FreedomAttorney

Desert Corvette Sweetheart Car Show

2012-02-13T08:49:00.000-08:00

The Law Firm of Marc J. Victor was at the 19th Annual Sweetheart Car Show on Sunday February 12th at Chapman Chevrolet in Tempe Arizona.

Crossroads of the West Gun Show

2012-02-13T08:39:00.000-08:00

Marc Victor was at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show and gave a speech on Gun Laws.

Getting out of Dodge

2012-01-27T13:31:00.000-08:00

Doug Casey Mentions Marc Victor

Doug Casey Addresses Getting Out of Dodge
(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)

L: Doug, a lot of readers have been asking for guidance on how to know when it’s time to exit center stage and hunker down in some safe place. Few people want to hide from the world in a cabin in the woods while life goes on in the mainstream, but nobody wants to get caught once the gates clang shut on the police state the US is becoming. How do you know when it’s time to go?

Doug: Well, the first thing to keep in mind is that it’s better to be a year too early than a minute too late. David Galland recently read They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, by Milton Mayer. He quoted a passage in his column of last Friday. It goes a long way in explaining why Americans appear to be such whipped dogs today. They’re no different from the Germans of recent memory. For those who missed it, let me quote it: “You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ … In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic… the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked… But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C?”

The fact is that the US has been on a slippery slope for decades, and it’s about to go over a cliff. However, our standard of living, while declining, is still very high, both relatively and absolutely. But an American can enjoy a much higher standard of living abroad.

On the other hand, if I were some poor guy in a poverty-wracked country with few opportunities, I’d want to go where the action is, where the money is, now. Today, that means trying to get into the United States. The US is headed the wrong direction, but it’s still a land of opportunity and a whole lot better than some flea-bitten village in Niger.

L: By the time things get worse than some Third-World dictatorship in the US, such a person could have remitted a whole lot of cash back home.

Doug: And you’d have a whole lot of experiences that would give you a competitive edge back where you came from, or in the next place you go to. The one-eyed man is king in the valley of the blind. People have to lose that backward, peasant mentality that ties them to the land of their birth. Sad to say, although the average American has somewhat more knowledge of the world – mainly due to television – his psychology is just as constrained as that of some serf from central Asia or some primitive village in Africa. It’s all a matter of psychology.

But if you’re not poor, you want to go someplace that is safe, nice – whatever that means to you – and with a lower cost of living. As most readers know, for me that’s Cafayate, Argentina, but one size does not fit all. It needs to be a place you actually enjoy spending some time, with people whose company you enjoy.

L: Fair enough. But our readers want to know if your guru-sense is tingling yet, or how close you think we are to it being too late to leave – or at least too late to leave with any meaningful assets.

Doug: I’m a trend observer. This is one of the advantages of studying history, because it shows you that things like this rarely happen overnight. They are usually the result of trends that build over years and years, sometimes over generations. In the case of the US, I think the trend has been downhill, in many ways, for many years. Pick a time. You could make an argument, from a moral point of view, that things started heading downhill at the time of the Spanish-American War. That was when a previously peaceful and open country first started conquering overseas lands and staking colonies. America was still in the ascent towards its peak economically, but the seeds of its own demise were already sewn, and a libertarian watching the scene might have concluded that it was time to get out of Dodge –

L: [Laughs] That would have been a bit early…

Doug: [Chuckles] Yes, that would have been way too soon. As Adam Smith observed, there’s a lot of ruin in a country.

L: On the other paw, it would have gotten you out before the War between the States, a disaster well worth avoiding.

Doug: No, the Spanish-American War was in 1898.

L: Oops! Sorry, I was thinking of what Americans call the Mexican-American War, but which Mexicans call the “American Invasion” –

Doug: [Laughs]

L: I’m not joking. That’s what they called it in the history books I was given in Mexican schools when I lived there in the ’70s. It has long seemed to me that that was an ominous turn for the worse for the US and a clear example of conquering a weaker neighbor purely for pillage – not just Texas, but everything from there all the way to California.

Doug: That’s right. Davey Crockett and the boys, we love them, but in many ways they were the equivalent of today’s Mexicans who want to recolonize the southwest and turn it back into part of Mexico, in what they call the Reconquista.

L: Indeed, but this is ancient history to most US taxpayers today – I’m reminded that it’s not correct in many cases to call them Americans.

Doug: Yes, just as it was a misnomer to call the people who lived in the Roman Empire after Diocletian Romans – because Roman citizens were once free men. After about 300 AD most of them were bound to the land or their occupations as serfs. But the slide for Rome started at least 120 years earlier, after the death of Marcus Aurelius. Politically, the decline started with the accession of Julius Caesar 240 years before that. So, when did the slide – politically, economically, and socially – really start for the US? When were there no more trends going up?

L: FDR? The New Deal was really a moral, economic, and political turning point.

Doug: You could make that argument, but the US still grew economically, despite the roadblocks FDR threw in its path. US military power and global prestige continued growing from that point, although, paradoxically, the accelerating growth of the US military was directly responsible for the decline of the US economically and in terms of personal freedom. One reason for the ascendancy of the US after World War II was that we were the only major country in the world not physically devastated by the war.

L: Ah. Right.

Doug: So it seems to me that the peak of American civilization was in the 1960s. As for evidence, well, I like to put my finger on the 1959 Cadillac. Those twin bullet taillights, the opulence of it… In terms of then-current technology, things couldn’t get much better.

L: “Opulence. I has it.”

Doug: [Laughs – a real belly laugh] That’s my favorite TV commercial! Anyway, that was the peak, in my mind. Though things continued getting better for a while, the US started to live out of capital.

L: Had to pay for guns and butter.

Doug: That’s right. The Johnson administration’s so-called Great Society created vast new federal bureaucracies that promised Americans free food, shelter, medical care, education, and what-have-you. Americans became true wards of the state. But the real, final nail in the coffin for America was in 1971 –

L: Nixon taking the US off the gold standard.

Doug: Nixon taking the US off the gold standard – open devaluation of the dollar, combined with wage and price controls for some months. And that was not long after the so-called Bank Secrecy Act, which abolished bank secrecy, and required the reporting of all foreign financial accounts. Nixon was, in many ways, even more of a disaster than Johnson. Republicans are usually worse than Democrats when it comes to freedom, partly because they like to couch their depredations in the rhetoric of defending the free market. While everyone understands that Democrats are socialists just under the surface, Republicans actually give capitalism a bad name. Baby Bush is a perfect, recent example.

L: But don’t you worry your pretty little head about devaluation – it’s just a “bugaboo” – and as long as you’re not one of those unpatriotic people wanting to buy imports or vacation abroad, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today. The scary thing is that the Belarusian dictator Lukashenko said almost the same thing when the Belarusian ruble lost two thirds of its forex value earlier this year, asking his countrymen why they need to go on vacation in Germany or buy German cars…

Doug: You see why I like to study history? It doesn’t repeat, but it sure does rhyme…

L: With a vengeance.

Doug: So, anyway, since 1971, some things have improved largely due to technological advances, but the America That Was has been fading into the past. It was a decisive turning point. You can see that in the accelerated proliferation of undeclared wars we’ve had since then. I don’t just mean the penny-ante invasions of Granada and Panama – the US has always lorded it over Caribbean and Central American banana republics; those are just sport wars. But Iraq and Afghanistan are alien cultures on the other side of the world – apart from never posing any threat to the US. Now it looks like Iran and Pakistan are on the dance card, and they’re big game. The War Against Islam has started in earnest, and it’s going to end badly for the US. I explained all this at great length in the white paper, Learn to Make Terror Your Friend, that I wrote for The Casey Report last month.

Domestically, saying that the US is turning into a police state when you started this conversation was quite accurate. You can see more and more videos spreading over the Internet, not just of police brutality, but demonstrating the militarization and federalization of police, who are being inculcated with both disdain for and paranoia about ordinary citizens.

In the old days, if you were stopped for speeding, the peace officer was polite – you could get out of your car, meet the cop on neutral ground, and chat with him. You didn’t have a serious problem unless you were obviously drunk or combative. Now, you don’t dare make a move. You better keep your hands in plain sight on the steering wheel and be ready for a Breathalyzer test without probable cause. The law enforcement officer will stand behind you with his hand on his gun. And you’re the one who’d better be polite.

L: There has been a polar reversal. The cops used to address citizens as “sir” or “ma’am.” Now, the correct response in a traffic stop is: “Yes, sir! I would love to inspect the bottom of your boot, sir!”

Doug: [Laughs] That’s right. My friend Marc Victor gives out magnetized business cards. People ask, “Why?” He answers that it’s so clients can put them on the bottom of their cars or refrigerators, so they can see it when the cops throw them to the ground.

L: Marc’s a good man. There’s a handy video on Marc’s website, offering advice on what to do if you’re pulled over by the police in a traffic stop.

Doug: A good public service announcement. At any rate, I think there’s no question that the US has turned the corner on every basis: politically, socially, morally, and now, economically…

L: Okay, but, Doug, you said that in 1979 too. The question is, how do we know when the door is going to close?

Doug: [Laughs.] Well, sometimes I feel a little like the boy who cried wolf. But Roman writers like Tacitus and Sallust saw where Rome was going before it got completely out of control. Should they have said nothing, for fear of being too early? Here in the US, it should have gone over the edge back in the 1980s, but we got lucky. There was still a lot of forward momentum, which can last for decades when you’re speaking of civilizations. There was the computer productivity boom. The Soviet Union collapsed, China liberalized, and Communism was discredited everywhere except on US college campuses. The end of the Cold War opened up vast areas of the world to the global market. And most surprising of all, Volker tightened up the money supply and interest rates went high, causing people to save money and stop borrowing to consume.

L: That’s not happening this time.

Doug: No. We got lucky back then. Since the ’90s we’ve had a long and totally phony, debt-driven boom that’s now come to an end. I feel very confident that there’s no way out this time. There are huge distortions and misallocations of capital that have been cranked into the system for two decades. And not just in the US this time, but in Europe, China, Japan, and elsewhere.

The US is very clearly on the decline. The fact that in spite of bankrupting military expenditures to no gain for the American people, those in power are talking overtly and aggressively about attacking more countries – Iran and Pakistan in particular – is extremely grave. The fact that they attacked Libya – which, incidentally, is going to turn into a total disaster, a civil war that will last for years – shows it’s not stopping. Sure, Obama brought troops home from Iraq – another disaster that’s going to remain a disaster for years to come – but at the same time he put a company of combat troops in Uganda, of all places and Marines in Australia, to provoke the Chinese.

Back home, I’ve read reports that people are being stopped for carrying gold coins out of the US, in Houston in particular. Now we have authorization of the military to detain US citizens, on US soil, with no trail, and indefinitely, on the verge of becoming law. And Predator Drones have been used to hunt down farmers on their own ranches.

I could go on and on. This is not like spotting early signs of decay in America’s expansionist wars of the 19th century or things getting worse with FDR. Most people can’t see it with all the noise and confusion, but we’ve reached the edge of the precipice.

L: Don’t worry about exactly where the edge is, just assume it’s there and take appropriate action?

Doug: Yes. It really is there. It’s a clear and present danger. But most Americans are as oblivious as most Germans were in the ’30s. In fact, most of them support what’s going on, just as most Germans supported their government in the ’30s and ’40s.

L: So… don’t worry about figuring out exactly when the gates will shut. Assume they are shutting now?

Doug: That’s right. One should be actively and vigorously looking to expatriate assets, cash, and even one’s self. A prudent person will always be diversified politically and internationally.

L: What about people who have jobs they can’t continue doing from abroad and who need the income?

Doug: They should still prepare, as best they can, to be ready to go on a vacation when things get hot – a vacation from which they might not return for a long time. All that needs happen, with the hysteria that’s building in the US, is for a major terrorist incident – real or imagined – to occur. Homeland Security will lock the country down. I hate to admit it, but I’m almost starting to credit the stories about those FEMA camps.
Look, I know it sounds extreme, and the comparison to pre-WWII Germany has been made many times, but it bears repeating. Germany was the most literate, civilized, and even mellow, in some ways, country in Europe. It was much admired all around the world – a nation of shopkeepers, small farmers, and scholars. But the whole character of the place started changing in 1933, and it just got worse and worse. By the end of 1939, if you weren’t out, you were done.

L: [Pauses] Well, not a cheerful thought. Actions to take?

Doug: Things we’ve said before: Set up foreign bank accounts in places you like to travel, while you can. Set up vault arrangements for physical precious metals outside the US. Buy foreign real estate that you’d like to own, because it can’t be forcibly repatriated. Offshore asset protection trusts are a good idea too. Become an International Man. Let me emphasize that US taxpayers should stay within all US laws, because the consequences of breaking them are unbelievably draconian.

Generally, one simply must internationalize one’s assets. The biggest danger investors face, by far, is not market risk – huge as that will be – but political risk. The only way to insulate yourself from such risk is to diversify yourself politically and geographically.

L: Right then… words to the wise. Thanks for your insight.

Doug: You’re welcome. Most won’t, but I just hope readers listen.

[For more specific investment advice and big-picture observations from Doug – as well as insightful analyses from other Casey Research experts, including Chief Economist Bud Conrad – give The Casey Report a test drive. It is absolutely risk-free for ninety days… and will give you a solid boost in becoming a rational speculator.]

Skin and Steel Event

2012-01-18T09:47:00.000-08:00

Marc J. Victor P.C. was at the American Legion Skin and Steel event in Tempe on Saturday January 14th.

Lawsuit again targets Arizona Day of Prayer

2012-01-05T14:56:00.000-08:00

Lawsuit again targets Arizona Day of Prayer

Michele Bachmann Endorses Ron Paul 2012

2012-01-03T15:16:00.000-08:00

And yet now she thinks he is dangerous?

Marc Victor at Libertopia, Legalize Meth!

2011-12-29T15:06:00.000-08:00

Judge dismisses lawsuit on Arizona Day of Prayer

2011-12-20T08:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.kpho.com/story/16309180/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-on-arizona-day-of-prayer

There is a disturbing trend developing in First Amendment jurisprudence; especially in the area of church and state separation. Notwithstanding the fact that many state sponsored or endorsed religious actions appear to clearly violate the well established parameters of the First Amendment, courts are now routinely dismissing lawsuits for lack of standing. To be clear, these dismissals do not involve a rejection of the constitutional challenge on the merits of the claim. To the contrary, they are simply evasions of the issue altogether. They are technical dismissals resulting in the untenable position that these First Amendment violations are simply unchallengeable by any person. Rather than hear these challenges on the merits and reach the inescapable conclusion that such actions are indeed unconstitutional, many courts have agreed to side step the issue by construing the doctrine of standing so such unconstitutional acts remain safe from constitutional challenge. Courts should be bold enough to hear and decide these challenges on constitutional grounds. Constitutional protections are meaningless if courts construe the law such that no person can invoke those protections.

In an effort to attempt to have these matters heard on the merits and to validate the notion that constitutional violations can be challenged, our clients have decided to appeal the district court’s dismissal of the Day of Prayer lawsuit. We expect to file an appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeal very soon. Additionally, another lawsuit will be filed in the state court alleging violations of the state constitution.

This lawsuit is about the role of government. Our clients remain committed to the notion that prayer is either a private matter or one that can be openly and loudly promoted by any private individual or private company on any private property for any length of time. Any effort by government to inhibit any private person’s right to pray on any non-governmental property would be opposed by all plaintiffs to this lawsuit. However, our clients, those religious and non-religious, remain equally committed to the well established notion that government should neither promote, inhibit nor endorse any religious view. Simply put, government should stay out of religious matters altogether; our constitution forbids it and it is both consistent and indispensible to notions of a free and open society.

