Pot Case Jurors Call For New Trial

Sacramento Bee ^ | Feb. 5, 2003 | Claire Cooper

[Mark Bahner]

"I wrote, "..Vote Libertarian. Always."

Dan(9698) replied, "So Democrats will always win."

Dan(9698), you need to go back to school to learn some math. Your single vote will never change the result of ANY federal election. So you should always vote for the best candidate. You should never vote for "the lesser of two evils." If you do vote that way, you're supporting evil.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...You should never vote for "the lesser of two evils."

I agree. From what I can see on this forum, the Libertarians main issue is: they want to smoke dope.

I am against smoking dope. Why should I vote for them?

[Mark Bahner]

"From what I can see on this forum, the Libertarians main issue is: they want to smoke dope."

BS. I'm a Libertarian. I don't smoke...anything. I don't drink alcohol...except that, on my doctor's suggestion, I'm trying to drink a little wine every night. (Tastes like bad medicine. I'm not sure I can keep it up.)

For me--and I'm sure for many, if not most Libertarians on this site--the matter is simple: the federal fascists are breaking The Law.

I personally don't even care if my state criminalizes marijuana. (Well, I do. It's stupid. But my state does many stupid things.)

But I most certainly care that the federal government criminalizes marijuana...because they're violating The Law. No citizen should EVER accept the government violating The Law.

The government has absolutely no excuse for violating The Law, because the make the laws. If they don't like the laws, they should change them.

Oops...I guess I DO care about marijuana. That is, some DOCTORS think that marijuana is useful in treatment of various medical problems...e.g. nausea from chemotherapy and anti-AIDS drugs. It is IMMORAL for a government slimeball, who has absolutely no medical degree or license, to come between a doctor and the doctor's patient.

"I am against smoking dope. Why should I vote for them?"

I am against smoking dope. I am against smoking cigarettes. I am against high-calorie, high-fat diets. There is no reason at all for that to affect the way I vote.

You should vote for Libertarians, because Libertarians (with the exception of Republican Ron Paul) are the ONLY candidates who are committed to returning this country to constitutional government.

I assume you don't live in North Carolina. If so, I don't really care who you vote for in state and local elections. Vote Republican, and keep marijuana illegal in your state. That's your own state's stupidity.

But if you care about returning the country to constitutional government at the federal level, you should be voting straight-ticket Libertarian.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Oops...I guess I DO care about marijuana.

You got halfway through your rant before pot became the focus.

Most libertarians make it the first on their list.

vote libertarian so democrats will win. --- Yah thats the ticket.

[CWOJackson]

The best thing about these threads is their predictability. When you start feeling a little tired thinking about pending war, North Korean with the bomb, the economy, the loss of seven astronauts, abortion...you can always take a break and visit one of the most predictable and consistent threads on FR.

[Lurking2Long]

One wonders how you made it to BE a senior citizen with such a screwed up view of the world.

[Lysander]

You are not insane. It never ceases to amaze me how we are about to go to war and pot is the number one issue for some people.

Yep. Legalize it and you could double police availability without raising taxes one cent.

[Lysander]

vote libertarian so democrats will win. --- Yah thats the ticket..

Oh my God! I just realized that liberals with D next to their name are worse than liberals with R next to their name. Thanks I will be sure the next boot on my neck is by a Republican liberal.

[Lysander]

You may not like the facts, but the facts are that drug validation is a major tenet of the modern American left.

"When I smoked that joint in Denmark I was not in violation of the U.S. law."-- Newt "I can try it-- you can't" Gingrich.

[Mark Bahner]

"vote libertarian so democrats will win. --- Yah thats the ticket."

Once again, Dan(9698), you need a refresher in mathematics. No matter what you do, you won't change the outcome of a *federal* election.

So you should vote for the best candidate. If you truly want limited government, according to the Constitution-- unless you live in Ron Paul's district in Texas--that would mean that you should vote Libertarian.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...No matter what you do, you won't change the outcome of a *federal* election...

Why did the Democrats keep doing just one more recount in Florida?

If just 1000 more had voted libertarian (for Pat Buchanon), instead of Bush the outcome would have been decidedly different.

Of course you guys wanted Gore to win because he also smoked dope.

[Mark Bahner]

I wrote, "No matter what you do, you won't change the outcome of a *federal* election..."

Dan replied, "Why did the Democrats keep doing just one more recount in Florida?"

I was talking about what *you* can do...as a single voter. Obviously, if you are in the position to change the results of an election by thousands of votes, you have the (very unlikely) chance of changing the results of an election.

But my guess is that you CAN'T change the results of the election by thousands of votes. Only your one vote.

"If just 1000 more had voted libertarian (for Pat Buchanon), instead of Bush the outcome would have been decidedly different."

Yes, but that is completely irrelevant, regarding your ONE vote. That's all YOU can change. Your ONE vote.

"Of course you guys wanted Gore to win because he also smoked dope."

For Christ's sake! G.W. Bush ALSO smoked dope! And snorted cocaine. And drank too much. Al Gore and G.W. Bush are two peas in a pod.

It appears your mind isn't so well, either.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...federal government's prosecution is a form of entrapment

So, --- It is common for liberals and defense attorneys to argue that it is someone else's fault.

Never the fault of the perp.

He made the argument and it didn't work. He is a convict who may go to jail.

[general_re]

Just resurrecting old threads tonight? ;)

You left out the context of the section you quoted. The full bit is: "Rosenthal's defense attorneys say the federal government's prosecution is a form of entrapment because Oakland officials told him his conduct was legal. And he believed what they said was true."

Thus, his motive is relevant to whether a crime was committed, and evidence regarding his motive should have been admitted at trial.

Don't get so caught up that you feel like you have to go to the mats over this. The judge f***ed up, that's all. It happens from time to time, and should be corrected on appeal. Making motive inadmissible in criminal trials is just too dangerous for everyone, including the people who prosecuted Rosenthal. What happens when the narc squad in the City of Oakland starts arresting undercover DEA agents and charges them with selling drugs in state court? And then refuses to allow their motives to be entered into evidence?

A giant mess, that's what happens. So this thing'll get fixed on appeal, and Rosenthal will get a new trial. Like I said, it happens...

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Was such evidence presented? How do you know that?

While questioning a witness the defense attorney started to ask questions about this. I gathered that the judge interrupted him and he may well have been held in contempt if he continued along that line.

That was also in one fo the stories about this.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Just resurrecting old threads tonight? ;)

Someone brought it up again with a post to me, so I just jumped back into it.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...G.W. Bush ALSO smoked dope!

Ah, -- but he didn't get caught selling it and pretending to be the official sales deparment of the city government.

One time at a school board election, I did not go vote and the count came out the same for two. They decided it by a flip of a coin and my guy lost.

That is the same as voting libertarian.

[general_re]

Works for me. Carry on, then ;)

[KDD]

Dane you have come far from your drug induced hazy days of hippiedom haven't you?

You now know that all those drugs you consumed in your younger hippie days made you think and act like those hippies that you have now grown to dispise so much. You have seen the light and and you are now on a crusade to lock away anyone who acts the way you acted in your micro mini-van days. Did yours have flowers painted all over it with maybe a yellow stripe down its back. That's how I picture you. Shouldn't you be in jail...druggie?

To all:

Dane is a self admitted former drug user and hippie. But he hates drug users now...only a little less than he hates hippies. Does Dane think he should be locked up for using drugs during his hippie days? I don't know...he's never said.

[Mike4Freedom]

If you want the Federal laws changed why don't you appeal to Ed Rosenthal's probable congressional representative

That should not be necessary. The Federal government has no authority to ban drugs and the jurors have all the rights to refuse to convict on that basis alone.

Now don't conservatives, such as most FReepers want the Federal govt limited like the constitution says? Then why are you all not supporting this position? It is as valid a use of the tenth amendment as any claim against stupid business regulation, or welfare plans or gun control.