Police Break The Law, Marijuana in Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
aknight3

aknight3

Moderator
i dont think this case would go to the supreme court and if it did it would literally take years and most likley brought up for maybe 5 minutes tops, federal law trumps ALL LOCAL LAW, RELIGIOUS LAW,or whatever the fuck law you think holds, it does not matter why youhad the marijuana, all that matters is you were caught in possession of it, regardless of whether you were on your own property, any cop can say he saw probable cause looking into your window and smell reefer so he did a knock and talk, aka probably cause to search and detain, under ANY circumstances, period, end of story. now before you say no that isnt what happened let me remind you this, it doesnt really matter WHAT happened, the only thing that really matters is what you can prove, and if its your word against a police officer or multiple police officers, who do you think the judge will beleive? some 19 year old kid that just got arrested for smoking buds or the civil servant who has been loyal to his dept. for years and years?? i will give you a hint, the person isnt 19 yrs old...im not trying to be an asshole or anything but its really un realistic to consider you actually winning this case. maybe if you had multiple CREDIBLE witnesses, not 'ur x gf and 2 buddys' im talking REAL crediblle people, and a camera to record the incident when it happened then maybe i would say you have a decent cold chance in hell, without these things, your defense does not hold any water friend, trust me i know the law decently well and you will most likley be laughed at and maybe infuriate the judge by coming into his courtroom with bs.

have you ever heard the old saying '' ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse '' as an American citizen, it is YOUR sole job to find out the laws in your state or local govt and how those laws pertain to you as a citizen of this country. marijuana is illegal at the federal level, therefore trumping all state laws (which is unconstitutional to begin with, but thats a whole other topic) therefore no matter where you are in the united states it is crime to possess and consume marijuana regardless of state laws. therefore you will be prosecuted for it, theres nothing you can do. warrant or not, if a police officer said he he had probable cause to do it, thats it end of story all the evidence found can and at that point will be used against you. as i said your only way would be to prove the cop is lieing by recording the event and show it in court, otherwise your up shits creek bro. no matter how many times you say no warrant it will not matter, if a police officer has probable cause to search you, your person, vehicle or car then there is no warrant needed. good luck dude, im not being an asshole just trying to be real with you. pz
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
this is how it will go.

judge: this lice-ridden recidivist says you had no warrant, officers. is this true?

officers: we smelt the odor of burning marijuana and his mom let us in citing that she was sick of "this slovenly parasitic mooch of an ass baby".

judge: case closed.

failspammy: i appeal!

judge: get this guy out of here, the stench of curdled milk and spoiled rice is overwhelming.

the end.
 
Totoe

Totoe

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
HOLY SHIT. I just learned something that blows the top off this shit... https://www.rollitup.org/politics/18088-marijuana-no-more-automatic-arrest.html I was on MY OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY, they had NO WARRANT, and they have been told (By the Governor of Texas) not to arrest everyone with weed, even in traffic stops and in public.
Click to expand...
Yes but your arrest was before the mandate, so you are still on the hook slappy. When is the court date or have you already missed it and now a fugitive?
 
Totoe

Totoe

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
this is how it will go.

judge: this lice-ridden recidivist says you had no warrant, officers. is this true?

officers: we smelt the odor of burning marijuana and his mom let us in citing that she was sick of "this slovenly parasitic mooch of an ass baby".

judge: case closed.

failspammy: i appeal!

judge: get this guy out of here, the stench of curdled milk and spoiled rice is overwhelming.

the end.
Click to expand...
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UncleBuck again.
 
Totoe

Totoe

Well-Known Member
aknight3 said:
i dont think this case would go to the supreme court and if it did it would literally take years and most likley brought up for maybe 5 minutes tops, federal law trumps ALL LOCAL LAW, RELIGIOUS LAW,or whatever the fuck law you think holds, it does not matter why youhad the marijuana, all that matters is you were caught in possession of it, regardless of whether you were on your own property, any cop can say he saw probable cause looking into your window and smell reefer so he did a knock and talk, aka probably cause to search and detain, under ANY circumstances, period, end of story. now before you say no that isnt what happened let me remind you this, it doesnt really matter WHAT happened, the only thing that really matters is what you can prove, and if its your word against a police officer or multiple police officers, who do you think the judge will beleive? some 19 year old kid that just got arrested for smoking buds or the civil servant who has been loyal to his dept. for years and years?? i will give you a hint, the person isnt 19 yrs old...im not trying to be an asshole or anything but its really un realistic to consider you actually winning this case. maybe if you had multiple CREDIBLE witnesses, not 'ur x gf and 2 buddys' im talking REAL crediblle people, and a camera to record the incident when it happened then maybe i would say you have a decent cold chance in hell, without these things, your defense does not hold any water friend, trust me i know the law decently well and you will most likley be laughed at and maybe infuriate the judge by coming into his courtroom with bs.

