Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
What the fuck..
DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
If I were going to try to be a lawyer I would probably at least do some online classes or something, I wouldn't just go take the bar. But I don't want to be a lawyer. If I were going to do anything lawyer like, it would be being counsel for Religious cases.
But I don't practice law, the closest thing I have done to practicing law is help people with their cases in jail (when I was there winning the Religious Marijuana case), and that is completely legal because they can't ban jailhouse lawyers (it keeps it fair for illiterate people). I just teach people about court cases and laws and do my own cases, and I am ok with just doing that. I don't want to be a lawyer.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
More people should have the courage to bring their cases to be heard in court.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
That's a huge part of the problem with the courts. No one goes to trial. When I won my Religious Marijuana case the guards were literally laughing at me for saying that I was going to go to trial when I got there, because there is something like a 99% conviction rate in that county, because everyone waives their trials and pleas no contest or guilty, so they just get a conviction. It was like a joke for me to say I was going to take it to trial. Then the whole thing got dismissed.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
"Nearly 95% of the State corrections commissioners, prison wardens, and treatment directors responding to a national survey supported creation and expansion of prison legal services. Cardarelli & Finkelstein, Correctional Administrators Assess the Adequacy and Impact of Prison Legal Services Programs in the United States, 65 J.Crim. L., C. & P.S. 91, 99 (1974). Almost 85% believed that the programs would not adversely affect discipline or security or increase hostility toward the institution. Rather, over 80% felt legal services provide a safety valve for inmate grievances, reduce inmate power structures and tensions from unresolved legal problems, and contribute to rehabilitation by providing a positive experience with the legal system. Id. at 95-98. See also ACA Guidelines, supra,n4; National Sheriffs' Assn., Inmates' Legal Rights, Standard 14, pp. 33-34 (1974); Bluth, Legal Services for Inmates: Coopting the Jailhouse Lawyer, 1 Capital U.L.Rev. 59, 61, 67 (1972); Sigler, A New Partnership in Corrections, 52 Neb.L.Rev. 35, 38 (1972)."
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
"Nearly 95% of the State corrections commissioners, prison wardens, and treatment directors responding to a national survey supported creation and expansion of prison legal services. Cardarelli & Finkelstein, Correctional Administrators Assess the Adequacy and Impact of Prison Legal Services Programs in the United States, 65 J.Crim. L., C. & P.S. 91, 99 (1974). Almost 85% believed that the programs would not adversely affect discipline or security or increase hostility toward the institution. Rather, over 80% felt legal services provide a safety valve for inmate grievances, reduce inmate power structures and tensions from unresolved legal problems, and contribute to rehabilitation by providing a positive experience with the legal system. Id. at 95-98. See also ACA Guidelines, supra,n4; National Sheriffs' Assn., Inmates' Legal Rights, Standard 14, pp. 33-34 (1974); Bluth, Legal Services for Inmates: Coopting the Jailhouse Lawyer, 1 Capital U.L.Rev. 59, 61, 67 (1972); Sigler, A New Partnership in Corrections, 52 Neb.L.Rev. 35, 38 (1972)."
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And btw, once the Lawsuit is finished, tons of people can collect from it. It's not just me, it's class action, and there is a huge class. And it can go up to like $400,000,000 and that is just for the Monopoly, it can go way higher with people collecting on Religious Rights.
And anyone else that wants to can bring a lawsuit based on this lawsuit. It will act as prima facie evidence.
And anyone else that wants to can bring a lawsuit based on this lawsuit. It will act as prima facie evidence.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Here are all things that will add to the monetary value of the case.
28 U.S. Code Chapter 171
15 U.S. Code § 2
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
42 U.S. Code § 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
28 U.S. Code § 1714
The court may not approve a proposed settlement that provides for the payment of greater sums to some class members than to others solely on the basis that the class members to whom the greater sums are to be paid are located in closer geographic proximity to the court.
42 U.S. Code § 1988
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.
1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.
