Results 1 to 19 of 19


  1. #1


    Wow any comments ?

    PpP . . . MAKE YOUR OWN CASE!!! Take this motion and stuff it up the $#@!s of the Court that is violating your Inalienable, Human and Civil Rights to toke, deal and grow CANNABIS by enforcing the unconstitutional Political Policy of PROHIBITION.
    (Write in the info for your Court.)
    IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF______________________
    FOR THE__________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ____________
    __________________________________________________ ____________
    STATE OF _______________
    VS. DOCKET NO. _________
    _______________________ DIV ______
    __________________________________________________ _________
    __________________________________________________ ______________
    Pro Se Defendant, ____________________________ moves the Court to dismiss the instant proceeding for the Possession of CANNABIS and/or Possession for Sales of CANNABIS and/or Cultivating CANNABIS being brought by the State against the Defendant in this matter. As grounds for this motion, Defendant would show the Court as follows:

    1. Defendant contends the State has failed to make it's prima facie case that Defendant committed a criminal act with the intent to do harm to a person, property or puppy. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. (The act is not culpable unless the mind is also guilty.) Page 1 of your law books.

    2. Defendant claims CONSENT to possess CANNABIS for personal use, as a consenting adult in a FREE country.

    3. Defendant claims CONSENT to sell CANNABIS and will provide witnesses who purchased CANNABIS from Defendant to support the claim of CONSENT as a defense against liability.

    4. Defendant claims CONSENT to cultivate CANNABIS/HEMP according to the laws of nature that requires use of these plants to balance the ecology by giving mankind sources of medicine, energy, textiles, fuel, food that are biodegradable and non harmful to people and the planet.

    5. Defendant contends the State has presented an Attenuated, Defective Affidavit by charging Defendant with "Manufacturing" CANNABIS. CANNABIS is cultivated. Based on the language of Criminal Code T.C.A. 39-17-417, used by the State to bring said charges, there is no assertion that it is illegal to cultivate CANNABIS. Further, unlike the other substances on the Controlled Substances Act, CANNABIS is not manufactured into another product through a “control process”, but, rather, is “controlled” by an artificial criminal code unlawfully enforced by unconstitutional political policies. The onus is upon the State to articulate the “control process” that “manufactures” CANNABIS in order to lawfully proceed against Defendant.

    6. Defendant contends CANNABIS fails to meet the Fry Standard to be categorized as a drug. At Preliminary Hearing in the case of State of Tennessee v. THE KINGPIN THORNE PETERS, for Possession for Sales of CANNABIS on April 24, 2015, Division 25, Shelby County Court, Judge Rhonda Harris, presiding, supported this position by sustaining Defendant's objection to the State referring to CANNABIS as a "drug" and to Defendant as a "drug dealer". The State was admonished to refer to CANNABIS as "Marijuana"and to Defendant as a "Marijuana Dealer" on THE KINGPIN’s point that drugs don't grow on trees.

    7. Defendant contends 6th Amendment Constitutional Right to face an accuser is being denied because the State cannot produce a victim. The State is in conflict with the facts of the case, by proceeding against Defendant for committing a crime while bringing charges under the artificial category of: VICTIMLESS CRIME.

    8. Defendant contends 14th Amendment Constitutional Right to Equal Protection under the law is being violated by political policy, since the State and he Court offer no proscription for relief for Defendant to legally obtain CANNABIS.

    9. Defendant contends Substantive Due Process (the penumbras) is being violated by the State for failing to recognize legal remedies in courts from 23 other states and growing that uphold the Constitutional guarantees of citizens that protect them from CANNABIS-related arrests and prosecutions.

    10. Defendant contends under the Full Faith & Credit Clause, courts must respect rulings by other courts that do not enforce an unconstitutional CANNABIS Prohibition against citizens.

    11. Defendant contends the State is violating First Amendment Right to exercise religious freedom. CANNABIS is recognized as a Holy Sacrament of the Church, and is used in religious practices in multiple faiths in the worship of various Gods and spirits around the world, with citing going back over 5000 years in multiple religious texts. The First Amendment of The Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.

    12. Defendant contends CORPUS DELICTI cannot be provided by the State in any CANNABIS case, as there is no Constitutional evidence to offer proof that a crime has even been committed.

