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

[justalayman]

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.

that is because the laws that govern our society are not contained in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. The rest are irrelevant.
It would be found in the statutory laws of each state and of the federal government which are allowed by the Constitution.

 

[grndslm]

OK... while the Declaration of Independence might not be law, it holds many KEYS as to the foundation of our country.

The Constitution is the real law of the land, establishing the state & legal structure, as well as identifying human rights. In it, it claims itself to be the supreme law of the land. This wording, found in Article 6 of the Constitution, makes it clear that no law can be made if it goes against the Constitution (AKA: it's unconstitutional). . . "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof".

That means that the rights to life, liberty, and property CANNOT be infringed upon by ANY statute, correct? If so, that statute would be unconstitutional and, therefore, void ab initio.

Congress can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want, but that's why the courts have the ability to judge what is and isn't constitutional.

Also... when she goes to court... what state actor will be making a claim against her in said criminal case? Will anybody? I highly doubt it, but the AUTHORITY that so few of us actually submit to never ceases to amaze me.

And one more thing, since you brought it up. You said, "that is because the laws that govern our society are not contained in the . . ." Well, is it possible for more than one society to exist under the U.S. Constitution? Clearly the society you're referring to is a FREE society, in which one could leave if they were upset with the direction said society is headed? The more I read the Constitution, the more I LOVE it, and I'd never want to abandon it. But abandoning your society is also my right, is it not?

 

[grndslm]

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.

Isn't the point of common law that certain rights are inherent and these inherent laws provide us all with peace and equality? God doesn't have anything to do with our laws, but at one point in time, during the foundation of our country... a few wise men understood what is right and what is wrong when it comes to governing other people.

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.

Right... the Constitution gives the framework for other laws. If a law is passed that is unconstitutional, like one that bans reefer... then the Constitution also provides the means to protect any individual who understands his/her rights.

BTW, do you have any specific case law I could check out where people failed to prove the unconstitutionality of banning marijuana??

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.

Seriously? Hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to the SCOTUS without a lawyer?

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.

Actually, I'm not at all wrong when it comes to Mississippians.

Here's what I wrote: "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???"

Here's what Section 5 of the MS Constitutions says: "All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole."

Perhaps at trial, she could simply say.. "With a show of hands, who in here believes that I don't have the right to possess marijuana?"

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

Like I said before, you don't know me. I know right from wrong, and I know that possession of marijuana is NOT a crime in anyone's eyes except the corporate government, who doesn't have any eyes to begin with. If you know something relevant to this issue (that doesn't involve finding a lawyer), then please help my friend and I out.

 

[justalayman]

grndslm;2325508]Isn't the point of common law that certain rights are inherent and these inherent laws provide us all with peace and equality? God doesn't have anything to do with our laws, but at one point in time, during the foundation of our country... a few wise men understood what is right and what is wrong when it comes to governing other people.

no, not even close. Common law is law set by precedent of actions. You are speaking of rights.

Right... the Constitution gives the framework for other laws. If a law is passed that is unconstitutional, like one that bans reefer.

.. and how is it unconstitutional?

then the Constitution also provides the means to protect any individual who understands his/her rights.

yep, whip out your checkbook with those hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this. I can tell you it will not make it to the SCOTUS. You might find some specific law unenforceable but as a general principle, it is not unconstitutional to outlaw marijuana.

Seriously? Hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to the SCOTUS without a lawyer?

You can't get to the SCOTUS without a lawyer. After a certain level of courts, you cannot proceed without a lawyer. In fact, there are very special requirements to even present a case to the SCOTUS.

Here's what I wrote: "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???"

again, you make the mistake of believing we live in a democracy. WE DON"T and as such, the will of the people is not directly reflected in the actions of the government. I also would like to note that the framers of our country did not have a problem with LSD or internet kiddie porn but that does not make it legal.

Perhaps at trial, she could simply say.. "With a show of hands, who in here believes that I don't have the right to possess marijuana?"

good way to find yourself in contempt of court. They do demand a level of decorum as well as following the rules of evidence. That action breaches both.