28 U.S. Code Chapter 171
- § 2671 - Definitions
- § 2672 - Administrative adjustment of claims
- § 2673 - Reports to Congress
- § 2674 - Liability of United States
- § 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
- § 2676 - Judgment as bar
- § 2677 - Compromise
- § 2678 - Attorney fees; penalty
- § 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy
- § 2680 - Exceptions
15 U.S. Code § 2
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
42 U.S. Code § 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
28 U.S. Code § 1714
The court may not approve a proposed settlement that provides for the payment of greater sums to some class members than to others solely on the basis that the class members to whom the greater sums are to be paid are located in closer geographic proximity to the court.
42 U.S. Code § 1988
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.
1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
How do I determine if I'm a member of the class?
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
You don't, you can't.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Does this describe you at all?
All United States Persons who practice Hinduism (or similarly barred Religion) or who are or wish to become Sadhus (Hindu Priests), or who have been barred from doing so for fear of the Controlled Substances Act, as well as any Hindu (or similar Religious Practitioner) who has been jailed or imprisoned as a result of this Act. As well as anyone who has lost the life of a family member due to this Act; and
All United States Persons who have been financially affected by the Monopoly enforced and operated by Defendants. As well as anyone who was jailed or imprisoned in the course of the enforcement of this Monopoly, family members of those killed in the process of that enforcement and anyone who has been in fear for their life or safety as a result of the enforcement of the Monopoly and overbroad enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in general.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Yes. It's really the whole Controlled Substances Act. In this case the court will have to decide if the CSA can exist anymore.
I will let everyone know when the ruling is over (it will also most likely be in newspapers, as that is the law), and at the very least a lot of people will be able to collect money, at the very most the whole law will be overturned.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Lawfare works BOTH ways. This is why even cops don't fuck with lawyers.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Fins cut and paste lawsuit hasn't even been served on any Defendant. And it will be thrown out and never go to trial.
Moreover, it is not a "class action". Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a class action must 1st be "certified". Fins joke of a lawsuit has not been certified. Don't believe me? Google it.
Last edited:
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Lol. I just had to write the Summons and wait for the judge to accept the case, I have them written up now, and I just have to print them out and take them up there and they will get served. I haven't even been back up to the court house since the day I filed, because they told me I have 120 days. I am going up there on the 27th probably.
It is certified. I literally quote 23(a) in the Jurisdiction section. And the overall argument is that the CSA is invalid due to the way it is being used, so everyone's claims would be validated at once.
I like how you assume I don't know how to file things though. It shows that they probably think the same thing and most likely won't even be ready for me.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Certification is a lengthy process. There will be a ruling, and an Order by the court. That hasn't hapoened in your case, and wont happen. Counsel must be appointed to represent the class. You found a lawyer to handle this? Nope.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I just have to motion. And it will be accepted, as, as I said, I already added it to the Jurisdiction part of the case, and it fits the criteria. The only thing left to do is motion. And again, I haven't been up to the courthouse since before the judge accepted the case.
I am the counsel. I worded it right and everything. I filed it on behalf of myself and all others similarly situated. I didn't just randomly do this, or do this based on some Sovereign Citizen advice or something, I researched the law for 6 years and have even been winning cases.
Do you think I am a Sovereign Citizen or something? I have a case, with merits. The judge isn't going to deny it.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
You are seriously delusional. So you agree it's not certified, after just saying it was. Judges don't "accept" cases for filing, the clerk does. The Judge hasn't read your lawsuit, no need to until a motion has been filed. Even then, he won't read all of what you put in there. The vast majority of it is irrelevant and subject to a motion to strike.
Counsel must be appointed to represent the interests of the class. This must be a very experienced lawyer that has done this before. It's 100% mandatory. And those lawyers will cost hundreds of thousands. You are not legally allowed to represent the class, or anyone for that matter. You are not counsel, unless you are a licensed lawyer. This is basic stuff.
Do you have the names and addresses of the class members? Notice will need to be mailed to each one of them, letting them know of the lawsuit and giving them the option to opt out of the lawsuit.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
LOL.
"The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)"
"The court first notes that Plaintiff's Complaint is somewhat incoherent. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint is 49 pages long, but at least 43 pages are comprised of block quotations from various cases, statutes, and international sources. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the quotations support any of his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the facts he has provided support or relate to his causes of action".
"Despite the Complaint's length, Plaintiff provides little to no coherent factual basis for his claims."
"Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a single cause of action that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed."
MARK LANE
UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
