Proof of Federal Jurisdiction

To the first person who can prove that Our Federal government has jurisdiction
over all marijuana manufactured or possessed in the United States.
U.S. Supreme Court case law cite with page and quote required.
The famous Wickard v. Filburn case, relied on by Federal prosecutors and judges to claim jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause, actually says quite the opposite:
It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. … the Government gave the farmer a choice…. It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.- Wickard (317 US 111,129-131)
Because Filburn was accepting benefits (subsidy prices for his wheat), he was liable for the agency’s civil penalties imposed by the program regulations.
In 2004 Attorney Allison Margolin challenged Federal jurisdiction with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (U.S. v. Landa).
The precedent upon which the federal government’s ability to govern interstate commerce, Wickard v. Filburn, is premised upon the fact that the plaintiff in that case registered in a federal program. …the Wickard basis of jurisdiction is inapplicable here.
Similar motions by others are currently in our Federal District Courts, our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in our Supreme Court. These defendants are also non-registrants, not accepting benefit from FDA, DEA or any Federal agency or program for marijuana.
Still, no Federal judge has ruled on these motions or even addressed this issue, never mind citing an authority establishing Federal jurisdiction over non-registrants. The People’s right to due process can only be upheld through a court ruling; failure to rule is a deprivation of our right to due process of law.
Pretending there is an authority establishing jurisdiction is a deprivat! ion of rights under color of law (US Criminal Code, Section 242, calls for prison sentences for violators, including judges and attorneys).
Contact: www.commonsenselaw.com or commonsenselaw@yahoo.com
The Reward is held by Common Sense Law and Associates in trust. As contributions by interested individuals
continue, the Reward Amount has exceeded $5,000. The Panel of Judges will be announced shortly.
Common Sense Law Reward Rules
The purpose of the Reward is to uphold the People’s right to Due Process of Law. The application for the Reward consists of two parts:
1. Name and mailing address;
2. Cite of the U.S. Supreme Court, with page and quote, which directly affirms the U. S. Government’s and its agencies’ jurisdiction over non-registrants of its agencies, regarding mari! juana or other substances.
Submit applications to:
Common Sense Law
P.O. Box 6528
Santa Rosa, CA 95406
Or by email: commonsenselaw@yahoo.com
The Reward money ($5,000 to date) is held in trust by Common Sense Law and Associates. A bank draft will be sent to the Name and Address of the successful applicant within 3 days of verification.
The Reward will remain in effect until published notification a minimum of 30 days in advance of withdrawal of the offer at our website www.commonsenselaw.com. That should allow ample time for anybody to submit their claim. The Reward has been posted at www.commonsenselaw.com since February 21, 2005.
Joe Fortt said his motion on l! ack of agency jurisdiction may be heard at his next hearing on March 20, 2005 at 9:30 AM at the Fresno Federal Building. To date, no court has ruled on similar motions. I would be good for supporters of Joe to display "Due Process" on their apparell and witness the hearing. Violation of due process under color of law is a crime at Section 242 of the U.S. Criminal Code (Title 18).
Allison Margolin (US v. Landa) has this motion pending at the 9th Circuit (Judge Alsup told her in front of us witnesses: "Take that to the 9th Circuit!")
Keith Alden (US v. Alden) has this issue in his Petition for Certiorari before the US Supreme Court.
We are still awaiting a court ruling on this issue.
Dear Federal Prisoner:
We are offering this Wanted Poster that you may have an opportunity to claim the reward. If you cannot! find the government’s jurisdiction, you might want to send a copy of the poster to:
* your Attorney,
* your prosecuting attorney, and
* your Judge
and see if they can find the authority establishing Federal jurisdiction over non-registrants.
There are only three possibilities. Either
* they cite the authority and step up to claim the reward;
* they agree that there is no federal jurisdiction over non-registrants; or
* they don’t respond, which can only indicate their continued participation in this fraud, which is a deprivation of your right to due process of law. Pretending there is a law that justifies the violation of your rights is a crime at 18 USC Section 242. This crime has a victim with injuries and damages. If you are a victim, it is up to you to respond in an appropriate manner, or do and say nothing, and continue suffering the deprivation of your rights.
We hope you will pass this on to others who have had their rights violated.
Questions, comments, feedback:
Common Sense Law
P.O. Box 6528
Santa Rosa, CA 95406
United States Code
Title 18--Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter 13 - Civil Rights
Statute 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State … to the deprivation of any rights, … secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and… if such acts include the use, … or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, … shall be fined … or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed … or if such acts include kidnapping …, shal! l be fined … or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentence to death.