Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6416pt3.html Contains the factual history of the case with verbal (not electronic) link to the transcript. Contains the chronology of the case.

American Communications Ass. v Douds(1950) 339 US 382 @442: "A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert." - Jackson, Robert . . . . page 55

Boyd v US (1886) 116 US 616, 29 L Ed 746, 6 Sup Ct 524 - private papers are testimonial in nature and the use of seized private papers implicates violations of both the 5th and the 4th amendment - and penumbral rights - but the better approach is to remember that the constitution limits the power of government and the bill of rights is merely superfluous and therefore we have more rights than merely those specifically delineated in the bill of rights . . . . page . 21, 36

Brown v Illinois (1975) 422 US 590 at 604, 45 L Ed 2d 416 at 427, 95 S Ct 2254 - the Supreme Court of US reversed Brown's murder conviction because statements that he made at the police station - similar to the statements that Jessica Jobin made at the police station - on the grounds that the absence of a probable cause made the detention illegal and tainted the voluntariness of the admissions - just as the absence of probable cause to detain Jessica Jobin and Palaschak tainted the voluntariness of Jessica Jobin's statements at the police station - and most importantly the voluntariness of her surrender of the LSD. The court said "his situation is remarkably like that of [Blackie] Toy . . . . the illegality here had a quality of purposefulness. The impropriety of the arrest ws obvious; awareness of that fact was virtually conceded by the 2 detectives when they repeatedly , in their testimony, that the purpose of their action was 'for investigation' and for 'questioning' The arrest both in design and in execution, was investigatory. The detectives embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up. The manner in which Brown's arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion." . . . . page 13

Bumper v North Carolina 391 US 543, 20 L Ed 2d 797, 88 S Ct 1788 - prosecution must prove that consent was not mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority . . . . page . . . . page 41

Burns Backing Co. v Bryan (1924) 264 US 504@520 - "If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold." - Louis Brandeis, . . . . page . 53

Byars v US 273 US 28, 71 L Ed 520, 47 S Ct 248 - cited in Wong Sun - a search unlawful at its inception may not be exonerated by what it turns up . . . . page 21

Cantwell v Connecticut (1940) 310 US 296, 311 Supreme Court reversed a breach of peace conviction arising from religious solicitation in the absence of a "clear and present danger" . . . . page . . . . page 64

Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur (1974) 414 US 632, 39 L Ed 2d 52, 94 S Ct 791 - irrebuttable presumptions are unconstitutional . . . . page .52

Colbaugh v US (8th Cir 1926) 15 F2d 929 - Using alcoholic beverages (that is, drinking alcoholic beverages) is not "possession" of alcohol even though there is obviously some "dominion and control" during the drinking process. Not a superbly useful factual situation but the cases cites numerous other cases for the same proposition . . . . page . 44

Commonwealth v Daniels 599 A2d 988 - consent deemed invalid because consenter was in custody . 30

Commonwealth v Harmond (1979) 376 Mass 557, 382 NE2d 203 - consent deemed invalid where consenter was 1) in custody, 2) had been drinking - similar to Jessica Jobin's situation . . . . page . . . . page 30

DeLoach v Bevers 922 F 2d 618 (CA 10th 1990)Right to counsel implies 1st amendment rights of association and speech . 52

Dow Chemical v US (1986) 476 US 235, 90 L Ed 3d 235, 106 S Ct 1825 -"The businessman, like the occupant of a residence has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property." . . . . page 31

Draper v U.S. (Jan 1959) 358 US 307, 3 L Ed 2d 327, 79 S Ct 329 . . . . page . 32

Eisendstadt v Baird (1972) 31 L Ed 2d 349, 405 US 438, 92 S Ct 1029 Mr. Baird has the standing to assert the procreative rights of other people in successfully challenging his conviction for personally handing to a woman a package containing the then contraband drug, contraceptive foam, even though this woman was not in a procreative posture (figuratively speaking) with regard to Mr. Baird. Similarly, Palaschak can assert the same standing as married couples in a bedroom to challenge the police intrusion and continued detention at his office . . . . page . . . . page 35, 36

Gatewood v US (CA DC 1953) 209 F2d 789 - before an officer can demand entry to a home he must first make known the true cause of his entry . . . . page . . . . page 38

Gilliland v Commonwealth (1928) 224 Ky 453, 6 SW 467 holds that a mental incompetent cannot validly consent to a search and therefore Jessica Jobin, by virtue of her chemical hypersuggestibility could not issue a valid consent to admit the police to the inner office . . . . page . . . . page 24, 29

Goldstein v US 316 US 114, 86 L Ed 1312, 62 S Ct 1000 - exception that proves the rule 0 cited in Wong Sun - person has standing to object to evidence of his rights were violated in obtaining the evidence24, 29

Gouled v US (1920) 65 L Ed 647 - "It has been repeatedly decided that these Amendments should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon or "gradual depreciation" of the rights secured by them, by imperceptible practice of courts, or by wellintentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers.

In the spirit of these decision we must deal with the questions before us." . . . . page . . . . page 36

Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 381 US 479 - Justice Douglas coins the term "penumbral rights" to permit

a couple to privately use drugs proscribed by statute - in this case, birth control pills . . . . page 35

Huddleston v US (1974) 415 US 814, 39 L Ed 2d 782 at 796, 94 S Ct 1262, a case from Oxnard. Ambiguity in the regarding the ambit of a statute should be resolved in favor of lenity. Justice Douglas talks about Caligula writing the law so high that people could not read it . . . . page . . . . page 51

Humboldt v Exxon 532 FS 899 (DC Nevada 1982) A LEADING CASE FOR MING LOGIC. Injunction issued to prohibit Termination of franchise upon conviction of felony before conviction is final. Termination is prohibited because conviction is not final a conviction until it has finished the appeal process . 60

In Re Ming (1971 CA 7th (Chicago)) 469 F2d 1352. Very pertinent case. 1) No bar association may suspend a bar license on the basis of a criminal conviction while that conviction in on appeal; 2) No bar association may suspend a person's license without a hearing. Founded on Ruffalo cited herein. . . . . page . 60

In Re Riccardi (1920) 182 C 675, 189 P 694. State bar suspension for a misdemeanor on appeal is premature while the appeal is pending . . . . page .60

In Re Ruffalo 390 US 544, 20 L Ed 2d 117, 88 S Ct 1222. Bar association may not suspend a license without a hearing . 60

In Re Williamson (1954) 43 C 2d 651 - specific statute regarding a specific type of conspiracy prevails over general conspiracy statute . . . . page . 48

Innis 446 US at 301 - it is the perception of the subject (here, Jobin) - not the police - that determines whether coercion exists - and that is where Judge McNally erred by considering the testimony of Officer Matz more credible than that of Jobin and Officer Dawson regarding Jobin's perceptions - which agreed with Dawson's admission that Dawson said that Dawson would "find it [the LSD] anyway" - it is obvious that Judge McNally forgot that Dawson testified that Dawson indeed did coerce Jobin by threatening to find the LSD anyway [RT Oct 31, 1991 56:11] . . . . page . 33

Ivins v State 129 GA App, 201 SE2d 683 - consent held invalid because consenter was in custody and consent was merely acquiescence and consenter was given no alternative which recalls Officer Dawson's admission that she told Jessica Jobin "We'll find it [the LSD] anyway." . . . . page 30

Katz v US (1967) 19 L Ed 2d.First use of term “expectation of privacy” . . . . page . . . . page 27

Kelly v State 305 A2d 195 - consent deemed invalid because consenter was in custody - conflicting testimony between officer and consenter - although we don't have a conflict - Officer Dawson admits coercing Jessica Jobin . . . . page . . . . page . 30

King v Warickshall (K.B. 1783) 168 Eng Rep 234, L. Leach Cr. Cases 263 - first statement of the exclusionary rule . . . 32

Leary v US 23 L Ed 2d 57 - irrebuttable presumptions implicit in drug laws are unconstitutional . . . . page 52, 63

Mapp v Ohio (1961) 367 US 643, 6 L Ed 2d 1081, 81 S Ct 1784 - the 4th amendment right of PRIVACY is enforceable against the states - and in particular it is enforceable by application of the exclusionary rule . . . . page . 52

Mar. Of Hopson (1980) 168 Cal Rptr 345. Specific statute is an exception to the general statute . . . . page . . . . page . 48

Marriage of Steiner (1979), 152 Cal Rptr 612. Specific statute is an exception to the general statute . . . . page 48

McGinnis v US (CA1 NH) 227 F2d 598 - Cited in Wong Sun. "Testimony as to matters observed during an unlawful invasion has been excluded in order to enforce the basic constitutional policies . . . . page . . . . page 22

Murgia v Muni. Ct. (1975) 15 C3d 286 - Discriminatory prosecution . . . . page . 68

Nardone v US 308 US 338, 341, 84 L Ed 307, 312, 60 S Ct 266 cited in Wong Sun . . . . page . 23

Nueslein v District of Columbia (1940) 115 F2d 690 - similar factual situation - police enter outer door and inquire through inner door and defendant responds to their request. Holding: warrant should have been sought. Suppression of evidence. Cited in Wong Sun . . . . page . . . . page 24

Olmstead v US 227 US 438, 471, 485, 48 S Ct 564, 72 L Ed 944, 66 ALR 376 - dissent cited in Nuelsein was predecessor of Wong Sun . . . . page . . . . page 25, 36

