Posted on 01/31/2003 3:28:07 PM PST by MikalM
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The War on Drugs is a religion of peace!
There is no God but Power and Anslinger is its Prophet
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?
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
Oops, time to rewrite that second part. He should have a little spare time.
If you have a specific action you would like to raise, please do.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.