Notice to malpractice insurance companies
American drug defense attorneys are committing malpractice
Dear legal malpractice insurance company,
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. This has resulted in non-criminals being deprived of their liberty, in violation of the the 13th Amendment.
This could not have occurred but in the absence of rampant and rabid legal malpractice by America's drug defense attorneys, which is res ipsa loquitur. There is no disputing the law, nor who controls the instrumentality of harm.
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 only to regulate drug commerce – not the power 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 and Controversy Requirement, judicial courts are not open to mere commerce, but require an injury to a natural, legal or contractual right to gain subject matter jurisdiction. 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, legal practitioners either have not read or have been incapable of reading these drug statutes. See if your understanding of drug laws does not differ from the following accurate description. If your view differs from that below, then someone 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 is in non-criminal equity and is 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 and dealers in criminal courts bespeaks the obvious, i.e., that all prosecutions in state judicial and U.S. Article III courts for mere drug possession and dealing have been wrong (malum in se), without judicial authority, and under false color of law.
This false practice is the result of American attorneys not being taught 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 attorneys have not. Their similarly false defense of gun, prostitution and traffic infractions also needlessly exposes your industry to liability.
In conjunction with this letter to you, I have sent similarly specific notices 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 the American bonding industry, 6) to private prison companies and 7) to the news and opinion media. You can read these notices at my website drugsarelegal.com. Many of the notices to government officials are accompanied by a Notice and Demand, which you can also read there.
These letters also refer to a 6-part audio presentation to which you can listen and read along. 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 various other separations of power, which American government officials and attorneys yet do not.
Drug defense attorneys' past mistakes of law are likely excusable, but not their future ones. Given my notice to various such attorneys in Indiana, then they become liable to their clients for their future false defenses and omissions.
Because crime is objectively defined in a republic, suffice to say that all incarcerated non-criminals are a future liability for legal malpractice insurance companies. Heretofore, your industry has been insuring the false practice of law and the wholesale neglect of Americans' natural and legal rights.
As best as I can tell, few if any drug defense attorneys in America understand the Controlled Substances Acts as I have described them to you. The law is knowable, but these practitioners do not know it well enough to even read these statutes, which answer to the law.
These statutes are constitutional only because they secure individuals' natural right to drug possession and drug dealers' legal right to administrative due process. However, you would think that drugs are criminal (unlawful, prohibited) if you watched the malpractice of your indefensible drug-defense bar.
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.