Payton v New York (1980) 445 US 573, 63 L Ed 2d 639, 100 S Ct 1371. Warrantless nonconsentual entry into suspect’s home even to make a routine felony arrest violates 4th amendment . . . . page 30

People v Aguilar (1991) 228 CA 3d 1049, 279 CR 246, Witkin section 2397 - pretextual impoundment search of car upon valid but pretextual traffic stop . . . . page . . . . page 38

People v Attorney Stephen Ross Harden. Circa June 1992. Citation not yet known. Drugs suppressed. Seized in attorney office. Information on case was requested from Court of Appeal in San Jose on 13 December 1993. Not yet received . . . . page . 31

People v Cruz (1965) 61 Cal 2d 861, 866, 40 Cal Rptr 841, 395 P 2d 889 - cited in Sullivan - alludes to drawing a line somewhere between what is against the law and what is not . . . . page . . . . page . 46

People v Fein (1971) 4 C3d 747@754, 484 P2d 583 Deals almost exclusively with suppressing the fruit of an invalid search upon appeal. Cited by court of appeal in People v Palaschak (Dec 1993) __ CA4th__ thereby signalling that they thought Dolge missed this issue. 9 striking similarities: Informant providing no report of actual crime, police arrive and are admitted seeing no actual crime (just 2 burned marijuana seeds that turned to ashes), no probable cause to search, man and woman on sofa, 3rd woman, illegal search, found drugs, woman admitted possession of drugs, police sought to trace funds from man to woman. Conviction sustained on appeal but reversed by Supreme Court . . . . page . 76

People v Grady 61 C2d 887 - Right to use peyote religiously outweighs California's right to ban it. Follows Woody holding . . . . . page 65

People v Ingham (1992 5th dist) 5 CA4th 326. Purse involuntarily taken to station. Inventoried drugs suppressed . . . . page 41

People v James (1977) 19 C3d 99 - Regarding appellate review of consent, this is a leading case. The trial judge must be upheld if his decision is supported by substantial evidence . . . . page . 34

People v Leal (1966) 64 Cal 2d 504, 50 Cal Rptr 777, 413 P 2d 665 - a conviction for possession will not lie if the amount possessed is less than a usable quantity of the controlled substance . . . . page . 46, 50, 51

People v Lee (1986) 186 CA3d 743, 746 - "An occupant of an interior office not open to the general public has a right to be free from warrantless arrest therein absent consent or exigent circumstances." 31

People v Lloyd (1967) 253 CA 2d 236 Reversed conviction in very similar factual situation. No question that somebody possessed the drugs - and the woman was caught with the drugs in her purse but she implicated the man. The court of appeal reversed the conviction on the basis of penal code 1111 - the applicable words being "the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense [the offense here being "dominion and control" of the drug] or the circumstances thereof." By implication the additional element that must be corroborated is WHO committed the crime. The rationale and reason for penal code 1111 is that the accomplice is always motivated to prove that the other person did it - and it is precisely that element of the crime that must be corroborated. The court in Lloyd said "In the case at bench the only 2 elements of the offense which were in issue were (1) the exercise of dominion and control, and (2) knowledge that the material was a narcotic. Defendant conceded that he he had the package in his had, but that does not necessarily establish guilt of possession. It has long been the rule that proof of mere presence at the scene and an opportunity to commit the offense are not sufficient to satisfy section 1111." . 10

People v McCarthy (1966) 64 C 2d 513, 50 Cal Rptr 783, 413 P 2d 671 - remitted to trial court where 0.09 milligrams of residue were found . 51

People v One 1962 Chevrolet 248 CA2 725 - principles 1)more specific statute prevails; and 2)the lesser offense cannot be sole proof of the greater offense . . . . page . 48

People v Perry 7 C3d 756, 774 (cited in Ruscoe at 34 CA3d 1011) On appeal we must assume that all inferences were inferred favorable to the verdict. In Palaschak's case we must assume that the jury

inferred possession from Palaschak's admission of LSD use (as testified by the newspaper reporter) as they were invited to do by the inapplicable Ruscoe quote appended to Caljic 3.13 and that inference is forbidden by Spann . . . . page . 48

People v Ruscoe (1976) 54 CA3d 1005, 1011-13 Cited in Caljic 1.13 (CT 115) holding (incorrectly in Palaschak's situation) that defendant's own testimony and inferences therefrom may be sufficient corroborative testimony . . . . page . . . . page 48

People v Smith (1984) 155 CA3d 1103 - Discriminatory prosecution . . . . page 68

People v Spann (1987) 187 CA3d 400 - transmutation of use to possession thwarts legislative

