5th Amendment Breach In Oregon Cannabis

“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 offense 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 be taken for public use, without just compensation.”


The 5th Amendment can be construed as roughly 5 different clauses all wrapped into one.  One of those clauses speaks to self incrimination and this is how a person is able to respond with “I plead the fifth” against any questioning under testimony or public record.

This same clause should also protect Americans from self incrimination of baseless drug-war regulations brought up by state agencies.  In Oregon for instance, the legislation passed by the citizenry handed over recreational regulation to the Liquor Control Agency created a “Marijuana Handlers License” that individuals employed under a business with a recreational license are required to buy/maintain.

Recently the DEA released a statement saying they planned no movement for cannabis on the Controlled Substances Act and that the federal boogeyman status quo would remain.  This statement made sure that the IRS didn’t have to change it’s tune towards cannabis tax-payers and the financial industry did not have to coordinate an acceptance policy for the huge amounts of cash and assets at stake.

This status quo creates a problem with state agencies attempting to “register” “individuals” as “operators” in activity that is federally incriminating.

The differentiation between a corporation, an LLC, c-corp and a sovereign individual needs to be observed and as many may speculate that working for a “licensed employer” in a “legal state” would comprise a “safe haven” for individuals trying to earn a living, it still breaches each individuals 5th Amendment right.  Placing licensing requirements on “businesses” does not run afoul of the 5th Amendment due to the fact that the constitution does not recognize businesses as a citizen.  We also have observed on a repeated basis, that having a business license also doesn’t make you exempt from being swat-teamed by the DEA and have your assets forfeited, be it on a Tribal Nation, or in a legal state.

This self-incrimination through public registration and record is also being brought to bear with the IRS.  When someone is forced to file a public federal tax record within their cannabis-business, to pay federal income tax, they are breaching their 5th Amendment right.  A case has yet to be brought to bear on the distinction between being forced to appease a federal tax code, while operating under state law, as to whether your public record of tax forms creates a record by which the federal court can use as documentation against you.

There are documents stating that the IRS code is neutral and does not have a distinction as to whether income is derived from illegal sources or not – but this is totally false due to the fact that cannabis-based businesses have been disbarred from using the 280E form to deduct expenses incurred from doing business.  Clearly the IRS is very interested in making sure they understand what exact activity is taking place to derive the income, as to not run afoul with the controlled substances act, and does not offer standard deductions for expenses that is available to any other business type.

Both paying taxes as an employee or contractor within a cannabis business as an individual, and paying taxes as a business owner both construe a breach of 5th Amendment rights.

By requiring individuals to register as a “documented employee” in a federally illegal activity/industry, they are mandating a self incrimination activity and cannot be accepted until cannabis is removed from the CSA.

It’s going to take a lawsuit towards the state before an acknowledgment of this fact is given.  Perhaps there is a lawyer who will help file it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s