have you ever heard the old saying '' ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse '' as an American citizen, it is YOUR sole job to find out the laws in your state or local govt and how those laws pertain to you as a citizen of this country. marijuana is illegal at the federal level, therefore trumping all state laws (which is unconstitutional to begin with, but thats a whole other topic) therefore no matter where you are in the united states it is crime to possess and consume marijuana regardless of state laws. therefore you will be prosecuted for it, theres nothing you can do. warrant or not, if a police officer said he he had probable cause to do it, thats it end of story all the evidence found can and at that point will be used against you. as i said your only way would be to prove the cop is lieing by recording the event and show it in court, otherwise your up shits creek bro. no matter how many times you say no warrant it will not matter, if a police officer has probable cause to search you, your person, vehicle or car then there is no warrant needed. good luck dude, im not being an asshole just trying to be real with you. pz
Click to expand...
No, it's cool dude. Regardless of how much you know about the law, you may be a lawyer for all I know, but fin has a copy of black's law. He understands the ins and outs of every ruling ever based on a copy of annotated cases and his own poor reading comprehension skills.
 
Indagrow

Indagrow

Well-Known Member
Can't believe I read some of these responses I'm just really bored. But fin it appears you come here looking for answers but just try to disprove every response that goes against what you will think is going to happen.. Your just going to be another statistic of an inmate who believe they are falsely incarcerated if you keep stirring up the waters of the judicial system.. You know what you did was illegal, just plea out.. You will get some community service and maybe this way you can actually give back to society your Internet presence is just making society worse if anything. In the famous words of yourself ":dunce:"
 
chewberto

chewberto

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
this is how it will go.

judge: this lice-ridden recidivist says you had no warrant, officers. is this true?

officers: we smelt the odor of burning marijuana and his mom let us in citing that she was sick of "this slovenly parasitic mooch of an ass baby".

judge: case closed.

failspammy: i appeal!

judge: get this guy out of here, the stench of curdled milk and spoiled rice is overwhelming.

the end.
Click to expand...
But it is only the beginning! Follow up story...

Setting-jail cell....enter Thinbaggy

TB- "is this my sleeping quarters?"
inmate- immediately throat chops TB and says " did I tell you to speak?"
TB-"sorry sir, I am new here"
inmate- "no shit retard, you will sleep at my feet like a bitch"
TB- "yes sir, can I sleep now I am very tired"
inmate slaps TB and says "why isn't my dick wet?"
Tb- " I'm sorry sir, showers aren't until tomorrow"
inmate laughs with an eerie grin!
TB- "you don't mean?"
inmate- "yeah princess, time to get to work!
TB- " yes sir, tight away sir!" (Bj scene)
Inmate-"I hear you we're raped by a girl?"
TB-" yes when I was younger, it was a very tramatic"
inmate stops TB from completing his sentence and says "was her dick as big as mine?"
Tb mouth full of cock says "gogglegooglegoogle"
inmate- "this bores me, time for your hungry butt hole"
TB-" yes sir" (extended ass rape scene)
inmate finishes up by glazing THinbaggys back like a donut, proceeds to wipe his cock off with TB's pillow case and then he throws two top Ramens on his back "have this ready when i wake up" and falls asleep gently into the night!

The end
 
D

dwight smokum

Active Member
chewberto said:
But it is only the beginning! Follow up story...

Setting-jail cell....enter Thinbaggy

TB- "is this my sleeping quarters?"
inmate- immediately throat chops TB and says " did I tell you to speak?"
TB-"sorry sir, I am new here"
inmate- "no shit retard, you will sleep at my feet like a bitch"
TB- "yes sir, can I sleep now I am very tired"
inmate slaps TB and says "why isn't my dick wet?"
Tb- " I'm sorry sir, showers aren't until tomorrow"
inmate laughs with an eerie grin!
TB- "you don't mean?"
inmate- "yeah princess, time to get to work!
TB- " yes sir, tight away sir!" (Bj scene)
Inmate-"I hear you we're raped by a girl?"
TB-" yes when I was younger, it was a very tramatic"
inmate stops TB from completing his sentence and says "was her dick as big as mine?"
Tb mouth full of cock says "gogglegooglegoogle"
inmate- "this bores me, time for your hungry butt hole"
TB-" yes sir" (extended ass rape scene)
inmate finishes up by glazing THinbaggys back like a donut, proceeds to wipe his cock off with TB's pillow case and then he throws two top Ramens on his back "have this ready when i wake up" and falls asleep gently into the night!