People v Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal App 2d 562, 44 Cal Rptr 524 - use plus minuscule possession is not possession . . . . page 45

People v Superior Court of Alameda County (Cynthia Hartway) (1977) 19 C3d 338 - Discriminatory prosecution. Prostitution . . . . page . 68

People v Treadwell (1885) 66 C 400. State bar suspension during pendancy of appeal of the criminal conviction upon which the suspension is based is premature and unconstitutional . . . . page . . . . page 60

Ravin v State (Alaska, 1975) 537 P2d 494 22 page seminal decision. Supreme Court of Alaska vindicates the right to private use of harmless drugs in the home. 28 headnotes. Headnote #1: "Issue of cruel and unusual punishment was not considered by this court." #2 "Once a fundamental right under a state constitution has been shown to be involved and it has been further shown that this constitutionally protected right has been impaired by governmental action, government must come forward and meet its substantial burden of establishing that abridgment in question ws justified by a compelling governmental interest [i.e. Strict Scrutiny as distinguished from Rational Basis]." ... #4 "If governmental restrictions interfere with individual's right to privacy, court will require that relationship between MEANS AND ENDS BY NOT MERELY REASONABLE BUT SUBSTANTIAL". (Means, ends testing is discussed by the US

Supreme Court.) #5 "Federal right to privacy arises . . . . page . in connection with other fundamental rights . . . . page

.and immunity from prosecution is absolute only when private activity will not endanger or harm the

general public." [i.e. 1st rule of natural law]. There is more in this case . . . . page . . . . page 36

Rawlings v Kentucky (1980) 448 US 98, 65 L ED 2d 633, 100 S Ct 2556 - Palaschak's ownership interest in the premises is what distinguishes Palaschak's case from this deceptively similar case. Rawlings was denied standing to challenge the seizure of 1800 doses of LSD from the purse of a woman who sat next to him on a sofa. 2nd distinction: There was a search warrant in Rawlings; no warrant in Palaschak's case. 3rd distinction: police smelled marijuana which constituted probable cause for detention for investigation of the crime of possession; police had no PC in Palaschak's case since they perceived no LSD (nor did their informant report seeing any LSD) and use of LSD is not a crime. 4th distinction: the detention of Palaschak was more clearly the cause of the seizure than in Rawlings because Palaschak's performance on the field sobriety tests (grand jury transcript _) prompted the Officer Dawson to demand "We'll tear the place apart if you do not give us the LSD"(_) or "We'll find it anyway". 5th distinction: Rawlings was Mirandized; Palaschak and Jobin were not. It is ludicrous to hold that Palaschak must assert an expectation of privacy in the LSD in Jessica's purse to challenge the invasion of his office and the resulting coerced surrender of the LSD. There was MULTIPLE CAUSATION in Palaschak's case; several 4th amendment and privacy violations each resulted in the seizure. For this court to say that the seizure was legal because one of the several privacy violations did not directly violate Palaschak it must completely and unequivocally overrule Wong Sun - and the 4th amendment. Rawlings is fundamentally distinguishable from Palaschak's case . 27

Remers v Superior Ct. 2 C 3d 659 @666, 470 P 2d 11 - Headnote 4:"Though it may be reasonable for officers in the field [to rely] on information furnished ... by other officers...the people must prove that the source of an officer's information is something other than the imagination of an officer who does not become a witness" - like Desk Officer Cindy Turner initiated the rape dispatch and then failed to respond to her subpena . . . . page . . . . page 40, 42

Rewis v US (1971) 401 US 808, 812, 91 S Ct 1056, 1059, 28 L Ed 2d 493 - "Ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity" - cited in Huddleston . . . . page 51

Reynolds v US (1878) 98 US 145 - Supreme Court bans polygamy. Mormon Church yields and bans

polygamy - but the practice continues to this day . . . . page . . . . page . 63

Robinson v California (1962) 370 US 660, 667, 8 L Ed 2d 758, 762, 82 S Ct 1417 - punishment of

addiction deemed unconstitutional - led to creation of the crime of "being under the influence" H&S

Russell v Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal App 3d 1114, 91 Cal Rptr 255 - the exception that proves the

Schneckloth v Bustamonte (1973) 412 US 218, 36 L Ed 2d 854, 93 S Ct 2041 - Even the most subtle

Segura v US (1984) 468 US 792, 82 L Ed 2d 599, 104 S Ct 3380 - a warrantless search absent exigency

Sibron v New York 392 US 40 at 45, 20 L Ed 2d 917 at 925, 88 S Ct 1889 - reversal of conviction after

Sibron had already served his sentence - police in pursuit of drugs stop known heroin user and perform

