MOTION TO DISMISS POT BUST

[mrsat_98]

Wow any comments ?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/thorn...99898593423820

THORNE PETERS·SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2015
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 _______________
Plaintiff,
VS. DOCKET NO. _________
_______________________ DIV ______
Defendant.
__________________________________________________ _________
MOTION TO DISMISS
__________________________________________________ ______________
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 . . .

MOTION FOR CLAYTON HEARING . . . https://www.facebook.com/notes/thor...