Bill of Rights Day

2011-12-16T08:35:00.000-08:00

The law firm of Marc J. Victor was at the Bill of Rights Day on Thursday December 15, 2011

Bill of Rights Day 12/15/09

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/101201-2011-12-12-arizona-bill-of-rights-day-schedule-of-events.htm

Crossroads of the West Gun Show

2011-12-05T07:54:00.000-08:00

Marc Victor gave a speech on gun laws at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show on Saturday. He gave his number one piece of advice to a large crowd "Just Shut Up". The advice is what to do if you are questioned by law enforcement...just shut up! Any statements you make WILL be used against YOU so the best thing you can do is to JUST SHUT UP!

For more advice on what to do when confronted by law enforcement be sure to look at the videos and articles on the Attorney For Freedom website.

Leisure World Gun Club

2011-12-02T14:52:00.000-08:00

Attorney Marc J. Victor speaks to the Leisure World Gun Club about gun laws. He delivered his speech to a packed room and gave long standing advice like "Just Shut Up", his advice of how to deal with law enforcement if you are involved in a gun related incident.

East Valley DUI Task Force kicks off Friday, December 4th : Press Releases - Arizona Department of Public Safety

2011-12-02T12:22:00.000-08:00

East Valley DUI Task Force kicks off Friday, December 4th : Press Releases - Arizona Department of Public Safety

The best advice I can offer regarding a DUI is not to drink alcohol and then drive a motor vehicle. Besides risking being prosecuted for a criminal offense, driving while impaired can easily result in a serious accident or death of a person. Such a situation will likely result in a prosecution for either an Aggravated Assault or a Manslaughter. Prosecutors generally seek prison sentences for such crimes. Few circumstances can change a person's life faster than causing the death of another person by driving while impaired. Many people are unaware that driving with an alcohol level below the legal limit can also result in a prosecution for a DUI. Even over the counter medications or prescription medications can be the basis for a DUI charge if those medications result in the slightest impairment to a driver. If you plan to drink alcohol, take a taxi or use a designated driver. It is better than ruining your life or some else's life in an instant.

If you are pulled over by an officer who suspects you may be impaired, you should not answer any questions. You are not ever required to answer questions posed by a police officer. You are required to present your driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Generally speaking, refusing all tests at the roadside is the better choice. Even completely sober drivers can fail many of those tests. In any event, it is the officer who decides how you performed on those tests. You may not agree with the officer's conclusion. You may be required to exit your vehicle whether you are the driver or the passenger. You should always request to speak to an attorney immediately.

Punishments for DUI offenses include mandatory jail, mandatory fines, counseling, license suspensions, ignition interlock devices and generally cause insurance rates to increase. Punishments are severely increased for multiple DUI convictions. Committing a DUI while your driver's license is suspended or revoked for any reason can result in prosecution for a felony offense. A felony conviction can haunt you for the rest of your life. DUI is an easy crime to avoid. Adults of legal age should feel free to drink alcohol, but are required to do so responsibly. Driving after drinking alcohol is not responsible, and can easily result in dramatically changing your life for the worse in an instant. In short, don't do it.

Beware of the Dragon Slayer

2011-12-02T08:20:00.000-08:00

I should have known better. Having previously defended a woman whose dog barked at a cow; a man who, without a permit, built a shed in his backyard; a woman whose dog stepped on the grass of a no-dog park; a girl who entered a state park without paying the three dollar entrance fee - despite the broken fee collection machine; and a man who hung a sign over his business in violation of the city zoning ordinance, I should have expected a struggle. Sadly, I had been told so many times, "The law is the law."

My client was a wife and middle-aged mother of two young children who she drove to school Monday through Friday. She also worked a full time job located a substantial distance from her home. She had no prior contacts with the law; until now.

She called me about a month ago and told me of her past evil doings. When she was a teenager living in another state, she accidentally caused an automobile accident. As a result, that state required her to purchase the expensive SR-22 insurance. She did. Many years later, she moved to Arizona where she was informed she was not required to purchase the SR-22 insurance. She didn't.

The first state then suspended her privilege to drive and promptly notified Arizona. Because she was suspended in the other state, Arizona suspended her license as well. After being notified of the suspensions, my client immediately paid a small fee to the other state and was reinstated. At my client's request, the other state sent a clearance letter to Arizona. Arizona informed her that they received the clearance letter and everything was fine. Arizona didn't inform her that she needed to pay a reinstatement fee. As a result, my client drove for years without knowing her Arizona license remained suspended.

One day, my client was the unfortunate victim of a small automobile accident. After the police officer arrived to "help," it was discovered that my client's license was suspended. Despite immediately paying the previously unknown but all important reinstatement fee, my client was nonetheless charged with the crime of driving on a suspended license.

She reasonably thought she could easily resolve the matter in court. However, after being told by the judge that jail was an option and a six-month license suspension was mandatory, I'm sure I was the first phone call. I wasn't optimistic. It was an easy slam-dunk for the prosecutor. I accepted her case and agreed to try and make a deal to resolve it quickly. I thought maybe the prospect of my client losing her job and her kids not being able to go to school would resuscitate some long lost spark of compassion buried deep in the spot where the prosecutor's heart used to reside. Yeah right!

My client's case was assigned to Ms. Hitler for prosecution. My sentimental requests for leniency were immediately smashed with an iron fist. Ms. Hitler responded with the novel argument, "The law is the law." Ms. Hitler was angered when I was not persuaded by her favorite argument and indeed wanted to joust with her supervisor instead. Not surprisingly, Ms. Hitler's supervisor Mr. Stalin was equally unimpressed with my arguments. We were forced into a trial. What fun!

As the trial began, I couldn't wait to discover what defense I would argue to the judge. Incidentally, this is not my favorite way to try a case. Ms. Hitler called the "helpful" police officer to the stand who testified that she arrived at the accident scene, obtained my client's driver's license and discovered it was suspended. No cross-examination.

Ms. Hitler then moved to admit a certified copy of my client's driving record indicating it was suspended. I objected based on every reason I could argue with a straight face. The driving record was admitted and Ms. Hitler rested the state's case.

I don't think Ms. Hitler enjoyed it when I then requested that the court enter a judgment of acquittal for my client because the helpful officer friendly didn't actually see my client driving. Just for fun, I added that I wasn't calling any witnesses so there could be no rebuttal testimony for the state. Because the judge wasn't laughing and Ms. Hitler was getting even madder, I added that the helpful officer was guessing about who was driving the cars. We won.

After the judge left the bench and my elated client departed, Ms. Hitler felt obligated to enlighten me to the fact that, "Sometimes the dragon wins." Upon further inquiry, I learned Ms. Hitler wasn't initially certain whether my client or I was the dragon she was referring to. Apparently, she was absent during "think before you speak" class at prosecutor's school. Eventually, she decided my client was the dragon.

The twenty-five minutes of Ms. Hitler bashing that followed was worth the price of admission for me. The slaying of the dragon slayer was a quiet victory that day. One nice family was rescued from a jungle of craziness inhabited by a helpful police officer and a prosecutor who treats everyone equally.

Attorney Marc J. Victor

American Legion Riders Award

2011-11-11T08:50:00.000-08:00

To have freedom, 'let people be free'

2011-11-09T14:42:00.000-08:00

Marc J. Victor, Phoenix Criminal Attorney
To have freedom, 'let people be free'
an article by Dary Matera

News item: A judge pro tem was fired Thursday, his first day on the
job, for refusing to hear drug cases.

The late March story went on to say that the Mesa criminal defense
attorney, a marijuana legalization activist and member of NORML
(National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), felt he
couldn't honestly dole out the required mandated punishment for drug
offenders.

No kidding.

Intrigued, I gave the guy, Marc Victor, a call to set up a bong
session . . . I mean an interview.
Driving to his, I had visions of Jerry Garcia in pinstripes, hanging
out in a psychedelic office with black light posters of Kurt Cobain
on the wall. Ten to one, a refurbished VW van with shag carpet would
be parked outside.

No such luck. Victor, 34, turned out to be a teetotaling, ex-Marine
sergeant who operates out of a glass and concrete business complex he
shares with mortgage brokers, life insurance companies, PR firms, and
someone who does "endodontics," a dental procedure that requires that
you get really high first.

Inside this sea of conservatism lurks a squeaky clean Desert Storm
vet with the look of a Republican but the soul of a rebel.

"It's not about drugs or legalization. It's about the violation of
the right of self-ownership," the married father of three young
children said. "I'm fighting for the right of the individual against
government intrusion. If you want freedom, then damn it, you have to
let people be free - even if you don't agree with it."

In other words, Victor is not a big fan of victimless crimes or
legislating what adults can do with their bodies.

Granted, Victor's career sacrifice wasn't derailing. Judge pro terms
are unpaid attorneys who fill in for full-timers.

Still, the legal dodge is a vengeful, good-ol'-boy network, and
Victor's stance took no small amount of courage, especially for a man
with aspirations of becoming an appellate judge.
If that's now the impossible dream, Victor can live with it. In fact,
as much as his refusal to handle drug cases was blown up in the
press, it could have been a lot worse. Victor said he also would have
refused to handle gun possession, gambling, zoning or prostitution
cases.

"If adults want to rent their bodies to other adults, they should
have the right to do so," he said.
Strong words from a bull-doggish Marine who hits the gym at 4:30 a.m.
six days a week to pump iron. A man who wouldn't think to poison his
compact, 5-foot-5 body with drugs or alcohol, but refuses to judge
those who do.

Warming up, Victor said the American judicial system is collapsing
under the weight of unnecessary drug cases. In Arizona, he said he
believes it's verging on an implosion.

He's considering running for county attorney on a platform of doing
away with drug laws and other victimless crimes, and re-emphasizing
the prosecution of quaint, old school criminals such as murderers,
thieves and rapists.

Right on! He'd get my vote.

Dary Matera, a new community columnist, is an author who lives in
Chandler. The views expressed are those of the author. He may be
reached at dary@darymatera.com.

DUI - Driving Under the Influence

2011-11-09T08:49:00.000-08:00

My Speech at Libertopia

2011-10-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

Back From Libertopia

2011-10-24T16:00:00.000-07:00

Had a great time at Libertopia! A lot of great speakers like Butler Shaffer, Stefan Molyneux, Marc Stevens, Richard Boddie, Bill Buppert, Peter Bos, David Friedman, Anthony Gregory, Jim Peron, Sharon Presley, Sheldon Richman, and Larken Rose. I was also a speaker at the event.

Ron Paul proposes $1T in specific budget cuts

2011-10-18T15:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#threadform

It seems most Americans agree federal spending is out of control and needs to be cut. However, actually having the courage to identify specific and massive cuts is where all politicians become cowards; at least until now. I am glad to see Ron Paul has the courage to identify exactly where he would cut federal spending. No doubt many people will be upset about having their favorite federal program cut, but too bad. We are at risk of losing the American way of life forever.

Ron Paul is the only candidate, with the possible exception of Gary Johnson, who actually would improve the problems that are absolutely set to destroy our country. However, I don’t put much confidence in the ability of the typical American voter to actually do the right thing. Indeed, they got us into these problems in the first place by electing morons. Most Americans will be more impressed by a slick suit or an energetic, promise laden speech given by some well polished politician than dry, boring, solutions to our problems.

As Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” He was right. A simpler and more direct way to express the problem is as my good friend Ernest Hancock says, “Freedom Good! Government bad, bad, bad, bad, bad!”

Marc J. Victor

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com

Camp 420 Medical Marijuana Event

2011-10-10T13:44:00.000-07:00

Arizona Canna Kush Girl Contest and Medical Marijuana Expo

Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 5:00 PM - Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 2:00 AM (MT) Tempe, AZ.

The Law Office of Marc J. Victor (Attorney For Freedom) was at the Camp 420 Medical Marijuana Event in Tempe on Saturday.

http://azcannakushgirl.eventbrite.com

Occupy Wallstreet?

2011-10-07T14:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-washington-dc/occupy-wall-street-the-new-american-revolution

This story is one more example of why our country is in such a mess. Capitalism is not the problem. Government interference in the free market is the problem. The free market is one of the main reasons our country achieved any level of economic greatness. Capitalism and free enterprise are indispensable components to a free society. Indeed, the freedom to trade in an unregulated market is a major reason standards of living rise among humans. Certainly fraud and theft, which are not free transactions at all, have no place in a capitalist society and should be punished when properly proven.

However, simply protesting against “Wall Street” or capitalism generally reveals a poor understanding of the very concepts which advance humanity and raise standards of living for humans. To be sure, take a look at countries where markets have been strictly controlled by governments and witness substandard living standards. Instead of promoting more government interference in markets, Americans should be vigorously clamoring for the government to get out of the way and allow the free market to regulate the flow of goods and services for a change. Other than a selected few government ordained elite, we would all be better off.

Rainbows Festival

2011-10-04T15:29:00.000-07:00

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Rainbows Festival & Street Fair

The annual Rainbows Festival & Street Fair is a celebration of the diversity of the LGBT community. The event is located in historic Heritage Square Park in downtown Phoenix. Each year, the Rainbows Festival draws a crowd in excess of 25,000 gay and lesbians, family members and friends. This is one of the largest LGBT events in the state of Arizona.

The first ever Rainbows Festival was held in downtown Phoenix in 2002.

Date & Time

The event has expanded to a full weekend of fun and entertainment. It is both Saturday & Sunday – October 1st & 2nd, 2011.

On both days, the annual Rainbows Festival will open at 10 am and close at 6 pm.

Location

Heritage Square Park is located in downtown Phoenix at 7th Street & Monroe, adjacent to the Phoenix convention Center and the Science Museum.

Parking & Transportation

The Rainbows Festival & Street Fair is located next to Chase Field, US Airways Arena and Arizona Center. There are parking structures next to Heritage Square Park for over 20,000 cars. For additional public transportation, check www.valleymetro.org.

There are several light rail stations located adjacent to the event, just get off at the Chase Field exit, and walk to the Rainbows Festival.

FREE ADMISSION

The annual Rainbows Festival is a free admission event — there is no charge to attend this fun weekend of fun, frolic and food. The event is open to the general public.

Massive Phoenix drug sweep targets gangs, crack cocaine

2011-09-28T15:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/27/20110927phoenix-police-drug-arrests-brk.html

The title of this article could have been, “Help Wanted! 71 full time job openings available immediately for drug dealers. Unbelievable tax free pay!” Another possible title could have been, “Countless Drug Dealers enriched as a result of some drugs seized by police.” In addition to the celebrating police officers, the remaining drug dealers, who were not arrested, celebrated along with those officers because they just benefited from a small and temporary decrease in the supply of drugs. Whenever supply is decreased and demand remains the same prices rise. Said another way, all the other drug dealers benefited because their supply is now worth more.

If you really want to disappoint the drug dealers, end the drug war. Just as the prohibition on alcohol was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime, the prohibition of other drugs is the best thing for the illegal drug dealers. The drug war has been a complete disaster. It will never be won. 69 billion dollars a year later, it is time to end it and pursue sane policies instead.

Marc Victor and Mike Wasdin Discuss the Constitution

2011-09-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

Marc J. Victor and Mike Wasdin on Voice of Veterans Radio Show

Host - Vern Bagley

War On Terror Or War On Freedom?

2011-09-27T08:31:00.000-07:00

War On Terror Or War On Freedom?

A recent major investigative report by the Los Angeles Times sheds light on what all this “war on terror” is actually costing–and actually accomplishing. According to the report, “A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.

“But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?

“‘The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,’ said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.”

The LA Times report goes on to say, “Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and–with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack–one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.

“The expensive and time-consuming screening now routine for passengers at airport boarding gates has detected plenty of knives, loaded guns and other contraband, but it has never identified a terrorist who was about to board a plane. Only 14 Americans have died in about three dozen instances of Islamic extremist terrorist plots targeted at the U.S. outside war zones since 2001–most of them involving one or two home-grown plotters.”
The report also notes, “Large sums of Homeland Security money, critics complain, have been propelled by pork barrel politics into the backyards of the congressionally connected.”