Silverthorne Lumber Co v US, 251 US 385, 64 L Ed 319, 40 S Ct 182 - The prosecution admitted

violating defendants constitutional rights and agreed to give him back the papers and not use the seized

materials - but then had the audacity to attempt to use photographs of the seized papers. The Supreme

Court said no. Items seized in violation of constitutional rights shall not be used for any purpose. 21, 36

Sizemore v Commonwealth (1924) 202 Ky 273, 259 SW 337 - contains unmistakable language that

taking a drink and holding the bottle does not constitute possession . . . . page 44

Sledge v Superior Court (1974) 11 C3d 70 - An order denying diversion is reviewable upon appeal . 69

Smith v Superior Court (1977) 137 Cal Rptr 348. “Where the general statute standing alone would

include the same matter as the special act [i.e. statute - in this case H&S 11550], thus conflicting with it,

the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute.” . . . . page . 48

Stanley v Georgia (1969) 394 US 557, 22 L Ed 2d 542, 89 S Ct 1243 - dirty films is the bedstand.

State v Gordon (1978 Maine) 387 A2 611 - defendant consumed LSD 8 hours before arrest but

State v McGuire (1972) 16 AZ App 346, 493 P2d 513 wherein a conviction for LSD possession was

affirmed where the criminalist measured 50 micrograms of LSD but in Palaschak's case there was

Taylor v Illinois 108 S Ct 646 (1988) wherein a defendant was precluded, as a sanction discovery

violation, from bringing a witness in his defense - this case being the exception that proves the rule . . . . page 42

Terry v Ohio 392 US at 21-22, 20 L Ed 2d 889 at 905, 88 S Ct 1868 - cited in Remers - officer must be

able to point to articulable facts - BUT TERRY CANNOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY INTRUSION INTO A

US v Bass 39 L Ed 2d 488 - ambiguity in the ambit of a statute should be resolved in favor of lenity.

US v Blackston 940 F2d 877 (3rd Cir 1991) - use is circumstantial evidence of possession - cites Spann47

US v Carolene Products (1944) 323 US 18, 89 L Ed 15, 65 S Ct 1, 155 ALR 1371 footnote:Legislation

unfair to discrete and insular minorities may be entitled to strict scrutiny . . . . page . 58

US v Chadwick (1977) 433 US 1, 53 L Ed 2d 538, 97 S Ct 2476 - cited by Palaschak in his motion to

suppress. Supreme Court affirmed suppression of locked footlocker taken from open trunk of parked

car outside train terminal upon arrest of drug suspects and opened 1.5 hours later at the police station

without a warrant - similar to the command for Jessica Jobin to produce the LSD from her purse

after the police had secured Palaschak's office. Search warrant is needed even when the police

officer has reasonable grounds or probable cause - and police did not even have probable cause in

US v Desurra 865 F2d 651, 916 F2d 1008, 1010 Cited in ecstasy analog case . . . . page 68

US v Hellman (9th Cir 1977) 556 F 2d 442 - pretextual impound and inventory . . . . page 38

US v Martin 984 F 2d 308 (9th Cir 1993) - avoids the Spann issue by ruling on other basis . 47

US v Robinson (1980) 504 F Supp 425 - a smuggler had a right to assert standing in a suitcase that was

not his because he had the key and the right to exclude others - except for the true owner - a situation

identical to Palaschak's standing with regard to Jessica's purse. Palaschak attempted to exclude others

by virtue of enclosing the purse in his own property - behind not one but 2 sets of doors. Palaschak did

US v Seeger (1965) 380 US 163, 13 L Ed 2d 733, 85 S Ct 850 - Philosophical beliefs entitled to same

US v Socey 846 F 2d 1439 (DC Cir 1988) - VERY APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE. The nature of

exigency defines the scope of the search and thus exigent circumstances may justify a warrantless entry

and securing of the premises but not justify a full scale search of the occupants of the premises. A

warrantless entry or search must be proportionate to the exigency excusing the warrant

US v Tillman 963 F2d 137 - consent deemed invalid because consenter was in custody by virtue of not

being free to leave - like Jessica Jobin and Palaschak . . . . page . . . . page 30

US v Watson (DC Cal) 189 F Supp 776 - Cited by Sup. Ct. in Wong Sun. Watson surrendered drugs

before search. He volunteered the upon being questioned by officers - very similar to Jessica Jobin's

actions in Palaschak's office - the distinction being that all the people in Wong Sun were arrested, but

US v Wiltberger (1820) 5 Wheat 76, 95, 5 L Ed 37 cited in Huddleston as a source of the contention that

"Ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity." . . . . page . . . . page 51

US v Wong Quong Wong (DC D. Vermont 1899) Wrongfully seized papers could not be used in

Weeks v US (1914) 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, LRA 1915 B, 834, 34 S Ct 341, Ann Cas 1915C, 1177 -

