MIDDLE DISTRICT ___________

                                                                                                                  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:


    The Defendant cannot obtain an impartial jury due to the fact that some, if not all, jurors will have been educated in government schools and cannot be impartial.  The Sixth Amendment reads “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.....”  
    When the U.S. Constitution was written, most jurors 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 an impartial jury.  Of course, the defendant would not have been charged in the first place because the libertarian concepts of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” did not create laws banning the use of cocaine.  There was no unconstitutional federal “war on drugs” and the contraband like that alleged here could have been purchased over the counter.
    If the authors of the Constitution had foreseen the government’s modern education monstrosity then the Sixth Amendment would have stated “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.....and if the government takes over the schools, then jurors must come only from non-government schools.”
    Better still, 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.”
     The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of church and state.  And for the same ideological reasons.  
    The Constitution is supposed to limit the government and enumerate its clauses, and no where in the Constitution do the words “schools” “education” nor “War on Drugs” or any part thereof appear.
    Yet, the government takeover and destruction of schools began in the middle 1800's according to John Taylor Gatto, a former New York state (public) Teacher of the Year, who started to develop this thesis in his slim but estimable 1992 volume "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling." Now he's returned with a massive and far better-developed follow-up, the 400-page "Underground History of American Education," subtitled "A Schoolteacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling" ($34 postpaid, Oxford Village Press, 725 McDonough Road, Oxford, N.Y. 13830.)  The syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz wrote about Mr. Gatto and many of his remarks about Mr. Gatto appear below.  
    "By 1840" (more than a decade before the opening of the first tax-funded government schools on the modern model, in Massachusetts) "the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent. ... In Connecticut only one citizen out of every 579 was illiterate and you probably don't want to know, not really, what people in those days considered literate; it's too embarrassing. Popular novels of the period give a clue: 'Last of the Mohicans,' published in 1818, sold so well a contemporary equivalent would have to move 10 million copies to match it. If you pick up an uncut version you find yourself in a dense thicket of philosophy, history, culture, politics, geography, astute analysis of human motives and actions, all conveyed in data-rich periodic sentences so formidable only a determined and well-educated reader can handle it nowadays. Yet in 1818 we were a small-farm nation without colleges or universities to speak of. Could those simple folk have had more complex minds than our own?
    Gatto states: "By 1940 the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites. 80 percent for blacks. Notice for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were still literate. Six decades later, at the end of the 20th century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can't read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled," despite the fact that "we spend three or four times as much real money on schooling as we did 60 years ago."
    And Mr. Gatto knows why. Gatto's historical research tells him none of this is an accident – public school pioneers like Horace Mann found the regimented system they were looking for when they visited Prussia in the 1840s, importing wholesale a scheme to tame and regiment what they saw as America's dangerously anarchist new immigrant working class, training the young of this underclass to report to a central government facility as soon as they were old enough to use the latrine, there to be trained to all hold identical shallow, memorized opinions and to march around to the sound of bells.   Yes, some basic literacy and numeracy would be necessary for them to fill their intended roles in the army and in the factories ... but not too much, and certainly not the kind of critical and analytic skills which might lead them to question their new government bosses.
    Now back to the point of this motion: Because the authors of the Constitution did not foresee and ban government schools, jurors spend twelve years or more years educated in government schools to obey the government, and they are subjected to government propaganda (e.g. the movie “Reefer Madness,” the “Say NO to drugs” campaign, and superbowl ads that blame drug users for terrorism, etc.).
    Not only have these jurors been educated in government schools to obey the government, they are given a pop quiz as they walk into the courthouse for jury duty: “Get in line, show your photo identification (for some reason only the Middle District demands photo ID?),  put your bags on the conveyor for X-ray and hand search, empty your pockets, step through the magnetometer, submit to the assembly line search, lift your arms for the hand wand, turn around.  There, you passed the test. You will make a fine sheep, err, juror, I meant.”  Juror  response “why thank you for lavishing your attention upon me! It makes me feel safe and special. And thanks for your kind compliment. But it’s really nothing, I’m just here to follow instructions, to do my duty, and to hang the defendant -after a fair trial, of course!”
    Of course.
    Government schools, and the courthouse search procedures, prevent people who are antithetical to government.  Government schools condition students to submit to government personnel, to government searches, to fill out government forms, and to carry government identification.  The government’s assembly line search procedures exclude people who find government searches offensive, as well as the requirement to display identification on demand.  Government no longer teaches any proper limited role of any government, including the federal government.  Government schools teach that drug laws are good, and that jury nullification is not on the curriculum.  Then, the jury voir dire process follows up by excluding people who somehow learned otherwise.
    It is said that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  It should also be said that a regular trial jury would convict the ham sandwich, thanks to government schools.  And under the sentencing laws the judge would have to sentence the ham sandwich to a minimum mandatory sentence in prison. The ham sandwich in this case objects to the denial of an impartial jury and public trial.
    Things haven’t progressed much since the Salem witch trials.  If the government tried people for casting spells that tortured little children, trial jurors would be seated who pledged to follow the law, they would seriously consider the first-hand testimony presented, and convict.   Witchcraft is still illegal in some countries.
    Government schools create milquetoast jurors in the same way that Cuban schools create socialists.  Government schools in the U.S. are different only in degree from schools in the former U.S.S.R.
    If the defendant were tried in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by jurors from Soviet schools it would be impossible for the defendant to argue in favor of fundamental freedoms such as economic liberty, private property, peaceful private intercourse with other adults, the right to run a business, to sell and buy, etc.  Yet, to a different degree, the same arguments have been quashed even in the U.S. for the defendant.

Respectfully submitted,
Rex Curry,
Attorney for Defendant
Tampa, Florida