Swastika Tattoo Swastikas Tattoos Drug Dogs are reminders of similar Police-State tactics and obsessive Gestapo behavior under the Nat'l Socialist German Workers Party.

Learn more about the government's obsession with your life in the USA
See the police state and Social Security Tattoos exposed as a growing part of your life.

The USA's growing Police State

Repeal Drug Laws thumbnail image unconstitutional recreational controlled substances

Drug Laws thumbnail photograph unconstitutional Rx means "Rex." recreational controlled substances
Rex Curry, Attorney At Law
Counseling the governmentally addicted since 1983

Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government authorized
to assume a law enforcement role.

Rx means Rex. The prescription is to repeal drug laws.
Get high on Freedom.


                                                                                                              Case No. _________________


    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:


    That the indictment resulted from outrageous government conduct constituting a deprivation of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
    That Defendant is charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. According to the government, an adult agent of the government purchased the contraband from the defendant after the government initiated the transaction and under the agent’s own volition (without being forced or threatened to do so).
    Though it is not a per se due process violation to convict a defendant for a drug offense where it is the government that initiates the alleged criminal activity and where the government either purchases or supplies the drug, which party initiates the alleged crime is relevant and important in assessing the degree of government involvement in setting up the crime.  Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. at 491, 96 S.Ct. at 1650 (Powell, J., concurring);  United States v. Gonzalez-Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 923, 97 S.Ct. 323, 50 L.Ed.2d 291 (1976). Cf. United States v. Rueter, 536 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1976).
    The extent of a Defendant's prior criminal involvement, though not dispositive, is relevant to the issue of outrageous conduct and whether the defendant or the government should ultimately be held accountable for the instigation of the crime.  United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973); United States v. Wylie, 625 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, ---- U.S. -----, 101 S.Ct. 863, 66 L.Ed.2d 804 (1981).
    In United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973), Justice Rehnquist, writing for a majority of the Court, noted that someday the Court might be presented with a situation "in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." This was the first time the Supreme Court officially recognized what is now commonly known as a due process defense based on governmental overreaching and outrageous misconduct.  Although Justice Rehnquist's statement in Russell is essentially dicta, after the Court's decision in Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976), it was clear that a majority of the members of the Court believed that the Due Process Clause could be invoked as a ground for the dismissal of criminal charges where governmental involvement in the criminal activities being prosecuted reached "a demonstrable level of outrageousness."
    In Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) and Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), the Court recognized and sought to delineate the contours of the entrapment defense. In Sorrells, a government prohibition agent appealed to the sentiments of a "comrade in arms in the World War" (Sorrells) and successfully induced him to sell illicit whiskey. Sorrells was promptly arrested and convicted of this offense. Sorrells was the first case in which the Supreme Court upheld the validity of an entrapment defense. Later in Sherman, the Court set forth what is now known as the subjective theory of entrapment. After noting that the Court firmly recognized the defense of entrapment, Chief Justice Warren, writing for the majority, stated: "The function of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals.  Manifestly, that function does not include the manufacturing of crime. Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer. However, a different question is presented when the criminal design originates with the officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute." Id at 372 (quoting in part Sorrells, 287 U.S. at 442).
    The question of whether the involvement of government agents rises to the level of outrageous governmental conduct is a question of law for the court to determine. United States v. Citro, 842 F.2d at 1152-3; United States v. Bogart, 783 F.2d at 1431; United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2nd 535, 539 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. McQuin, 612 F.2d at 1197; United States v. Prairie, 572 F.2d at 1319. The issue may properly be raised and decided by a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). United States v. Batres-Santolino, 521 F. Supp. 744 (N.D. Cal. 1981); see also United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990) (outrageous government conduct claim must be made by pretrial motion). In Batres-Santolino, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing after which it dismissed the indictment on due process grounds. Other courts have decided to defer ruling on the pretrial motion until after trial. United States v. Marcello, 537 F. Supp. 402 (C.D. Cal. 1982);  Although there has been some suggestion that the nature of the police conduct could be submitted to the jury, it appears that the trial court should make the determination. United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d at 379 n.8; United States v. Johnson, 565 F.2d 179,181 (lst Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1075 (1978).
    On appeal, the issue of whether the government's conduct violated the defendant's due process rights is reviewed de novo because the issue presents a question of law. United States v. Emmert, 829 F.2d at 810; United States v. Stenberg, 803 F.2d at 428 n.6 (citing Bogart, 783 F.2d at 1431). The court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and will accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Emmert, 829 F.2d at 810-11 (citing Bagnariol, 665 F.2d at 880).
    The targeting of a defendant is sometimes an issue.  In United States v. Luttrell, 923 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc), an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated that part of a three-judge panel ruling which had held that the government must have "reasoned grounds" based on the due process clause to investigate an individual. It joined four sister circuits which also rejected such a test. Id. at 764 (citing the District of Columbia Circuit and the Tenth, Third, and Second Circuits). The Eighth Circuit, in United States v. Jacobson, 893 F.2d 999 (8th Cir. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 112 S.Ct. 1535 (1992) held to the contrary, requiring that the government show reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, to justify targeting an individual for an undercover sting operation.
    The government has always argued that it has the right to lie and commit crimes in order to prosecute honest people engaged in non-violent intercourse with consenting adults.  The courts have generally agreed.   However, cases opposing outrageous government conduct and/or entrapment may have a new vitality in light of  Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5013,*;123 S. Ct. 2472; 156 L. Ed. 2d 508;71 U.S.L.W. 4574 (2003).   According to Lawrence, U.S. adults have a privacy right to engage in certain consensual nonviolent intercourse.  In this case the allegation involves economic intercourse in the privacy of a motel room.    
     According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional for a defendant to be arrested for committing (or agreeing to commit) sodomy with an undercover law enforcement officer (LEO).  According to Lawrence, it is no business of the U.S. government or any government whether U.S. citizens do engage in sodomy.  How can Lawrence deny that U.S. citizens also have the right to recreate with drugs?  Perhaps at the same time as having sex.  If the officer had performed a sodomy “sting” operation (similar to a prostitution sting but for the sake of argument let’s say it was non-commercial) and the officer had gone to a hotel room and tempted a defendant into engaging in sodomy with the officer, and at the same time had used drugs, and then before leaving the officer had purchased some drugs to take, then that scenario showcase the legal arguments presented here.  Before Lawrence, LEO’s probably could have attempted to make sting arrests for sodomy (and why they didn’t try it is an odd question itself. Would they have tried a reverse-sting or a regular sting?).  After Lawrence, sodomy with a LEO in the privacy of a hotel room is no longer prosecutable (whether the act is merely agreed to or completed).  The same argument should apply regarding drug charges under the same circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,
Rex Curry,
Attorney for Defendant

