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 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 schools.
    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.  

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