The end
Click to expand...
you have scared this poor fkr to death.lol....very funny.
 
aknight3

aknight3

Moderator
BadDog40 said:
Just when I think you can't say anything more retarded....
Click to expand...
nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to saying totally un intelligent things from these threads, i beleive uncle buck had in his sig one time quotting slimslaggy saying something about a new planet between mars and mercury LOL..man...lol
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Oppression of Hindus by the United States
http://www.scribd.com/doc/271997415/Hindu-Brief#scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/270436023/Somic-Shilpa-Shastras
The drug laws (the Controlled Substances Act) are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, similar to how it violates this same Clause in Native American and Santo Diame cases. It is also possible the act violate the 21st Amendment, which legalized not alcohol or fermented drinks, but all intoxicating liquors, and by the definition of intoxicating liquor, Bhang is an intoxicating liquor (The Controlled Substances Act was written when it was found that the Marijuana Tax act violated the Fifth Amendment and was overturned, the Controlled Substances Act may need to be overturned due to 21st Amendment violations). There are very few Supreme Court cases involving the 21st Amendment, and no one has ever brought up to the Supreme Court the point that the 21st Amendment legalizes intoxicating liquors. The 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933 The drug laws at that time were based on the Harrison Narcotics Tax act, which did not make narcotics illegal but taxed them and limited importation from foreign countries. Around this time most every drug could be bought at a Drug store, and much of the time it would be in syrup form and mixed with Soda. This is where Coca-Cola comes from, which was originally made with the Coca leaf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_&_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola
+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
"It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition).
Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb– 2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc– 3(g)."
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member


https://www.facebook.com/groups/StartingTemples/

If any Hindus have been put in American jail for properly celebrating Holi this year, know that Burwell V Hobby Lobby, Church of the Holy Trinity V United States, Gonzales V O Centro & various Presidential quotes and Government research papers are on your side. Here is a brief that you can use:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/271997415/Hindu-Brief

For anyone starting a Temple, here is the Legislation that protects Land meant to be used for Religious purposes:
42 U.S. Code § 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise
(a) Substantial burdens ...
(1) General rule No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) Scope of application This subsection applies in any case in which—
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
(B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
(b) Discrimination and exclusion
(1) Equal terms
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
(2) Nondiscrimination
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
(3) Exclusions and limits No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that—
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

In February Austin PD decided to search me and my car with no warrant and took various religious items (Hindu & Neurospiritual; Seeds & Nootropics) so they will be funding our first Temple. They said they will be returning all seized items in the next week or two. And "Regardless if its your religion, none of it is illegal".

Rule 41
(g) Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.

And the only way they can beat me in this lawsuit is if they go all the way to the supreme court and overturn Burwell V Hobby Lobby, because that is where the Religious freedom laws were interpreted most fully and most recently. Since they are blocking my ability to practice and minister according to Hindu and Neurospiritualist beliefs I will be able to bring up that this is a Human Rights violation (Article 18 )
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b1udhr.htm

The Police searched me again, but this time they called in and had someone send them information on my lawsuit and the search that started it, and they decided that since I had already been searched and a bunch of legal things had already been taken from me with no charges, then it was probably happening again, so they took a sample of some Edible Lime that I had and then they left. I can now bring up this situation in my lawsuit t...o prove that the Original officers did not use "the least restrictive means" to achieve their compelling Government interest, because they could have taken a sample like the 2nd group of officers did. So the City of Austin is liable for not only monetary damages that proceed from the seizure and the length of time it is taking them to release property, but for burdening my Religion for the extent of time they have and will possess the property. Again, they could have just taken a sample, which can now be evidenced by the 2nd group of officer's ability to do just that.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Also, everyone should read the Supreme Court cases:
Jardines V Florida
Soldal V Cook County
Hampton V Hanrahan
Bivens V 6 Unkown Named Agents

These are just 4th Amendment Rights everyone should at least know a little something about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top