UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT ___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. _________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the defendant, by and through his undersigned attorney and
asks the Court to dismiss the indictment in this cause pursuant to Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 and gives as cause therefore the following:
DEFENDANT DENIED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT
& SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL
The Defendant cannot obtain a meaningful public trial due to the fact
that some, if not all, news reporters have been educated in government schools
and subjected to the same prejudicial government influences and propaganda
that deny the defendant an impartial jury.
Some jurors could actually be from the media - a frightening thought
alone. Journalists are like regular jurors, suffering the same infirmities
argued above, from a government education.
Media coverage of the unconstitutional war on drugs is barely more enlightening
than reading Pravda. It makes a defendant’s right to a public trial meaningless.
Media have made a career out of toadying the government line on the war on
drugs, repeating government propaganda, cheerleading the constant growth
of government, and destroying impartial jurors, and conditioning jurors to
convict for any “crime” that government declares.
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law.....abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Sixth Amendment reads “In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial....” and providing the defendant his 14th Amendment rights
through it’s application to the states.
Congress and the states make laws that maintain the government-school
monopoly and thereby abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press, and
deny defendants their right to a public trial.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, most news reporters received
private educations, and government schools, if they existed at all, were
rare and did not predominate as they do today. And thus the defendant would
have received a meaningful public trial, even though he would not have been
charged in the first place because the media held libertarian concepts of
“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and the media did not editorialize
for laws criminalizing contraband like that in this case, that was available
over the counter.
If the authors of the Constitution had foreseen the government’s modern
education monstrosity then the authors would have explicitly banned government
schools just as they banned government churches, in the First Amendment,
stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of the speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nor suppressing such through an establishment of religion or education.”
Government schools are incompatible with free speech and press. Government
schools should be unconstitutional under the First Amendment
Even if a constitutional argument could be made for the initial creation
of some government schools, their ongoing existence is proof of their ongoing
failure to educate people to handle their own educations without government
Government schools are as unconstitutional as government instructors
selecting and editing press stories. Or if compulsory education were extended
to include mandatory government schooling into adulthood, specifically including
special classes for the media.
The effect of government schools upon the media does not end after high
school or college. From the earliest age, the government teaches students
what to think, say and write, and the lessons abridge freedom of speech and
press, and the ability to seat impartial jurors and receive a public trial.
The media prove the need to end government schools.
Attorney for Defendant