"she failed to under the nature and laws of contracts and contractural obligations."
This bogus nonsense has nothing at all to do with anything. He may as well have claimed that he was the victim of the Rule Against Perpetuities. His motion is babbling nonsense. Contracts and contractual obligations have zero to do with his basic assertion that he as "not involved in the crimes".
The law clerk at the Circuit Court of Appeals who is assigned this motion to review will get a chuckle out of it. The DOJ will wonder how to craft an opposition motion replying to this jumbled nonsense. How do you make a counter-argument to rambling, incomprehensible statements that just make no sense from a legal standpoint?
"First the Central Government implemented Federalism therein violating Appellant' rights under Amendment X. Then the prosecutor violated Appellant's rights under IXth Amendment by interfering with the rights between two persons to contract."
First, the statement itself is pure nonsense, second there is zero interference with anyone's right to contract, and third there is no applicability of contract law to the charges Roofie and Ben were convicted of in the case - it is irrelevant.
He clearly cribbed this argument from another case in which the appellant was challenging the underlying LAW that they (in the other case) were being charged under as being an unconstitutional law. That is not Ben's argument however. Ben is not claiming that the laws against Federal securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy are unconstitutional and invalid law.
Other than that, it's spot-on - LOL!
I say they should instead blame the Rule Against Perpetuities and rail against the 14th Amendment claiming they are being held as slaves in prison. It would make as much or more sense than what was written in the appeal motion.
