published BUSTED - A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs just last week. ($29.95).
This 500-page book contains the complete argument (based on constitutional and statutory law) to dismiss the Kettle Falls Five matter for want of subject matter jurisdiction. (Your clients also had a Rule 8 affirmative defense, as ultimate users, under 21 USC 822(c)(3) and 21 USC 802(27), which they may have waived.)
The jurisdictional argument is this. First, your clients have a constitutional and statutory right to possess drugs for their own use. Article I,Section 3 of the Washington constitution secures their natural right of property possession. 21 USC 822(c)(3) and 21 USC 802(27) (referred to above) say that your clients have a statutory right to "lawfully possess" drugs for their own use and the use of their households. Therefore, under both state and federal law, they could grow marijuana for their own use and for the use of their households.
Second, even if your clients were caught selling weed, their drug commerce is regulated by the DEA - not criminally prohibited. The DEA has NO criminal authority in Washington state, except to assist the state in fighting crime. Their powers are equitable. They can confiscate and enjoin, but not arrest anyone in drug commerce.
This is because Congress has limited criminal authority within the states, which powers are confined to its enumerated powers and offenses against the United States, which do not include growing or trading plants. This is also because Congress regulates all commerce within and among the states, and has no authority to criminally prohibit it.
U.S. drug prohibition, for example 21 USC 841 - 844A, operate only in the federal areas where Congress prohibits drug dealing under its authority at Article I,Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. constitution. Otherwise, Congress REGULATES all interstate drug commerce under its interstate commerce authority at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. In any event, almost all crimes are state crimes (see Bond v. U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2077 (2014), which means that the DEA had no authority to arrest your clients. Based on lack of jurisdiction, theirs were false arrests. Federal regulatory power preempts state regulatory power, but the states' and U.S. criminal jurisdiction are separate and do not operate concurrently over the same subject matter.
So as not to rewrite my book, I suggest that you immediately buy several copies, give some away, and file a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. There is also information at the book's website, including the blog, to help you.
Your arguments would be 1) that the state of Washington has criminal jurisdiction within the state (per Bond v. U.S. above), 2) that the criminal penalty provisions in U.S. Controlled Substances Act do not apply in the state of Washington, but only in the federal areas (because Congress regulates commerce within Washington), and 3) that even if the provisions applied, your clients have a statutory right as ultimate users under 21 USC 844(a), 21 USC 822(c)(3), and 21 USC 802(27) to "lawfully possess" marijuana for their own use, without need of a prescription.
You should also note the differences between how Congress treats production and manufacturing at 21 USC 802. Production for one's own use is lawful and not regulated. As well, the District Attorney lacked standing and a case or controversy, both which require injury in fact. His prosecution was a misrepresentation of law to the court. If he knew what he was doing, it would be fraud.
I have cc:d several of your criminal defense associates at Pier 5 Law so as 1) to authenticate the source of your information, 2) to inform them of my book and its defenses, 3) to raise the standards of all defense attorneys at Pier 5 Law, and 4) to sell more books. I will likely also publish this letter on my blog to illustrate my book's usefulness to criminal attorneys. Those are the conditions with which I give you this free information.
But regardless of one's legal field, my book contains valuable information that all attorneys should know. This page from my website provides a long list of things that my book teaches. The solution for your clients, i.e., knowing federal criminal subject matter jurisdiction, is just one of these valuable things.
If you would like to speak with me, then email me back with your telephone number (so I can program you into my computer) and tell me when is a good time to talk. If not, good luck and take care.
Kurt St. Angelo
Are drug defense attorneys committing legal malpractice? My new book BUSTED – A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs says that most of them are. They commit malpractice by defending drug possession and dealing matters in the wrong courts, both at the state and federal levels. You can't get more wrong than that.
Drug possession is a natural right which is not subject to any court. (see Article I, Section 1 of the Indiana constitution (1816) and Beebe v. State of Indiana, 6 Ind 501 (1855)). As you will see below, it is also a statutory, legal right. In contrast, drug dealing is subject to regulation and its equitable, non-criminal due process and state remedies.
