The Government stole my friend's private property...

[grndslm]

I'm from Mississippi.

Somebody was mad at a friend of mine and decided to call the local cops, saying that she was selling weed. They waited until she was a half mile or so from her home, then they pulled her over, saying that she didn't use her turn signal when she did. They tricked her into getting out of her vehicle, and they found a single, solitary blunt roach. At that point, they used what was not even a gram of weed in order to search her boyfriend's home. They took what was probly several ounces of weed from her freezer, they took all her boyfriend's guns, and they took their roommate's cash he had stashed in his closet. They got the guns back, but not the weed or cash. The cash was in a room that was covered in "sub-lease", I guess you could say... as the guy who owned the cash was renting out only two rooms of the house.

Seems like these local cops have violated the U.S. Constitution in numerous ways. If the people have the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, etc.... and we hold these self-evident, inalienable rights to be true, only to be taken away thru God's will... and the government can how can she get a criminal charge when there is no harmed party? The government has CONFISCATED (read: removed with force) her private property and other God-given rights.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall NOT be violated, and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, so it must be upheld in a Mississippi courtroom. Where is my faulty logic?

 

[Some Random Guy]

The government has CONFISCATED (read: removed with force) her private property and other God-given rights.

Well, according to your story, the government confiscated her weed. Since possession of that is a criminal offense, she is unlikely to have it returned.

The police also confiscated her boyfriend's drugs and her sub lessor's cash. That's not her stuff. If those guys want it back, THEY need to request to have it returned. I am not a big fan of the confiscation laws, since they do permit seizing property without due process before the seizing, but its the BF and roomie that should be complaining here.

If you want the stuff back, follow the laws for how to get the property returned. If you want the laws changed, contact your government representative. If you want the laws found unconstitutional, get the ACLU or other organizations with a strong legal team to help you.

 

[grndslm]

How is it a criminal offense if there is no injured party, tho?

Is it still a criminal offense if the law/act/statute is unconstitutional?

Since the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is just an act, doesn't that mean that only the law society is bound by it??

Since the CSA was created after the Constitution / Bill of Rights, doesn't that mean it is ex post facto, therefore unconstitutional and voice ab initio??

 

[grndslm]

The police also confiscated her boyfriend's drugs and her sub lessor's cash. That's not her stuff. If those guys want it back, THEY need to request to have it returned. I am not a big fan of the confiscation laws, since they do permit seizing property without due process before the seizing, but its the BF and roomie that should be complaining here.

The guns were returned to her boyfriend.

The money that was taken from their roommate was returned to the roommate thru their own funds. I'm assuming that the roommate would still need to talk to somebody in the government about the funds since he was leasing the rooms where the cash was found.... but who does he need to talk to?

TIA!

 

[Some Random Guy]

How is it a criminal offense if there is no injured party, tho?

There is no requirement that criminal offenses must have victims.

Is it still a criminal offense if the law/act/statute is unconstitutional?

You can make a law outlawing something. That law is valid until overturned or until the courts declare that law to be unconstitutional.

Since the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is just an act, doesn't that mean that only the law society is bound by it??

That is one of the sillier arguments I have heard. For silly and outlandish claims, the burden of proof is on the person making the wild claim. So go ahead and educate me.

Since the CSA was created after the Constitution / Bill of Rights, doesn't that mean it is ex post facto, therefore unconstitutional and voice ab initio??

"Ex post facto" means "after the fact" in latin. It is unconstitutional to create an ex post facto CRIMINAL law. That means that if you create a law saying its illegal to drive your car while wearing sunglasses, you can only make that law take afffect in the future. You cannot go back and prosecute people who were driving with sunglasses last year.

It would be stupid and unworkable to prevent congress from a passing laws other than the constitution - expecially when the constitution specifically says that they can.

"void ad initio" means "void from the beginning" in latin. No court has held the seizure laws to be unconstitutional, so they aren't even void right now.

 

[AnotherMoron]

I am a huge proponent of legalization. I think prohibition does this country and society as a whole a lot more harm than good (actually I don't think it does any good whatsoever, but that's another topic). That said this:

I'm from Mississippi.

Somebody was mad at a friend of mine and decided to call the local cops, saying that she was selling weed. They waited until she was a half mile or so from her home, then they pulled her over, saying that she didn't use her turn signal when she did. They tricked her into getting out of her vehicle, and they found a single, solitary blunt roach. At that point, they used what was not even a gram of weed in order to search her boyfriend's home. They took what was probly several ounces of weed from her freezer, they took all her boyfriend's guns, and they took their roommate's cash

is incredibly stupid. Your friend, her boyfriend and roommate are morons destined to be giant successes in life.

You do not carry drugs in your car, you do not keep several ounces in a freezer, you do not do any of this with guns lying around and you don't keep a bunch of loose cash and drugs and guns in the same house ever.

Otherwise you're a drug dealer whether you really are or not.

Common sense is a beautiful thing, too bad it's lacking severely.

Your friend needs a lawyer NOW.

 

[grndslm]

Why would she get a lawyer to defend her when he said she'd still be getting a felony charge?? ... and he's already charged her $1,000 and said it'll take $3,000 more!?!?

She could get a felony for free, while trying to use some tricks up her sleeve. Like just plain being honest that she wasn't harming ANYBODY, and it's her GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. She could get a jury trial if need be, because that's her God-given right as well. And I'm sure a jury of her peers would never convict her. And if they did... she can still appeal 'til she gets to the Supreme Court.

All of that would cost far less than $3,000 more!!! Why would she need a lawyer?

I'm asking if you guys have any tricks up your sleeves for situations like this for people to represent themselves...

Like, for starters... does a random, unidentified person's word (no oath or affidavit) that she was selling truly have that much weight for the cops to search her boyfriend's home and the person renting those rooms... after they only found a blunt roach in her vehicle. The contents of weed in that blunt roach were prolly 0.1 grams... and then they raid her house. I thought I had read somewhere that cops in MS throw out evidence of weed if it's under 1 gram. This situation does not sound like justice to me. Some unidentified person's word and 0.1 grams of dope in her car... doesn't seem like they could use that to go search their home.

Lawyers don't have any tips and tricks besides offering to go see a local lawyer?

 

[justalayman]

=grndslm;2324645]Why would she get a lawyer to defend her when he said she'd still be getting a felony charge?? ... and he's already charged her $1,000 and said it'll take $3,000 more!?!?

to attempt to prove she is innocent? To seek to reduce the penalties?

She could get a felony for free, while trying to use some tricks up her sleeve. Like just plain being honest that she wasn't harming ANYBODY, and it's her GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. She could get a jury trial if need be, because that's her God-given right as well. And I'm sure a jury of her peers would never convict her.

God given right? I don't think so. It is a constitutional right. If it were God given, that all people of the world would have the same rights and obviously, that is not true.

And if they did... she can still appeal 'til she gets to the Supreme Court.

WOW! your friend must be rich.

First, you have to apply to have your case heard by the Supreme court but the SCOTUS does not hear an appeal unless it is based on defining constitutional positions of the underlying case. They do not hear appeals simply because a person believes they are innocent

as well, to reach each subsequent level of appeals, it takes more than just wanting to appeal.

All of that would cost far less than $3,000 more!!! Why would she need a lawyer?

$3K. If you want to consider appeals, it would be in her best interest to have a lawyer. Since an appeal must be justified, having an attorney at each step helps to be sure there is an appealable act. Acting pro se is one of the best ways to prevent yourself from being able to appeal. Too many errors on the defense' part.

Lawyers don't have any tips and tricks besides offering to go see a local lawyer?

Unless she is skilled in the process and requirements of a trial, hiring a lawyer would be the best advice one could give her.

 

[AnotherMoron]

Why would she get a lawyer to defend her when he said she'd still be getting a felony charge?? ... and he's already charged her $1,000 and said it'll take $3,000 more!?!?

She could get a felony for free, while trying to use some tricks up her sleeve. Like just plain being honest that she wasn't harming ANYBODY, and it's her GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. She could get a jury trial if need be, because that's her God-given right as well. And I'm sure a jury of her peers would never convict her. And if they did... she can still appeal 'til she gets to the Supreme Court.

All of that would cost far less than $3,000 more!!! Why would she need a lawyer?

I'm asking if you guys have any tricks up your sleeves for situations like this for people to represent themselves...

Like, for starters... does a random, unidentified person's word (no oath or affidavit) that she was selling truly have that much weight for the cops to search her boyfriend's home and the person renting those rooms... after they only found a blunt roach in her vehicle. The contents of weed in that blunt roach were prolly 0.1 grams... and then they raid her house. I thought I had read somewhere that cops in MS throw out evidence of weed if it's under 1 gram. This situation does not sound like justice to me. Some unidentified person's word and 0.1 grams of dope in her car... doesn't seem like they could use that to go search their home.

Lawyers don't have any tips and tricks besides offering to go see a local lawyer?

I'm no lawyer, but I'll tell ya what. Since you know so much already, go ahead and tell your friend to represent herself. I'm sure it will work and nothing will possibly go awry. I mean surely the only thing anyone needs to argue law is a base, nebulous grasp of it, right?

 

[grndslm]

to attempt to prove she is innocent? To seek to reduce the penalties?

And when he already said she'd still come away with a felony? What sense does it make to pay him $3,000 MORE! She already blew $1,000 just for him to tell her that she'd still get a felony. Go figure.

But more importantly, what would a lawyer be able to do/say that would prove her innocence and/or reduce the penalties any more than she could do/say?!? This makes no sense at all.

God given right? I don't think so. It is a constitutional right. If it were God given, that all people of the world would have the same rights and obviously, that is not true.

Yes, there are certain rights that are defined as "self-evident" and "unalienable". People have been smoking weed for THOUSANDS of years, and 25+% of the U.S. population is smoking weed on a somewhat regular basis. People in the U.S. have been granted immunities for smoking weed, and the CONSTITUTION says in Article 4, Section 2... that any citizen from one state is entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in another state. Everybody knows good and well that nobody is hurt when somebody else is possessing or smoking weed. Thomas Jefferson even said something about how some of his greatest memories were sitting on his back porch and smoking weed!! The framers of our country had no problem with weed or hemp, and the majority of U.S. citizens have no problem with marijuana... so how can anything be more supreme than Common Law, the Constitution, and what the people really want, since the government can only enact things based upon the will of the people only???

WOW! your friend must be rich.

How much does it cost to appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS?

First, you have to apply to have your case heard by the Supreme court but the SCOTUS does not hear an appeal unless it is based on defining constitutional positions of the underlying case. They do not hear appeals simply because a person believes they are innocent

as well, to reach each subsequent level of appeals, it takes more than just wanting to appeal.

I do believe the Constitution is on her side. Every last bit of it is on her side, really. It's other laws and/or statutes created in the past century or so that have veered away from the roots of this country.

$3K. If you want to consider appeals, it would be in her best interest to have a lawyer. Since an appeal must be justified, having an attorney at each step helps to be sure there is an appealable act. Acting pro se is one of the best ways to prevent yourself from being able to appeal. Too many errors on the defense' part.

Well... let's see, if she makes $10/hr now, which is really only $8/hr after taxes, then she'd have to work 375 hours to pay the remaining fees for the lawyer!!!! I think she could put 375 hours into studying the Constitution, case law, etc...

But in actuality, if you guys have any real advice for her, it could save her a lot of time and effort. There must be tricks lawyers have (excluding just knowing people) that you guys might be willing to share. Any hints, direction for her to use while representing herself... anything would be GREAT!

 

[grndslm]

I'm no lawyer, but I'll tell ya what. Since you know so much already, go ahead and tell your friend to represent herself. I'm sure it will work and nothing will possibly go awry. I mean surely the only thing anyone needs to argue law is a base, nebulous grasp of it, right?

I do feel like I understand the Constitution very well. If that is the supreme law of the land... then she should be OK. There's nothing in the Constitution that says she wasn't able to possess/smoke marijuana. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Constitution says she DOES have the right to possess weed. Where would I be wrong about that? That's what I wanna know.

I'm looking for any FREE ADVICE that doesn't include SEE A LAWYER.

I have already explained that the lawyer himself admitted that giving him $3,000 was a waste of money. So if you guys have any tips or tricks... please help us out.

 

[AnotherMoron]

There must be tricks lawyers have

Yes, there is, and it's a doozy! They are educated about the law. Tell your friend to start studying. HARD.

Have you ever heard, "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client,"? It's attributed to Abe Lincoln, if memory serves, and truer words have never been spoken and there is very, very good reason for that. The law is complex in more ways than you can imagine. An uninformed person (and you are uninformed, terribly, no matter what you may think) diving into that particular pond is going to find the water a lot deeper, darker and more unfriendly than they thought.

 

[grndslm]

I understand enough about court procedure and law research to get by. I got myself out of a public drunk charge myself, because I've got heart. So does she. I can read anything at all that you suggest, because the lawyer is out of the question.

Like I said... 375 man hours we can put into researching anything specific to this case. Does the Constitution provide all the power she needs or not? Because like I said... it looks completly in her favor as I'm reading it. No?

 

[justalayman]

I understand enough about court procedure and law research to get by. I got myself out of a public drunk charge myself, because I've got heart. So does she. I can read anything at all that you suggest, because the lawyer is out of the question.

Like I said... 375 man hours we can put into researching anything specific to this case. Does the Constitution provide all the power she needs or not? Because like I said... it looks completly in her favor as I'm reading it. No?

first, the constitution:

you said God given rights. If they are God given, the constitution cannot remove or give them but guess what? God doesn't want anything to do with our system of laws. It is mans making, not Gods.

what the Constitution does do is allow Congress to make laws and they made laws outlawing pot. Unless you can claim that law is unconstitutional (don't bother, it has already been tried and defeated), you must abide by the law.

People in the U.S. have been granted immunities for smoking weed, and the CONSTITUTION says in Article 4, Section 2... that any citizen from one state is entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in another state

article 4 sec 2:



that does not mean that something that is legal in one state makes it legal in another state. Here is an explanation of the presumed intent of article 4 section 2:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 13 of 18

How much does it cost to appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS?

it would vary but it would easily reach into hundreds of thousands of dollars but again, you don't just get to appeal to the SCOTUS.

since the government can only enact things based upon the will of the people only???

actually, this is where you are wrong. We do not live in a democracy so an individual does not have a vote in what Congress enacts.

with her income, I would think she is eligible for a public defender. If she cannot afford an attorney, she should apply for a PD. She needs a lawyer, not some guy who

I got myself out of a public drunk charge myself, because I've got heart.

heart doesn't win cases and I suspect the only reason you won yours is you were lucky.

 

[grndslm]

So could you guys help a stoner out, and show me where in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Common Law, Natural Law, etc. claims that a [wo]man doesn't have the right to possess marijuana...

Because I'm not finding it.