Is Ed Forchion, “NJ Weedman”, ‘unconvictable’?

Image may contain: 2 people, including Edward Forchion, people smiling, text

New Jersey’s most notorious pothead has called himself “conviction proof.”

njweed op st

Long time Activist for Cannabis legalization and Human Rights,  Cancer patient, Author, Actor and Politician, was released Thursday from the Mercer County Jail, after having been incarcerated 447 days, since March of 2017.  He was acquitted of witness tampering in a Mercer County New Jersey Courtroom on Thursday, May 24th. 

Acting as his own Attorney the Jury found him “not guilty”.

There has been quite a few articles published in the media in New Jersey about the case.  As well he has quite a following on Facebook and other social media.  Various video’s and information is posted throughout his profile and I encourage you to view them and become familiar with the case.  It is these activist’s, the ones who go to Court and fight unfair charges brought upon them, that are fighting for our freedoms!  There are many of them out there.  Most are   never even heard of.  But it is our responsibility to see that the “real news” is shared with everyone so that the truth can be told about the Justice System as it stands today.  It must change!  #Jury Nullification is one way to do this.

Getting involved in Politics is another.  Ed Forchion is “still running for Mayor…”!

BTW – in still running for Mayor as a write in (despite) Mr Harris ( city clerk Trenton) June 12th – Election #Forchion4Mayor  LINK

Image result

Edward Forchion

May 25 at 12:21pm ·

Press Conference 4:00pm
322 east state street, trenton nj 08608

Edward forchion and Christoher Campbell esq make major announcement about remaining cases before. Mercer county prosecutors office. I’m still a write in for Mayor 2018 ( June 12th)

I promised in april of 2016 that’d I’d whoop Prosecutor onofri’s ass. ( I’ve beat two of his minions) I ask that Onofri prosecute the remaining cases himself.

I’d like to talk about theBail Reform Act and the constitutionally unfair trial I was receiving despite the jury – rejecting the states false narrative used to create this vindictive prosecution.

I will be amending my current federal lawsuit ( forchion vs trenton, 3:16cv01339pgs) to add the malious police misconduct and prosecutorial vendetta in regards to the constitutional detention I just suffered the last 16months

Www.njweedman.com/Federal_Amended_Lawsuit2018.pdf

Edward forchion

4:00pm –

nj4

Above:  Reading of the verdict LINK

Image may contain: 2 people, including Edward Forchion, people standing and text

Above:  After the “not guilty” verdict!

Continuing on, Ed Forchion still has another trial and a Lawsuit pending to handle in the upcoming days and months, not to mention the Election in June.  All of this makes for quite a busy schedule.  Per information posted to his profile today he has retained a well known Attorney to help in the process. 

Forchion has retained another attorney, Mario Williams, a managing partner out of the Virginia-based firm Nexus Caridades.  He was put in touch with the attorney through reality TV star Dog the Bounty Hunter, who championed Forchion’s cause.  Williams is expected to represent him in both federal lawsuits, part of a bigger fightback campaign the marijuana activist has launched to exonerate himself in his upcoming trial and restore his name.  LINK

…Mario is Mario Williams, an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney who took a winding road to become one of the nation’s foremost legal advocates for those in need. The bulk of his cases focus on civil-rights violations, police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, and wrongful incarcerations. LINK

This quote and link explain the latest lawsuit pending.

Already hit with drug charges following a raid on his downtown business, Forchion’s lawsuit complained he was illegally and unconstitutionally being detained at the Mercer County Correction Center on witness tampering charges.  In a phoned jailhouse interview with The Trentonian, Forchion laid out tactics for how he will avoid convictions that could send him to prison for a long time. He has filed an ethics complaint against Mercer County Judge Anthony Massi, who presided over his case. LINK

Below:  link to PDF of the suit filed against the City of Trenton NJ.

nj 2

Below are links to past and current articles concerning the cases of Ed Forchion.