Essentially, drug defense attorneys have been defending regulatory matters in judicial courts, in the wrong branch of government. All persons that manufacture, distribute or dispense drugs – as a commercial class – are regulated by the state and federal governments, not criminally prohibited. Nationally, regulation is accomplished under Congress' interstate commerce authority at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution, which does not include the power to criminally prohibit any kind of commerce.
This rule is easily verifiable by reading 21 USC 822 in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. As my book shows, this section is republican legislation that operates within the fifty state republics. Section (a) says that all persons who intend to manufacture, distribute or dispense drugs are to get registered with the U.S. Attorney General (via the DEA). Those manufacturers, distributors and dispensers who do not get registered are subject to the equitable remedies of confiscation, civil forfeiture and injunction, the latter which is enforceable under courts' powers of contempt.
Because Congress regulates all drug commerce within the states, the criminal penalty provisions of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, e.g., 21 USC 841 – 844A, operate only within the federal areas and within Article I courts – not Article III courts. Congress can only prohibit and make unlawful that which is under its plenary legislative jurisdiction at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, all crimes within Article III courts are defined by the criminal standards of U.S. constitution – not Congress.
Thus, the federal government's criminal jurisdiction 1) is largely territorial – confined to the federal areas, and 2) confined to Congress' several enumerated powers within the states, which do not include prohibiting any commerce. See Bond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 2086 (2014). Ultimately, what is criminal throughout all of the United States is malum in se (evil), which definition is secured by the states' and U.S. constitutions. When American constitutions refer to crimes or offenses, they refer to behavior that violates other people's natural rights - not the edicts of legislatures.
The criminal penalty provisions of the states' CSAs do not prohibit or make unlawful either drug possession or dealing, but merely call such behavior “misdemeanors” or “felonies.” (Legislatures could call exercising a “felony,” but that wouldn't make it so.) Such malum prohibita is not justiciable because such “crimes” do not meet the definition of real misdemeanors and felonies as referred to in America's constitutions, which determine judicial criminal jurisdiction.
Likewise, read section (c) of 21 USC 822, along with its definition section at 21 USC 802(27). These provisions say 1) that drug users need not register with the Attorney General (DEA) and 2) that drug users may “lawfully possess” drugs for their own use and for the use of their households. This is Congress' codification and admission of people's natural right of drug possession within America's fifty state republics. Without this provision in both the states' and U.S. CSAs, the acts would misstate the law and be unconstitutional. (I say the acts are constitutional, but falsely enforced.)
The states' Uniform Controlled Substances Acts treat drug possession and drug dealing the same as does the U.S. CSA within the states. In states such as Indiana, 1) drug possession is both a natural and statutory (legal) right (see IC 35-48-3-3(e) and IC 35-48-1-27), 2) drug dealing is regulated by the Indiana pharmacy board (see IC 35-48-3-3(a) and (b)), and 3) real drug crimes, such as getting ripped off, are to be tried in criminal courts.
In Indiana, once the pharmacy board exhausts its administrative remedies against disfavored drug dealers, the state may judicially enjoin their unwanted commerce (see IC 35-48-3-3(i)). Due to the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. constitution, the similar power of federal regulators supersedes that of state regulators. This is not to lose the main point – that all of these state and federal regulators only regulate drug commerce within the states, because no adult commerce (except slavery) is criminally prohibited.
So, in less than a handful of paragraphs I have shown you (and all drug defense and legal malpractice attorneys reading this): 1) that drug possession is a natural and statutory right, 2) that drug dealing is regulated within America's fifty states, subject to injunction – not incarceration, and 3) that disfavored drug commerce is criminally prohibited only in the federal areas where Congress has special legislative powers.
Beginning with the book's unveiling this week, the standards of all American criminal defense attorneys (not just drug attorneys) will necessarily rise. This is because all of them will learn the meaning of crime, and will thus learn the criminal subject matter jurisdiction of criminal courts, which their and my legal educations failed to teach. In hindsight, most of their prior defense work will constitutes legal malpractice in the future. This is because most of their work has been in the wrong courts, in the wrong branch of government.
