Notice to America's bonding industry
America's governments are falsely enforcing drug laws
Dear U.S. bonding industry,
I am a retired attorney and the author of two self-published law books: BUSTED – A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs (2015) and America's Republican Form of Government (2017), available from Amazon.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that America's drug laws are being wrongly enforced under false color of law, thereby exposing local, state and U.S. governments to enormous risk of liability. This risk is due to governments not following their own written drug statutes, and as a result, depriving non-criminals of their liberty in violation of the the 13th Amendment.
For the past fifty years, America's war on drugs has been wrongly waged in the wrong courts and in the wrong branch of government. Not only is drug possession a natural right within all American states, which right is codified by statute, but state and U.S. governments have power within the fifty states only to regulate drug commerce – not to criminally prohibit it.
According to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, governments are to treat everyone who manufactures, distributes or dispenses drugs the same. This equal treatment is called administrative due process. It is carried out by regulatory courts in the executive branch.
According to the Case or Controversy Requirement, judicial courts are not open to mere commerce, but require an injury to a natural, legal or contractual right. According to the Separation of Powers Doctrine, judicial courts are not allowed to do the regulatory work of administrative law courts.
Thus, the judicially-waged war on drugs violates the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the Case or Controversy Requirement and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, not to mention numerous other separations of power that are required to be maintained. Plus, it violates all applicable Controlled Substances Acts. That's a lot of law breaking!
As the following summary of America's various Controlled Substances Acts shows, government officials have either not read or have been incapable of reading these drug statutes. See if your understanding of America's drug laws does not differ from the following accurate description. If your view differs from that below, then someone in government has falsely represented the law to you.
Within the fifty United States, where Congress owes the states a republican form of government, the state and U.S. Controlled Substances Acts 1) do not apply to private individual drug possession, and 2) non-criminally regulate all intrastate and interstate drug commerce, including disfavored drug dealing. Only in the federal areas, such as the District of Columbia and coastal waterways, where Congress exercises plenary or absolute power as a non-republic, is drug dealing criminally prohibited.
Within the fifty United States, according to the Case or Controversy Requirement of state judicial and U.S. Article III courts, judicial subject matter jurisdiction requires an injury to a natural, legal or contractual right. According to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, the law treats unwanted drug dealers the same as it does pharmaceutical company presidents. Only in the federal areas, where these clauses do not apply and where Congress determines everyone's rights, may Congress treat one drug dealer better than another.
Because both unwanted drug dealers and pharmaceutical companies manufacture, distribute and / or dispense drugs, then they are in the same legal, regulated class. The equal treatment that is owed this commercial class under the 14th Amendment is called administrative due process. The role of administrative law courts in the D.E.A. and in state regulatory agencies is to apply this equal adjudicatory process to determine these parties' legal rights to make and sell drugs.
Given this equal adjudicatory treatment, these administrative law courts may license drug dealers that meet their standards, and they may enjoin those drug dealers that do not. These administrative injunctions, if violated, may be enforced by judicial injunctions, using judicial courts' contempt powers. This regulatory process is non-criminal.
The Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Case or Controversy Requirement of American constitutions prevent judicial courts from acting upon this same regulatory subject matter, i.e., drug commerce, or upon the same legal issue, i.e., who may sell drugs to the public, neither subject of which is justiciable. Thus, not until parties have exhausted their administrative equitable remedies do judicial courts gain any power over any drug matter.
Within America's fifty states, judicial courts have no original, subject matter jurisdiction over drug possession, which is a natural right. These courts have jurisdiction only over cases, which include injury. Thus, the judicial power over drugs operates in non-criminal equity and solely over drug commerce – not drug possession, and judicial courts have power over this drug commerce only in their appellate – not original – capacity.
And thus, the practice of prosecuting and defending drug possessors or dealers in criminal courts is unlawful (malum in se), without judicial authority, and under false color of law. Whether culpability for this is an unintentional mistake of law and intentional crime, it is nonetheless res ipsa loquitur. There is no disputing the law, nor who controls the instrumentality of harm.
This false practice is the result of American attorneys and government officials not maintaining the separations of power that define our unique republican form of government. It is necessary to know these separations a priori in order 1) to properly read and comprehend the Controlled Substances Acts, and 2) to maintain the republican form of government, both tasks which government officials have not.
In conjunction with this notice to you, I have written similarly specific letters 1) to local, state and U.S. officials, 2) to drug defense attorneys, 3) to civil rights attorneys, 4) to legal malpractice attorneys, 5) to legal malpractice insurance companies, 6) to private prison companies and 7) to news organizations. Letters to specific government officials were accompanied by a Notice and Demand.
These notices also refer to a 6-part audio presentation which you can listen to and read along with. This presentation is likely your most useful source: 1) to understand the proper operation of our drug laws, 2) to define the separation of powers under the republican form of government, and 3) to show how government officials and attorneys have been defrauded – by willful misrepresentations of law – into thinking that certain drugs are unlawful, or criminal.
All of my materials show 1) that all drug possession is either lawful or legal throughout every inch of the United States – land, air and water; 2) that intrastate and interstate drug dealing is not criminal but is instead regulated under administrative law, and 3) that unapproved drug dealing is criminally prohibited only in the federal areas, over which Congress legislates as a non-republic.
Thus, no one can comprehend our nation's drug laws without understanding a) the republican form of government, which operates among the states, b) the non-republican form of government, which operates within the federal areas, and c) our federal republican system's other various separations of power, which American government officials and attorneys yet do not.
These officials' past mistakes of law are likely excusable, but not their future ones. Given my notice to various local, state and U.S. officials in Indiana, then they become liable for future false arrests, false process and false imprisonment. Because crime is naturally and objectively defined, suffice to say that all incarcerated non-criminals are future liabilities for American governments, which can eliminate this risk only by learning and following their written law.
As best as I can tell, no sovereign within the United States is enforcing its drug laws properly. The law is knowable, but government officials do not know it well enough to even read the statutes. Drug statutes are constitutional because they secure everyone's natural and legal rights, which means that they do not violate these rights. Only government agents violate these rights by wrongly enforcing the law and wrongly acting outside of the scope of their authority.
Your company is now on notice that the bonding industry in the United States has been supporting the false operation of law, and vice versa. If I may be of further help to you, first please contact me by email. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Kurt St. Angelo
Indiana attorney, #11317-49, inactive status
This website and all its representations are subject to this Disclaimer.