Exclusive Interview with ‘NJ Weedman’ Ed Forchion From Behind Bars  5.3.17

NJ Weedman acquitted of witness tampering at 2nd trial  5.24.18

‘Weedman’ takes a knee in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick at the start of his new trial 5.15.18

NJ Weedman not guilty on 1 witness tampering count, jury hung on 2nd  11.9.17

Despite a victory in court for Ed “NJ Weedman” Forchion on Thursday, he remains behind bars  11.9.17

NJ Weedman on trial: Everything you need to know  10.29.17

NJ Weedman files ethics charge against judge  9.20.17

Judge rules to keep ID of informant in NJ Weedman case private  2.25.17

NJ Weedman says he was behind jury nullification flier stunt at Mercer County court  5.27.16

Authorities say pot sales at NJ Weedman’s Joint led to investigation  4.28.16

NJ Weedman’s Joint raided by police narcotics squad 4.28.16

‘NJ Weedman’s Joint’ opens in Trenton with $4.20 specials 6.15.15

 STATE ASSEMBLYMAN - REED GUSCIORA presenting THE JOINT with a Joint Resolution from the state assembly.   

Welcome to the Joint

Continue to follow the NJ Weedman, Ed Forchion on his Facebook Profile. and review the information at his website,                   

“NJWeedman.Com”

.

http://www.nj.com/marijuana/2018/05/witness_to_weedman_youre_trying_to_scare_me.html#incart_river_index

http://www.njweedman.com/Federal_Amended_Lawsuit2018.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/NJWEEDMAN?fref=search

https://atlantadailyworld.com/2018/04/09/atlanta-civil-rights-lawyer-mario-williams-leads-major-lawsuit-against-white-supremacists/

http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20170920/nj-weedman-files-ethics-charge-against-judge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Forchion

http://nj1015.com/not-guilty-after-representing-himself-nj-weedman-freed-by-jury/

https://www.facebook.com/NJWEEDMAN/videos/1956025974431598/

http://fija.org/document-library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification/

Editorial; Marijuana nullification?

March 22, 2016

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up a challenge to Colorado’s voter-approved law legalizing recreational marijuana, but the legal question the case raises can’t be ignored indefinitely. The question is as old as the republic: How far can states go in substituting their own laws for those of the federal government? The issue of marijuana raises that question now. In the past it has been raised by the issues of tariffs, slavery and desegregation, and in the future it could come up in relation to anything from abortion to immigration.

The states of Nebraska and Oklahoma asked the court to overturn Colorado’s four-year-old law, claiming that it imposed costs on their law-enforcement systems. The lawsuit described the emergence of a $100 million marijuana industry in a neighboring state, and argued that “If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel.”

Instead, the federal government has turned a nearsighted, if not quite blind, eye toward Colorado’s law, along with similar laws in Oregon, Alaska, Washington state and the District of Columbia. The federal government also has largely looked away from the more narrow laws in 22 states legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is categorized as a drug whose possession and use is prohibited under all circumstances.

The federal classification of marijuana is foolish, destructive and should be changed — but it’s still the law, and like other laws, foolish or wise, it is meant to be obeyed. Yet the U.S. Justice Department has told prosecutors to ignore state legalization laws, as long as marijuana possession, use and sale remain within a set of guidelines. Federal authorities will step in, for instance, to prevent interstate commerce in marijuana, or to keep the drug out of the hands of children. Within those guidelines, just about anything goes, as Oregonians can see from the proliferation of pot products and retailers.

The Justice Department’s permissive approach avoids a confrontation over the limits of state and federal authority. Such confrontations have occurred in the past. The friction goes back to the nation’s founding, when it was the states, not a federal government, that dissolved the colonies’ ties to the British crown and ratified the U.S. Constitution. In the early 19th century, advocates of state supremacy argued that states have the right to secede in response to what they perceived as federal overreach — a position that led to the Civil War. Figures ranging from John Calhoun to George Wallace have advanced variants of that idea, claiming that states have the power to nullify federal laws with which they disagree.

Advocates of marijuana legalization have not argued for nullification. So far the Justice Department, and now the Supreme Court, have sidestepped the question of whether nullification has occurred. But marijuana legalization laws such as Oregon’s can’t be squared with the federal Controlled Substances Act, and as a practical matter, the state laws have been allowed to prevail. Someone, somewhere, is bound to point to this as establishing a precedent for states’ right to set aside other federal laws.

If Oregon can legalize marijuana in defiance of federal law, why can’t other states make their own rules regarding health care, the environment or civil rights? It’s regrettable that the Supreme Court decided against hearing a case that raised such questions, because they are inherent in any state law legalizing marijuana — and, perhaps soon, in other state laws that openly conflict with federal law.