Exclusionary rule comes to the US having been applied in England many years . . . . page 21, 36

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) 319 US 624 invalidating a compulsory flag

salute as applied to Jehovah's Witnesses: "We can have intellectual individualism and the rich

cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity

Wong Sun (1963) 371 US 471, 9 L Ed 2d 441, 83 S Ct 407 - Our leading case regarding suppression

Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) 118 US 356, 30 L Ed 220 - forbids discriminatory prosecution . . . . page . 68

Business and Professions Code §6102 b was amended effective 1986 to read in pertinent part as shown

Business and Professions Code §6102 - interim suspension. Full text is set forth in appendix. 60, 61, 68

Health and Safety Code Section 11054 - which does not list LSD (it lists lysergic acid diethylamide) and

thus deprives the ordinary non-chemist citizen of notice that LSD is proscribed. This stretches the

legal fiction of construtctive notice behond its constitutional limits. Palaschak should not be required to

have a knowledge of chemistry to interpret a statute. The alternative is for the citizen to presume that all

recreational chemicals are proscribed. The legislature could easily have employed the common name

as it did with peyote, mescaline, and a multitufe of other proscribed hallucinogens . . . . page . . . . page 50

Health and Safety Code section 11377 - possession - refers to list in H&S code 11054 - which does not

list "LSD" - only lysergic acid diethylamide - which unconstitutionally requires KNOWLEDGE OF

CHEMISTRY for LEGAL NOTICE THAT POSSESSION OF LSD IS PROSCRIBED this law - which

stretches the LEGAL FICTION of constructive knowledge beyond its constitutional bounds . . . . page 50, 59

Health and Safety Code §11213 is unconstitutional in that it discriminates against discrete and insular

minorities by permitting only certain majoritarian factions to perform research on drugs. This section

refers to "applicable federal laws" as qualification for research and possession during research.11213 67

Penal Code 17 B. See this table under "Business and Professions Code §6102" for comparison and

application of 17b in this case. Penal Code §17 B reads in pertinent part as follows:

"(b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, by imprisonment in the state prison or by

fine or imprisonment in the county jail, it is a misdemeanor FOR ALL PURPOSES under the following circumstances:

(1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the state prison.

(3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of sentence and at the

time of granting probation, or upon application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter,

the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor. [This is the applicable section. Palaschak

was placed on probation without imposition of sentence (RT 468:20) and subsequently his

(4) [When the prosecution files as a misdemeanor. Sic. Makes no provision for the permutation of what

(5) [When magistrate deems it a misdemeanor prior to preliminary examination. Once again, no

Penal Code § 1111 - Conviction may not be based on the testimony of an accomplice absent admissible

corroboration of WHO actually possessed the LSD . . . . page . . . . page 1, 4, 9, 10, 75, 76

Penal Code §1181(1) - modification by court of appeal . . . . page . . . . page 47

Penal Code §1531 - knock and notice of TRUE PURPOSE OF POLICE VISIT . . . . page 38

Penal Code §844 - knock and notice of TRUE PURPOSE OF POLICE VISIT . . . . page . 38

3 L Ed 2d 1736: What constitutes “probable cause” or “reasonable grounds” justifying arrest of

narcotics suspect without warrant - federal cases, an annotation to Draper v U.S. (Jan 1959) 358

Acid Dreams, 1992 - Documentary of the CIA and military dirty tricks in the war against LSD and of the

ALR 117:929 Acceptance of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence as waiver of error or right to

ALR 74:683 Payment of fine, serving sentence, or discharge on habeas corpus, as waiver of right to

ALR Fed 49:511 Admissibility of Evidence discovered in a Warrantless Search of Premises with Consent

ALR Fed 6:724 What constitutes "reasonable grounds" justifying arrest of narcotics suspect without

warrant under §104a of Narcotics Control Act of 1956. Supersedes 3 L Ed 2d 1736 but that is

ALR Fed 68:19 Disparate Impact test for sex discrimination in employment under 42 USC 2000 . . . . page . . . . page . 52

ALR2D 23:919 Admissibility in evidence of unsigned confession . . . . page . . . . page . 52

ALR2D 45:1316 Corroboration of extrajudicial confession or admission. Cites Wong Sun . . . . page 52

ALR2d 55:1072 Right of indigent defendant in criminal case to aid of state as regards new trial or

ALR2d 55:1072 Right of indigent defendant in criminal case to aid of state as regards new trial or appeal 75

ALR3d 31:565 What constitutes "custodial interrogation" within rule of Miranda v Arizona requiring that

suspect be informed of his federal constitutional rights before custodial interrogation . . . . page 42

