Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Ken Driessen Legal Defense Fund

Claim of Unconstitutionality

Motion for Stay of Sentance
Motion for Reconsideration
In Support of Petition
Petition Supreme Court
ZioNazi PER CURIAM
Homo Sapiens Declaration
Reply Brief
Motion to Supplement
Brief 2010AP1050 Amended
2nd Appeal Progress
Motion for Procedural Order
Motion for Rehearing: Appeal Dismissed
Evidentiary Hearing Suppression Motion
Claim of Unconstitutionality
Legalize Marijuana Petition
US Gov Marijuana Patent
Links for Regulation and Legalization
Contact Me

Filed June 23, 2009

___________________________________________________________________________

 

IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT

OF SAWYER COUNTY

___________________________________________________________________________

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN,                                     Case No.: 2009CF48                                                                

Plaintiff,                                       

                                                        

Vs.                                                                           Notice of Claim of 

                                                                                Unconstitutionality

                                                                                Wisc’ 893.82, 42 U.S.C. 1983

DRIESSEN, KENNETH LEROY,                         and 18  USC 242                                                                     

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________  

 

     I intend to bring to the attention of the jury during the trial of this matter, scheduled for July, 30 2009, information that the traffic stop resulting in my arrest was conducted under false pretenses and therefore a violation of my constitutionally guaranteed 4th Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.  

 

     I also intend to present evidence, much of it in the form of government statistics, concerning the prevalence of the use of cannabis, also known as marijuana and THC, as an example:

According to the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 100 million Americans aged 12 or older have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 40.6% of the U.S. population in that age group. The number of past year marijuana users in 2007 was approximately 25.1 million (10.1% of the population aged 12 or older) and the number of past month marijuana users was 14.4 million (5.8%)[i]

It would shock the conscience of the jury if they were to discover that proponents of a police state and hypocrites themselves are the only persons who profit from laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana. Profits of a legal-industry/police-state sub class appears to be the motive behind criminally sanctioning marijuana use rather than being in the interest of serving and protecting the whole of the population. When Wis. 51.45, official State policy declaration, is considered; the continued prosecution of me alleging felonious infraction of such a delusional law as Wis. 961.41(3g)(e) becomes even more appalling to anyone with an unbiased sense of fairness. The malicious overzealous prosecution of people under 961.41(3g)(e) for exercising their natural inherent right to the control of their minds and bodies is a gross violation of our 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

        Subjecting an individual to criminal sanctions under such false moral standards as zero tolerance and total abstinence from the use of a natural herb with proven medicinal beneficial properties is pseudo-religious, based on mythological assumptions rather than valid science; such criminal sanctions are in violation of my 1st Amendment right to be free from religious persecution and in violation of my right to freely to exercise my religious, spiritual beliefs as I choose. Therefore regardless of previous case law, the state cannot prove a compelling interest in criminalizing the behavior of 100 million US citizens. Such citizens include William Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Hussein Obama, even if each of these hypocritical individuals tried marijuana themselves yet continue to promote the tyranny of marijuana prohibition, their snobbery does not answer the unconstitutional temperament of marijuana prohibition.  It is also a constitutionally available defense to present fact to the jury that: with nearly half of the population having tried marijuana at least once; eliminating such people who have been criminally charged for marijuana possession violates my 6th Amendment right to a impartial jury. Nobody who has chosen to inhale or ingest marijuana will attend this hearing for fear of persecution in the guise of prosecution so the trial of such as case will not be public by any means.

 

     Rationale, logical and factual basis required for of a medical necessity defense to 961.41(3g)(e) charges under 939.46 and 939.47 now exist that did not exist during the hearing of earlier court decisions used in precedence alleging the State's case for compelling interest in criminal sanctioning person's possessing marijuana. As of October 7, 2003, the US government has patented marijuana as a medicine see: US Patent 6630507: Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. Any attempt by the judge to use case law determined prior to availability of this evidence establishing properties of marijuana as medicine rather than a dangerous substance under Schedule 1 of the US Controlled Substance Act is unconstitutional.  Forbidding a medical necessity defense in this case through using obsolete case law precedence should be considered a violation of this defendant's 5th and 6th Amendments rights concerning due process and rights of the accused to be heard by an impartial jury.

 

   In the past this defendant has been instructed by judges and prosecutors that: case law overrules constitutional law; such instruction is a criminal act on the part of those judicial and executive branch public servants.  Such unconstitutional rationale has been used to violate my Wisconsin Constitution Article 1, Section 3 right to defend myself presenting issues of law and fact to the jury having the constitutional right to determine both.  Judges are required to take an oath to defend the constitution. Judges making and enforcing case law decisions to so obviously override the constitution increasing their authority beyond constitutional constraints is open and blatant deprivation of an individual's constitutional rights under the color of the law and a crime under Title 18 USC 242.  With this notice I expect my right to defend myself in front of a jury of reasonably unbiased peers who I may instruct as to the wording of the US and Wisconsin Constitutions as they pertain to this case.  I therefore claim the right to question the constitutionality of laws and factual circumstances pertaining to this case and make the jury aware of such questions in my defense.  

 

_ ___  Dated __June 23, 2009_________________

Kenneth Leroy Driessen 

 

Ken Driessen (pro se)

12022 N. Co. Rd. T

Hayward WI 54843

715-634-2801

kendriessen@hotmail.com



[i] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, September 2008

   

Sentencing hearing January 8, 2010 :(

Marijuana Is Legal Prohibition The Crime