CONTINUE READING…

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states

By DAVID A. LIEB — Associated Press

 

 

ohhhh-so-beautiful

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested – charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.

Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states’ rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws – setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.

An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.

Some states, such as Montana and Arizona, have said "no" to the feds again and again – passing states’ rights measures on all four subjects examined by the AP – despite questions about whether their "no" carries any legal significance.

"It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.

Yet "the law is clear – the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn’t like those laws," Winkler added.

The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn’t stopped some states from flouting those federal laws – sometimes successfully.

About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments – despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama’s administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn’t worth their time to target those people.

Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama’s 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.

After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don’t apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The states created this federal monster, and so it’s time for the states to get their monster on a leash," said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can’t even be enforced by federal authorities.

A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations – past, present, or future – that "infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms."

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.

"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.

Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.

So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?

"They’re going to have problems if they do it – there’s no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states’ rights. "There’s no federal court in the country that’s going to say that a state can pull this off."

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, "it’s going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.

Missouri’s governor has not said whether he will sign or veto the bill nullifying federal gun laws. Meanwhile, thousands of people have sent online messages to the governor’s office about the legislation.

Signing the measure "will show other states how to resist the tyranny of federal bureaucrats who want to rob you of your right to self-defense," said one message, signed by Jim and Arlena Sowash, who own a gun shop in rural Stover, Mo.

Others urged a veto.

"Outlandish bills like this – completely flouting our federal system – make Missouri the laughingstock of the nation," said a message written by Ann Havelka, of the Kansas City suburb of Gladstone.

Follow David A. Lieb at: http://www.twitter.com/DavidALieb

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/06/21/2686935/federal-nullification-efforts.html#storylink=cpy

New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

Marijuana

 