Until drug defense attorneys come to this realization, people who are incarcerated for or charged with nonviolent drug offenses need to purchase this book for their attorneys. This is how the market will cause drug defense attorneys to step up their game. Their game falls short because they have inadequately read, if at all, not only America's constitutions, but also its Controlled Substances Acts. This is easily demonstrated by the above information which has always been available to them.
I've just shared thousands of dollars of legal content with you, which you can only find here and which only scratches the surface of the valuable information in BUSTED - A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs. Just imagine what $29.95 more will buy.
Perhaps it will buy the freedom of all mere regulatory violators. Perhaps also an education in legislative and subject matter jurisdiction, not to mention an introduction to the natural law basis of the U.S. constitution.
I am not the Most Interesting Man in the World, or even Mr. Exciting, but I am Mr. Excitement. Finally, after two years of writing and a year of rewriting and editing, I am very exited to announce the completion and publication of my book on the illegality of the war on drugs: BUSTED - A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs.
As you will notice from the dates of my two prior blog posts, I got way, way ahead of a proper launch sequence. Three of my internal launch dates got eclipsed by content, wording, indexing, bibliographic and other editing issues. I am sure that I will find problems with the published version (other than how I write), but it won't be for want of looking really hard for them.
Along with my excitement, I also have a little trepidation with the book's debut. This is because the book will likely be very controversial and won't particularly please the three million or so Americans with livelihoods dependent on the drug war. Nor will it please some of the state's judiciary. Nor will it please people with subjective and supernatural viewpoints about governmental authority. Given this, please hold positive thoughts about this book and me in mind.
As I mentioned in those stale posts from a month ago, as soon as I clicked the button today at 6:15 a.m. to publish this book, there was no turning back. At that moment my role as a creator ended and that of a marketer began. Luckily, next to writing, marketing is one of my favorite things to do. And the markets for this book are enormous.
For example, there are 750,000 attorneys in America, each who should read this book because of the inadequacies of our legal educations. (This includes probably 75,000 drug defense attorneys who will commit malpractice if they do not read this book.) There are 30 million American marijuana smokers who deserve to know how they have been ripped off during the past fifty years – not by drug dealers, but by government officials. As well, there are over 300 million Americans who should read this book because of the civics lessons that it provides about citizenship. That's a lot of people to reach and to which to market the book's original analysis, the outline of which is available for FREE right here on this website.
My marketing plans are to initially target attorneys who can incorporate the book's lessons into their practices. This particularly includes drug defense attorneys and civil rights attorneys, the latter to hold government officials financially accountable. Only after I have exhausted my marketing to these types of professionals will my focus turn to attorneys working for the government, such as Attorneys General, prosecutors / district attorneys and other law enforcers, which targeting I will detail in a later post.
In the meantime, I am very, very grateful that you have taken the time to peak into the back-stage scenes of my book project. Please sign up for my bi-weekly blog posts by clicking here. (You can leave the list at anytime.)
Beginning with this truly inaugural blogpost, and following up every three days or so, I will try to keep you abreast at every stage of my campaign to both sell books and end the war on drugs. I will always try to keep my one-sided conversation entertaining and, if relevant, try to throw in a substantive legal lesson as well.
Today's lesson is a simple one: that ending the war on drugs means simply to stop jailing people for drug possession or dealing by use of the judicial branch. It would not mean to cease regulating disfavored drug dealing, using the executive branch's equitable remedies such as forfeiture and injunction. As soon as government officials' understand this simple thesis in my book, then judicially-waged drug prohibition will end and honest, nonviolent Americans will be set free.
Here's a link to read about or purchase the book:
There is a lot to publishing a book. There is writing it, editing it, indexing it, designing it, marketing it and getting it to the customer. I am in the final stages of writing, editing and indexing BUSTED – A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs. Doing all this has been a wonderful journey, the likes of which I recommend to everyone.