an introduction to the following more detailed reasons.

drug laws take and forfeit persons and their property unlawfully.

8th Am. CRUEL & UNUSUAL  -
the "War on Drugs" and penalties are cruel and unusual in a free society.

9th Am. RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - individuals have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.
10th Am. RIGHTS RESERVED TO STATES OR PEOPLE - in conjunction with Art. 1, sec. 8, commerce clause.
COMMERCE CLAUSE - art. 1, § 8, ci.3, most vices have no substantial relation to interstate commerce.
COMMERCE CLAUSE EXTRA - 9th throws out conviction for home made machine guns.
THE ENTIRE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT - all of the preceding arguments in one large legal document.

Other legal arguments made in a Motion to Dismiss drug charges in federal court in a different case -

LAWRENCE v. TEXAS - all vice laws should be overturned as sodomy laws were overturned.
5th & 14th DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS - vice laws cause outrageous government conduct (lying, crime etc).
5th & 14th DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION- cocaine sentencing disparities unlawfully discriminate.
GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS - deny defendant's rights under unconstitutional vice laws for the following reasons.
1st Am. DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH - government schools teach everyone what to believe and say.
1st Am. DENIAL OF FREE PRESS - government schools taught the media what to think and write.
1st Am. ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION - government schools establish the cult of the omnipotent state.
6th Am. DENIAL OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY - government schools taught jurors what verdict to render.
6th Am. DENIAL OF A PUBLIC TRIAL - government schools taught the media to repeat propaganda.
WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - government schools teach everyone to waive his rights.
THE ENTIRE MOTION TO DISMISS - with other constitutional arguments against vice laws.

4th Am. UNREASONABLE SEARCHES - drugs violate the rights of students in government schools.
4th Am. SEARCHES WITH DOGS - drug laws encourage the corrupt use of drug dogs in a police state..
DRUG DOGS - these motions stop dogs used as ruses to violate the constitutional rights of humans.  

Legalize drugs and controlled substances image >
LEGALIZE DRUGS stop sting operations thumbnail image recreational controlled substances
Florida specialty car tag touts legalizing Florida's state wildflower.
 Edward Bellamy, Francis Bellamy, Looking Backward, Pledge of Allegiance

KopBusters is a new reality show produced by  In it, Barry and Candi along with their detectives set up stings across America to catch crooked Kops.

KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana. When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.

The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster's attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster's secret mobile office nearby.

The attorney was handcuffed and later released when eleven KopBuster detectives arrived with the media in tow to question the illegal raid. The police refused to give KopBusters the search warrant affidavit which is suspected to contain the lies regarding the probable cause.

The team of eleven freedom fighters clashed with the police demanding answers for the illegal raid and the drug plant. The police would not comment but later stated they were trying to charge KopBusters with a crime.

It is not illegal to grow plants under a light in your home but it is illegal to lie on an affidavit and plant drugs on a citizen. This operation was the first of its kind in the history of America. Police sometimes have other police investigating their crimes but the American court system has never dealt with a group of citizens stinging the police. Will the police file charges on the team who took down the corrupt cops? We will keep you posted. and