Written by  Alex Newman

Following the adoption of a new state law on jury nullification in June, a New Hampshire jury nullified its first major felony marijuana case on September 14 when jurors decided to free Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old father of four grown children who was growing illegal plants in his backyard. Activists hailed the decision as a significant victory for the jury nullification movement, which aims to revive awareness about the power inherent in juries to protect citizens from overzealous prosecutors and bad laws by nullifying cases.  
Darrell, a Rastafarian piano tuner and woodworker who has been married for almost four decades, was arrested after a National Guard helicopter spotted some marijuana plants on his property in Barnstead. State prosecutors charged him with cultivation, a felony that could have carried up to seven years in prison.
It was clear that he had been growing the marijuana — nobody disputed that. Eventually Darrell was offered a deal that would have allowed him to avoid jail time and fines in exchange for a misdemeanor guilty plea. He refused, however, citing his religion and its view that marijuana is a sacrament. So the case went to trial.
Jurors, led by liberty-minded activist Cathleen Converse of the Free State Project, decided Darrell should be set free. “Mr. Darrell is a peaceful man, he never deals with the darker elements of society and he grows for his own personal religious and medicinal use,” Converse said during an exclusive interview with Free Talk Live, a freedom-oriented talk-radio program. “I knew that my community would be poorer rather than better off had he been convicted.”
So, to prevent that, she helped convince other jurors to do as the defense suggested: vote their conscience and declare Darrell a free man. “Many of us wondered what kind of precedent this would set,” Converse continued. “But after chewing on all of the possibilities and re-reading the definition of nullification, we all decided that the only fair thing to do was to vote with our consciences and acquit the defendant of all charges.”
Jury nullification, of course, is a time-tested practice that goes back to before the American Declaration of Independence. Essentially, it occurs when members of a jury decide to free somebody even though prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed violate a criminal statute.
Juries have historically relied on nullification for various reasons including to reject unjust or unconstitutional laws, to free defendants in cases where laws have been misapplied by overzealous officials, and more. During alcohol prohibition it became commonplace as jurors refused en masse to convict their compatriots for drinking illegal substances.
Before that, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay informed a jury in 1794 that jurors have “a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Numerous other Supreme Court justices and Founding Fathers have touted the practice, too. And despite being largely overlooked today, activists across America are trying hard to build awareness about it.   
In June, those nullification advocates secured a major victory. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed HB 146 into law allowing defendants to inform jurors about the jury’s “right to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.” That law does not officially take effect until January, but it has already made waves throughout the state’s judiciary system.
“It’s a really important development,” Darrell’s defense attorney Mark Sisti told the New Hampshire Union Leader, adding that most state residents have no problem with moderate marijuana use by adults and that legislatures across America are rethinking their laws on the controversial plant. “We’re moving along a path we should have been on years ago.”
Sisti acknowledged, though, that the judge’s decision to instruct the jury about nullification was crucial to the victory. Judge James O’Neill, following the state’s model jury instruction on nullification, told jurors that “even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case.”
While warning that jury nullification is not a “get-out-of-jail-free card,” Sisti celebrated the ruling and the clearing of his client. “Cases like this shouldn’t be brought,” he was quoted as saying. “And when they are brought, I think that safety valve, that nullification safety valve, is very important. Other states had better start waking up, because without it, people are going to be convicted of very serious charges through hypocrisy. The jury’s going to think they can’t do anything else, and that’s wrong.”
The prosecutor who brought charges against Darrell for his illegal plants also admitted that the judge’s decision to instruct the jury on nullification was key to the government’s defeat, but she tried to downplay its effect going forward. “I don’t see it as being that significant in changing our practice and the practice of the court,” the prosecutor told the Union Leader
Cathleen Converse, the juror who reportedly helped push the case for nullification, however, is among a growing number of Americans who believe that there should be a victim for something to be considered a crime. “Mr. Darrell seemed to be the only victim here,” she explained after the acquittal. “Almost everyone said this just shouldn’t have happened to these peaceful people.”
In New Hampshire — the official state motto is “Live Free or Die” — such views have become increasingly influential. That’s in part due to the birth of the Free State Project, an ongoing plan to have thousands of liberty-minded people from across America move to the Granite State to build a more libertarian society. FSP activists have already elected more than a few lawmakers, and their influence continued to grow.
“So far, over 12,750 participants have pledged to relocate to the state, and more than 1,000 have already moved, over a dozen of which are currently elected members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives,” said Free State Project President Carla Gericke in a press release touting the acquittal. “Once here, participants are free to pursue their own causes and I’m excited to see that progress is being made.”
While the Darrell case probably will not be shutting down the unconstitutional, trillion-dollar federal drug war anytime soon, analysts said it was an important milestone in several respects. For one, it illustrates the growing opposition to imprisoning people for drug use, which has been a key contributor to the fact that the United States has far more prisoners per capita than any other nation in the world. Well over a dozen states have already nullified federal marijuana laws
More importantly, perhaps, the acquittal of Doug Darrell represents a significant revival of jury nullification. The centuries-old practice has always been a critical tool in the fight against government tyranny. So, with the victory in New Hampshire and many more anticipated in the near future, liberty-minded activists across America are hoping the trend spreads quickly to other states.
Related articles:
New Hampshire Passes Jury Nullification Law
Former Drug Warrior Persecuted for Activism Uses Arrest to Push Jury Nullification
Judge Sentences Politically Incorrect Juror to More Jury Duty
State Lawmakers Blast Obama’s War on Medical Marijuana
A Brilliant Exposition on the Effectiveness of Nullification
Drug War a “Failure,” Says N.J. GOP Gov. Chris Christie
The Other Unconstitutional War

CONTINUE READING…

New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

Marijuana

 