ALR3d 35:939 Free Exercise of Religion as Defense to Prosecution for Psychedelic Drug Use . 66

ALR3d 50:1164 Marijuana, psilocybin, peyote, or similar drugs of vegetable origin as narcotics for

ALR3d 50:1284 (1973) LSD or other synthetic substances as Drugs for purposes of prosecution. 10

ALR3d 9:462 When criminal case becomes moot so as to preclude review of or attack on conviction or

ALR3D 9:858 Validity of consent to search given by one in custody of officers . . . . page . 30

ALR3d 95:280 - What constitutes DISCRIMINATORY PROSECUTION or discriminatory enforcement of

ALR4th 13:533 Adequacy of...counsel...regarding post plea remedies . . . . page 75

ALR4th 25:419 Validity of confessions and admissions made under the influence of drugs or alcohol -

ALR4th 29:771@795 (1984) Lawfulness of warrantless search of purse or wallet of person arrested or

suspected of crime. Cites Remers. See also the multitude of cases in the 1993 pocket supplement . . . . page . 40

ALR4th 44:401 Limitations on state prosecuting attorney's discretion to initiate prosecution by indictment

ALR4TH 81:259 Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of investigators . . . . page . . . . page . 52

ALR5th 4:1 Minimum Quantity of Drug Required for Conviction of Possession - 115 pages - section 35

ALRFed 26:218 Modern status of rule as to test in federal court of effective representation by counsel 75

ALRFed 26:218 Modern status of rule as to test in federal court of effective representation by

Confusing the 5th amendment with the 6th: Lower Court Misapplication of the Innis Definition of

Discriminatory Prosecution, Motion to Dismiss for, Cal Crim Forms §27.5 . . . . page 68

Drugs and the Brain, Dr. Solomon Snyder, 1988, Scientific American . 53, 55, 58, 61, 67

Encyclopedia Brittanica, 15th Edition, 1974 - LSD was clinically administered to children for up to 1.5

years in successful treatment of autism - and reduced recidivism in prisons . . . . page . . . . page . 65

Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1972 Edition (available in jail law library) Pharmacological Cults . . . . page 60

Hastings Law Journal 19:667 1967/68 Psychedelics and Religious Freedom . . . . page . 63

Hastings Law Journal 19:758 1967/68. The California marijuana possession statute: an infringement on

the right of privacy of other peripheral constitutional rights? Very pertinent article . . . . page . . . . page 35

Jonakait, Restoring the Confrontation Clause to the 6th amendment. 35 UCLA L Rev 557, April 1988. 42

Judicial Control of Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons, and Agent Provocateurs, 60 Yale Law Journal 19019

L Ed 2d 102:1049 Supreme Court's views as to accused's federal constitutional right to counsel on

L Ed 2d 22:909 Physical examination...or tests upon suspect or accused as violative of rights guaranteed

L Ed 2d 37:1147 Supreme Court cases involving establishment and freedom of religion clauses of

L Ed 2d 47:975 Supreme Court's views as to concept of "liberty" under due process clauses of 5th and

L Ed 2d 83:1112 When is attorney's representation...so deficient as to [deny] effective assistance of

L Ed 2d 83:1112 When is attorney's representation...so deficient as to [deny] effective assistance

L Ed 2d 92:862 Supreme Court's Views as to prejudicial effect in criminal case of erroneous instructions

LSD Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: Side Effects and Complications, J. Nerv. and Mental Disease 130:30

Plato. 7th book of The Republic describes mysticism as "the brightest region of being." . . . . page . 62

Proof of Facts 2d 18:681 Third Party Lack of Authority to Consent to Search . . . . page . 29

Proof of Facts 2d 22:539 Involuntariness of Confession Induced by Psychological Coercion - totality of

Religious Aspects of Psychedelic Drugs California Law Review (1968) 56:86 - one of the best in the

Sixth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: Stepchild of the Right to Counsel. 24 Houston Law Review 765,

Sixth Amendment - Paternalistic override of Waiver of Right to Conflict-free Counsel at Expense of Right

to Counsel of One's Choice. 79 J Crim L 7 Criminology 735, Fall 1988 . . . . page . . . . page 42

Sixth amendment - Preclusion of Defense Witnesses and the 6th amendment's compulsory process

Clause Right to Present a Defense, 79 Crim L & Criminology 835, Fall, 1985 discussing Taylor v Illinois

108 S Ct 646 (1988) wherein a defendant was precluded, as a sanction discovery violation, from bringing

a witness in his defense - this case being the exception that proves the rule . . . . page . . . . page . 42

Witkin and Epstein, California Criminal Law, 2nd Edition . . . . page . . . . page 38, 48

Alaska constitution privacy clause - compared to California constitution privacy clause . . . . page . . . . page 37

