Notice to civil rights and legal malpractice attorneys
New causes of action against the false color of law
and America's indefensible defense bar
Dear civil rights and / or legal malpractice attorney,
I am a retired Indiana 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 encourage you and your associates to read or listen to my 6-part audio presentation about the false enforcement of America's drug laws. These materials accompany a Notice and Demand that I have published against various government officials who are operating in Indiana.
For the past fifty years, America's drug laws have been wrongly enforced under false color of law. America's unlawful war on drugs has been waged in the wrong courts and in the wrong branch of government. This has occurred because legal practitioners do not understand or uphold the various separations of power within the republican form of government, which they all take oaths to uphold.
A simple example of this is the separation of crime from commerce, which are constitutional terms. Crime is prohibited in the judicial branch. Commerce is regulated in the executive branch. Thus to equate drug commerce, such as unwanted drug dealing, with drug crime is to confuse government's commercial jurisdiction called equity with its criminal jurisdiction called law. Because ignorance of the law does not excuse (ignorantia jurs non excusat), then these mistakes of law amount to walking civil rights and malpractice lawsuits.
Such practitioners have been unaware that 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 artificial, legal, regulated class. The equal treatment that is owed to both of them within the states under the 14th Amendment is called administrative due process. Administrative law courts in the D.E.A. and in state regulatory agencies, such as the Indiana Board of Pharmacy, are 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 subject matter jurisdiction over drug possession, which is a natural right. These courts have original jurisdiction only over cases, which include injury. Thus, 1) the judicial power over drugs operates in non-criminal equity and is solely over drug commerce – not drug possession, and 2) republican judicial courts have power over this drug commerce only in their appellate – non-original – capacity.
Because all state and U.S. drug laws regulate all drug dealing (commerce) within the states, then all prosecutions in state judicial and U.S. Article III courts for mere drug possession and dealing have been malum in se, without judicial authority, and under false color of law. Because all Controlled Substances Acts regulate intrastate and interstate drug dealing using governments' non-criminal powers under equity, then governments' powers under criminal law have been falsely used.
Not only will my audio presentation thoroughly explain this. It will also show you the various separations of power within the republican form of government that our law schools did not teach us. From this presentation you will see that the judicially-waged drug war violates all of these separations of power, violates both the 13th and 14th Amendments, and deprives citizens of the republican form of government, which is our constitutional entitlement.
As best as I can tell, few if any government officials or drug defense attorneys in America understand our drug laws as I have described them to you. The law is knowable, but these practitioners do not know it well enough to even read drug statutes. These statutes are constitutional only because they secure individuals' natural right to drug possession and drug dealers' legal rights to administrative due process. However, you would not know the proper operation of law by watching these practitioners' malpractice.
The (perhaps unrealistic) goal of my written and audio materials is for government officials to immediately discern their obvious wrongdoing – as well as their potential future liability – and then to end the judicially-waged war on drugs throughout the United States. If this does not occur sua sponte, then I hope that drug defense attorneys will employ my arguments 1) to move courts to dismiss present and future criminal prosecutions, and 2) to move courts to vacate all false criminal convictions. Unfortunately, both of these outcomes require better education, more critical thinking, and greater chutzpah, which has heretofore been lacking in these professionals.
That is where attorneys like you enter the picture. You are drug defendants' final bulkhead against this false law enforcement and defense. By giving notice to government officials and defense attorneys of their wrongdoing, they become accountable to the law. Consequently, you are welcome to adopt my Notice and Demand to alert government officials and attorneys in your area of their professional mistakes.
Everything I say or write about Indiana law in my materials also applies in all fifty states. This is because the states are mutually republican and because 45 of them share versions of the same Controlled Substances Act.
As well, everything I say or write is likely applicable to class action lawsuits. Most convicted drug offenders are in an easily identifiable class of non-criminals who have been harmed by government officials' and defense attorneys' same mistakes of law. Again, theirs are mistakes of law because there is no disputing what the law really says.
Upon your review of my materials, and assuming that America's judicially-waged war on drugs continues, then I look forward to hearing from you. If officials and defense attorneys do not stop their false practices, then I want to help you in your cases against them. If so, please first contact me through email.
Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes.
Kurt St. Angelo
Indiana attorney #11317-49, inactive status
This website and all its representations are subject to this Disclaimer.