Like I said before, you don't know me. I know right from wrong, and I know that possession of marijuana is NOT a crime in anyone's eyes except the corporate government, who doesn't have any eyes to begin with. If you know something relevant to this issue (that doesn't involve finding a lawyer), then please help my friend and I out

well, as long as there is a law on the books that makes it illegal, it is illegal in every court required to abide by those laws.

what do you want? As it is, she is out of her league trying to defend without a lawyer. You cannot represent her and even if you could, you do not have the knowledge to do so.

a PD should be available to her with her income (if you were truthful about that).

she would be smart to ignore your ramblings about constitutionality and get a lawyer.

 

[CdwJava]

None of this is new ground - it has been hashed over and over and over again, and the result is always the same - the radical fringe folks lose.

The power IS with the people - in the form of our elected representatives. It is those representatives that have created these laws that you oppose. If enough "people" get together, they can legalize it and get stoned all they want. We're about to do it in CA and in short order the rest of the nation will likely see what a boondoggle it will be out here. But, once it passes here, the next step will be legalization elsewhere. So, tell your friend to move west and he will be able to toke up all he or she wants.

Grndslm, feel free to challenge the laws in court all you want. If you have the time and the resources to spend on the effort, go for it. Your friend woul dbe FAR better off challenging the seizure r criminal charges on the facts of the contact, arrest, search, or whatever rather than tilting at windmills by claiming the law is not valid. That is a losing defense. But, I suppose if you have no defense all you have left are prayers and 'hail Mary' throws.

- Carl

 

[davew128]

That means that the rights to life, liberty, and property CANNOT be infringed upon by ANY statute, correct? If so, that statute would be unconstitutional and, therefore, void ab initio.

I guess you missed the clause in the Constitution about due process. Probably because of the weed.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

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.

Code Section
41-29-101, et seq.; 41-29-139

21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.

 

[grndslm]

The power IS with the people - in the form of our elected representatives. It is those representatives that have created these laws that you oppose.

The power is also with the Executive and Judicial branches of the government as well. Checks & balances and all... Seems to me that the judicial branch has A LOT more power than a realized.

Your friend woul dbe FAR better off challenging the seizure r criminal charges on the facts of the contact, arrest, search, or whatever rather than tilting at windmills by claiming the law is not valid. That is a losing defense.

This is most definitely true, but the fact of the matter is... she would be far better attacking from as many angles as she can, not just one. Taking up the courts time and coming out where she was before is still a win, because the CORPORATE government makes less money, and everybody in the courtroom will learn a ton about the whole process. It's gonna be a learning experience for us all, because p!ssing money away on a lawyer who can't get her off the felony charge is stupendous.

Soo... back to what you were saying, Carl. . . facts of the contact, arrest, search, etc., because it is the most reasonable remedy of them all. What does a cop need in order to pull someone over? What would a cop need in order to get a search warrant? Surely they can't get a search warrant for your home if they find 0.1 grams of weed in your car, can they? Is that really probable cause to search her home? Is an unidentified person's word plus a 0.1 gram blunt roach probable cause? Shouldn't that person have signed something before the judge signed the search warrant? Shouldn't somebody have to testify against her in court?

Just a refresher... cop in an undercover truck gets behind us. No speeding at all. Right before we get to the auto part store, the cop flashes his lights. She puts on her left turn signal and pulls into the closest parking lot. We ask what the problem was and he says she didn't use her RIGHT turn signal. Sure enough, I was intimidated and stepped out of the vehicle, because I didn't understand that all I had to do is ask him what proof he has that I need to be searched!! Eventually, she agrees to let them search the car where they find such miniscule evidence that I'm not sure how they got the search warrant to begin with. Had they only found the 1 xanax pill, would they have been able to get a search warrant along with a random person's affirmation that she had some marijuana?? Immediately after they find the roach and xanax, they drive us down the road to her house. I was handcuffed for at least 2 hours and was searched at least 6 times, and they made sure to pat my junk down EVERY time!! As soon as I was released, there were 2 copies of the search warrant at the house, but I'm not understanding why the judge would have signed it to begin with? At what point did they have evidence or even probable cause of what was in her boyfriend's house?

 

[Some Random Guy]

cop in an undercover truck gets behind us. No speeding at all. Right before we get to the auto part store, the cop flashes his lights.

OK, so we know from this that they were already targeting you since undercover officers to not do traffic patrols.

She puts on her left turn signal and pulls into the closest parking lot. We ask what the problem was and he says she didn't use her RIGHT turn signal.

And believe it or not, the police are not required to tell you much of anything. They can wait until you are charged to tell you what you did wrong.

Sure enough, I was intimidated and stepped out of the vehicle, because I didn't understand that all I had to do is ask him what proof he has that I need to be searched!!

No, if you are told to step out of the vehicle, then you need to step out of the vehicle. This is a separate issue from the search.

Eventually, she agrees to let them search the car where they find such miniscule evidence that I'm not sure how they got the search warrant to begin with.

My emphasis added. Since she agreed to the search, then its a legal search. She would need to have refused for the search to be brought into question. You can still question the cause for stopping the vehicle - but based on the use of undercover officers, you can expect the police to articulate a good reason.

Had they only found the 1 xanax pill, would they have been able to get a search warrant along with a random person's affirmation that she had some marijuana??

Have no idea how your hypothetical scenario would turn out.

Immediately after they find the roach and xanax, they drive us down the road to her house. I was handcuffed for at least 2 hours and was searched at least 6 times, and they made sure to pat my junk down EVERY time!!

Ok.

As soon as I was released, there were 2 copies of the search warrant at the house, but I'm not understanding why the judge would have signed it to begin with? At what point did they have evidence or even probable cause of what was in her boyfriend's house?

There is an affadavit in which the cause for getting a search warrant is outlined. That was not included with the copy of the warrant left at the home (which is normal). If she is being charged with anything that was found in the boyfriend's home, then her lawyer should be able to find this info out and decide whether the search can be challenged.

Who is being charged with the stuff found in her boyfriend's house - her or her boyfriend? Did she live there?

 

[grndslm]

no, not even close. Common law is law set by precedent of actions. You are speaking of rights.

Well, if the government can take my liberty, take my property, and take my pursuit of happiness... I guess it's OK just to be living, eh?

.. and how is it unconstitutional?

You might find some specific law unenforceable but as a general principle, it is not unconstitutional to outlaw marijuana.

well, as long as there is a law on the books that makes it illegal, it is illegal in every court required to abide by those laws.

It's unconstitutional, because it's MY choice. Outlawing marijuana goes against the will of God ( Marijuana and the Bible ). And by possessing/smoking it, I'm not infringing on ANYBODY'S rights. The government is harming a ton of people by forcing them to submit to their will only in the name of profit. THAT is why it's unconstitutional. And because people have been smoking weed for thousands of years.

You can't get to the SCOTUS without a lawyer. After a certain level of courts, you cannot proceed without a lawyer. In fact, there are very special requirements to even present a case to the SCOTUS.

Seems unconstitutional to me. If I have the right to Assistance of Counsel... seems like I have the right to NO Assistance of Counsel.

again, you make the mistake of believing we live in a democracy. WE DON"T and as such, the will of the people is not directly reflected in the actions of the government.

Have you ever read No Treason by Lysander Spooner before? No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority && No Treason, No. 1 | LysanderSpooner.org

Both of those links say No Treason, but they're different. Either way, they both make EXTREMELY valid points that I've never considered until recently.

I also would like to note that the framers of our country did not have a problem with LSD or internet kiddie porn but that does not make it legal.

Point taken, but the issue at hand is marijuana, and deep down inside... everybody knows that it shouldn't be illegal. It is illegal only for profit-greedy machines -- the Government, DuPont, the cotton industry, etc. Seems like if someone could prove that in court, they should be allowed to walk free.

More importantly, tho... she should be able to prove the unconstitutionality by the guy in FL who was granted immunity from marijuana laws. If he can smoke 10 joints a day, why can't she smoke 5 blunts a day? Surely the government wouldn't allow immunity for something that was UNLAWFUL, would they?

 

[grndslm]

OK, so we know from this that they were already targeting you since undercover officers to not do traffic patrols.

Correct. I think they were following her, because they didn't have any evidence before. Had they had any proof, they woulda just raided the house. But I think they were waiting to catch her with anything in her car, freak her out, get her to sign a paper, and run with whatever they could come up with. I can't prove that, but I have a sneaky suspicion.

And believe it or not, the police are not required to tell you much of anything. They can wait until you are charged to tell you what you did wrong.

No, if you are told to step out of the vehicle, then you need to step out of the vehicle. This is a separate issue from the search.

Well... I'm not required to tell the cops anything more than my name (Do I even have to tell them my last name?). And I will never just step out of a vehicle when a cop says something like, "Come on and step out of the vehicle, please." I will ask him questions until he's blue in the face and yanks me thru the window.

My emphasis added. Since she agreed to the search, then its a legal search. She would need to have refused for the search to be brought into question. You can still question the cause for stopping the vehicle - but based on the use of undercover officers, you can expect the police to articulate a good reason.

OK... but if she agrees to let them search the vehicle, is that good enough reason for them to search her boyfriend's home?

There is an affadavit in which the cause for getting a search warrant is outlined. That was not included with the copy of the warrant left at the home (which is normal). If she is being charged with anything that was found in the boyfriend's home, then her lawyer should be able to find this info out and decide whether the search can be challenged.

She can see the affidavit by going to the court clerks and asking for a discovery, can't she?

Who is being charged with the stuff found in her boyfriend's house - her or her boyfriend? Did she live there?

She is, and yes, she was living there for about a month until all this happened.

 

[grndslm]

I guess you missed the clause in the Constitution about due process. Probably because of the weed.

Funny.

I was under the impression from my research that due process is virtually interchangeable with the law of the land. Sure the cops are acting under color of right, but the part of the Controlled Substance Act that mentions marijuana as a Schedule I drug seems to be void ab initio.

 

[Some Random Guy]

Well... I'm not required to tell the cops anything more than my name (Do I even have to tell them my last name?). And I will never just step out of a vehicle when a cop says something like, "Come on and step out of the vehicle, please." I will ask him questions until he's blue in the face and yanks me thru the window.

Depends on the state you are in. Sometimes you are required to identify yourself by name, sometimes by name and address. Drivers of the vehicle who fail to provide that info an more (license and registration) may finnd themselves in more trouble.

Generally, the police have the power to order you to do simple things (get out of car, turn off car, etc) and do simple frisk searches for iffucer safety and to permit him to perform his investigation. Failure to comply may result in an arrest if you persist in being a jerk about things. Of course, your simple questions like "why do you need to know my name?" and "am I required to give you that information" are reasonable.

but if she agrees to let them search the vehicle, is that good enough reason for them to search her boyfriend's home?

If what they found in the vehicle gives a judge reason to believe that there are illegal things in her home, then yes. But one pill and one roach does not seem like evidence of home-based drug sales to me. That's why you would need an experienced lawyer who knows the law to review all details of the search to look for something that was done incorrectly.

She can see the affidavit by going to the court clerks and asking for a discovery, can't she?

It may not be immediately available and you would need to follow the proper procedure to request the documents in discouvery. Court clerks are not legally permitted to provide you legal advice, so do not expect them to tell you which forms to file, how to file your request, which documents to request or the timeframe in which you must act. If she proceeds without a lawyer, then she is expected to know the law and be able to handle her own case without special help from the courts.

See if there are any free legal help services in your community and also ask the courts if there is a "pro se" help office for people handling their own cases.

 

[Some Random Guy]

I was under the impression from my research that due process is virtually interchangeable with the law of the land.

Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due process in the US generally means that if the government is arresting or incarcerating you or is seizing your property, then you must be afforded the opportunity to defend against these actions. In her case, the due process is her arraignment, the discovery period, the trial, sentencing and possibly appeal.

Sure the cops are acting under color of right, but the part of the Controlled Substance Act that mentions marijuana as a Schedule I drug seems to be void ab initio.

And as soon as you convince the state supreme court of that fact, then it will be true. Until then, it is the law in Mississippi. These are state charges, correct? Not federal?

 

[Zigner]

In some states, PASSENGERS are required to provide identification upon request by a police officer.

Ya know...this guy sounds A LOT like the guy (in his mid-twenties) who lived in his mom's garage when I was in Jr High School. He was the neighborhood Dungeon Master (D&D) and there always seemed to be a cloud inside of the garage. He could come up with some really wacky stuff too - and, even as a pre-teen, I KNEW he was screwed up in the head!