See the LA Times report at:
http://tinyurl.com/3u3olzx

Add to the LA Times report a report by Madison Ruppert. In the report, Ruppert notes that it is clearly the Bill of Rights–especially the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms–that are suffering the most egregious attacks from the federal government’s “war on terror.”
Ruppert concludes his report saying, “In short, despite the fact that all the statistics and data in the world directly contradict the report’s findings and the claims made by clearly biased ‘experts’ on the threat of terrorism, especially of the homegrown variety, the HSPI [Homeland Security Policy Institute] and other bodies continue to fearmonger and lie to the American people to keep us scared while they empty our pockets and continue their imperialistic adventures in the Middle East and now North Africa.”

See Ruppert’s column at:
http://blacklistednews.com/?news_id=15638&print=1

Back to the Times report, not only do we Americans have about an equal chance of dying at the hands of a terrorist as we do dying in our own bathtubs, we have a much greater risk of dying at the hands of prescription drugs–something lawfully encouraged and tightly controlled by the US government. According to a recent report, more people now die each year from prescription drugs than from automobile accidents. That’s some 37,000 deaths via prescription drugs annually! (Come to think of it, how many people do you know who have died from marijuana?) And as hard as it will be for some people to accept, this number is gigantically greater than those who die from hard drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine. In fact, the prescription drug Vicodin, by itself, has killed more people than cocaine and heroin combined.

See the report on prescription drug deaths at:
http://tinyurl.com/6eh8bw3

So, what has this trillion-dollar “war on terror” accomplished? If it’s not making us more secure, what is it doing? Well, for one thing, it has created a stupendous surveillance society. Virtually every piece of public communication is now captured and stored by the federal government. Surveillance cameras are now ubiquitous throughout the United States. We have a gargantuan federal police department (which is anathema to the US Constitution): the Department of Homeland Security. We have thousands of Orwellian laws, most of which were spawned by the Patriot Act. And more and more often, law enforcement agencies are demonizing US citizens for their religious and political beliefs and statements–even categorizing them as potential domestic terrorists based simply on those religious and political beliefs.

To refresh reader’s minds regarding how Americans have been labeled, profiled, and denigrated as “terrorists” because of their religious or political beliefs, please peruse the material on this web page:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=52

Fortunately, it does appear that the combination of an emerging police state and a declining economy that has resulted from this “war on terror” is finally starting to catch the attention of the American people. According to a Brooking Institution report, “Six in ten Americans believe that that the United States weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined.”

A Rasmussen report further revealed, “As with the recent turmoil in Egypt, most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone.”

Beyond that, “A Zogby poll conducted in August 2007 found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.”

See the BlacklistedNews.com report containing the above survey results and more at:
http://tinyurl.com/3v2n538

The LA Times is right to question what Americans are getting for their $75 billion a year contribution to the “war on terror.” Some could even argue–with convincing data–that the “war on terror” is in reality a “war on freedom.”
P.S. Understanding the financial difficulties that many people are having due to the current recession, and wanting to help people who desire to download my video and audio messages, we have reduced the price of both of these downloads. Video downloads are now only $10 (down from $15) and audio downloads are only $5 (down from $10).
To download these messages, go to:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16

P.S.S. Our printer has just cleared his warehouse of all remaining FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. We now have 50 copies of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS available. And with our move to Montana, it is not certain that we will be able to provide FREEDOM DOCUMENTS this Christmas as usual. So, if readers want to obtain this fabulous collection of America’s great historical documents in one volume, we have a total of only 50 copies that will be shipped while the supply lasts on a first-come, first-served basis. To order FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=279

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

© Chuck Baldwin

ASU Marijuana Debate Victor vs Montgomery

2011-09-14T10:07:00.001-07:00

Federalist Society Debate: Legalize Marijuana?

2011-09-13T16:45:00.000-07:00

"Should Marijuana Be Legalized?" ASU Law School Debate on FreedomsPhoenix.com

Debate on YouTube:

Part 1 of 4

Part 2 of 4

Part 3 of 4

Part 4 of 4

kicked out ASU Marijuana Debate: Victor - Montgomery

2011-09-13T08:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5t2cyNtNXw&feature=player_embedded

Don’t Cherish the 2nd Amendment!

2011-09-12T08:22:00.001-07:00

I was recently asked to write an article which would be of interest to people who cherish the 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Few people have more experience talking to others who cherish the 2^nd Amendment than me. I am the only attorney who is regularly invited to speak to groups of people in Arizona who attend the huge Crossroads of the West gun shows about their rights and responsibilities as firearms owners. Indeed, I enjoy talking to people who cherish the 2^nd Amendment, and I acknowledge, agree and respect the rights of free and responsible adults to acquire, possess and sell whatever weapons they peacefully obtain. I am far more concerned about the government bearing arms than I am about responsible citizens bearing arms.

However, I often wonder if the people who cherish the 2^nd Amendment also cherish freedom. They are not the same concepts. Like everything else in the Constitution, the 2^nd Amendment is subject to interpretation. Until the year 2008, it was a subject of much debate whether the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms or a "collective right" to allow the states to organize a national guard. Incidentally, I have no understanding of what a "collective right" is, and I suspect neither would any of the drafters of the Constitution. Although the United States Supreme Court determined an individual right is indeed protected, I wonder if those same 2^nd Amendment cherishers would have such warm feelings towards the 2^nd Amendment had the Supreme Court sided with the collectivists? Moreover, recent cases have already proven that there is no doubt the lower courts will now march toward restricting such individual right as they have with all other individual rights "protected" by the Constitution.

The 2^nd Amendment, as with everything else in the Constitution, is subject to interpretation, limitation, expansion, or virtual nullification by those nine political appointees on the United States Supreme Court. How many of your rights are protected by the Contracts Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clauses or the 9^th Amendment? With a different group of nine political appointees, those could have been important sections of the Constitution in terms of protecting freedom. Of course, the 2^nd Amendment could be repealed. I suspect many people would not be inclined to turn their firearms into the government for want of a right to bear arms.

I admit there is no escape from the necessity of interpreting written words. Our language and thoughts are not precise enough for perfect communication. However, we should recognize and admit the 2^nd Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, is merely a collection of words written on paper. By themselves, they have no power to do anything at all. The mindset of the people interpreting and enforcing those words is what matters.

I would much prefer to live among liberty minded people without any constitution or written laws whatsoever than big government loving busy bodies who live pursuant to a written constitution which grants them rights to do whatever the government deems appropriate. There is no substitute for liberty minded people, and nothing else whatsoever can preserve liberty; not the words of the 2^nd Amendment or the Constitution or the congress or your favorite politician; nothing. Freedom is either respected by your neighbors or it is not. No words can get the job done.
Whether a person cherishes the 2^nd Amendment is of little importance to me. I am more interested in knowing what respect, if any, they accord to the rights of others to control their bodies, their money, their property and their time. There are endless arguments, restrictions, interpretations, and outright lies anti-freedom inclined people will advance in attempts to impose their will on others.

As an example, some people, with agendas to ban firearms, argue firearms are responsible for much of the horrible violence in our society. However, as research has shown, a greater number of guns in a community does not equate to more violence. Indeed, the opposite is true as has been pointed out by John R. Lott Jr. in his book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Nonetheless, as a consequence of the erroneous "firearms cause violence" assertion, many people will support laws from registration and licensing to outright bans on firearms.

Always ignored within the "guns cause violence" crowd, is the reality that anti-freedom government policies, not guns, are the root cause of the violence in question. Government policies which restrict freedom result in black markets where disputes are not settled peacefully in court but rather violently in streets. If a pro-freedom policy was adopted regarding drugs, the horrible drug cartel related violence, which always involves firearms, would be more akin to the peaceful purchase and sale of alcohol. I never hear about the Budweiser guy and the Miller guy breaking into violence in the streets. I suspect they don’t even carry guns. In any event, the gun is not responsible for the violence.

There are undoubtedly bad and violent people in the world who cannot be dissuaded, under any circumstances, from violence involving firearms, knives, bats, fists, whatever. However, nothing creates and nurtures a culture of violence and conflict like anti-freedom government policies.
We will not have peace in our world unless and until people realize freedom is a necessary prerequisite for peace. We should not be surprised trespassing on the rights of others often results in violence. The fact firearms are used to effectuate violence is not evidence firearms are bad. Firearms are neutral. Firearms are mere tools.

Likewise, the 2^nd Amendment is neutral. It is also a mere tool. Those words can be used by freedom inclined people to protect liberties. They can also be used by people who seek to restrict liberty, forcefully impose their views on others and cause conflict. Although I cherish freedom, and all the concepts which are necessary to a free and peaceful society, I do not cherish the 2^nd Amendment or any other collection of mere words.

Mock Debate

2011-09-09T09:16:00.000-07:00

In case anyone is interested, Marc and I (Mike Wasdin) had our mock debate in the office yesterday. Here (I played the part of the Statist) is what I used as my argument to support the drug war (yes I almost threw up in my own mouth while reading it, lol). Marc of course destroyed this argument (not that I had any doubt that he would) and had a great rebuttal to all of it.

If you want to see the real thing, here is where it will be:

Bill Montgomery, the Maricopa County Attorney, and Marc Victor, a local attorney, will debate whether Marijuana should be legal.

http://apps.law.asu.edu/Apps/WebEvents/EventDetails.aspx?laweventid=276596

My attempt to think as a Statist is below:

Mr. Victor talked a lot about freedom today. If you were listening closely you noticed that he used a lot of intentional words when describing my position such as “anti-American”, and “statist” or fascist. He then used jingoistic words such as “pro-freedom”, “Liberty”, and “American” to describe his position. He used these words as labels. He wants you to associate my position as being inconsistent with freedom, and his position as one of someone who understands and embraces true freedom. Mr. Victor believes that he, and only he understands the meaning of words like, freedom, liberty and self-ownership.

What is freedom? Is freedom the right to do whatever you feel like doing, without regard to what effect those “freedoms” may have on other individuals who share an equal right to freedom just as you do? If that is true freedom, then what possible argument could Mr. Victor raise to my using my property in any way I decide, even if that use harms others?

Should I have the freedom to drive my car while intoxicated, endangering the lives of other citizens? If I own my body and what I put into it, as well as my car, then I should have the freedom to do whatever I wish with my property right?

Should I have the right to play loud music in my own home at 2 am even though it disturbs my neighbor? If I own the stereo and it's in my house, why should I not be able to do as I wish with my property?

Should I have the right to discharge my weapon at my discretion and at whatever I feel like? If I own my weapon and it is my hand that controls it, what possible objection could he raise to my controlling my own property?

Should I have the right to smoke marijuana anytime I choose? What about at work, or while driving my child to school, or while just driving in general?

At what point can there be too much freedom or should we just be able to run amuck and do anything we so choose? Do we have a responsibility as a civilized society to create laws and enforce them or should we just leave it up to each individual to decide which laws they should obey, and which laws they should ignore?

It would be impossible to live in a free society with unchecked freedom. With no limits to freedom there would be nothing preventing someone else who is capable of exerting more force than you are able to defend against from using their freedoms in such a way that would deprive you of your freedom.

With freedom comes responsibility! I also cherish freedom, but I understand and accept that freedom does and must have limits. Unlimited freedom would be chaos and anarchy. Any civilized society must acknowledge a need for law and order. Without rules, regulations and laws, your freedoms would only exist until someone or a collective group decided to use their freedoms in such a way as to deny your freedoms.

We live in a violent and dangerous world. I am concerned about what kind of world I leave behind for my children and my children’s, children. What kind of a message would we be sending our children if we legalized marijuana, that it is okay and acceptable? I don’t want my children to be addicted to drugs; I have seen up close and personal the dangers and the consequences of people with drug addictions.

I know Mr. Victor will make the argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, or that there is no evidence that marijuana is addictive or a health risk at all. I would disagree with all of these assertions, but more importantly I would remind Mr. Victor that marijuana is a gateway drug and a stepping stone to more dangerous drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.

We have laws in this country, and those laws were created for a reason. Laws are put into place to not only protect us, but to punish those people that choose to step outside those laws and do as they choose. Mr. Victor would like to see the laws regarding drugs abolished. I think that these laws are not only needed, but that they are consistent with freedom in a civilized society.

Among the very young, we impose structure (laws) so that they grow up properly to become responsible adults. Without any restrictions there is an increase in lawlessness in the youth of America. Society has the obligation to make up for the lack of structure on our children by the neglect of their parents. This lack of structure has made itself evident in the high dropout rate in American schools and the increasing failure of our children's ability to read and write.

Drugs are bad and create countless social ills. They are not only dangerous for the user, but for society as a whole. Drugs create higher crime rates in our cities as well as dangerous neighborhoods in our communities, which result in higher taxes for everyone. Drugs are a burden on our police, courts and prisons, as well as many other areas such as the medical and mental health fields.

Drugs, as well as drug related crimes are responsible for much of the violence that plagues our society today. Legalizing drugs would be akin to throwing gas on an already out of control fire. No, legalizing drugs is not the answer!

The only answer is to ramp up our efforts and find better ways to fight the war on these dangerous and addictive drugs. This war will not be won if we decide to retreat and concede. I would like to see more money and resources used in the fight against this dangerous enemy that is ruining the lives of not only this generation, but that of future generations as well. We need to think about the children, and what effect legalization would have on them as well as their children's children.

I would like to ask Mr. Victor a few questions myself. Mr. Victor what other laws would you see fit to abolish if given the opportunity? What about speeding and other traffic laws? What about guns and other weapons? What about prostitution or sex with children? Do you yourself have any limits to the freedom for which you so strongly advocate, or are there any areas where you think there should be limits to freedom, and if so where?

Maybe you should start by asking yourself if freedom really exists in the first place. The fact that you are here today defending your position with such vigor and passion would seem to imply that no it does not. If you are always on the defense can you really say that you are free? Freedom would mean that you're free in your mind as well as your body, yet here you stand debating this issue of freedom as if it is something you possess, well do you?

I am not sure if Mr. Victor even understands the consequences of the freedoms for which he is advocating for; I certainly do not. I believe in and support freedom myself, but obviously Mr. Victor and I have a different definition of what true freedom is.

Mike Wasdin

Law Firm Marketing Manager

Law Office of Marc J. Victor, P.C.

3920 S. Alma School Rd. Ste. 5, Chandler, AZ 85248

Direct: 480-455-5206 Fax: 480-857-0150

Email: mike@attorneyforfreedom.com

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com

What Our Clients Are Saying

2011-09-06T13:50:00.000-07:00

I am writing to express my gratitude to Marc Victor and his legal team for not only doing an amazing job on my case, but for helping me get though a very difficult time in my life. I am a Hispanic male who was racially profiled and pulled over on I-40. After being pulled over for what was said to be “swerving in my own lane,” I was held for over an hour while the officer questioned me. Once I was free to leave and about to get back into my car, the officer yelled out asking if he could search my car. I refused the search, but the officer continued with the search of my car with his k-9. After finding several pounds of marijuana in my car, I was arrested and put into jail.

Quickly after contacting Marc Victor, I was able to get out of jail. I feel extremely lucky to have come to meet Marc and his team of experts. His firm gave my case the attention and effort necessary to make me feel confident in the process every step of the way. I was facing many years in prison, but Marc and his experts were able to work their magic to get me a misdemeanor possession charge. I strongly feel that without Marc and his firm defending me I would currently be in prison and unable to be there for my family.

- S.A.

Marc,

Just watched some of your videos with Ernie Hancock discussing the justice system and the Freedom Summit, and it just reminded me how much I respect you. I really mean it. I'm an aspiring lawyer, and you really impress me as the kind of lawyer I want to be like. When we met a week or so ago, you mentioned how my lawsuit could have a real impact on my current career. You went through this same kind of thing and stood for principle with your judgeship. Listening to your account of that one day reminds me of how I would imagine myself as in a leadership position in my profession. I imagine I would be fired quickly, as the best often are for staying true to principle. What separates me from the great, is that I have chosen not to work to achieve those positions and opportunities. I hold in high regard those who have, and who still hold their integrity above what they've worked so hard to accomplish. The greatest are able to "make it" while staying true to principle, but they are so few it seems to me. Colonel John Boyd comes to mind.

With your background in the Marine Corps, you may be familiar with him. He was a great Air Force officer who was able to excel in the service through his excellence, while not passing up inconvenient fights for the good of our nation. Only exceptional people like Boyd are able to do that. He was shunned by the Air Force (even at his funeral), and yet honored by the Corps (they even have an exhibit dedicated to him at Quantico). On the legal side, I think of my wife's former boss, a prominent federal judge who I once had the opportunity to talk with over dinner. He's another truly principled American who has simultaneously achieved success. I believe you are of the same caliber. I am impressed that despite the success of your law firm, you remain committed to principle and defending our American liberty. It was an honor to meet you in person and I'm grateful for the time you took out of your busy schedule to talk with me. Please know that I am willing to pay whatever is required on my case. I'm not looking for somebody else to bear the burden of my fight for charity. I just greatly appreciate that you are willing to take my case, and that you have been so outspoken for our freedoms.

Be well brother,

R R

US Attorney for Arizona Resigns

2011-08-31T16:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/08/30/20110830us-attorney-arizona-burke-resigns30-ON.html

A great law professor of mine once said, “If they get you asking the wrong question, it doesn’t matter what the answer is.” The wrong question here is, “How should the federal government best observe, track and control the flow of guns?” The right question is, “What types of things can be done to reduce the violence in our society?” Guns do not kill or harm people. Bad people sometimes use guns to injury or kill people. Focusing on what causes people to hurt and kill others is what we should be focused on.

The idiotic drug war is probably the single biggest cause of violence in our society. The prohibition on certain drugs, just like the similarly failed prohibition on alcohol, creates a black market of trade which relies on violence to enforce contracts and to protect or transport goods. Say what you want about all the bad things that result from the ingestion of alcohol, at least the Miller guy and the Budweiser guy don’t shoot it up in the streets when they disagree. Peace emanates from a respect for others which includes tolerating the notion that adults are in charge of themselves and have a right to put into their bodies whatever they want without anybody’s permission or approval.

County Attorney Does Not Want Debate Recorded!

2011-08-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 County Attorney Does Not Want Debate Recorded!

An email was sent to both County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Attorney Marc Victor asking that the debate be recorded. Marc Victor welcomed the idea of recording the debate, but County Attorney Bill Montgomery does not want the debate recorded. If he is so sure of his position, why would he not want his words recorded? His "excuse" is in the email below:

Subject: Marijuana Debate

I have had a request that the debate be recorded in order to be posted

on the internet for those not able to attend the debate during the day.

I was not sure how you both felt about that. Let me know what you

think. Thank you both again for your willingness to come and debate at

our school. It is looking like we should have a pretty good turnout.

From: "Marc Victor" <marc@attorneyforfreedom.com>

Subject: RE: Marijuana Debate

Fine with me.

Subject: RE: Marijuana Debate

Mr. Montgomery has requested that the debate not be recorded to ensure that his views on this subject are not used in any way regarding pending litigation the county is involved with. Thank you

Mike Wasdin

Law Firm Marketing Manager

Law Office of Marc J. Victor, P.C.

3920 S. Alma School Rd. Ste. 5, Chandler, AZ 85248

Direct: 480-455-5206 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 480-455-5206 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax: 480-857-0150

Email: mike@attorneyforfreedom.com

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com

Federalist Society Debate: Legalize Marijuana?

2011-08-29T09:47:00.001-07:00

Complete Description:Bill Montgomery, the Maricopa County Attorney, and Marc Victor, a local attorney, will debate whether Marijuana should be legal.

http://apps.law.asu.edu/Apps/WebEvents/EventDetails.aspx?laweventid=276596

Arizona State University 420 Event

2011-08-23T14:59:00.001-07:00

Arizona State University 420 Event - These bloopers are hilarious

Self Defense

2011-08-23T14:57:00.000-07:00

Self Defense - The best video clips are right here

Fourth Amendment Rights

2011-08-23T14:55:00.000-07:00

Fourth Amendment Rights - For more amazing video clips, click here

How To Survive a Traffic Stop

2011-08-23T14:53:00.000-07:00

How To Survive a Traffic Stop - Click here for more home videos

Committed To Excellence

2011-08-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

Commiteed to Excellence 2

2011-08-23T14:42:00.001-07:00

The Media is ignoring Ron Paul

2011-08-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/news-media-treating-ron-paul-presidential-campaign-unfairly-190149609.html

It appears the mainstream media has decided that Dr. Ron Paul, for whatever reason, should not be the next president of the United States. However, in an age of widespread internet access, it really shouldn’t matter what the mainstream media decides to cover. In the final analysis, American voters will get what they deserve. Dr. Paul was a legitimate candidate in the last presidential election. He was similarly ignored and belittled by the mainstream media. That notwithstanding, any interested person with internet access could have easily learned everything there was to know about candidate Ron Paul. Instead of opting for the one candidate who was interested in derailing the out of control gravy train unleashed by both the Republicans and the Democrats, American voters once again opted for the clueless, slick talking, handsome, tax and spend guy. It seems every four years they opt for the clueless, slick talking, handsome. tax and spend guy; whether it is the Republican or the Democrat. Dr. Paul is a “throw back” to an earlier time when Americans believed they were in charge of themselves and “freedom” was more than just a buzz word. Wouldn’t it be great if the average American returned to an earlier time when spoon feeding from the mainstream media wasn’t as effective because large groups of people actually thought for themselves?

Marc Victor named one of Arizona's finest lawyers for 2011

2011-08-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

Marc Victor named one of Arizona's finest lawyers for 2011

Marc Victor Named one of the World's Most Prominent Libertarian Thinkers

2011-08-22T16:27:00.000-07:00

Marc Victor Named one of the World's Most Prominent Libertarian Thinkers

Marc J. Victor has been named one of the World's Most Prominent Libertarian Thinkers in Professor Walter Block's new book.
I Choose Liberty: by Professor Walter Block

Former Marine Now On Duty as Attorney

2011-08-22T16:20:00.000-07:00

Marc Victor, Former Marine Is Now On Duty as an Attorney

Gov. Brewer being sued for day of prayer call

2011-08-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

Lawyer: Federal, state constitutional provisions violated:

http://www.azcentral.com/video/8369955290 01

Arizona day of prayer in jeopardy

2011-08-22T16:07:00.000-07:00

PHOENIX - A lawsuit says Arizona has no business in prayer but Governor Jan Brewer says, “This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to drive religious expression from the public square. I will fight it vigorously."

The people behind a lawsuit filed in court on Tuesday claims Gov. Brewer violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when she declared May 6 the Arizona Day of Prayer.

"I'm not looking to keep anybody from exercising their religion. They can believe in whatever they want. That's fine. Just don't get the state involved and don't push it on me," Mike Wasdin said. He is one of the four plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit with the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Wasdin says, "I'm a freedom-minded person. This is more about freedom than religion with me. I don't like the government telling people, like myself, what to do."

3TV spoke to the governor in downtown Phoenix at the faith-based Cityfest event. She told the crowd, "What a beautiful day the Lord has made. This is what Arizona is all about."

She tells 3TV she will see them in court. "Well, I think it’s a little bit of a frivolous lawsuit. Of course, the majority of Americans, the majority of Arizonans all support... it's been a sort of tradition in America, if you will."

3TV received a mixed reaction from Arizona residents.

Christina Cousins points out that nobody would be forced to pray, "If you don't want to pray, fine. It's like today, St. Patty's Day. If you don't want to celebrate St. Patty's Day, then don't. If you don't want to pray on the day of prayer, then don't."

Elita Irving is all for prayer but feels this the holiday would breach separation of church and state. "I wouldn't say I am strongly against it, just because the intentions are so good but, on a principal and ideological level, I don't think it's good."

The Freedom from Religion Foundation was successful on a federal level challenging the National Day of Prayer. A U.S. District Judge ruled it unconstitutional.

Wasdin feels they have a strong case, "The same people that are upset that we have filed this lawsuit…how would they feel if we decided to enact a day of non-belief, of non-prayer? Would those same people join us and support us? I don't think so."

That federal case is being appealed.

According to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, 17 percent of Arizona residents consider themselves non-religious.

http://www.azfa mily.com/news/Arizona-Day-of-Prayer-in-Jeopardy-118218739.html

Atheist group sues governor over prayer day

2011-08-22T16:05:00.000-07:00

Gov. Jan Brewer is being sued for issuing proclamations in support of an Arizona Day of Prayer.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, alleges that Brewer's actions were unconstitutional because they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. The lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the governor from issuing similar proclamations in the future.

"This is not about money. This is about trying to get the right thing done," said Marc Victor, a Chandler attorney who brought the suit on behalf of three Maricopa County residents and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics.

Victor said his clients believe it is "completely inappropriate for the governor to be declaring days of prayer" in her official capacity as the state's chief executive. But he added, "We are just as much in favor of people exercising their right to pray as we are equally in favor of keeping government out of everyone else's business."Brewer has declared an Arizona Day of Prayer twice since assuming the governor's seat two years ago. Both instances coincided with the National Day of Prayer, which is also facing a legal challenge from the same organization. In addition, Brewer proclaimed a day of prayer for the budget on Jan. 17, 2010, according to the lawsuit.

Matthew Benson, Brewer's spokesman, said Wednesday that her office had not yet seen the suit, but would vigorously defend it.

"Public calls to prayer are an honored American tradition dating back to George Washington," Benson said, adding that the call to prayer for the budget was appropriate. "Absolutely, I think in these days of fiscal crisis, there is nothing wrong with Arizonans, if they choose, praying for the wisdom to solve the problems facing the state."

Congress established the National Day of Prayer in1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue prayer-related proclamations.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit against the federal government in late 2008, saying the day violated the separation of church and state.

Last spring, a federal district judge in Wisconsin handed the group a court victory when she ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. The case is currently being appealed, and prayer related events are still being held as the case works its way through the courts.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative non-profit advocacy group, called the lawsuit against Brewer "frivolous," and said days of prayer are a part of the nation's history.

"Our founding fathers opened their meetings with prayer - there is a long-standing tradition of religious invocation (in this country), and this is a day that goes to our nation's foundation and heritage," said Herrod, who added that her group would closely monitor the lawsuit against Brewer.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation also has a case pending against former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter over his decision to proclaim a day of prayer in that state in 2008. A judge has dismissed the organization's arguments, but the group is appealing, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, the organization's co-president.

Victim's husband files civil suit against suspected Baseline Killer

2011-08-22T16:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/085434-2011-03-10-victims-husban d-files-civil-suit-against-suspected-baseline-killer.htm

PHOENIX - Alvin Hogue says he vividly remembers the day he found out his wife had been murdered.
"I was driving a cement mixing truck and I heard something on the radio about a crime situation then a few minutes later I got a message in my truck computer to call home," said Hogue.
That was five years ago.

"I lost my wife on February 20, 2006, she was murdered on 91st Avenue and Lower Buckeye while working in her lunch catering truck," said Hogue while sitting in his attorney's Chandler office.
His wife, Romelia Vargas and another woman were killed in the early morning hours.
Phoenix police detectives linked the double murder to the series of crimes tied to the 'Baseline Killer'.
Mark Goudeau has been charged in the so-called 'Baseline Killer' crimes and faces more than 70 charges.
The trial against Goudeau is expected to begin April 6 and last one year.

"I'm very interested in Mark Goudeau, I'm just blown away that this person could very well be responsible for killing my wife," said Hogue. "I want Mark Goudeau to get a fair trial and I'm going to go to court as much as I can."

But Hogue and his attorney Marc Victor will be watching the trial closely because they're also suing Goudeau.

"Obviously we're very interested in what happens in court, at trial," said Victor.
As previously reported, Victor and Hogue have filed a civil suit against the City of Phoenix claiming the city could have done more to prevent the crimes tied to the 'Baseline Killer'. That suit involves the city's crime lab and how DNA was used during the investigation.

The civil suit against Goudeau, according to Victor, will likely be lumped together with a suit against the city.
"We have other victims of these crimes involved with us as well," said Victor.
Hogue admits he's not sure what to expect out of the suit against Goudeau especially because his trial hasn't even started.

"I don't know that he has any resources where I could go after him financially," said Hogue.
Even if Goudeau is acquitted, Victor says it's likely he'll continue to pursue the civil case against Goudeau.
"If that happens, then it's similar to the OJ Simpson case, he was acquitted of murder but found liable in a civil case," said Victor.

At the time Romelia Vargas was murdered, she and Hogue had been married a little more than 3 years with 4-month old twin boys.

Baseline Murders

2011-08-22T15:51:00.000-07:00

Marc Victor Appears on KFYI With Jim Sharp to Discuss the Baseline Killer Case

http://www.attorneyforfreedo m.com/index.cfm/g/chandler-personal-injury-dui-lawyer-news/f/marc-victor-appears-on-kfyi-to-discuss- baseline-killer-evidence.htm

Lawsuit against city alleges 'Baseline Killer' could have been stopped

2011-08-22T15:45:00.000-07:00

Lawsuit against city alleges 'Baseline Killer' could have been stopped:

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/ index.cfm/g/chandler-personal-injury-dui-lawyer-news/f/family-of-woman-killed-by-baseline-killer-sue s-police-tv3.htm

Family Of Woman Killed By Baseline Killer Sues Police

2011-08-22T15:38:00.000-07:00

Family Of Woman Killed By Baseline Killer Sues Police:

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/inde x.cfm/g/chandler-personal-injury-dui-lawyer-news/f/family-of-woman-killed-by-baseline-killer-sues-po lice.htm

Attorney Tells Students How to Deal With Police

2011-08-22T15:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/index.cfm/g/chandl er-personal-injury-dui-lawyer-news/f/attorney-tells-students-how-to-deal-with-police.htm

When it comes to rights, Marc Victor has the answers. The defense attorney spoke to students Tuesday evening on the Tempe campus, informing them of their rights when dealing with police officers.
The event, a collaboration between ASU Students for Liberty and the ASU chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, took place in the Education Lecture Hall.
Victor said that police officers can take advantage of people’s lack of knowledge of the law. Being aware of your basic rights can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal, he said.
“It’s always good to be educated, so you know what your rights are,” Victor said.
Philosophy sophomore Joshua Horn, director of Students for Liberty, said students have a habit of getting arrested frequently.

“Students — young people in general — have a way of performing activities that can be considered ‘high risk’ from a legal standpoint,” Horn said.
He said it is important for young people to know their constitutional rights and what they do and do not have to surrender to the police in certain situations.
Finance senior Alex Falkenstein, west coast director of Students for Liberty, said many students are testing their boundaries with their first tastes of freedom.
“Students, especially college age, they’re embracing adult responsibilities for the first time,” Falkenstein said. “They need to be respected just like any other kind of adult when dealing with the police.”
Victor said people should know that they are not required to talk to the police, nor are they required to consent to a search.

“The officer is always going to ask. They want to search everything, all the time,” Victor told the students. “It’s never going to happen where they say ‘Can I search?’ and you say ‘Yeah, you can search,’ then he goes ‘Well, he doesn’t have anything to hide, I’m not going to search.’ It doesn’t happen.”
Victor said he could be accurately described as a radical, pro-freedom Libertarian “with a small ‘L,’” and has defended clients in criminal cases since 1994.

“I very strongly believe that people are self-owning,” Victor said. “Everything I believe sort of politically or philosophically would line up with that.”

Victor wrote an article titled “Legalize Methamphetamine!” which he admitted was intended to shock people, but argues the case for many illegal drugs.

“I very strongly support the rights of other people to use, or abuse, their own body in anyway they see fit,” Victor said.

Legalization of Marijuana Debate Continues

2011-08-22T15:29:00.000-07:00

Legalization of Marijuana Debate Continues:

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/index.cfm/g/chandler-personal -injury-dui-lawyer-news/f/legalization-of-pot-debate-continues.htm

Attorney: Medical marijuana patients being arrested

2011-08-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_northeast_valley/scot tsdale/attorney%3A-medical-marijuana-patients-being-arrested

The citizens of Arizona have spoken. Medical marijuana is now legal pursuant to state law so long as the patient complies with the requirements and obtains the required card. Those people who don’t like the change in the law because they desire to control what other adults put in their bodies will have to get over their desire to run the lives of others. Although federal law enforcement officers may enforce federal law notwithstanding the changes in state law, all state law enforcement officers are obligated to follow state law. It is likely that better training is needed for some in law enforcement to educate them about the new law. State, county or city law enforcement officers who knowingly ignore state law and arrest citizens who legally possess marijuana pursuant to state law should be immediately terminated and sued in court. My law firm has also been contacted by people who have been illegally arrested for possessing marijuana, and we are instituting law suits as well as defending them in the criminal courts. We stand eager and ready to defend the rights of people to legally possess marijuana pursuant to state law. This is a freedom issue. I sincerely hope this law is extended to completely legalize marijuana for all adults for all purposes. Additionally, federal law also needs to be changed so we can once again have a legitimate claim to refer to our country as the, “Land of the Free.”

Chandler police arrest 3 in pot bust involving almost $100,000

2011-08-22T15:22:00.000-07:00

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2011/08/04/20110804chandler-p ot-sting-3-arrests-abrk.html

This is yet another sad chapter in the ever increasingly popular “reverse sting” marijuana operations conducted by Chandler police. Besides being a horrendous waste of resources which could be used to help apprehend people who commit crimes against other people, these operations are extremely dangerous for everyone including the participating police officers. Just last year, a Chandler police officer was killed during one of these operations. Unfortunately, there has never been a shortage of criminals who commit dangerous crimes against other people. The citizens of Arizona would be better served if all law enforcement and prosecutorial funds were expended to apprehend people who hurt others instead of the failed and misguided effort to try and save people from themselves by stopping the marijuana trade. In a free country, adults should be free to smoke marijuana or ingest any other substance into their bodies so long as they do not harm others or trespass on the rights of others. The drug war is inconsistent with freedom, un-American, dangerous, a complete failure and a huge waste of resources. It needs to end.

Dad appalled by son's death at hands of police

2011-08-22T15:15:00.000-07:00

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/08/04/20110804homeless-death-dad-appalled-polic e0804.html

These can be difficult cases. The initial reaction to a story like this one is outrage. However, as always, there are at least two sides to every story. It may be true that this story involves overly aggressive police officers who should be removed from their jobs. However, there also may be a justification for the violence used by the police. We don’t have all the facts. This is exactly why we strive to have orderly court proceedings with clear rules of evidence and unbiased fact finders. I always urge people to avoid broad brushing police officers as well as all other groups. There are many good police officers and many bad police officers. As the facts are revealed, we will get to learn the truth about what happened and judge it accordingly. The public has a right to know exactly what happened and to call for changes if necessary.

Pinal County deputies find $100,000 of marijuana in car

2011-08-22T15:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2011/08/03/20110803Pin al-County-marijuana-bust-abrk.html#ixzz1UpKpJVEL

Isn’t it sad that SWAT team members and a K9 unit are diverted from possibly being used to apprehend people who commit real crimes to chase down some guy transporting a relatively harmless plant? At a time when federal politicians celebrate their last minute deal to further bury the next several future generations with more debt, precious funds are wasted trying to eradicate a highly valued naturally growing plant from the planet Earth. I wonder who would have been victimized had that marijuana been allowed to reach the end users who were willing to pay to receive it. To really be the “land of the free” people need to respect the rights of others to control their own bodies; even if that means tolerating the millions of adults who choose to peacefully ingest marijuana as humans have for thousands of years.

Marc Victor Speaks to ASU Students at the 420 Rally

2011-08-22T14:58:00.000-07:00

Attorney Marc J. Victor of the law firm Attorney For Freedom speaks about the failed war on drugs and why it needs to end:

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/index. cfm/g/videos-featuring-marc-victor-attorney-at-law/f/marc-victor-asu-420-legalize-marijuana-drug-war .htm

Marc J. Victor Speaks to a group of U.S. Marines

2011-08-22T14:55:00.000-07:00

Attorney and former U.S. Marine Marc J. Victor Speaks to a group of U.S. Marines:

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/index.cfm/g/ videos-featuring-marc-victor-attorney-at-law/f/az-attorney-marc-victor-speaks-to-marines.htm

Legalize Methamphetamine!

2011-08-22T14:42:00.000-07:00

I'm the last guy who ought to argue for the legalization of meth ¹. As a practicing criminal defense attorney, I make a good income from defending people who are charged with drug crimes. If the drug war ended, I would lose a substantial portion of my income. Additionally, some would call me a health nut. I go to the gym six times a week and eat organic foods as often as possible. I wouldn't change my healthy lifestyle if drugs were legal. I have three little kids. I don't want them ever to become drug addicts. I want them to grow up in a safe world. Indeed, that's exactly why I want the drug war to end.

When I was in law school, a wise law professor of mine taught me that if you are asking the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. In regards to meth, the question is not whether meth is dangerous and unhealthy. Over the years, I have represented countless meth users. I have seen the consequences of meth use up close. I am convinced meth use will likely ruin the user's life. It is an extraordinarily dangerous addictive drug. Few drugs are more addictive or dangerous than meth ². Many of those who oppose legalization of meth identify the horrors of meth use. I entirely agree with their assessment of meth's dangers. Asking whether meth is dangerous or unhealthy or addictive is not the right question.

The relevant question is whether our society would be better served if meth was manufactured, distributed, bought and sold legally. The answer is yes. There are two related but separate reasons why ending the drug war is critical. First, a free society requires that the drug war end. I refer to this argument as the freedom argument. Second, the consequences of ending the drug war would yield economic and other benefits which would greatly benefit our society. I refer to this argument as the consequentialist argument.

Most readers will not be persuaded by the freedom argument. This fact is disturbing to me. In fact, many of the issues which plague our world will persist unless and until people come to respect the principles embodied in terms such as individual responsibility, self ownership and freedom. These concepts are what our country was founded upon and the very reason why America prospered. Now, they are given mere lip service if they are considered at all. If you shrug your shoulders and brush off the freedom argument, you should be ashamed of yourself. Whether you realize it or not, you are the problem.

The Freedom Argument

I'm a good dad. I don't want my kids using meth. Indeed, I will force my opinion about not using meth upon my kids. I will prevent them from using meth by force if necessary ³. As a dad, I have other policies as well. For example, my kids are not allowed to ride their motorized quads without helmets or to ride in the car without seatbelts. They are not allowed to smoke cigarettes or skydive either. However, at some point, my kids will be responsible to decide for themselves what activities are too dangerous for them. Both assessing the dangerousness of an activity and determining how much danger is acceptable will become the exclusive domain of each of my kids as it pertains to them. Resolving these questions for one's self is an important task and responsibility of any free person.

The question of who gets to make decisions about the disposition of certain property is central to understanding freedom. Who gets to decide what activities are too dangerous for you? Should I get to decide what activities are too dangerous for you? What about your neighbor? Or the majority? Or the president? Or congress? Or some judge? In a free society, the owner of the property gets to decide how the property is used ⁴. Because you own your body, I assert that you should decide how your body is used or abused ⁵.

In terms of the freedom argument, the question of legalization of meth poses exactly the same question as many other issues currently confounding our fellow citizens. The following non-exhaustive list contains questions which are each different versions of the same question about how a particular body is used:

Should people be allowed to eat Big Macs?
Should people be allowed to consume any unhealthy foods at all?
Should people be allowed to play football despite the risk of serious injury?
Should people be allowed to skydive or rock climb?
Should people be allowed to ride in cars without seatbelts?
Should unprotected sex between consenting adult strangers be allowed?
Should consenting adults be allowed to have sex in exchange for money?
Should adults be permitted to ingest marijuana for health reasons?
Should adults be permitted to ingest marijuana for mere personal pleasure?
Should competent adults be allowed to voluntarily end their lives if they choose?

Each question begs the initial question about who gets to decide how a particular human body is used. Those of us who are pro-freedom would in each case conclude that the owner of the particular human body in question should decide how that body is used ⁶. The initial issue of who decides must be resolved first.
Although I would try my best to persuade others not to use meth, I concede it is not my decision. Among adults, persuasion is fine, but coercion is not. I will not force others to live by my assessments of dangers. I respect the property of other people such that I respect their right to use their property in ways I vigorously disagree with ⁷. I have no claim on how others use their property unless and until their activities trespass upon my property ⁸.

The freedom argument is much bigger than the question of whether meth should be legal. It certainly resolves the question, but it raises larger questions about the very nature of government. Any legitimate role of government is confined to protecting rights. Indeed, unless you disagree with the principles upon which this country was founded and believe government is the source of rights which may be distributed to us or taken away, you must agree that government can have no rights other than the ones we individually delegate to it. Because you have no right to be my daddy, you have no such right to delegate to government. Further, because no person individually has any such right, even the majority of people added together collectively have no such right. Therefore, when the government acts as my daddy, it acts wrongfully; even if it acts pursuant to an accurately counted democratic vote ⁹. Although it is perfectly fine for me to act as a daddy to my kids, the government has no right to act as a daddy for us.

Some people posit that legalized meth would send the wrong message to people about using meth. However, the government's role is not to send messages to us about what is right or wrong or good or bad. We don't need messages from government. Free people determine for themselves how to run their lives. I have a right to be a self destructive idiot if I choose. I own me.

Additionally, the “messages from government” objection overlooks an important point. The concepts of legal and illegal are far different from the concepts of right and wrong or good and bad. Because an activity is legally permissible does not obligate people to conclude such an activity is right or good ¹⁰. Merely because the law allows my kids to insult other kids doesn't prevent my wife and me from successfully teaching them not to do it. The unwillingness or inability of many people to invest the mental acuity to distinguish between these concepts has contributed to an intellectual feeblemindedness which is akin to a malignant tumor killing our society. The “messages from government” objection nourishes that tumor. We should embrace the concept that we are free to adopt personal standards of conduct which exceed the minimal threshold defined by law.

I regret devoting so few words to the freedom argument. It deserves much more. Many others have far more eloquently detailed the case for freedom. I hope to live to witness the day when the freedom argument is accorded the respect it deserves. I hope this skeletal argument stirs the interest of those who read it and encourages them to explore it more fully. The reason our society has been deteriorating in so many ways is because it has come to accord less and less respect to the freedoms of others. Winning the freedom argument is the only way to destroy the cancer that infects our world.

The Consequentialist Argument

Some people say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. They are right. The government has been recklessly ramping up the war on drugs for the past thirty five years ¹¹. Every year we get tougher laws and tougher sentences. Approximately 1.6 million people are needlessly arrested every year for non-violent drug offenses. Many more non-violent drug users are simply charged without arrest. Some of them are students who lose their student loans and can no longer afford college. Others are people who hold professional licenses and can no longer work in their professions. Lives are being needlessly ruined.

The growth of the prison industry has mushroomed. We now have private companies in the prison business ¹². This is no surprise when you consider that the United States claims 4.6% of the world's population but 22.5% of the world's prison population. The DEA has grown from 2,775 employees in 1972 to almost 11,000 employees with 86 foreign offices in 62 countries in 2005. We have well over two million people in prison. Since 1980, America's general population has increased 20%, while America's prison population has increased at twenty times that rate or an astonishing 400%. America imprisons more people as a percentage of our population than any other country in the world ¹³. This is a sad state of affairs for any country; especially one which refers to itself as the land of the free.

Despite the explosive expansion of government to fight the war on drugs, drug use is more prevalent today than it was before the war on drugs started. Additionally, drugs are cheaper, more potent and easier to get than they were in the early years of the drug war ¹⁴. Throwing more money at the issue has not resulted in fewer people using drugs. Even the federal government admits drug use has increased recently from 6% in 1993 to over 8% in 2003 ¹⁵. Despite the frantically increasing efforts to curb the flow of drugs, high school students report drugs are still easy to obtain. Almost 90% of twelfth graders report marijuana is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get ¹⁶. Over 47% of twelfth graders say cocaine is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get and more than 32% say heroin is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get. I have had clients tell me they became addicted to drugs when they were in prison. Even in a prison setting, drugs are prevalent.

Not only are drugs readily available, some of them have become more dangerous as a result of the drug war. Looking specifically at meth, the drug war has resulted inexacerbating the dangers associated with amphetamine use. While attempting to put the hysteria currently surrounding meth use in perspective, a columnist named Jack Shafer who writes for Slate aptly stated the following:

In the mid-1960s, just before the government declared war on amphetamines, the average user swallowed his pills, which were of medicinal purity and potency. Snorting and smoking stimulants was almost unheard of, and very few users injected intravenously. Today, 40 years later, snorting, smoking, and injecting ethamphetamines of unpredictable potency and dubious purity has become the norm—with all the dreadful health consequences. If the current scene illustrates how the government is winning the war on drugs, I'd hate to see what losing looks like.

The United States now spends over fifty billion dollars every year to combat the war on drugs ¹⁷. The war on drugs has been a colossal and unparalleled failure ¹⁸. Despite my countless conversations with judges, prosecutors, police officers, DEA agents and drug dealers, it is extraordinarily rare for me to find anyone who thinks the drug war is working or will ever work under any circumstances. Indeed, despite my countless invitations, I have yet to find anyone willing to debate me publicly on the drug war. Imagine a fifty billion dollar annual program nobody seems willing to defend.

I understand why nobody wants to debate me on this issue. I believe the people who work in the justice system, and truly understand the problems associated with the drug war, know they would be debating the wrong side of the issue. I recently argued the case for meth legalization before a group of judges and prosecutors. I was disappointed during question time when, despite my provoking and challenging them, there was only one half-hearted attempt to engage me on the issues. The case for legalization is overwhelming.

I have had occasion to talk privately and confidentially with many drug dealers for well over a decade. I estimate I have represented hundreds of drug dealers. Although some have simply been users who sell to support their habit, others have been major players in big drug organizations. I have found many of them to be bright people who are well aware that an end to the drug war would immediately put an end to their businesses. They realize that they could not compete with large corporations in a legal market. Their ability to make money by manufacturing, distributing and selling drugs exists solely because of the drug war. They very much want the war on drugs to continue and even expand.

Many drug dealers understand that each large drug bust brings increased profits for them. Although a drug seizure is bad news for the particular drug dealer involved, it is wonderful news for all the other drug dealers in the market. When you see government agents celebrating a large drug seizure, imagine all the other drug dealers celebrating along with them.

The economics of drug sales are no different than any other product sold in the market. Every big drug seizure causes a temporary decrease in the supply of that drug in the relevant market. However, the drug seizure doesn't affect the demand for the drugs.

Drug users still want drugs despite some drug dealer being arrested ¹⁹. When the demand remains constant and the supply is decreased, prices go up. Imagine being a drug dealer with a big supply of drugs on hand when prices suddenly go up. It would be accurate to say that drug dealers gain the most, through increased profits, when government agents make a seizure. Increased profits also serve to entice people to embark on new careers as drug dealers. Drug dealers love the drug war and do not want it to end. If you support the drug war, you are on the side of, and act as an unpaid lobbyist for the plight of the drug dealer.

Some of the drug dealers I have met are actually very nice, non-violent people. I have represented drug dealers who do not use drugs at all. They were simply unable or unwilling to refuse an illegal opportunity to make a lot of money. However, some of the drug dealers I have met are not nice people. They sell their drugs with the help of violent street gangs. Some of these gang members intentionally market drugs to kids. Because gang members generally can not utilize the court system to settle disputes over drug sales, nor can they insure their merchandise against losses, violence and guns are necessarily involved.

Simply causing meth to be manufactured illegally is by itself a huge problem. As a result of illegal meth labs, toxic chemicals used to produce methamphetamine are often discarded in rivers, fields, and forests. The environmental damage which occurs results in ever expanding cleanup costs. The massive growth in costs to cleanup such environmental messes is also illustrative of the failure of current policy. The DEA's annual cost for cleanup of clandestine meth laboratories in the United States has increased steadily from 2 million in 1995 to 23.8 million a mere seven years later in 2002 ²⁰. A huge collection of well documented facts about the failure of the current drug policy.

I have heard the saying that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. I suspect some criminal defense lawyer in the 1920's incurred wrath from the establishment for writing an article advocating the legalization of alcohol. I would bet the nice attorney was attacked by small thinkers who repeatedly pointed out the harmful attributes of alcohol ²¹.

In case you are unaware, the government decided in 1919 to amend the United States Constitution to grant power to congress to prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. Their drug war played out just like ours; a complete and total disaster. However, it was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime. The manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol ²² were conducted entirely in illegal and violent markets. Criminals prospered and criminal organizations grew. A major crime wave began in the 1920s and continually increased until the end of prohibition in 1933 when it immediately started to reverse ²³. Prohibition did nothing to curb the desire of people to use alcohol. Indeed, both the per capita consumption of alcohol as well as the rate of alcoholism increased during prohibition. ²⁴ ²⁵ Illegal clandestine stills manufactured alcohol of inconsistent and unpredictable quality. Law enforcement was overwhelmed chasing after people involved in alcohol related crimes. Does any of this seem familiar to you?

In 1933, they figured it out and repealed the eighteenth amendment ²⁶. To be fair, we still have people with substantial alcohol abuse problems. It is a real problem. We have no shortage of alcohol related crimes. However, violent criminal street gangs do not make money from the sale of alcohol. Although few people “home brew” alcoholic beverages, people do not brew alcoholic beverages in clandestine labs. Nobody is offered large cash rewards to transport alcohol. The Budweiser guy doesn't fight the Miller guy if they both happen to arrive at the store at the same time to deliver their drug. Alcohol companies settle disputes peacefully in court. Alcoholics can seek help without the fear of criminal prosecutions. More resources can be devoted to apprehending real thugs because our justice system is not overloaded with cases of people manufacturing, distributing or selling alcohol. Isn't this obviously a better deal?
We know certain things for sure. If meth was no longer illegal:

1. All dangerous clandestine meth labs in residential neighborhoods would close;
2. All dangerous street gangs would be out of the meth business;
3. Every dime currently spent on meth prohibition could be spent on real crime ²⁷;
4. Meth addicts would have no legal disincentive to seek help;
5. The manufacture of meth would be safe and produce a consistent product; and
6. Toxic waste from meth production would be safely disposed.

If you support maintaining the war on drugs, you must necessarily conclude that either I am wrong about the above six assertions or that the benefits of the drug war outweigh the obvious benefits contained in the six assertions. It is difficult for me to imagine one could rationally and honestly dispute any of the six assertions. They are obvious and virtually guaranteed to flow from legalization. Therefore, a drug war supporter is left with the argument that the drug war's benefits outweigh the benefits contained in the six assertions. If this is your position, I challenge you to honestly reweigh the costs and benefits of each scenario. Unless you put your finger on the scale because you personally benefit from the drug war, you must conclude legalization wins.

I do not intend to claim that the above six assertions are the only benefits of legalization. I list them together because I find them to be indisputable. There are other benefits of legalization. I suspect many people would either not experiment with or stop using meth. Recently, a teenage meth user confirmed for me that she and her friends started using meth at least in part because it was illegal. I cannot recall any friends of mine who didn't drink alcohol prior to reaching age twenty-one ²⁸. Indeed, I consumed more alcohol prior to reaching age twenty-one than I do today or since I have been age twenty-one and one month.

In countries where the alcohol drinking age is sixteen, rates of alcohol related problems appear to be lower than in the United States where the drinking age is twentyone. The National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse reports that in 2003, 5.55% of Americans were either alcohol abusing or alcohol dependent ²⁹. The Austrian drinking age is sixteen and 2.2% are regarded as alcohol dependent. The German drinking age is sixteen and 3.9% of Germans' alcohol use is considered harmful ³⁰.

Even during prohibition, while rates of death from alcoholism and cirrhosis were rising in the United States, they were decreasing during the same time period in Great Britain, Denmark and Ireland where alcohol use was legal ³¹. I recently traveled to Amsterdam where marijuana use is legal for those over eighteen years of age. Marijuana use among minors in Amsterdam is decreasing. Indeed, the rate of marijuana use by minors is five times less than what it is in the United States ³². Even among adults, the rate of marijuana use in the United States is twice as high as in the Netherlands where use of marijuana is legal ³³. Many of the locals informed me that marijuana use is simply not exciting and they virtually don't ever use it unless people from out of town are visiting. As you may expect, I had a lot of questions for proprietors of marijuana coffee shops. I personally witnessed a peaceful and safe marijuana trade in Amsterdam. Although I wouldn't want to live there for unrelated economic reasons, the Netherlands is a good example of why legalization makes sense ³⁴.

Tobacco is a far deadlier drug than is meth. For the year 2000, tobacco is blamed for causing 435,000 deaths ³⁵. Deaths resulting from the direct or indirect use of all illegal drugs including meth, cocaine, OxyContin, heroine and ecstasy for the same year total 17,000. id. ³⁶ ³⁷ Despite the fact that tobacco is legal, tobacco use is declining. In 1956, 42% of adults smoked. In 1980, only 33% of Americans smoked. Additionally, in 1977, 29% of high school seniors smoked. Four years later, the number of high school seniors who smoke had fallen to 20% ³⁸. Education about the dangers of tobacco use can be credited for the decline of tobacco use which occurred while the drug was legally available and without any of the crime and violence associated with the drug war. The recent rise in popularity of non-alcoholic beer and low nicotine cigarettes can be attributed to the same phenomenon. The same beneficial effects could be applicable to meth and other illegal drugs.

Fortunately, people are slowly waking up to the fact that this war on drugs is the entirely wrong approach. I am encouraged by a courageous group of law enforcement and former law enforcement members who have joined together to form a group entitled Law Enforcement Against Prohibition or LEAP. The over two thousand law enforcement members of LEAP state the following, “The membership of LEAP believe to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction, as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition”. The members of LEAP are willing and eager to debate their views with anyone willing to try to defend the drug war. Also, judges are finally starting to speak out.

Astute observers of the drug war might point out that the $50-$69 billion dollars currently being spent on the drug war annually could be used to more effectively address the problems associated with drug abuse. That money could go a long way to facilitate drug abuse education, treatment and prevention.
Additionally, some may argue that legalization of drugs could be administered in much the same way alcohol is currently dealt with. Certainly, people who commit real crimes should be punished whether or not they were using drugs at the time. Legalization of drugs does not mean laws must permit unsafe drug impaired drivers on the roads.

Further, employers and other private citizens would be free to prohibit any and all drug use at their workplaces or on their property as they can now with alcohol. Indeed, what would change with a reasonable scheme of legalization would be a deletion of much of the crime and violence only; everything else would remain much the same or improve.

It is a substantially better deal than the ongoing and worsening disaster we currently endure. The drug war is un-American. One cannot simultaneously value freedom and yet support a governmental scheme which denies the individual his or her sovereignty over his or her own body. Indeed, control over one's own body is the most fundamental of all rights. Worse, the drug war has effectively birthed countless violent criminal enterprises.

This possibly well intentioned effort has resulted in effectively creating our 51st state; the state of incarceration. The state's population is growing out of control and it is choking the life out of the other 50 states. Thousands of peaceful Americans are currently living in cages because of the drug war. The drug war is lunacy and it must end immediately. As it did for the revolutionaries who founded our country, the time has come for us to be bold and courageous. We must speak out against this horrendous mistake. We have the better case.

¹ I support legalizing all drugs which are currently illegal.
² Incidentally, many say tobacco is actually more addictive than meth. Isn't it interesting that approximately 50% of tobacco users have quit using tobacco in the past ten years all during a time while the drug was completely legal.
³ My ex-wife is a good mom. She supports my ban on meth use for our kids.
⁴ I acknowledge this concept is extraordinarily radical and barely comprehensible to some. For a better understanding, fmd someone who refers to himself or herself as a "libertarian" and talk to that person.
⁵ If you assert no claim of ownership to your body, I may be interested in laying a claim. However, I would want to see you first.
⁶ In case you are confused, the correct answer to each question is yes.
⁷ Can you honestly say this? If not, you should think about what possibly justifies you in controlling another's property. You should also not complain when others seek to control your property. It's a freedom thing.
⁸ As a finer point, when their activities trespass upon my property, they are now using my property without my permission. Said more precisely, others are free to use their property in any way they please with no restrictions. A trespass is simply the acknowledgement they are wrongfully using another's property.
⁹ Democracy and freedom are not the same concepts. Freedom is when the owner of the property decides how the property is used. Democracy is when a majority of non-owners decide how an owner must use his or her property. Democracy and freedom are often incompatible.
¹⁰ The opposite is also true for some acts which are currently illegal.
¹¹ In 1969, Nixon spent $65 million on the drug war. In 1982, Reagan spent $1.65 billion on the drug war. Bush's budget for 2006 requests $12.4 billion dollars which is a 2.2% increase over his 2005 budget.
¹² I have nothing against private prisons. Indeed, the private sector should be administering prisons. My point here is simply to note that private entrepreneurs recognize the huge potential to prosper in this growth industry.
¹³ 732 people out of every 100,000 live in government cages as of 2005.
¹⁴ These are facts asserted by current and former law enforcement officers. See www.leap.cc
¹⁵ Drug Use Trends and National Survey on Drug Use and Health, White House Office of Drug Control Policy (2004).
¹⁶ Monitoring the Future, National Results on Adolescent Drug Abuse, Overview of Key Findings 1999, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Page 48.
¹⁷ Some former police officers claim the current annual amount spent is sixty nine billion dollars per year. See, http://leap.cc
¹⁸ Some may say George W. Bush's Iraqi policy is a failure of such magnitude that it rivals the drug war for the biggest failure attributable to a governmental effort. I admit it is a tough call.
¹⁹ Most drug addicts don't watch the evening news or read the newspapers. They are not generally aware of drug busts or any other news for that matter
²⁰ National Drug Threat Assessment 2004 (Jolmstown, P.A.: National Drug Intelligence Center, April 2004), p. 18.
²¹ Yes, I am aware that alcohol abuse is harmful. My point here is that they were focusing on the wrong question.
²² It is worth noting that at least they aclmowledged congress otherwise had no such power by amending the constitution rather than pretending the Commerce Clause includes such a power. I'm still searching for that amendment which grants power to congress to run today's drug war.
²³ Pandiani, John A., The Crime Control Corps: An Invisible New Deal Program 348-358 (British Journal of Sociology, 33 September 1982).
²⁴ Cases of alcoholism at New York's hospitals increased over lOO% during prohibition from 1919 to 1924. The National Prohibition Law: Hearing Before the Subcommittee of the Commission on the Judiciary, 69th Congress 148 (1926).
²⁵ During prohibition from 1921 to 1929, per capita consumption of beer increased 463%, wine increased 100% and consumption of spirits increased 520%. Warburton, Clark, The Economic Results of Prohibition 174 (Columbia University Press, 1932).
²⁶ At least their politicians had enough spine to admit their mistakes. With very few exceptions, today's jellyfish politician is too worried about what the general public thinks to take a real leadership stand on this issue.
²⁷ By "real crime" I mean when people trespass on the rights of others by force or fraud.
²⁸ I realize such comparisons are difficult for a variety of reasons. However, the numbers are different enough that it appears a reasonably certain conclusion can be drawn.
²⁹ Die Haujigkeit von Alkoholismus und Problemtrinken in Osterreich, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 110 (10), 1998, pp. 356-363.
³⁰ Reprasentativerhebung zum Gebrauch psychoaktiver Substanzen bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland, 2000 Sucht, Sonderheft 1, (2001).
³¹ Warburton, Clark, The Economic Results of Prohibition 78-90 (Columbia University Press, 1932).
³² Untitled editorial in The Lancet, Volume 346, Number 8985, (November 11, 1995) p. 1241. See also, Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), p. 7.
³³ Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), pp.7-8.
³⁴ For more stats and documentation about how legal marijuana has resulted in less marijuana use as well as other overall societal benefits, see http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
³⁵ Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19,2005, Vol. 293, No.3, p. 298.
³⁶ This number includes deaths attributed to illegal drugs resulting from suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis.
³⁷ The number of confirmed deaths attributed solely to a marijuana overdose in the history of the world is zero. See, Janet E. Joy, Stanley 1. Watson, Jr., and Jo1m A. Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/htmllmarimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.
³⁸ Trebach, Arnold, Peace Without Surrender in the Perpetual Drug War, 136 Justice Quarterly 1 (1984).

Are You Really For Freedom?

2011-08-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

I know you say you love freedom. Virtually everyone says they love and value freedom. Even such murderous villains as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein claimed to love or advocate freedom.

“The German people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom.” Adolf Hitler to Reichstag in Berlin February 1936

“[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory.” Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999

It is easy to simply claim to support freedom, but it is much more difficult to accept the sometimes scary implications of such a claim.

Did you ever wonder what it really means to say, 'I’m for freedom?' It is difficult for me to express how unimpressed I am by the enthusiasm of a person to strongly support the rights of another person to use their freedoms in exactly the same way they themselves exercise their own freedoms. For example, alcohol users who support the rights of others to use alcohol or marijuana users who support the rights of others to use marijuana does not seem such a principled stance to me.

On the other hand, people who steadfastly and enthusiastically support the rights of other adults to use their freedoms ¹ in ways they themselves would never personally engage in is truly inspiring. A real freedom attitude is about accepting the sovereign rights of other adults to peacefully use their bodies and their property in ways you personally disagree with, morally oppose, find degrading, ill advised, harmful or completely foolish.² Indeed, this is the test to determine whether a person honestly supports the concept of freedom.

The adult users of the horribly destructive and often addicting drug called 'alcohol' who oppose the legalization of marijuana because they personally choose not to use marijuana are, in freedom terms, identical to the adult users of marijuana ³ who oppose the legalization of methamphetamine because they personally choose not to use methamphetamine.⁴

A similar example can be found in the area of free speech. Americans rightly take pride in their right to free speech. So long as the speech is “acceptable” there is no controversy. However, when unpopular groups like the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis want to peacefully march, many self proclaimed free speech supporters seek to use the law to ban them.⁵ ⁶

These are the scary implications one must accept and embrace to truly be a person who advocates freedom. To hold otherwise suggests your freedoms actually extend no further than some other person’s personal preference regarding their own freedom. This concept is what I refer to as, 'The dark side of freedom.'
I suspect when most people pride themselves about loving freedom, they have in mind wimpy concepts like the rights of others to decide for themselves where to go on vacation or what model of automobile to buy. This wimpy concept of freedom doesn’t generate much controversy because most people personally agree with whatever decision another person makes in these areas.