Written by  Alex Newman

Following the adoption of a new state law on jury nullification in June, a New Hampshire jury nullified its first major felony marijuana case on September 14 when jurors decided to free Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old father of four grown children who was growing illegal plants in his backyard. Activists hailed the decision as a significant victory for the jury nullification movement, which aims to revive awareness about the power inherent in juries to protect citizens from overzealous prosecutors and bad laws by nullifying cases.  
Darrell, a Rastafarian piano tuner and woodworker who has been married for almost four decades, was arrested after a National Guard helicopter spotted some marijuana plants on his property in Barnstead. State prosecutors charged him with cultivation, a felony that could have carried up to seven years in prison.
It was clear that he had been growing the marijuana — nobody disputed that. Eventually Darrell was offered a deal that would have allowed him to avoid jail time and fines in exchange for a misdemeanor guilty plea. He refused, however, citing his religion and its view that marijuana is a sacrament. So the case went to trial.
Jurors, led by liberty-minded activist Cathleen Converse of the Free State Project, decided Darrell should be set free. “Mr. Darrell is a peaceful man, he never deals with the darker elements of society and he grows for his own personal religious and medicinal use,” Converse said during an exclusive interview with Free Talk Live, a freedom-oriented talk-radio program. “I knew that my community would be poorer rather than better off had he been convicted.”
So, to prevent that, she helped convince other jurors to do as the defense suggested: vote their conscience and declare Darrell a free man. “Many of us wondered what kind of precedent this would set,” Converse continued. “But after chewing on all of the possibilities and re-reading the definition of nullification, we all decided that the only fair thing to do was to vote with our consciences and acquit the defendant of all charges.”
Jury nullification, of course, is a time-tested practice that goes back to before the American Declaration of Independence. Essentially, it occurs when members of a jury decide to free somebody even though prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed violate a criminal statute.
Juries have historically relied on nullification for various reasons including to reject unjust or unconstitutional laws, to free defendants in cases where laws have been misapplied by overzealous officials, and more. During alcohol prohibition it became commonplace as jurors refused en masse to convict their compatriots for drinking illegal substances.
Before that, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay informed a jury in 1794 that jurors have “a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Numerous other Supreme Court justices and Founding Fathers have touted the practice, too. And despite being largely overlooked today, activists across America are trying hard to build awareness about it.   
In June, those nullification advocates secured a major victory. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed HB 146 into law allowing defendants to inform jurors about the jury’s “right to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.” That law does not officially take effect until January, but it has already made waves throughout the state’s judiciary system.
“It’s a really important development,” Darrell’s defense attorney Mark Sisti told the New Hampshire Union Leader, adding that most state residents have no problem with moderate marijuana use by adults and that legislatures across America are rethinking their laws on the controversial plant. “We’re moving along a path we should have been on years ago.”
Sisti acknowledged, though, that the judge’s decision to instruct the jury about nullification was crucial to the victory. Judge James O’Neill, following the state’s model jury instruction on nullification, told jurors that "even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case."
While warning that jury nullification is not a “get-out-of-jail-free card,” Sisti celebrated the ruling and the clearing of his client. "Cases like this shouldn’t be brought," he was quoted as saying. "And when they are brought, I think that safety valve, that nullification safety valve, is very important. Other states had better start waking up, because without it, people are going to be convicted of very serious charges through hypocrisy. The jury’s going to think they can’t do anything else, and that’s wrong."
The prosecutor who brought charges against Darrell for his illegal plants also admitted that the judge’s decision to instruct the jury on nullification was key to the government’s defeat, but she tried to downplay its effect going forward. “I don’t see it as being that significant in changing our practice and the practice of the court,” the prosecutor told the Union Leader
Cathleen Converse, the juror who reportedly helped push the case for nullification, however, is among a growing number of Americans who believe that there should be a victim for something to be considered a crime. “Mr. Darrell seemed to be the only victim here,” she explained after the acquittal. “Almost everyone said this just shouldn’t have happened to these peaceful people.”
In New Hampshire — the official state motto is “Live Free or Die” — such views have become increasingly influential. That’s in part due to the birth of the Free State Project, an ongoing plan to have thousands of liberty-minded people from across America move to the Granite State to build a more libertarian society. FSP activists have already elected more than a few lawmakers, and their influence continued to grow.
"So far, over 12,750 participants have pledged to relocate to the state, and more than 1,000 have already moved, over a dozen of which are currently elected members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives," said Free State Project President Carla Gericke in a press release touting the acquittal. "Once here, participants are free to pursue their own causes and I’m excited to see that progress is being made."
While the Darrell case probably will not be shutting down the unconstitutional, trillion-dollar federal drug war anytime soon, analysts said it was an important milestone in several respects. For one, it illustrates the growing opposition to imprisoning people for drug use, which has been a key contributor to the fact that the United States has far more prisoners per capita than any other nation in the world. Well over a dozen states have already nullified federal marijuana laws
More importantly, perhaps, the acquittal of Doug Darrell represents a significant revival of jury nullification. The centuries-old practice has always been a critical tool in the fight against government tyranny. So, with the victory in New Hampshire and many more anticipated in the near future, liberty-minded activists across America are hoping the trend spreads quickly to other states.
Related articles:
New Hampshire Passes Jury Nullification Law
Former Drug Warrior Persecuted for Activism Uses Arrest to Push Jury Nullification
Judge Sentences Politically Incorrect Juror to More Jury Duty
State Lawmakers Blast Obama’s War on Medical Marijuana
A Brilliant Exposition on the Effectiveness of Nullification
Drug War a “Failure,” Says N.J. GOP Gov. Chris Christie
The Other Unconstitutional War

CONTINUE READING…

Guilty verdict in case of Yippie caught with 155 pounds of pot

PUBLISHED FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 AT 6:19 PM / UPDATED AT 8:46 PM
Guilty verdict in case of Yippie caught with 155 pounds of pot
By Paul Hammel / World-Herald Bureau

LINCOLN — One of the original members of the ‘60s revolutionary group, the Yippies, was found guilty this week of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver after being caught with 155 pounds of baled pot in a van at Ashland, Neb.