California Constitution Article 1 section 15 - Double Jeopardy Clause and other criminal provisions,

"The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial, to compel attendance of

witnesses in the defendant's behalf, to have the assistance of counsel for the defendant's defense, to

be personally present with counsel, and to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant. The

legislature may provide for the deposition of a witness in the presence of the defendant and the

Persons may not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, be compelled in a criminal

cause to be a witness against themselves, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are

enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing

and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Of course, the 9th amendment provides that all

unspecified powers inure to the people. Furthermore, if they are inalienable rights, then the Attorney

General of California cannot say that we don't have the right simply because California passed a statute

presuming to take away the right - and especially where, as with LSD, California refused to pass a statute

to take away the right to use LSD and the California Supreme Court permits Indians to use a very similar

Constitutional History of England, May (1863) Volume 2 page 275 . . . . page 9

Declaration of Independence - it's self-evident - we have a right to pursue happiness! . . . . page . . . . page 59

Ex Parte Jackson 96 US 727, 733, 24 L Ed 877 - cited in Nueslein - probably for its bibliography of

sources of interpretation of the 4th amendment - which sources are listed herein at the discussion of

Nueslein which had a factual situation strikingly similar to Palaschak's case in that police came through the 1st door in both cases and knocked on the second door - makes no difference. They should not have entered the 1st door . . . . page . 25

Madison, James, Memorial and Remonstrance, in 6 Papers of James Madison (W. Hutchinson & W. Rachal ed. 1962): "The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate . . .Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Universe . . . . page ." 63

Magna Carta (Original is available at Lincoln Cathedral and Salisbury England - see Encyclopedia

Brittanica) - Signed in 1215 - at the point of a sword by King John in a field at Runnymede, England

guarantees rights to all descendants of the English Empire and is a part of our heritage and common law.

It is written in old English and therefore a translation is shown below - edited slightly.It

1) (Clause 20) Amercements (fines) for slight offenses shall be in accordance with the measure of the offense;

2) (20) Amercements for serious offenses shall not be so heavy as to deprive anyone of his means of livelihood.;

3) (20) Amercements are to be assessed by honest mean of the neighborhood (as distinguished from

4) (Clause 18,19)Trials shall be local and enough people shall be there to take care of business on the

5) (32) In the case of a felony, the lands of those convicted shall be held by the king for a year and a day

6) (38) No bailiff on his own bare word without credible witnesses is to send a man to the ordeal;

7) (45) The king will not appoint any judges, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, except such as know the law

8) (30) No sheriff or any other royal officer shall take any free man's horses or carts for carriage duty

9) (28) No constable or other royal officer shall take anyone's corn or other chattels without making

immediate payment, unless the seller is willing . . . . page . . . . page 31, 35, 54, 59

Proposition 8 - Truth in Evidence. Subordinate to federal constitutional rights such as the knock and

Sources and Limitations of Religious Freedom, The, Summers, 41 Ill L Rev 53, 69 (1949)Our forefathers

knew that to forbid unorthodox modes of religious experience and worship "is to make . . . . page . [religious]

beliefs an empty shell and religious life a hollow mockery." . . . . page . . . . page 64

Suetonius, The lives of the 12 Caesars 192 (Modern Lib Ed 1931) Quoted by Justice Douglas in the last

footnote in Huddleston regarding lack of notice:"[Caesar Caligula] had the law posted up, but in a very

narrow place and in excessively small letters, to prevent the making of a copy." . 50, 51

Supreme Court's Views as to Concepts of "Liberty" under Due Process clauses of 5th and 14th

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment

or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in

actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property

US Constitutions 1st amendment. Rights of association and speech . . . . page . 52, 63

W. Blackstone, Commentaries, Book 2, Chapter 1 holds that one of the main rights to property is the

right to exclude others. Palaschak had the right to exclude others from Jessica Jobin's purse because

Palaschak excluded others from the office (by virtue of the generally locked front door) and particularly

from the inner office by virtue of the door being closed. Palaschak did indeed have a property interest in

California Law Review 56:86. 1968. Religious Aspects of Psychedelic Drugs by Eminent Author Walter

Hastings Law Journal 19:667 1967/68 Psychedelics and Religious Freedom - Timothy Leary's successful

Hastings Law Journal 19:758. 1967/68 The California marijuana possession statute: an infringement on

the right of privacy of other peripheral constitutional rights? . . . . page . . . . page 35

University of San Francisco Law Review 1:131 (Oct 1966) 18 pages. LSD and Freedom of Religion . 61

Instant message me: I am lawyerdude1989 on Yahoo instant messenger. I am dlawyedude on msn messenger.

My most useful web pages and my most popular web pages are these following pages:

4. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html

6. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:

8. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?

27. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html