Simply acknowledging that other adults have a right to run their own lives as they choose doesn’t mean we are obligated to agree with or support whatever they say or do. If we choose, we may seek to peacefully persuade them to act as we believe they should act. Further, acknowledging the rights of others does not mean we are sending a message of approval regarding their choices. Indeed, we are free to peacefully send messages of disapproval if we choose and they are free to ignore our messages entirely if they choose.
In one of my other articles entitled, 'Legalize Methamphetamine!' I argue that the war on drugs should be ended. I have been asked many times to modify the title of my article to something like, 'End the Drug War' or to some other boring but inoffensive title. ⁷ In fairness, the title is somewhat incomplete. I am considering changing it to, 'Legalize Methamphetamine and Crack Cocaine!' or to, "Legalize Methamphetamine and All Other Horribly Addictive Drugs!" My point here is to emphasize that advocating for freedom is sometimes not as easy and popular as it first may appear to the casual self proclaimed freedom supporter. However, it is necessary if we are to have freedom.

In the end, wimpy freedom advocates are not freedom advocates at all. If we are to again be the land of the free, we desperately need people to strongly advocate for freedom; in all its beauty and in all its ugliness.

¹ By using their “freedoms” I mean being in control of your own body, time, money and other property. This does not include using another’s body, time, money, or property without their consent. Freedom includes the notion that all voluntary conduct between consenting adults, whether others approve or not, is absolutely legal.
² Don’t be confused by the concept that a person could morally oppose an activity yet strongly support its legality. A moral question and a legal question should be two entirely different questions. Some of my friends morally oppose prostitution while supporting its legalization. There is no contradiction. Questions about "right" and "wrong" are also different questions than questions about what should be "legal."
³ Or any other substance.
⁴ Yes, I know and agree with you about the awful consequences of methamphetamine use. Yes, I know it will rot the teeth out of your mouth and destroy your skin and possibly your life if you use it. I would strongly discourage anyone from ever trying or using it.
⁵ I agree with nothing said by either group, but I absolutely support their right to peacefully say whatever they want. It is important to note that nobody is required to listen to them. People have a right to peacefully protest against them and even to ridicule them for their deranged views.
⁶ When a Christian pastor in Florida recently threatened to publicly burn a Koran, Fox News presented legal 'scholars' who generated creative ideas to use the law in an attempt to stop this constitutionally protected expression. The pastor ultimately backed down.
⁷ I have even been asked to delete the exclamation point in favor of a question mark. I like the exclamation point.

Pro Tem Recusal Minute Entry

2011-08-22T14:26:00.000-07:00

A justice system is a necessary prerequisite to any civilized community of persons. For any justice system to be effective and just, the judges who work in such a system must possess a strong sense of justice.
Only human beings have the capacity to possess a strong sense of justice. An inflexible, rigid and mechanical approach to judging is not appropriate and has throughout history caused tremendous injustice. As such, an honorable judge must frequently consult his or her individual sense of justice.

A judge is obligated to faithfully follow and apply the law. However, cases may arise where the applicable law is reconcilably at odds with a judge’s strong sense of justice. In such a case, the judge is thrust into a moral ilemma. The judge is faced with either applying a law that is contrary to his or her strong sense of justice or failing to faithfully apply the law. This case presents such a moral dilemma for this judge pro tem.
A judge who applies a law which is contrary to his or her strong sense of justice betrays not only the trust of those in the courtroom but also the honor of the judicial office. This judge pro tem will not act in contradiction to his strong sense of justice. Additionally, a judge who will not faithfully apply the law cannot preside over a matter in which that law is applicable. Therefore, recusal is the only option.

However, a recusal without explanation would deprive any interested party of the reasons underpinning the moral dilemma faced by this judge pro tem and would wrongly enshrine this court in a cloud of mystery and secrecy. Free people are entitled to know and evaluate the motivations, explanations and reasons underpinning a judge’s actions.

The Non-Initiation of Force Principle

This judge pro tem will not use the power of the state to initiate force against persons who have not trespassed or used unlawful force or fraud against others or their property. This judge pro tem has deeply held personal views which are in direct contradiction to the duties of a judge who presides over non-violent drug cases. The two positions cannot be reconciled.

This judge pro tem is unaware of Arizona judges recusing themselves for similar reasons. However, there is evidence to believe that some Arizona judges have grave concerns about Arizona’s ongoing war on drugs. See, Rudolph J. Gerber, On Dispensing Injustice, 43 Ariz. L. Rev. 135 (2001). Additionally, at least one federal judge, the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein of the United States District Court in New York has refused to try minor drug cases.

The list of learned judges across this nation who have publicly objected to the war on drugs is substantial and includes:

Hon. Juan R. Torruella - U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Hon. Myron Bright - U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit; See, 61 F.3d at 1363
Hon. Donald P. Lay - U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Hon. Richard Posner - U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Hon. George Pratt - U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Hon. Robert W. Pratt - U.S. Southern District of Iowa
Hon. Nancy Gertner - U.S. District Court, Boston
Hon. John L. Kane Jr. - U.S. District Court, Denver
Hon. Stanley Sporkin - U.S. District Court, D.C.
Hon. Whitman Knapp - U.S. District Court, New York
Hon. Robert Sweet - U.S. District Court, New York
Hon. Vaughn Walker - U.S. District Court, San Francisco
Hon. John T. Curtin - U.S. District Court, New York
Hon. Warren Eginton - U.S. District Court, Connecticut
Hon. James C. Paine - U.S. District Court, Florida
Hon. James Gray - Superior Court, Santa Ana, CA
Hon. Peter Nimkoff - Former U.S. Magistrate, Miami
Hon. Volney V. Brown Jr. - U.S. Magistrate, Los Angeles

Many abbreviated statements of the preceding judges, can be reviewed online at
www.november.org/dissentingopinions/dissentingopinions.html and www.ndsn.org/julaug98/courts5.html.
The well reasoned views of the honorable judges cited above in addition to the concurring opinions of people such as Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman weigh heavily upon the conscience of this judge pro tem. This judge pro tem will not participate in administering laws which, for so many reasons, wreak havoc on our society and conflict with the moral conscience of this judge pro tem.

Although the above rationale may not mandate recusal, no such legal mandate is required for recusal. The Arizona Supreme Court has long held, “¿[A] judge may on his own motion, if he acts timely, recuse himself even though the reason given might not be sufficient to form the basis of a legal disqualification.” Zuniga v. Superior Court, 77 Ariz. 222, 269 P.2d 720 (1954). See also, State v. McGee, 91 Ariz. 101, 370 P.2d 261 (1962).

Although the deeply held personal views of this judge pro tem is a sufficient reason to warrant recusal in this case, it is not the sole reason for recusal.

The Arizona Constitution

There can be no doubt that the Arizona Constitution was instituted as an attempt to protect and maintain unenumerated rights which individuals possess independent of government. Indeed, the Arizona Constitution specifically states, All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights. Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 2.

Further, so there could be no misunderstanding, the drafters of the Arizona Constitution explicitly stated, The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people. Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 33.

For a free society to remain free, a frequent revisiting of the fundamental principles of freedom must never be relegated to a mere academic discussion. The framers of the Arizona Constitution understood the importance of a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. Such mandate was enshrined in the Arizona Constitution and is important enough to be restated here:

A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government. Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 1.

Based on the Arizona Constitution, there can be no doubt that individuals have rights which exist independent of government and that such rights exist despite not being enumerated in the Arizona Constitution.
Among such un-enumerated rights must necessarily exist the fundamental and basic right of each adult to control his or her own body. It is difficult to conceive of or envision any right more central and essential to a free society than the right to control one’s own body. The right to control one’s own body must necessarily encompass the right to control what foods, medications and other substances are introduced into the body.
In interpreting the Arizona Constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court has previously recognized the liberty right of an individual to refuse the ingestion of unwanted chemical substances. See Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 229, 714 P.2d 399 (1986). Such a pronouncement is merely an illustration of the more fundamental and basic right to control one’s own body. Consistent with this constitutional right to refuse ingestion is the reciprocal right to voluntarily ingest chemical substances into one’s own body. Considering that the human body is entirely composed from items which are ingested, the fundamental right to control one’s own body would be rendered meaningless without the right to control what is ingested.

Furthermore, a constitutional right to ingest a substance into one’s own body necessarily implies a related right to manufacture, transport, sell, purchase or possess such a substance or ancillary items. Therefore, this judge pro tem cannot reconcile the current drug prohibition laws with the constitutional right to control one’s own body. The drug prohibition laws appear to this judge pro tem to be in violation of several provisions of the Arizona Constitution including Ariz. Const. Art. II, §§ 4, 8, 33.

As with virtually all other rights, the right to control one’s own body is not absolute. However, the current drug prohibition laws deprive all citizens of rights without any finding of prior criminal conduct or other circumstances justifying a restriction or deprivation of such a fundamental right.

This judge pro tem is bound to faithfully support the Arizona Constitution. Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 26. However, this judge pro tem acknowledges that the Arizona Supreme Court has previously determined that possession of marijuana in a person’s own home is not a basic constitutional right. See, State v. Murphy, 117 Ariz. 57, 570 P.2d 1070 (1977). As such, there can be no doubt that the Arizona Supreme Court and this judge pro tem disagree about the meaning of the Arizona Constitution. As a Superior Court Judge Pro Tem, it would be wholly inappropriate to enter an order in direct contradiction to the Arizona Supreme Court’s clear precedent. Therefore, recusal is the only appropriate course of action.

The United States Constitution

Similarly to the Arizona Constitution, the United States Constitution also contemplates that people have rights independent of government which they retain despite the fact that such rights are not enumerated in the constitution itself. See, U.S. Const. Amends. IX, X. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has previously identified particular fundamental constitutional rights which are not enumerated. See, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705 (1973).
This judge pro tem concludes that, based on the same reasoning as applied to the Arizona Constitution above, there exists a fundamental constitutional right to control one’s own body which is protected by the United States Constitution and is applicable to the State of Arizona via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Although this judge pro tem is not aware of any binding decisions which have recognized the existence of such a federally protected right, this judge pro tem is equally unaware of binding decisions specifically finding that no such right exists.

However, more particularly relevant to this case is the fact that the Arizona Supreme Court has found that no violation of a defendant’s federal constitutional rights occurs when the state criminalizes the mere possession of marijuana in one’s own home. State v. Murphy, 117 Ariz. 57, 570 P.2d 1070 (1977). Additionally, the United States Supreme Court specifically recognized the power of state governments to make possession of narcotics a crime.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243 (1969). That being the case, it would be wholly inappropriate for this judge pro tem to enter an order which contradicts in any way the precedence established by either the Arizona Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, recusal is the only appropriate course of action.

NORML

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 81, Code of Jud.Conduct, Canon 3 E (1). The mandates involving recusal in the Code of Judicial Conduct apply with equal force to part time judges pro tem. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 81, Code of Jud.Conduct, Application § D.

This judge pro tem is currently a member of the legal committee for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (“NORML”) This organization has as its policy statement the following:
NORML supports the right of adults to use marijuana responsibly, whether for medical or personal purposes. All penalties, both civil and criminal, should be eliminated for responsible use. Further, to eliminate the crime, corruption and violence associated with any "black market," a legally regulated market should be established where consumers could buy marijuana in a safe and secure environment.

As a member of the NORML legal committee, this judge pro tem believes that in a matter such as the one at hand, the impartiality of this judge pro tem might reasonably be questioned. As such, recusal is required. Therefore, for all the reasons detailed in this minute entry, this judge pro tem recuses himself.

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com

Million Dollar Legal Advice

2011-08-22T14:16:00.000-07:00

Previously published by Mark Bennett, Texas Criminal Defense Attorney

The following advice is worth millions of dollars, countless years in prison, and many saved lives.
If everyone followed this advice:
Many fewer people would be charged with crimes. They would, collectively, be saved millions of dollars in attorneys fees (not to mention lower taxes from needing fewer prosecutors and judges). Of those charged with crimes, many fewer would be convicted. They would, collectively, be saved countless years in prison. Of those who avoided prosecution or conviction, many would also avoid the death penalty. Their lives would be saved.
I give you this advice for free:

Don't talk to the police.

Almost everyone in prison is there because they talked to the police. They thought they could explain; they thought they could help themselves.
When the police want to talk to you, it's not for your own good. They're not looking for evidence to clear you. They're looking for evidence against you.
The police tell you, "we're your friends, we can help. Make it easier on yourself. Confess now," so you confess, and go away for the maximum anyway. The police are not your friends.
Or the police ask about a murder: "what do you know about it?" He says, "I was there, but I didn't do it." They ignore the denial, write down "he admits being there," and use that to convict him. The police only hear what they want to hear.
Or the police ask about a robbery: "what do you know about the robbery?" You say, "I didn't do the robbery. I just sold the guy drugs." They charge you with dealing drugs, and you go to prison. The police are sneaky. They are allowed to lie to you to get a confession.
You have a constitutional right not to talk to the police. That means that your refusal to talk can't be used against you. If you keep your mouth shut, nobody will legally be able to consider that in deciding whether you're guilty or not (The cops may think you're guilty, but they think you're guilty anyway).
You also have a constitutional right to a lawyer. If you say, "I want a lawyer," the police are supposed to stop questioning you. Sometimes, though, they don't hear you demand a lawyer. So you have to tell them again. And again. And again:

Cop: Where were you Tuesday night?You: I want a lawyer.Cop: You don't need a lawyer, do you?You: I want a lawyer.Cop: If you're not guilty, why do you need a lawyer?You: I want a lawyer.Cop: I can't do anything for you once you get a lawyer.You: I want a lawyer.

And so on.
If you've already talked to the police, talk to a lawyer before talking any more. Cooperating with the government is sometimes like dancing with a gorilla —you don't stop when you want to stop —but if you started talking without consulting a lawyer, a lawyer can tell you if it is in your best interest to keep cooperating.
If you have an appointment to talk to the police, don't go. Talk to a lawyer first.
After investigating the case and hearing the truth from you (never lie to your lawyer), your lawyer may decide you should talk to the police. In very rare situations, this is a good decision. It should never be done without an investigation, and it should never be taken lightly.

Don't be your Own Worst Enemy!

2011-08-22T14:10:00.000-07:00

I cringe to think how many times clients come into my office to discuss their criminal matter with me only to learn they have done possibly irreparable damage to their case. I have found few people who are aware of their constitutional rights.

Your awareness of some simple concepts may serve you well in the event you or a loved one is the unfortunate subject of a criminal investigation. First of all, always remember, you are not required to talk to the police. There may be occasions where your persuasive oral skills will serve to get you a stern warning instead of a costly ticket; however, talking with the police will rarely benefit you when the investigation is for a crime.

In addition, talking to friends and family about your criminal matter is usually not a good idea either. Although you do not expect a friend or family member to compromise your case, you may put him or her in an unfair position. A prosecutor may summon your family member or friend to the witness stand in a criminal trial and ask questions about your statements. Such a dilemma will force your family member or friend to decide between perjury and possibly hurting your case.

Don't get caught up by the fact that the police officer failed to inform you of your "Miranda Rights." These are your rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. So long as you are not under "arrest" the police officer may properly ask you questions without informing you of these rights.
You are never required to consent to a search. If a police officer has a search warrant, you must permit the search. However, if a search warrant has not yet been obtained, you should insist the officer obtain one before you voluntarily allow a search. The fact that you insist upon a search warrant does not mean you have something to hide. Rather, it is a confirmation of the constitutional concept that police do not have the right to arbitrarily conduct searches of your property.

A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However, a police officer is always allowed to initiate a voluntary conversation with you. Sometimes it is unclear whether or not a person is detained. If you are in doubt, you should ask the police officer if you are in fact free to leave.

If you are arrested, Arizona law mandates that you will be brought before a judge within twenty-four hours. This is an important hearing for you. The judge will decide what conditions, if any, must be met before you can be released from jail. You have a right to retain an attorney for this hearing to argue for your release. Regarding the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, the best advice is to have a designated driver. However, if you are the subject of a DUI investigation, you must be especially careful and thoughtful about what you say and do. In Arizona, a conviction for DUI guarantees a jail term.

Arizona law does not require you to submit to roadside field sobriety tests. Although these tests may assist you to convince an officer you are not intoxicated, as a general rule, refusing to take the tests is the better choice. Keep in mind, it is the police officer who subjectively decides whether you passed or failed the tests. Deciding whether to submit to a blood, breath or urine test is a different matter altogether. If you refuse one of these tests, you will likely lose your driver's license for one year. You should consult an attorney before deciding to refuse or submit to one of these tests.

DUI is a complex area of the criminal law. However, like other criminal charges, the decisions you make during your initial contact with a police officer can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Surviving a Traffic Stop

2011-08-22T14:05:00.000-07:00

Being pulled over by a police officer can be a stressful experience. Although life is full of such experiences, unlike many other stressful experiences, a traffic stop has the potential to end in a loss of money, liberty or even life. No two traffic stops are entirely identical. Therefore, the advisable course of conduct will vary depending on thesituation. However, there are some general rules which can be helpful in many situations.
The best piece of advice one can offer is to avoid being pulled over in the first place. A traffic stop offers nothing to be gained. The best case scenario for the driver is to leave as if the stop never occurred losing only some time.

On the other hand, the downside can be disastrous. Vehicle equipment violations such as expired tags or an unlit taillight equate to a neon sign on your car inviting a police officer to pull you over. Remember, a police officer can legally justify a traffic stop based on an equipment violation even if the police officer subjectively intended to investigate some unrelated issue. Moving violations such as speeding or failing to use turn signals also serve to legally justify a traffic stop. Avoid giving the police a free pass to pull you over.
Notwithstanding your best efforts, you may nonetheless find yourself being pulled over by the police. Needless to say, do not attempt to flee as this will earn you a felony charge as well as a very excited and unfriendly police officer at the end of the chase. Your main goal should be to survive the traffic stop with your life and liberty intact.

A traffic stop is a terrible time to be testing out new legal theories or arguing about constitutional law. You can resolve any disputes with the police officer in court at a later date.

The law is well settled that a police officer can order both the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle at a traffic stop. However, do not exit the vehicle until the police officer orders you to do so. If you are fortunate enough to have a passenger at your traffic stop, you should ask the passenger to carefully observe all events. Your passenger may be an important witness if events during the traffic stop deteriorate.

Although there are many different varieties of police officers, you should expect a police officer who is nervous and possibly excited. Do not give the police officer reasons to be suspicious. Do not engage in any quick or covert movements. You should place both of your hands in plain view on the steering wheel.
If there ever exists a good time to socialize with a police officer, a traffic stop is not one of them. You should attempt to end the traffic stop as quickly as possible. You have no constitutional right to a friendly or courteous police officer. Do not demand to know the reason for the traffic stop. Remain calm, polite and respectful at all times even if you have to fake it. You should immediately produce your license, vehicle registration and auto insurance upon request. Plan ahead by storing these items in an easily accessible place so you are not fumbling around trying to find them in front of the police officer. Such conduct is often interpreted as alcohol or drug impairment.

Use your common sense. You should quickly assess the police officer. There are some excellent public servant type police officers who I often refer to as "peace officers". On the other hand, there are those who revel in the overwhelming amount of power afforded to police officers who I refer to as "law enforcement officers." You must use extraordinary caution when dealing with the law enforcement officer as things can escalate very quickly.

Most police officers are honest; some are not. Unless you personally know the police officer, you should not assume you are interacting with an honest person. Because we live in a time when mere possession can be a serious crime, a dishonest police officer can rather easily cause an innocent person to be charged with serious felony offenses.

Constitutional rights exist, at least in theory, to protect the innocent. Do not give your rights away. If this is not obvious to you by now, please see my article entitled, "Don't Be Your Own Worst Enemy". I always advise against consenting to any search or talking to a police officer. During a traffic stop, you should communicate your refusals especially politely. Always keep your main goal in mind at a traffic stop.
If you simply cannot resist the urge to talk to a police officer, I suggest you read the back of my business card. This is a good way to document exactly what you said to the police officer. Do not simply hand the card to the officer. Remember, nobody can invoke your rights but you.

As a general rule, you should not volunteer information or answer any questions about having a weapon. Said another way, do not open a potential can of worms. However, if the police officer is about to discover the presence of a weapon, you should inform the police officer about all details of the weapon so as to avoid an accident. Also, if you have a concealed weapons permit, you must produce the permit upon the officer's request.

If you are asked to sign an affidavit of service, sign it. Failure to sign an affidavit of service will likely result in an unnecessary arrest. In such a case, the officer had discretion to arrest you, but decided against it. You cannot waive your right to trial at a traffic stop. Even if you disagree with the charge, being arrested for failure to sign an affidavit of service will not strengthen your case.

If you are arrested, do not resist. Resisting even an unlawful arrest can earn you a felony charge. Expect a search of your vehicle and your person upon arrest. You should request to call an attorney immediately. If you are given a choice, do not opt to have your vehicle towed. You should expect to see a judge within twenty four hours, and you should try to arrange for an attorney at that hearing.

Traffic stops are not pleasant. However, handled with the right amount of tact, many traffic stops will result in nothing more than a waste of your time. Even for the more significant traffic stops, fighting it out in court is always a better choice than haggling with a police officer who has the power, and maybe the inclination, to arrest you.

My Journey to Libertarianville

2011-08-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

I’ve always been a loud mouth. Even as a young boy, my mother would often say, “Someday, that mouth of yours is going to get you in trouble.” Today, as a criminal defense attorney, I use that “mouth of mine” to help get people OUT of trouble. It wasn’t always that way.

Like most other loud mouths, I was always interested in politics. However, like almost all other Boston area Jews, I was surrounded by long time liberal Democrats. Although there may have been a time in my youth when I was in the presence of a Republican, such unpleasantness was always kept from me. I had always been informed that Democrats were “for the people” and Republicans were “for big business.” If there was more to the analysis, I never heard it.

Being most comfortable in the midst of any controversy, I think my youthful pronouncement that I had decided to be a Republican was more of a reaction against the Democrat Party monopoly than a statement of principle. To their credit, my parents informed me that my Republican leanings were OK so long as I did not publicize them in front of the elder generation. I think they believed it was just some crazy phase I was going through. Ultimately, they were correct.

At some point, I became a Republican because I agreed with what Republicans were saying. In addition to sounding whiny and wimpy, the Democrats always struck me as needing a babysitter to help with living their lives. The Republicans were talking about individual responsibility and low taxes. I really bought into the limited government concept. I started arguing with Democrats about everything; whether they wanted to argue or not.

I began my college career as a political science major at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. The school is not known for its great libertarian bent. I don’t know if being a socialist was a requirement to become a professor, but it sure seemed like it to me. I recall the permanent Marxist information table being a popular spot among many of the students. Everyone in my political science classes knew me. Some knew me as the loud mouth Republican idiot. Others just knew me as the loud mouth. I loved it.

Somewhere in the midst of my battles with liberals, I began to notice there were some pesky issues where the liberal Democrat voices made some sense. I couldn’t deny their good points on various individual rights issues such as free speech, sodomy laws, homosexuality, pornography, and separation of church and state.
Being tired of shoveling snow and a fan of the summertime, I transferred to Arizona State University as a justice studies major. In addition to having a few conservatives around, there was no Marxist table to be found at Arizona State University. Although my Republican views had started to moderate on some individual rights issues, I was still fool enough to extol the virtues of the war on drugs.

One day after class, I participated in a heated argument about the drug war. During my long walk to the poor man’s parking lot, the economic based argument against the drug war started to sink into my hard head. I could feel myself having to change my deeply held view about the drug war and adopt a pro-legalization position. Later, I realized those great Republican pronouncements about individual responsibility were not compatible with a war on drugs.

When I entered law school at Southwestern University in Los Angeles, I was a confused conservative; not comfortable with either the Republicans or the Democrats. In one sense I was better off because I could argue with both the Republicans and Democrats. Merely rejecting both parties didn’t stop me from being a loud mouth.

Although I had positions on various issues, I lacked a coherent philosophical base.

One day, I met Professor Butler Shaffer. He told us to refer to him either as “Butler” or “God” if we weren’t comfortable using his first name. I figured out quickly this guy wasn’t a typical law professor. He showed up to class one day wearing a tee shirt with the word “anarchy” on it. I was intrigued. Butler posed questions about self-ownership and the legitimacy of the constitution. He insisted that all political questions were really different versions of the same question, “Who makes the decision over property; the owner or someone else?” He boiled all questions down to a property analysis. I harassed the guy. After endless hours kicking around the questions Butler posed, I started to understand. Butler gave me a book by Murray Rothbard that discussed the monetary system. I also read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland while I was pouring though the required law school reading.

Butler invited me to two discussion groups entitled the Mencken Forum and the Nock Forum respectively. I attended both faithfully and became a libertarian junkie. I couldn’t get enough of the freedom philosophy.
After flirting with the Libertarian Party, I came to the realization that such a party is a contradiction in terms.
Although I sympathize with political Libertarians, I do not count myself among them. On the other hand, I do not believe there is or can exist a centralized plan for freedom. I have come to believe there are two groups of people; those who coerce others and those who do not.

After almost ten years as a practicing criminal defense attorney, I can say few libertarians have fought the state more regularly. I am a libertarian on the front lines in the war against tyranny; an epic multigenerational and honorable struggle. I have hosted regular discussion groups, given speeches, hosted a radio show and sponsored debates. In 2000, I co-founded the Freedom Summit with my partner and libertarian guerilla warrior Ernest Hancock.

Although neither the Mencken Forum nor the Nock Forum continue, the Freedom Summit exists to hopefully rescue lost libertarian souls from the intellectual chaos that prevails today. In the end, my mom was right. It is my loud mouth that will most likely get me into trouble. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

We Don't Need No Stinking Zealous Advocacy

2011-08-22T13:54:00.000-07:00

Back in the good old days when Americans were interested in freedom, criminal defense attorneys had an ethical duty to zealously advocate for their clients. The concept being that an adversarial system of justice was more likely to produce just results than an inquisitorial system of justice. However, the Arizona Supreme Court recently decided that the age old duty of zealous advocacy is no longer appropriate. Attorneys in Arizona now have no such ethical duty.

I interpret this change to mean the government has determined it is no longer in the government's interest for criminal defense attorneys to be zealous when they fight the government. No kidding. One could expect nothing different so long as the government supplies all the judges, the prosecutors and strictly regulates all criminal defense attorneys. Imagine a situation where one baseball team unilaterally approves and pays the umpires and determines who plays for the other team. You wouldn't be shocked when they picked players for the other team who agreed not to play too zealously.

I recently tried a case for a client who was charged with a crime arising out of a bar room brawl. I suspected the arresting police officer wouldn't be able to identify my client at the trial but would nonetheless testify under oath that he could. On the day of trial, I asked my client to sit in the back row of the courtroom while his uninvolved friend accompanied me at the defense table. I informed the court my client was present in the courtroom and we were ready for trial.

As expected, the officer testified under oath that the friend sitting next to me was the man he arrested. He was absolutely certain. I immediately informed the court that I did not agree the officer had identified my client. After the government rested its case, the friend testified revealing his identity. After some expected legal wrangling, the judge entered a judgment of acquittal. My client was thrilled. The aggravated prosecutor stormed out of the courtroom.

Months later, I learned the prosecutor's supervisor filed a bar complaint against me alleging I misled the court and an investigation was commencing. My state granted privilege to enter into voluntary contracts with adults for representation was at stake. To his credit, the elected judge backed me and signed an affidavit stating I did nothing to mislead him. This did not deter the bar or the prosecutor who was determined to punish me for misleading the judge who says he was not misled. Indeed, the prosecutor argued to the bar that the judge's opinion about not being misled was not relevant. After months of haggling, the state bar grudgingly admitted I had not violated any ethical duties and the complaint against me was dismissed.

Despite the fact that we all know what happened that day in court, no complaint was ever filed against the government police officer. No government investigation was commenced against the government police officer.

None was expected. Government courts have ruled that government police officers are permitted to lie to citizens all they want. They often do. However, government prosecutors often charge citizens with crimes if a citizen lies to a government police officer.

So long as the government administers the criminal justice system, only the government will be protected.
Whenever you find yourself in a government court fighting the government, remember that the government doesn't want your attorney to have an ethical obligation to zealously represent you. They want your quick plea of guilty and the accompanying fines and various sanctions which now include your DNA in many cases. Although it may seem unfair, I'm sure the government set up this system with only our protection in mind.

My short-lived tenure as a superior court judge pro tem is a great example of how the government establishment deals with dissenting opinions among judges.

A Celebration for Criminals

2011-08-22T13:40:00.000-07:00

I’m sure the central planners will be shocked. Considering the fine job the state has done administering or regulating the health care industry, the airline industry, the education system, the social security system, the economy, the tax system, and our national “defense,” who would have expected the state would ruin the criminal justice system?

I hope the central planners are happy. After years of abuse and contorting the criminal justice system for political gain, the party is over and the secret is out. The criminal justice system is dead. It does not produce justice nor does it protect people or their property.

My brother practices criminal defense law in Massachusetts. We often speculate about whether the ongoing collapse is more evident in Massachusetts, Arizona or somewhere else. Any observant criminal defense attorney in America will agree about the collapse. Even prosecutors and some police officers are figuring it out.

A recent article in the Arizona Republic quoted the presiding judge of the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court as stating, “The criminal justice system is in peril. And public safety is in peril.” Although the immoral criminal justice system squirms and struggles to avoid or reverse the collapse, the end result is inescapable. At some point in the future, I expect a complete and total collapse of the criminal “justice” system.

In Arizona, the state recently decided to terminate supervised probation for lower level felony offenders as a cost savings measure. As usual, the law of unintended consequences prevailed. Last week, I was informed that in response, a major prosecuting office decided to discontinue all probation plea offers to such lower level offenses.

The combined net result of the cost savings policy will be to plead offenders to higher level offenses which carry even longer terms of probation. It was an impressive display.
I have personally witnessed guilty go free and innocent plead guilty. I have also witnessed peaceful people being treated as “real” criminals because they violated some law which, in a free society, would never have existed.

Decent people and families have been devastated. The constitution has been devastated. This country now incarcerates over two million people; enough to form the 51st state. Despite this incarceration machine, crime is on the rise and we are no safer. In fact, I believe most people are in danger of being prosecuted for some act they never suspected was illegal.

A police officer recently told me of his thankfulness for the drug war as it keeps him employed. He also told me I should be glad as the drug war indirectly provides income for me as well. Although he had a point, I responded that I would be just fine without the drug war as I would simply defend people charged with “real” crimes. He responded that I would have difficulty making a living solely defending people who commit “real” crimes because the police don’t apprehend many of those.

Although virtually everyone now acknowledges the obvious and imminent collapse, the solution is nonetheless still disputed. The ever present call for even more money as a remedy persists. More money will benefit the justice system as well as additional funding has benefited all other areas of government.

As all pro-freedom advocates know, much of the solution lies in the drug war. The criminal justice system cannot be fixed and will never again produce justice unless and until the drug war ends. Considering the fact that I have been unable to find two prosecutors who will debate me on this point, I can say with certainty that many prosecutors realize the extensive evils of the drug war. I also know from private talks with judges that many on the bench agree as well. Unfortunately, speaking out on the issue is another matter.

As the police state grows and grows and grows, the definition of a “criminal” becomes ever more obscured. Until that definition is brought back into focus, people who violate the rights of others are more likely to flourish while peaceful people should fear harm from the real criminals both in and out of the justice system.

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com