Saunders County District Judge Mary Gilbride, in an order dated Tuesday, also rejected, for the second time the use of a “choice of evils” defense by Dana Beal, 65, of New York City, a long-time advocate for using marijuana as medicine, and the official historian of the Yippie Museum.

Beal, at a trial last month, admitted he was a passenger three years ago in a van carrying the marijuana.

But in court and in jail interviews, he has said his crime should be set aside because the cannabis was being delivered to a group of AIDS and cancer sufferers in New York and Michigan who use the pot for pain relief, appetite enhancement and for other medical reasons.

Beal and his attorney, Glenn Shapiro of Omaha, said they want a jury to weigh whether Beal had chosen a lesser evil —and should be found innocent — because he chose to break the law to provide medicine for sick people.

Seventeen states have legalized marijuana for medical uses, but Nebraska and New York are not among them.

Shapiro or Beal could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon, but both have said they plan to appeal the conviction.

Beal will be sentenced on Nov. 19. The marijuana delivery charge is a felony, punishable by five to 50 years in prison. Two others arrested in the van, James Statzer and Christopher Ryan, were sentenced to 36 to 48 months and 24 to 36 months, respectively, in prison.

Saunders County Attorney Scott Tinglehoff said his office would not have a sentencing recommendation for Beal until after a pre-sentence investigation is completed.

But, he said, it was unlikely that he will not recommend some time in prison because Beal, while he was awaiting a trial on the 2009 drug stop in Nebraska, was arrested in Wisconsin for transporting pot across that state.

“He obviously doesn’t care about following the law and acts like he’s above it,” Tinglehoff said. “Because of that, we have a problem with it.”

The Yippies, or Youth International Party, were a radical group that used satire and pranks to mock the status quo. They were best known for leading protests that disrupted the Democratic National Convention in 1968. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were among their leaders.

One fellow Yippie, Ed Rosenthal, is among the Beal supporters who have said they will testify at his sentencing hearing.

Contact the writer:

402-473-9584, paul.hammel@owh.com

CONTINUE READING…

“Jury Nullification”

If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offense is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.

“That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”


U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.

FROM DEMOCRACY DEFINED – FOLLOW THIS LINK…

AND

The Jury’s Secret Power
JUDGES MAY NOT TELL YOU THIS, but when you sit on a jury, you have the right to vote according to your
conscience and to judge the law being applied to the case. As a juror, you are the final safeguard for justice.
It’s the judge’s obligation to give the jury the wording of the law being applied to the case. If the judge fails to
provide the wording of the law or you think the law he gives you is a bad or unconstitutional law or a good law
being improperly applied, or there are other factors that would make you regret a vote to convict someone, then
it is your right and duty as a juror to vote “Not Guilty” even if you are the only juror who does and you therefore
“hang” the jury. You cannot be punished for the way you vote.
Our lawmakers sometimes pass bad laws, and, at times, good laws have been misused. Throughout history
reasoning jurors have refused to convict fellow citizens who were accused of breaking the law: They freed tax
protesters during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, refused to convict those who aided runaway slaves in violation
of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, freed bootleggers charged during Prohibition 1920-30, and released Vietnam
War objectors 1960-70.
When our country was young, all jurors were told of their right to judge the law, as well as the facts of the case.
Then judges decided that juries should no longer be told of their power to act as a safeguard against bad laws or
unethical lawmakers. Now, all jurors are instructed to accept the law as it is given to them by the judge, even in
cases where the law is clearly unjust.
But now you know the secret: If you are selected as a juror, you have the right and duty to do the right thing:
to follow your conscience and to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. It is the only way to keep
government in the hands of the people.
“I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government
can be held to the principles of its constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.
For more information, please contact the Fully Informed Jury Association:
www.fija.org
Call 1-800-835-5879 for a free jury packet.