    13. Defendant claims the State cannot articulate QUO WARRANTO to prove they have the authority by law to inflict criminal codes on citizens based on political policies outside the Constitution.

    14. Defendant contends the unconstitutional Prohibition being enforced by the courts against the use, sales and cultivation of CANNABIS, frustrates the administration of justice and hinders the search for truth. See: Witch Trials; Slavery; Comstock Law; The Mann Act; The Volstead Act; Anti-Miscegenation.
    Defendant offers these on-point landmark historical cases of the Constitutional guarantees of a citizen(s) being violated by a political policy enforced by the courts as if it was a law, only to be overruled, reversed and overturned as immoral, ignorant and evil . . . as it will be when history reviews the unlawfully unconstitutional enforcement of CANNABIS Prohibition in this era.

    Blackstone’s Ratio, “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, (1765) “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
    * Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
    * Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 (1931)
    * Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
    * Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956)
    * Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
    * Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S. 479 (1965)
    * Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
    * Timothy Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
    * Stanley v. Georgia, 395 U.S. 557 (1969)
    People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (1973)
    * Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974)
    * Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988)
    * Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
    * Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
    * Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)
    * "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court, in: American Communications Association v. Douds 339 U.S. 382 (1950)

    In reliance on the above-delineated constitutional statutory guarantees, Defendant hereby moves the instant case be immediately dismissed, expunged, with all associated costs assessed against the State of ________________.

    * Your next recourse is to file a MOTION FOR A CLAYTON HEARING to have the case dismissed in the “furtherance of justice.” People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (1973)

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 210.40 grants the defendant (or the prosecutor or the court) the power to apply for relief:
    “First, it directs the court to find, under the general concept of the "furtherance of justice" stated in its provisions, that the "dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in an injustice."
    This describes every manner of POT bust. See link below . . .

    Last edited by mrsat_98; 01-17-2017 at 10:51 PM.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3


    This is the appropriate use of a text wall..

  5. #4


    Maybe we can find out if he goes to jail in his next court case. I appreciate what he is doing but, i feel that the system will make an example of him. Here is a link to his youtube channel maybe the one here can help him get some juice:

  6. #5


    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    Maybe we can find out if he goes to jail in his next court case. I appreciate what he is doing but, i feel that the system will make an example of him.
    That is a nice piece of work though,, as legalese goes.
    Would likely cause apoplexy in prosecutors offices.

    the system is what it is,, FUBAR
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  7. #6


    did you get a permit to post this?

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...

  8. #7


    also saving
    Disclaimer: any post made after midnight and before 8AM is made before the coffee dip stick has come up to optomim level - expect some level of silliness,

    The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are out numbered by those who vote for a living !!!!!!!

  9. #8


    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    did you get a permit to post this?
    Do I need a permit ?
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  10. #9


    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    That is a nice piece of work though,, as legalese goes.
    Would likely cause apoplexy in prosecutors offices.

    the system is what it is,, FUBAR

    wipes coffee from screen.

    Last edited by mrsat_98; 01-15-2017 at 07:03 PM.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  11. #10
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  12. #11


    Quote Originally Posted by The Northbreather View Post
    This is the appropriate use of a text wall..
    Did that help ?
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  13. #12


    In his 2006 book about assisted suicide, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch takes issue with the "libertarian principle" that requires legalization of the practice. The same principle, Gorsuch argues, would also require the government to allow "any act of consensual homicide," including "sadomasochist killings, mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illicit drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)." That's right: If the government lets people kill themselves, it might also have to let them smoke pot.

    Despite the horror of taboo intoxicants suggested by that passage, Gorsuch does not seem to be blinded by pharmacological phobia when he hears drug cases. Two opinions he wrote in 2015—one involving mens rea, the other the Fifth Amendment's ban on compelled self-incrimination—demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of drug policy issues and suggest Gorsuch is less eager than some judges to facilitate enforcement of prohibition by compromising civil liberties.

    In U.S. v. Makkar, a 2015 case involving Oklahoma convenience store owners arrested for selling "incense" containing a synthetic cannabinoid, Gorsuch noted that the merchants, Iqbal Makkar and Gaurav Sehgal, seemed to be concerned about complying with the law:

    When questions surfaced about the incense they carried on their shelves, the men spoke with state law enforcement officers, offered to have the officers test the incense to determine its legality, and offered as well to stop selling the product until the results came in. But this cooperation with state authorities apparently won the men little admiration from federal investigators: soon enough they found themselves under indictment and convicted for violating the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act (Analogue Act), conspiracy, and money laundering.

    Writing for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch agreed with Makkar and Sehgal that they had been improperly convicted under the Analogue Act, "a curious animal" that is meant to criminalize production and distribution of psychoactive substances that are not explicitly prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). To be covered by the Analogue Act, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation, a substance must be substantially similar in chemical structure and effect to a drug listed in Schedule I or II of the CSA. To convict a supplier of violating the Analogue Act, the government must prove he knew the drug had these features or knew the drug was banned by that law or by the CSA.

    Gorsuch noted in passing that the Supreme Court's construction of the Analogue Act may not adequately address "vagueness concerns," since "it's an open question...what exactly it means for chemicals to have a 'substantially similar' chemical structure—or effect." In any case, he said, prosecutors failed to prove that Makkar and Sehgal met the law's men rea requirements. "The government didn't attempt to show that Mr. Makkar or Mr. Sehgal knew the incense they sold was unlawful under the CSA or Analogue Act," he writes. No did it try to show the defendants knew the incense contained a substance with a chemical structure similar to that of a Schedule I or II drug. "As far as we can tell," Gorsuch said, "at trial the government introduced no evidence suggesting that the defendants knew anything about the chemical structure of the incense they sold."

    Instead prosecutors convinced the trial judge to approve "an instruction permitting the jury to infer that the defendants knew the incense they sold had a substantially similar chemical structure to JWH–18 [a synthetic cannabinoid] from the fact they knew the incense had a substantially similar effect to marijuana." That inference is "scientifically unsound," Gorsuch noted, because two substances can have similar effects despite having very different chemical structures. In effect, "the government asked for and won the right to collapse its two separate elemental mens rea burdens into one." Not cool: A court may not "issue instructions that effectively relieve the government of proving each essential element specified by Congress."

    Gorsuch also faulted the trial court for not letting Makkar and Sehgal "introduce evidence showing that they asked state law enforcement agents to test the incense to assure its legality under state law—and that they offered to stop selling the incense until the results came in." In light of these legal errors, Gorsuch said, the convictions cannot stand, and "it's unclear at this point whether the men can be lawfully retried consistent with the law's demands."

    Gorsuch—like Antonin Scalia, the late justice he would replace—is a stickler when it comes to requiring the prosecution to prove all the elements of a criminal offense, so it is not surprising he objected to the shortcut the government attempted in this case. His comments about the "vagueness concerns" raised by the Analogue Act are also reminiscent of Scalia, who took seriously the government's duty to give people clear warning of which acts constitute crimes, a basic requirement of due process. In fact, Gorsuch likened the Analogue Act to the Armed Career Criminal Act, the vagueness of which offended Scalia. Gorsuch noted that the "residual clause" of that law serves a function similiar to the Analogue Act, since it "extends the statute's punishments to other, unspecified offenses that can claim similarity to listed ones."

    In another 2015 case, Feinberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Gorsuch recognized the weird legal predicament of state-licensed marijuana businesses, which are still treated as criminal enterprises under federal law. The case involved Total Health Concepts, a medical marijuana dispensary in Denver owned by Neil Feinberg, Andrea Feinberg, and Kellie McDonald. The Feinbergs and McDonald challenged the federal law that prevents state-legal marijuana suppliers from claiming business expenses on their tax returns. In response to their lawsuit, the IRS demanded information about their business, which they declined to provide, since it would implicate them in federal felonies. The IRS obtained a U.S. Tax Court order compelling Feinberg et al. to produce the evidence, and they asked the 10th Circuit to overturn that order on Fifth Amendment grounds.

    The 10th Circuit ultimately concluded that it should not intervene before the tax court had issued a final order in the case. But Gorsuch noted the self-contradictory logic employed by the IRS in defense of the order:

    Officials at the Department of Justice have now twice instructed field prosecutors that they should generally decline to enforce Congress's statutory command when states like Colorado license operations like THC. At the same time and just across 10th Street in Washington, D.C ., officials at the IRS refuse to recognize business expense deductions claimed by companies like THC on the ground that their conduct violates federal criminal drug laws. So it is that today prosecutors will almost always overlook federal marijuana distribution crimes in Colorado but the tax man never will....

    The Fifth Amendment normally shields individuals from having to admit to criminal activity. But, the IRS argued, because DOJ's memoranda generally instruct federal prosecutors not to prosecute cases like this one the petitioners should be forced to divulge the requested information anyway. So it is the government simultaneously urged the court to take seriously its claim that the petitioners are violating federal criminal law and to discount the possibility that it would enforce federal criminal law.

    Gorsuch questioned whether the DOJ's policy of restraint, which was completely discretionary and could be reversed at any point, obviated Feinberg et al.'s concerns about self-incrimination:

    In light of questions and possibilities like these, you might be forgiven for wondering whether, memos or no memos, any admission by the petitioners about their involvement in the marijuana trade still involves an "authentic danger of self-incrimination." Maybe especially given the fact that the government's defense in this case is wholly premised on the claim that the petitioners are, in fact, violating federal criminal law. And given the fact that counsel for the government in this appeal candidly acknowledged that neither the existence nor the language of the DOJ memoranda can assure the petitioners that they are now, or will continue to be, safe from prosecution. And given the fact that this court has long explained that, once a witness establishes that "the answers requested would tend to incriminate [him]" under the law of the land, the Fifth Amendment may be properly invoked without regard to anyone's "speculat[ion] [about] whether the witness will in fact be prosecuted."

    Although these ruminations had no practical effect in this case, they suggest a judge who is sensitive to the problems created by the federal government's continued enforcement of a prohibition policy that most states have rejected. Give the next attorney general's objections to marijuana federalism, that conflict could come before the Supreme Court sometime in the next few years.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  14. #13


    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  15. #14


    Quote Originally Posted by mrsat_98 View Post
    Do I need a permit ?
    Ask Themme.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  16. #15


    Reposted from THorne Peters facebook page.

    CALL TO ACTION! Today is the day to make that CANNACALL . . . so is every day MON-FRI 9-5 CT . . . After 31 months, since my arrest on Poss for Sales of POT charges, I am on my 3rd judge. The State has deleted the POT charges to proceed against me for the guns that have already been thrown out at pre-trial. When you just say NO MENS REA the POT charges go away! Let the DA of MeMphRicA hear your outrage!!!!
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  17. #16


    Trial date is Halloween,
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  18. #17


    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    the system is what it is,, FUBAR
    And yet, it CAN be used effectively, if people in the procedural know would use their brains a little more creatively.

    I recently watched a documentary titled "One Of Us", a story about three Lubavitchers (Chassidic Jews) who have left the fold. It shows what they each go through - shunning and so forth. One is a woman, seven children, and at one point a very telling statement is made about how their lawyers have learned to make strong use of the garbage statutes of New York state, twisting them all a-mangle to the advantage of the husbands for when the woman leaves. It is worth watching, going on about the conspiracies that spontaneously arose against this woman, whose children were ultimately taken from her. The arguments were clearly nonsense, yet the lawyers used all the right words, directly from the statutes themselves, in sufficiently correct ways such that the judges cry in their beer and grant what is wanted.

    This is what liberty seekers must also do because, barring another civil war wherein the bodies of law may in the aftermath fall dead as to salience, this is what we have to work with and should therefore learn to turn the evil against itself... kind of like giving statutory law an autoimmune disorder.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  19. #18


    From the kingpins Facebook page.

    HEY CANNACALLERZ! It was 1000 days ago today that I was busted for 353 grams of WEED and 2 guns, after dealing POT on FB for a year, making You Tube videos waving pounds of POT while posting on the walls of the power-that-be to come and get me. Now, 33 months later, I will be in court October 31, 2017, challenging the Court to take me to THE TRIAL OF THE MILLENNIUM, as they duck, cover, hide and shoot spitballz in terror of my case against PROHIBITION and my evidence of their CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Tell the media to stop shirking their duty and report this story . . . the community has the right to know.

  20. #19


    Trial didn't happen judges mother in law died.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

Similar Threads

    By libertylastchance in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 04:35 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 02:12 PM
  3. Do you think they'll dismiss the NH victory?
    By njandrewg in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 04:33 PM
  4. A Motto To Dismiss Naysayers
    By Chester Copperpot in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-03-2007, 12:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts