"Guru of Ganja" (Ed Rosenthal) convicted of marijuana cultivation

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 01/31/03 | DAVID KRAVETS

[MikalM]

A federal jury Friday found Ed Rosenthal, the author of how-to-grow books on marijuana and how to avoid the law, guilty of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy charges.

Deliberating for a day, the 12-member jury concluded that Rosenthal, the self described "Guru of Ganja," was growing more than 1,000 plants, conspiring to cultivate marijuana and maintaining a warehouse for a growing operation. He faces a maximum life term when sentenced June 4.

[jodorowsky]

Be very wary of 'Jihadists' and their followers.

The War on Drugs is a religion of peace!

There is no God but Power and Anslinger is its Prophet

[Bonaparte]

So let me get this straight, just so I know what you're saying. If the USSC accepts a case for review and makes a decision, do you believe it's only optional whether we abide by that decision or not? Do you believe it's optional for judges in lower courts to abide by that USSC decision? Do you not recognize the principle of judicial review?

And, btw, I never said the 10th was "irrelevant," only that in specific contested instances, the USSC is the arbiter of its relevance as provided for in the Constitution. You do believe in the Constitution, right?

[jodorowsky]

Hey, DAnconia, that's Danneskjold's job ;)

Ragnar never sleeps. He traces all the little packets to their place of origin, back to their rightful owners great and small.

Yrs.,

R. HALLEY

[CWOJackson]

"...the author of how-to-grow books on marijuana and how to avoid the law..."

Oops, time to rewrite that second part. He should have a little spare time.

[Roscoe]

So you can only determine if he did anything wrong by having a transcript?

If you have a specific action you would like to raise, please do.

[CWOJackson]

Maybe they will allow him to work in the prison vegetable garden so he can keep his hand in it.

[TigersEye]

You are dissembling.

Of course it is not legally optional to abide by the law, Constitutional or not. (There is such a thing as civil disobedience and to paraphrase T. Jefferson "Disobedience to tyrants is obediance to God.") I have simply pointed out that the law as it stands in this case is unConstitutional. And you seem to oppose that position.

Jury nullification is legal and informing a jury of that is not only legal but a duty of the court. The judge in this case has flouted both his duty and the law by suppressing that information when the defense attorney tried to introduce it. You seem to be applauding his unlawfullness.

[Roscoe]

What if eveerything that happened in the courtroom isn't in the transcript? What if only the decision is ever available?

Then you might look up the court reporter and negotiate with her to make a transcript for you.

Sometimes you have to pay for your lunch.

[TigersEye]

I have a real problem with a law whose origin lies in the argument that "it makes black men look white men in the eye" and "...it causes white women to sleep with black men." I also have a real problem with people who get behind that argument.

[nopardons]

Southern juries, repeatedly used jury nullification to free lynchers. The O.J. jury used jury nullification to set free a murderer. Jury nullification has been and is used, in many notorious Bronx courthouses, to free all sorts of criminals, because both perp and jury are nonwhite.

You aren't advocating doing something " noble ".Neither are you the resident Constitutional expert; I doubt that you are much of an " expert " on Constitutional law . You just don't happen to like this one. " Civil disobedience " ? Yeah ... that's the answer to everything; right, un hunh, ROTFLMSO !

[Bonaparte]

I said nothing about the constitutionality of the specific law in question, ie. the federal law against marijuana cultivation, etc. I simply said that it is the law, just or not, constitutional or not. I further said that the arbiter in such disputes is the USSC, not "some guy."

Don't get me wrong, TE. IMO, the SC has misbehaved plenty, especially in the past 65 years or so. But the principle of judicial review is well established and unless you're an anarchist, you have to recognize that.

The defense tried to introduce irrelevancies about state law in an attempt to prejudice the jury in a trial concerning federal law. He was warned not to do this and was in contempt to disregarding the judge's perfectly proper instruction. And btw, no judge is under any legal compulsion to inform a jury about nullification options.

[TigersEye]

What are you an expert on? Dumb remarks?

[nopardons]

Actually, since you asked, I AM an EXPERT on quite a number of topics; unlike you. ;-)

[nopardons]

" Dumb remarks ", dear, are your forte ... I wouldn't dream of trying to take that away from you.

[TigersEye]

But the principle of judicial review is well established and unless you're an anarchist, you have to recognize that.

I am not and I do.

And btw, no judge is under any legal compulsion to inform a jury about nullification options.

Perhaps not but I don't beleive it is legal to prevent them from being informed. Courts have simply thrown their weight around to prevent it.

[TigersEye]

I AM an EXPERT on quite a number of topics; unlike you.

No doubt. I expect that any day now you will start posting with flair and intelligence instead of your typical baseless hit-and-run jousting. Ping us all when you break loose.