Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 Source: Trentonian, The (NJ) Copyright: 2015 The Trentonian Contact: http://www.trentonian.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1006 Author: Ed Forchion, NJ Weedman for The Trentonian I GOT PUNCHED IN THE STOMACH BY THE NJ APPEALS COURT LAST WEEK I lost my appeal before the NJ Appellate Court. But before I go into that disappointment, in honor of Gov. Christie's presidential run and national prominence I've renamed my "Jive Turkey Burger" "THE CHRISTIE" and added a Twinkie on the side. (http://tinyurl.com/TheChristieBurger) I am a medical marijuana patient and I'm writing this column from the Philadelphia Veterans Administration hospital where I'm receiving treatment for my painful bone cancer condition. Last year I had my most prominent and painful tumor surgically removed. MRIs and my pain level have confirmed it's back - so technically I'm no longer in remission. In 2010 the state passed a medical marijuana bill designed to stop patients from being prosecuted. I can name numerous medical marijuana patients who've been prosecuted despite the law. For the last five years I've been fighting the state over my April 1, 2010, arrest. I've called it the most momentous marijuana case in the history of New Jersey, and I don't believe it's over - I believe it will be decided by the "highest" court in NJ, the NJ Supreme Court. And rightly so-this case has the potential to rewrite the state's antiquated cannabis laws because it proves their absurdity and the inherent legal contradiction between the new law that acknowledges the medical value of cannabis and previous statutes that expressly deny it. The last time the issue of cannabis came before the NJ Supreme Court was 30 years ago! A lot has changed, and will continue to change ... In 2012 I took my case to trial before a jury, challenging the state marijuana laws for everyone, not just me. I argued numerous constitutional and realistic issues. For instance, before I was arrested the state approved the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act in January 2010, which clearly recognizes marijuana's medical value. Yet I along with more than 100,000 other New Jerseyans have since been persecuted with prosecution under NJ 2C:35 statues-a conflicting set of laws that deem marijuana to have no medical value and be illegal. (Realistically that's absurd, constitutionally the lawyers say "great.") Since my April Fool's Day arrest, I've had victories and defeats. Having a jury find me "not guilty" of possession with intent to distribute when I was in fact "guilty" was a huge victory. Yes, I'm publicly admitting I would have shared my cannabis with others, which is technically and legally distribution. (F... the law.) Just stand to my left and I'll PASS THE JOINT. There was a pothead on my jury who became the forewomen-I thought I'd achieve total victory via jury nullification. I didn't. The jury split on "not guilty on possession with intent to distribute," which was obscenely hypocritical since this pot-smoking juror (Ms. Roughgardener) and members of my first jury found me "guilty" of simple possession - probably while she possessed some herself! NOTE TO THOSE CHOSEN FOR JURY DUTY: If you're on a jury and a defendant is facing time for marijuana, no matter what I recommend you say "not guilty" - it's constitutionally permissible. How cowardly of my jurors to acquiesce to the bully pulpit of the state prosecutor and say "guilty." This case should have ended in May 2012 with my victory! Instead it was a partial victory; I tried to make the best of the guilty verdict by appealing my conviction before the NJ Appeals Court, challenging the constitutionality and reality of the marijuana laws. I personally lost my California business and LA lifestyle plus 157 days of freedom for possessing this good thing (1 pound of cannabis), and one of my dogs, Stash, was lost while I was jailed. I'm a medical cannabis user, yet I refuse to have anything to do with the state's failed medical cannabis program. I still get mine from the streets or through the mail. During trial I did everything I could to encourage my jurors to utilize jury nullification, including admitting that I was under the positive influence of marijuana as I represented myself. The prosecution and judge did everything to prevent that. Ultimately I was denied due process - the right to present expert witnesses in my favor because the prosecution and the judge didn't want jurors making a decision using their own conscience - utilizing jury nullification, which occurs when a jury finds a defendant not guilty, even though members of the jury believe the defendant is guilty of the charges. Jury members might disagree with the law the defendant is charged with breaking or might believe the law should not be applied in that particular case. This weekend the NJ Appeals Court self-servingly agreed with the trial judge on that argument in a 31-page ruling: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4052-12a4477-12.pdf(page 17) "We also reject defendant's argument that the judge improperly foreclosed him from advancing certain legal arguments about the medical use of marijuana before the jury. Permitting defendant to have argued that medical necessity or the existence of CUMMA somehow excused his possession of marijuana would have been tantamount to inviting jury nullification." (See State v. Ragland, 105 N.J. 189, 211 [1986], "Jury nullification is an unfortunate but unavoidable power. It should not be advertised, and, to the extent constitutionally permissible, it should be limited. Efforts to protect and expand it are inconsistent with the real values of our system of criminal justice.") Bulls..t, Your Honors-it was the purpose of the 6th Amendment! The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to reject unpopular laws. The founders didn't want us to have kangaroo courts where the government dictates everything. They felt citizens should have the right to judge the nation's laws as well as facts. The fact is Americans have rejected the marijuana laws, and I maintain my trial was a sham because I was prevented from making a case that the law was wrong, not I. Lawyers are more concerned with protecting the law, not citizens. The appeals judges were more concerned with protecting the legal profession's Cannabis Cash Cow. In the past we've dealt with banks that were too big to fail-now it's the marijuana laws? But I wasn't the only one who had a bad legal ruling this week. Genny Barbour, a 16-year-old child with epilepsy, also lost her appeal before an administrative law judge to allow her to use medical marijuana during school hours. Her parents, Roger and Lora, sued the Maple Shade School District to require a nurse at their daughter's school to administer cannabis oil, just as a school nurse would provide students with any prescribed medication. But Administrative Law Judge John S. Kennedy disagreed, stating in his decision that the Maple Shade School District and the Larc School in Bellmawr "are mandated to comply with the Drug Free School Zone Act." Again, bulls..t! This young lady has a right to go to school; state law allows her to have medical marijuana but the school wants to be politically incorrect and defer to outdated federal law. Judge Kennedy, you're a fool. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom