If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Jurors mad they weren't told that convicted marijuana grower was "officer" for Oakland's medical marijuana program   (asia.reuters.com) divider line 345
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9250 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2003 at 9:55 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



345 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-02-05 11:46:48 PM  
Millay:

F/uck the Constitution. Are you part of the solution or part of the pollution?

Millay, I know the rules, and challenge them. I refuse to let my inate sense of what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong go by the wayside.

They don't teach social justice in law school. That is a big part of why our law school crank out soulless corporate asslickers. And evil mutherf/uckers who will prosecute (and it IS a choice who does and does not get prosecuted--it is NOT a simple matter of getting every law breaker) a healer and peacefull man like Ed Rosenthal.

The commerce clause, since the Warren court, has been seriously abused. I'm not saying they didn't have good intentions, but look where it has gotten us.

And despite the wise words of Sux0r, the Constitution does not allow the Feds to toss Ed Rosenthal in prison for life for growing pot. An evil and twisted interpretation of that document, on the other hand...

Thanks for lectures, Sux0r. The devil will be waiting for you after you graduate, and will gladly give you a BMW and a nice piece of ass for your soul.
 
2003-02-05 11:46:56 PM  
Twenty-five to life? How do ordinary people see this on the news and just accept it as right and good? Smug puritanical bastards, the whole blank-faced lot of them. What we need is a modern-day Moses to inflict locusts upon these nazis: "Let my people go"

Jesus wept. The guy grew plants. How can this verdict - and every one like it that has ever been handed down, and the laws that made them possible - be seen as anything other than screaming, babbling, lip-flapping, hair-ripping, wall-humping insane?

fark it. Obey, submit, go back to sleep.
 
2003-02-05 11:46:57 PM  
RavinDave - Better lie through your teeth when they screen you.
 
2003-02-05 11:47:08 PM  
Asmodai:

And no defense att'y has ever taken a case they don't believe in?

Amend. VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall...have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

Sometimes, both prosecutors and defense attorneys have to take the good with the bad.
 
2003-02-05 11:47:36 PM  
Franky17

"The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding. The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated."

"The Act includes a definition of 'market' and its derivatives so that as related to wheat in addition to its conventional meaning it also means to dispose of 'by feeding (in any [317 U.S. 111, 119] Â form) to poultry or livestock which, or the products of which, are sold, bartered, or exchanged, or to be so disposed of.' 13 ****Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.**** Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as 'available for marketing' as so defined and the penalty is imposed thereon. 14 Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat either within or without the quota is sold or intended to be sold. The sum of this is that the Federal Government fixes a quota including all that the farmer may harvest for sale or for his own farm needs, and declares that wheat produced on excess acreage may neither be disposed of nor used except upon payment of the penalty or except it is stored as required by the Act or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture."

...

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution . ... It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.' United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119 , 62 S.Ct. 523, 526."

...

********Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. 26 The same consideration might help in determining whether in the absence of Congressional action it would be permissible for the state [317 U.S. 111, 125] Â to exert its power on the subject matter, even though in so doing it to some degree affected interstate commerce. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'********
....
*****************The maintenance by government regulation of a price for wheat undoubtedly can be accomplished as effectively by sustaining or increasing the demand as by limiting the supply. The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the [317 U.S. 111, 128] Â scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 606, et seq., 307 U.S. 609 , 59 S.Ct. 668; United States v. Darby, supra, 312 U.S. at page 123, 61 S.Ct. 461, 132 A.L.R. 1430.************
 
2003-02-05 11:47:50 PM  
well i'll be tickled pink. Sex0r was correct:

Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as 'available for marketing' as so defined and the penalty is imposed thereon. 14 Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat either within or without the quota is sold or intended to be sold. The sum of this is that the Federal Government fixes a quota including all that the farmer may harvest for sale or for his own farm needs, and declares that wheat produced on excess acreage may neither be disposed of nor used except upon payment of the penalty or except it is stored as required by the Act or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture.
 
2003-02-05 11:47:52 PM  
Oh my dear dear dear SexOr....

Why are you so filled with rage?? No one is after you... relax and the nightmares will go away!! LOL

But seriously... your argument only supports what Thomas Jefferson said. Do you know what I'm referring to?

BTW... that's also why I have changed the way I look at life, I know this country can not be turned around. I tried to be part of a movement for a few years to do just that. All Governments go through a cycle and our government is going through it just like every other one has in history. No government ever lasts forever - this one will ultimately collapse from its own weight.
 
2003-02-05 11:48:33 PM  
yeah, i just found that part.
 
2003-02-05 11:48:44 PM  
Youraddresshere

Shouldn't the city officials that sanctioned the grow operation be charged with conspiracy based on the law and the judges interpretation?

great point - better yet, what does the fact that they aren't tell you?
 
2003-02-05 11:48:56 PM  
BlobBrain:

After I graduate, a classmate of mine and I would like to go into practice together and solely defend drug cases. However, we have no idea how feasible this is. Any thoughts?
 
2003-02-05 11:48:57 PM  
Good luck getting on a jury. I've never been called for jury duty. blah.
 
2003-02-05 11:49:56 PM  
*Takes a moment to point out that this is all futile, everyone will find something to disagree with or nitpick about anything that someone says*

That being said, I will continue to be part of the problem, not the solution.

The 10th amendment allows the states to make laws, such as those regulating drugs. However, it does not forbid Congress from also making laws regarding this, which under Article VI, Clause 2, take precedence over the state laws. I'm not really sure that the 10th amendment even applies to this in the first place though. Hell, I'm a Farker, not a constitutional scholar. The best solution would be for the Federal Government to get out there and tell the State Governments to STFU with their laws like this since there are federal laws on the books that say otherwise.
 
2003-02-05 11:50:19 PM  
I_Hate_Iowa,

The judge didn't let the defense be heard because it wasn't relevant. I say it wasn't relevant because what you think has nothing to do with how the law affects you.

The defense WAS relevant. There is a federal law that prohibits the civil/criminal prosecution of government official for carrying out their official duties. However, the judge decided to suppress the evidence and ignore that federal law.



 
2003-02-05 11:51:10 PM  
Millay

Get your money up front, don't get hooked on meth or crack, and you will cash in.
 
2003-02-05 11:52:28 PM  
Why are you so filled with rage?? No one is after you... relax and the nightmares will go away!! LOL
---
Haha. No rage here. I just get annoyed when people talk out of their arse, and unlike Franky17, won't even take the time to read what the law really is.
 
2003-02-05 11:52:31 PM  
BlobBrain:

So enough people choose not to plead out to make it viable?
 
2003-02-05 11:53:58 PM  
Millay: Just a question... Whats the average caseload for a prosecutor? per year
 
2003-02-05 11:54:29 PM  
Interesting point on the sanctioning of the growing by city officials. As I said in my last post, the real problem that created this issue with the conviction was a state law that conflicts with a federal law. It should never have been passed in the first place, and once it was passed the federal government should have done something about it instead of letting a conflicting law exist.
 
2003-02-05 11:54:34 PM  
Like I said before, stop the war on drugs, and get to what's important, start the war on tobacco. Almost everyone hates tobacco smokers. Also we're almost there.

/sarcasm.
 
2003-02-05 11:55:12 PM  
Sex0r

If I am not incorrect, that is an argument that was used in bleeding fuedal ENGLAND to levy fines against farmers who ground their own wheat, ie, avoided paying a sanctioned mill a "tax" to grind wheat for them. As in, the farmers only had cursory authority to dispose of their own crops, or process the crops.

I find something vaguely un-American about that.
 
2003-02-05 11:55:39 PM  
It should never have been passed in the first place, and once it was passed the federal government should have done something about it instead of letting a conflicting law exist.
---
There's nothing really the fed could do...they can't make a state take a law off their books. They had to wait for an opportunity for it to be settled in the courts.
 
2003-02-05 11:55:53 PM  
youraddresshere
i think he could sue on those grounds, normally i don't preach sueing but in this case...
 
2003-02-05 11:56:07 PM  
Millay,

Oh, you are only going to work with them AFTER they get busted? Is that what a corporate Enron lawyer would do?
 
2003-02-05 11:56:43 PM  
Asmodai:

No idea. I go to law school in a town of 20,000--these prosecutors do not seem overworked, from what I hear. But NY, Chicago, LA? Who knows.
 
2003-02-05 11:57:41 PM  
If I am not incorrect, that is an argument that was used in bleeding fuedal ENGLAND to levy fines against farmers who ground their own wheat, ie, avoided paying a sanctioned mill a "tax" to grind wheat for them. As in, the farmers only had cursory authority to dispose of their own crops, or process the crops.
--
Somehow I doubt that the intent of the law in feudal England was to benefit peasants by artifically inflating the price they could sell their crops for, thus increasing their income.
 
2003-02-05 11:58:22 PM  
Millay,

Where do you go to law school?
 
2003-02-05 11:58:57 PM  
As a side note, I don't personally agree with marijuana being completely legal, but I do believe that the federal government should allow the states to make their own laws regarding legality of drugs. I maintain that Congress has the power to make the laws, I just don't think they should, it's not a matter that strictly pertains to national welfare and therefore should be decided by individual states.
However, in the current state of the laws Rosenthal was guilty of a crime.
 
2003-02-06 12:00:24 AM  
"If the law say that, then the law is an ass." -- Dickens (Oliver Twist)
 
2003-02-06 12:01:03 AM  
BlobBrain:

No. It's just that all my friends I know who got busted didn't want to fight it--they wanted to plead out and avoid court and a fight at all costs. I get the impression that some people don't want to spend the time, money, and emotion on the whole trial court --> appeal --> appeal --> type-thing. So I assumed that it was a small number of people actually retaining counsel on drug busts.

What do you mean, after they get busted? What should I do before? "Structure" their finances? Money laundering is a little iffy.
 
2003-02-06 12:01:31 AM  
sexor

True - the benefit of the peasant was not the intention - the disposition of the crop took precedence over the benefit of the peasant. English law, from what little I understand, USED to have many tenets such as this all the way up until the 1950s. It amazes me that this is something that is relevant in American law.
 
2003-02-06 12:01:33 AM  
People, let's remember that this states' rights vs. union issue is what led to a civil war once. I believe the Feds are opening up a huge can of worms with these types of issues.

On the one hand, they impose regulations and requirements on the states, and then force the states to bear the financial burden of implementing those edicts. Such heavy-handed abuse of power is what causes cracks to form in empires.

The intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the states is supposed to be used sparingly - this is what the original Constitution envisioned. Lincoln took a huge whale-shiat all over this concept by attempting to force his supreme will on the states, and his successful conversion of the U.S. from a republic into an oligarchy was the ultimate expression of that will, one purchased with the lives of countless Americans.

Don't fool yourselves: slavery be damned, he would have sold his own mother into bondage to ensure that Washington, D.C. was the ULTIMATE authority on all matters. This was necessary, not to free black slaves, but to fill the coffers of the white industrialists who paid for his campaign.

I don't give a damn if the South hates the unionists for taking their slaves away from them - such barbarism was dealt its just deserves. But at the moment, despite the best intentions of the average American, a good chunk of the world, while loving us as people and embracing our culture, hates our country bitterly. And Bush, our precious, half-witted Fuhrer, is attempting to use Lincoln's tactics to impose the federal government's will on the rest of the world, much as Lincoln did on the South.

He will find that may be a much bloodier goal. Some things never change.
 
2003-02-06 12:01:59 AM  
Sex0r:

Penn State. Third tier baby!
 
2003-02-06 12:02:03 AM  
Sheeple...(you know whom you aren't):

Look to history and you'll find the reasons the laws we now debate the validity of were enacted. Once you reach that point, educate yourself. Understand how the past affects the present and the effect of open minds on the future, not just your own. Your actions, or lack of, create the history that is yet to become.

I'm going to bed. Good Luck, no need to stoke the flames, it's plenty warm in here
 
2003-02-06 12:03:29 AM  
ZTiberX

If you are a man, and f/uck your boyfriend in Georgia, you are guilty of a crime.

Congratulations. I'm so glad it comes down to a cold analysis of law regarding Ed and his wife and children, who will have to make do while he does hard time for helping the sick and dying. The Feds did their job on you, thats for sure.

Roll over, boy! Here's a cookie.
 
2003-02-06 12:04:22 AM  
ZtigerX,

He wasn't guilty of a crime. Federal law dicatates that government officials can not be held civilly or criminally liable for carrying out their official duties.

Or does that federal law only apply to people the federal government likes??
 
2003-02-06 12:04:35 AM  
People, let's remember that this states' rights vs. union issue is what led to a civil war once.

Damn right. Will again.
 
2003-02-06 12:05:35 AM  
Sex0r:
Penn State. Third tier baby!
--
Heh. Unless you're planning on a six figure salary while working 70+ hours a week, tiers are overrated. I went to a tier 1 school, and quite honestly, I wish I would have taken Toledo (tier 3 or 4) up on their offer of a full scholarship so I wouldn't be $60,000 in debt. While the name on your JD may help landing your first job, what's important is what you do after that.
 
2003-02-06 12:05:50 AM  
hmmmmmm...
cookie!
 
2003-02-06 12:06:49 AM  
Sex0r cuts and pastes the entire US Code in 3, 2, 1...
 
2003-02-06 12:07:30 AM  
Well, at least the electoral college survived the 2000 election. Eliminating that would have been a pretty big blow against state's rights.
 
2003-02-06 12:07:34 AM  
Sex0r cuts and pastes the entire US Code in 3, 2, 1...
---
Unfortunately, my LEXIS password is at work.
 
2003-02-06 12:07:49 AM  
Milly

Money laundering? You don't launder money. But you make certain your client knows the law, the consequences, but it goes beyond that.

Your client deserves to know how they choose who they go after, what red flags they look for, etc.

After all, a drug dealer is supposed to be entitled to an attorney, just like Kenneth Lay.

Speaking of Kenneth Lay, he will probably read about Rosenthal while sunning on a carribean beach somewhere. Rosenthal will be busting rocks. Thank god the Constitution is protecting us!
 
2003-02-06 12:08:23 AM  
I've got Lexis access :)
 
2003-02-06 12:08:49 AM  
my LEXIS password is at work

:(

Lexis Nexus - :)
 
2003-02-06 12:10:28 AM  
Glad to see the Feds have their priorities in order. By the way,
where is Osama?
 
2003-02-06 12:11:15 AM  
BlobBrain:

That sounds reasonable enough. But how do these clients contact me then? And do most people in the drug trade get advice *before* they get busted?
 
2003-02-06 12:13:01 AM  
Glad to see the Feds have their priorities in order. By the way,
where is Osama?
---
I agree. Let's shut down the government until we find Osama.
 
2003-02-06 12:13:17 AM  
Seems like an obvious place to advertise legal defense services would be with a bail bondsman.
 
2003-02-06 12:13:34 AM  
I think there is a big problem with drug laws in general and it has nothing to do with legalization. Seeing that I cannot obtain drugs that are available by perscripion only, why are some drugs more illegal than others? If marijuana or any other drug for that matter is found to be beneficial, a doctor should be able to perscribe it. If the doctor is perscribing something that doesnt work, they should be penalized not by the DEA but by their board of examiners. Possibly if it is serious enough they should loose their license. The problem is criminalization and putting an extra stigma on drugs that are commonly abused.
Whether or not weed is legalized,
 
2003-02-06 12:13:53 AM  
Seems like an obvious place to advertise legal defense services would be with a bail bondsman.
---
Or those advertisements in bathroom stalls.
 
Displayed 50 of 345 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report