House Bill 3939: the Truth in Trials Act of 2009

How sad only 3 republican co-sponcers.
Tom Mclintock <-- good guy, BTW
Dana Rohrabacher
and My Man:
Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul FTW

Very few Republicans stand on any kind of Principle its sad.
 
Remember what they did to Ed Rosenthal? They withheld the fact that he had a State of CA license to grow and distribute from the Jury. When the Jurors found out that he had a State license that pitched a fit!
 
Topic is the Truth in Trials Act.

How strong will a State Shield be?

Will it protect every individual's right to love their herbs?

We all laugh at it's absurdity,

but how many parents have passed on to their friends their Hate of the Devil's Weed because they believe in "Reefer Madness"?

Haul me to Heaven - Thanks for the helping to keep the discussion on topic.
 

Attachments

This is a touchy-feely bullcrap bill to be wasting time and money on if you're asking me. All fluff. Unneccesary. The 10th amendment of the US Constitution already guarantees us that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution does not prohibit marijuana to the states. It is therefore unconstitutional to make or enforce any laws concerning the prohibition of anything, anyway.


Believing that this bill is going to hold any more sway over our lives than the constitution or any other bill would be folly. Don't get me wrong, it sounds nice and everything. At the end of the day I think all you will be left with is HOPE.
 
CaRNiFReeK said:
This is a touchy-feely bullcrap bill to be wasting time and money on if you're asking me. All fluff. Unneccesary. The 10th amendment of the US Constitution already guarantees us that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution does not prohibit marijuana to the states. It is therefore unconstitutional to make or enforce any laws concerning the prohibition of anything, anyway.


Believing that this bill is going to hold any more sway over our lives than the constitution or any other bill would be folly. Don't get me wrong, it sounds nice and everything. At the end of the day I think all you will be left with is HOPE.
Click to expand...

IT IS YET ANOTHER TACTIC TO TAKE YOUR MINDS OFF THIS STUFF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
IF YOU WANT TO BE ALIVE SOON TO KEEP ON SMOKING YOU BETTER FUCKING CHANGE HOW YOU LIVE BEFORE YOUR LIVING IN A FEMA CAMP@!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
 
In July 2005 Dr. Rima Laibow and her husband Major General Albert Stubblebien did their radio show on our network LIVE from Rome Italy.
The topic was on Codex Alimentarious UN World Health meetings- this is where every country sent their Health delegates to Rome to vote on the new Codex.

Simply said- all the nations of the world signed off on the new Codex- which has made it illegal to buy, grow, posses, manufacture and distribute anything the Pharmaceutical Industry deems of no medicinal value.
The UN Law was passed. It's just a matter of time until they execute it as Law by all member nations within the UN.
The mainstream press did a black out on the entire subject/meetings. So 90% of all people have no idea what was done to the population of the world in 2005.

Sadly Obama is heading to Copenhagen to sign a new deal with the globalists.
He says he won't sign it- which means he will.

I forgot what was being signed this time- I just got up.
Somebody help- What's he signing this time???
 
Guys, i hate to be a wet blanket but a little basic legal education is in order here.

That bill actually sucks for us. What the bill does, is states that people with medical grows can, if charged, use MMJ as an "affirmative defense."

Now let me explain what an affirmative defense means. It means, just as it says in the bill, that if a person with a MMJ grow is prosecuted, that person may prove by a preponderance of evidence that the grow was a legit MMJ grow. So according to this bill, the State can still prosecute and you will have to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt.

What we need is a law that states that the State must prove that the grow is not a legal MMJ grow. They should be required to demonstrate probably cause to this affect when obtaining a warrant, when bringing charges and at trial if it goes that far. Having to raise an affirmative defense is a load of crap and it does little to protect you. In many States, your lawyer is going to advise you just to plea the charge down to possession rather than rolling the dice with a trial that could easily not go your way. All you need it a jury that is not pot friendly and they will be more than happy to over ride the law and convict you despite your MMj dense. Remember, you must prove that it is more likely than not that your MMJ grow is 100% legit. If you are up against a slick prosecutor this might be harder than it seems. All he has to do is point out how efficient your system is and how it can easily produce in excess of what your patients could possibly use. As easy as that you might fall short of the preponderance standard.

Unfortunately, until the burden of proof is shifted from the defendant to the State, the MMJ laws do little to protect you from an over zealous prosecutor.
 
Good points.
The problem is 'trusting Law' in this country and plea bargaining. And, worst of all- we are to 'trust' an ill-informed jury? As long as we have a brainwashing media- there is no hope for an informed jury pool. They will be nothing more than government fed sheep that will do the will of the State/Fed.
I detest the deliberately ignorant among us!

Great points Rick
 
Haul me to Heaven said:
Good points.
The problem is 'trusting Law' in this country and plea bargaining. And, worst of all- we are to 'trust' an ill-informed jury? As long as we have a brainwashing media- there is no hope for an informed jury pool. They will be nothing more than government fed sheep that will do the will of the State/Fed.
I detest the deliberately ignorant among us!

Great points Rick
Click to expand...


Thanks, and your point is a good one as well. The jury system is an abysmal failure and judges aren't much better. A couple lawyers I know tell me about all kinds of retarded decisions made by both. Many of these are in complete contrast with the law. And that is why people should understand that the Courts will railroad you and juries nearly always decide cases based on the biases they come in with. Nothing good ever comes from being involved with the system and you really are taking a huge gamble anytime you step foot in a courtroom whether you are guilty or not. Of course it all varies from County to County so our mileage may vary.
 
Hmm

What we need to do is re-affirm what the original intent of the commure clause was.
In 1942 the Supreme court ruled that if a farmer grows wheat on his farm
for his own use can be regulated by the feds because his use of the wheat effects interstate sales.
This is a clear violation of original intent.

The Commurse clause is clearly being abused
to foist national health care on us.
To make weed illegal
to regulate and licence everything under the sun.

To regulate used to mean: "to keep regular"
Or prevent the states from imposing taxes on goods crossing state boarders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top