Marijuana War
Imagine a world where we all work together!
Friday Hearing to Finalize Sanctions, Revote in Contested ElectionOakland, Calif. - On Friday, July 13, at 9:30 a.m., a California judge will rule on sanctions against Alameda County for botching its response to a contested race conducted on Diebold electronic voting machines. In a tentative ruling issued Thursday, Judge Winifred Y. Smith said that the election results in the race were “nullified” and ordered a revote.Americans for Safe Access and voters in the city of Berkeley brought a legal challenge seeking a recount after Measure R, an initiative addressing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, lost by fewer than 200 votes in the 2004 election. While the lawsuit was ongoing, election officials returned the voting machines to supplier Diebold Election Systems, and 96% of the election data was destroyed. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) helped analyze the remaining data, but too many questions remained.”Without examining the redundant data, audit logs, and chain-of-custody records, no one can confirm whether any of the reported malfunctions were ever resolved or whether vote data was manipulated or lost,” said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “As a result, no one can ever confirm whether the vote result announced by the county was correct.”Smith’s tentative ruling orders the county to place Measure R on the ballot in the next general election, as well as to pay the costs for the incomplete recount. That ruling is likely to be finalized after Friday’s hearing.What:Americans for Safe Access vs. County of AlamedaWhen:9:30 a.m.Friday, July 13, 2007Where:Wiley Manuel CourthouseDepartment 114661 Washington StreetOakland, CAContacts:Matt ZimmermanStaff AttorneyElectronic Frontier Foundationmattz@eff.orgGregory G. LukeAttorneyStrumwasser & Woocher LLPgluke@strumwooch.comRebecca SaltzmanChief of StaffAmericans for Safe Accessrebecca@safeaccessnow.orgCaleb DardickCDA Strategiescaleb@cdastrategies.com[Permalink]
sorry, no follow up but thought I should show you this one from I think INDYMEDIA Did you already have it? Not directly relevant, but.....?
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 0 points
Ken Driessen
at_lib@hotmail.com
If anybody know of a law student, pro bono angel lawyer from heaven or just somebody that can type and has Nexus access to help me with my petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review please let me know:
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 East Main STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688
Telephone (608)266-1880
Facsimile (608)267-0640
D1STRICT III
February 19,2008
To:
Hon. Norman L. Yackel
Circuit Court Judge
Sawyer County Courthouse
406 Main Street, PO Box 508
Hayward, W154843-0508
Gregory M. Weber
Assislant Attomey General
P.O. Box 7S57
Madison, Wl 53707-7857
Ricki Briggs
Clerk of Circuit Court
Sawyer County Courthouse
406 Main Street. PO Box 508
Hayward, WI 54843-0508
Kenneth L. Driessen
12022 N. Co. Rd. I
Hayward, WI 54843
Thomas E. Van Roy
District Attorney
Sawyer County Courthouse
Hayward, WI54843
You ere hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
______________________________________________________________________
2007AP1940-CR State of Wisconsin v. Kenneth L. Driessen (L.C. #2006CM300)
Before Brenner, J.
Kenneth Driessen, pro se, appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of THC, contrary to Ws. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(e), and possession of drug paraphernalia, contrary to Wm. Stat. § 961.573(l). Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude that this case
is appropriate for summary disposition and summarily afform the judgement and order. See Wis. Stat, Rule 809.21.
On May 26, 2006, officers Mark Kelsey and Wollwert observed a male and a female standing in an alley. Kelsey observed the man turn sideways as if to conceal his actions and place an object in his pocket. The officers approached the man, Driessen, and Kelsey asked him for identification. Driessen stated that he did not have any identification and said there might be a warrant for him. Wollwert called the dispatch center and requested a warrant check. Dispatch advised the officers that there was a warrant for Driessen's arrest from Toole County, Montana. The officers then handcuffed Driessen and searched him. Officers found a marijuana pipe in Driessen's pocket; the bowl of the pipe contained marijuana.
Driessen was charged with possession of THC and drug paraphernalia. He filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the Montana arrest warrant was invalid. Driessen also filed a notice of demand of a jury trial, wherein he requested permission to argue at trial that marijuana laws are unconstitutional. The State filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit Driessen from making arguments of constitutionality before the jury. The trial court issued an order stating Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(e) prohibited Driessen from making any argument to the jury that either § 961.41(3g)(e) or Wis. Stat. § 961.573(1) were unconstitutional. The court denied also Driessen's motion to dismiss because the Montana warrant was valid at the time of Driessen's
Arrest, and prohibited Driessen from arguing otherwise to the jury. On August 9, 2007, a jury found Driessen guilty on both counts.
Driessen's briefs do not conform to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19. Pro se litigants are "bound by the same rules that apply to attorneys on appeal." Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N. W.2d 16 (1992). Driessen's brief is devoid of any citation to the record, includes references to matters not within the record, and lacks citation to appropriate legal authorities. " An appellate court is improperly burderned where briefs fail to properly and accurately cite to the record…. Accordingly, we may choose not to consider arguments unsupported by references to legal authority, arguments that do not reflect any legal reasoning, and arguments that lack proper citations to the record." State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, 30, 742 N. W. 2d 322.
Even the most liberal interpretation of Driessen's Brief, Driessen's arguments lack merit. Driessen's first argument appears to challenge the trial court's order which denied his motion to dismiss, concluded that the Montana warrant was valid, and prohibited him from arguing other wise.
Driessen was arrested pursuant to an out-of state warrant. Wis. Stat. § 968.07(1)© allows a law enforcement officer to arrest a person if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a warrant for the
STATE OF WISCONSIN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT 3
________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Plaintiff-Respondent,
Appeal No. 2007AP001940 CR
Vs. Circuit Court Case No. 06 CM 300
KENNETH LEROY DRIESSEN
Defendant-Appellant
________________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION
AND DENYIAL OF POST-COVICTION RELIEF
ENTERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR SAWYER COUNTY
THE HONORABLE JUDGE NORMAN YACKEL, PRESIDING
________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT KENNETH LEROY DRIESSEN
________________________________________________________________________
Date:______________ ________________________________
Ken Driessen Pro Se
12022 N. Co. Rd. T
Hayward WI 54843
715-634-2801
wiscokidd@hotmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Legal Authorities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3
State of Wisconsin Constitution - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3
United States Constitution - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
Statement of the Issues - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
Statement Concerning Oral Argument and Publication - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
Statement of the Case - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
Argument - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10
Warrant Arrest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10
Wisconsin State Constitution Applies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12
United States Constitution Applies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14
Claim of Unconstitutionality of Marijuana Possession Laws - - - - - - - 15
Ancient History of Mankind's Use of Marijuana - - - - - - - - - - - - 16
A Short History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States - - -16
Medicinal Nature of Cannabis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -22
Medicinal Nature of Cannabis conclusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -27
Government's Compelling Interest Claim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29
Conclusions concerning Government's Compelling interest claim -32
Equal Rights - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37
Conclusion and relief sought - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -40
Relief Sought - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44
LEGAL AUTHORITIES:
Wisconsin State Constitution
Article I, §1
Equality; inherent rights. Section 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]
Article I, §2
Slavery prohibited. Section 2. There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Article I, §3
Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Article I, §4
Right to assemble and petition. Section 4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.
Article I, §6
Excessive bail; cruel punishments. Section 6. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor shall excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
Exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is a basis for a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment. Risk from environmental tobacco smoke was a basis for a cause of action. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
In addressing whether a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was excessive, a court looks to whether the sentence was so excessive and unusual, and so disproportionate to the offense committed, as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances. State v. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 698 N.W.2d 823, 281 Wis. 2d 118, 04-1163.
Article I, §7
Rights of accused. Section 7. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to meet the witnesses face to face; to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf; and in prosecutions by indictment, or information, to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
When a state agency seeks to enforce its orders through the coercion of imprisonment for contempt, the full constitutional right to counsel arises. Ferris v. State ex rel. Maass, 75 Wis. 2d 542, 249 N.W.2d 789.
Article I, §9m
Victims of crime. Section 9m. [As created April 1993] This state shall treat crime victims, as defined by law, with fairness, dignity and respect for their privacy. This state shall ensure that crime victims have all of the following privileges and protections as provided by law: timely disposition of the case; the opportunity to attend court proceedings unless the trial court finds sequestration is necessary to a fair trial for the defendant; reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process; notification of court proceedings; the opportunity to confer with the prosecution; the opportunity to make a statement to the court at disposition; restitution; compensation; and information about the outcome of the case and the release of the accused. The legislature shall provide remedies for the violation of this section. Nothing in this section, or in any statute enacted pursuant to this section, shall limit any right of the accused which may be provided by law. [1993 J.R. 2, vote April 1993]
Article I, §10
Treason. Section 10. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the same, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Article I, §11
Searches and seizures. Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Article I, §12
Attainder; ex post facto; contracts. Section 12. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
Article I, §12 - ANNOT.
When a probation statute was amended after a crime was committed but before the accused pled guilty and was placed on probation, application of the amended statute to probation revocation proceedings offended the ex post facto clause. State v. White, 97 Wis. 2d 517, 294 N.W.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1979).
Article I, §18
Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state religion; public funds. Section 18. [As amended Nov. 1982] The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982]
Article I, §19
Religious tests prohibited. Section 19. No religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust under the state, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion.
United States Constitution
Article 3, Section 2 [3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Article 4, Section [2] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Article 6, [2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [3]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Bill of Rights
Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth [Amendment II]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article the fifth [Amendment III] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article the sixth [Amendment IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh [Amendment V] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth [Amendment VI] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Article the ninth [Amendment VII] In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article the tenth [Amendment VIII] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X] 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.
Article. XIII [13th Amendment]: Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Article XIV [14th Amendment]: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
1.) Dismissed Warrant as Probable Cause for Arrest, Search, Seizure
2.) Circuit Judge Order of April 17, 2007, violates due process etc.
3.) Claim of Unconstitutionality of Marijuana laws
STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLICATION
Due to the September 28th, 2007 order of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which states the motion does not establish an improper exercise of the trial court's discretion. This petitioner believes the Wisconsin Appeals Judge who wrote such a decision may have already made his mind without considering any of the facts in the record, which were mentioned in Driessen's motion to suspend sentence. If this appeal comes before judges who undoubtedly void petitioners state and federal constitutional rights in favor of state powers on a regular basis, this appeal may be a futile attempt at obtaining justice. With recent US Supreme Court decisions on subjects of eminent corporate domain, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and medicinal marijuana, it is obvious these high level legal hacks have forsaken the Constitution in favor of their position in a plutocracy where government and law are reserved in the favor of the highest bidder. I am not requesting to orally communicate in front of persons who I have reason to perceive to be enacting a wall of injustice. If the good judges or the Respondents believe they want to hear oral arguments, so be it. I have no opinion, concern nor do I know of any right that I have as an appellant would affect the issue of whether the opinion in this matter is published or not. Drafts of this Brief will have been published on several legal and marijuana policy web sites as a way of seeking independent and free advise as to its final contents. If the Appellate Court does uphold the circuit court ruling, an actual or paraphrased version of that decision will also be released to the public via those outlets.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
On May 26, 2006 I was riding my bike through the alleyway of downtown Hayward, one block off of Hwy 63 between Main Street and Dakota Ave. A lady friend of mine motioned to me to come over and indulge in a private activity. Although in a public parking lot, it was dark and we had a reasonable expectation of being secure in our persons at the time. At approximately 11:38 pm I saw the hood of a gold colored car I knew to be an unmarked police car. I immediately ceased and hid the private activity and turned and hugged the lady friend and whispered to her that the cops were behind us.
The officer, Mark Kelsey jumps out of his car and starts ordering us both around telling us where to stand and what to do and I asked him if I was under arrest (23:38 hours). He said no but he wanted to see IDs. I said I did not have an ID, because all I had was an expired Michigan driver's license. I was prevented from using this ID to cash a check on a previous occasion. I gave him my name and eventually the Expired Michigan driver's license. I did say that I would eventually have a warrant out for my arrest in Sawyer County for an unpaid fine. He then made us wait for several, about 5 to 7 minutes while he questioned my lady friend and tried to get her to say I was accosting her. I eventually convinced him to let her go.
Then it seemed like another 5 minutes had passed and a whole battalion of little young men in blue suits and badges appeared totaling at least 7 encircled the area. In two or three more minutes, I asked if I was under arrest and Kelsey said to the affect, no but stay where you are. After what seemed to be 5 or more minutes, Kelsey then said I had a warrant out on me from Montana (23:55 hours) and arrested me and searched my pockets finding my friend's pipe in my pocket. I was then put in a squad car and taken to the Sawyer County Jail where I was booked in.
While in jail, I was given copies of a complaint against me, being number #2006CF120 a complaint pursuant to Wisconsin § 976.03(14) accusing me of felony bail jumping. On May 30th, 2006 Judge Norm Yackel followed the recommendation of Thomas Van Roy and set my bail at $250,000: despite my telling them to look at the computer criminal system and they will see that the original charges pertaining to the felony fleeing charges had been dropped.
On the following day May 31, 2006, I was handed another complaint and released on a signature bond. The police and District Attorney wrote up the following criminal complaint #2006CM300, count one possession of THC §961.41(3g)(e) and Count two Possession of Drug Paraphernalia §916.573(1). I can only assume the fleeing complaint was dismissed. Many papers were filed by myself choosing to appear pro se, including a demand for a jury trial, a claim of constitutionality and an untimely motion asking the judge to recuse himself due to the fact that he set may bail at $250,000 and he has set a suspected murderer's bails at $100,000, among other reasons. The judge wrote an order prohibiting among other things: I, Ken Driessen's legal defenses of presenting evidence to the jury concerning the validity of the warrant I was arrested under and the constitutionality of the State of Wisconsin marijuana possession and paraphernalia statutes. Mr. Thomas Van Roy did approach me off the record prior to an April 11, 2006 hearing of this matter and he offered me a deal where I could plead guilty to a "County Ordinance Violation". I said I would not take the deal because I had already spent 5 days in jail since I was arrested and I wanted monetary credit for time served or would proceed with the jury trial.
A jury trial tainted by the illegal limiting of my, Ken Driessen's defense did take place on August 9, 2007. Although due to monetary limitations brought on partially because of the sanctions imposed on the defendant due to this case, I could not afford the official transcripts, a CD recording of the jury trial is attached. Most of these papers might be in the record although I have not been allowed to view copies of the record. This explanation of fact is no less accurate than that of the arresting officers.
If you refer to the second document in the Record, the Kelsey writes in hindsight as if he saw me put the pipe in my pocket before he started hassling me. He also makes it sound like I was attacking and attempting the rape of my friend. He twists around my wording to quote me as saying "I thought I had the matter taken care of because I had fled to Canada to avoid being prosecuted in Montana." Kelsey's police talk does not even sound like something anybody would say. He later told Corrine Paape and myself that he hassled (investigated) me because I had long hair and therefore looked suspicious. In my opinion Kelsey is an absolute lying sadistic individual, he has been sued for his police work before and I've heard that he has arrested people and marijuana had come up missing, that he used to deal in marijuana when he was younger.
If a valid warrant was to come over the computer data base, Kelsey could have arrested me without communicating directly with the Toole County Montana Sheriff's office on a weekend evening when no body in Shelby Montana was at their was there office to prevent Deputy Pat Kellegher from reissuing a warrant had not been active. I still have copies of the said warrant, am I supposed to turn myself in or wait until the police arrest me yet again after I did my time? If the Sawyer County District Attorney was not involved in this conspiracy, he would have released radio dispatch records that would prove that Kelsey convinced a deputy in Montana to reissue a warrant without a judges order that had obviously been shown as not active in the criminal records computer system. In the Sawyer County court system Mark Kelsey is a hero, dozens of state and federal law enforcement agents throughout the US are incompetent, and the jury is not allowed to hear facts.
ARGUMENT
Warrant Arrest
To be legally presume a person to be felony fugitive and find a person guilty of such a charge; it requires the accused to be currently charged with a felony crime and failed to appear or escaped remand incarceration fleeing the accusing authorities; or to have been found guilty of a felony crime and escaped prison during the time their sentence was to be served. Although I was arrested on a questionable warrant from Montana, which is the basis of a State of Wisconsin Complaint No. 2006CF120, which in turn is the authority the officer used to arrest and search my person, that complaint, which I assume to be dismissed, is not contained in the Record of this Appeal. During several motion hearings and included in correspondence letters to the Prosecutor, the following true copies of papers were submitted and entered into the Circuit Court Record.
Attached to Driessen's Motion to Dismiss (item 7) is:
An Order of Dismissal of the fugitive warrant from Montana from the Idaho district court of the county of Boundary, finding that the state of Montana had failed to meet it's burden on February 18, 2004.
A Superior Court of California Case History transcript showing the dismissal of the felony charges; which were the charges that the Montana fugitive charges stemmed from on April 6,2004.
True copies of the April 6, 2004 Superior Court of California hearing pages 1,4 and 8 which explains that the resisting arrest, marijuana felony and felony fugitive charges had been dismissed and Driessen plead guilty to misdemeanor failure to appear and misdemeanor marijuana charges on that date.
Attached to a letter to the Prosecutor (item 19) are:
Exhibit A: On the ‘MOTION TO RELEASE BOND’ from Montana, it clearly states the case was dismissed.
Exhibit B: I was arrested on a drunk driving charge in Sawyer County on 10/24/05 and I was released on a signature bond, there was no warrant for my arrest from Montana at that time.
Exhibit C: I lived in Montana in the fall of 2005 when I was stopped and issued a citation on 10/12/05 for no proof of insurance, the officer ran my name and there was no warrant for my arrest. I later provided proof of insurance and the charge was dismissed.
Exhibit D: On the 13th of October 2005 at 2:08 pm I crossed into Canada from Montana to speak with Immigration officials there and then returned to Montana. How could it be that neither the US or Canadian border agents found a valid active warrant for my arrest on that day? Because on May Upon my return my name was ran as it is with everyone who crosses into the United States and low and behold! There was no warrant for my arrest.
Furthermore Norman Yackel, the presiding Sawyer County Judge in this matter and Thomas Van Roy the Sawyer County District Attorney did error by not admitting that because the felony allegations that the felony fugitive charges had been dependant on were dismissed on April 6, 2004 and therefore the Montana warrant was not valid on May 26, 2006. Moreover the Sawyer County Court and the Sawyer County District Attorney seem to errantly believe that the validity of a warrant is not a subject to be considered by a jury. The District Attorney did record his malicious manner of prosecution in his MOTION IN LIMINE and his RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. The Circuit Court Judge, Norman Yackel did ignore the facts presented and recorded his willful and knowing miscarriage of justice in the ORDER of April 17, 2007 violating his oath of office requiring him to uphold the Constitution.
The pleadings written into the words of the above section of the Argument entitled "Warrant Arrest" are based on the facts of the Record summarized in the "Statement of the Case", in support of the Appeals Court finding and ordering the relief sought in the "Conclusion and Relief Sought" section of this brief. The following legal authorities are the basis through which such relief may be granted in response to the Argument, Warrant Arrest, section of this brief:
Wisconsin State Constitution applies:
Article 1 §3 applies to this case because the police, prosecutor and judge are spreading libel and defaming my character by saying I had a valid warrant for my arrest when I did not because the charges that the fleeing warrant were based on were dismissed over two years prior to the May 26, 2006 arrest search and seizure. Therefore Judge Yackel's Order of April 17, 2007, Preventing the jury from their right to determine the LAW and the FACT is a violation of Driessen's Article 1 §3 rights.
Article 1 §7 was violated because the impartiality of the jury was adversely affected by the judge ordering the Defendant not to communicate facts and evidence concerning the validity of the warrant Driessen was arrested was arrested under. Also Driessen was prevented from defending himself through presenting facts, which would present questions of law and constitutionality as pertaining to this case, to the jurors as a right under Article 1 §3.
Article 1 §9 Victims of Crime: If a legal professional would consider the facts of this case as an independent rational unbiased individual citizen; they would have to consider that it is probable that a crime was committed against Driessen when he was physically handcuffed and effectively held captive on May 26, 2006 at about 11:55. It does not matter how many states or how many government agents it takes to make a mistake and deprive and individual of their rights under the color of the law, it remains that an individual person, Ken Driessen was unfairly damaged by being robbed of possessions and freedom without probable cause. How do individual legal professionals rate the severity of crime? We have a person in an alley who almost gets caught smoking pot although the arresting officer never said he smelled the pot and there is no victim brought forward to say they were some how injured from the smoking act. On the other hand imagine being handcuffed tightly and escorted off to jail for a warrant relating to a crime you had served your time for, years earlier. I accused Detective Kelsey of a crime and it is certain that if he were innocent he should have investigated the reason why he was given information that lead to him arresting me under false charges. Not investigating this crime, which Fed and State law codify as a crime, is a violation of article 1 §9. Maybe, just maybe; although over half a dozen incidences occurred, when Driessen was in front of various law enforcement agents prior to his May 26, 2006 arrest on the said warrant, when his name was undoubtedly run over the national criminal computer system, what ever it is called, and this warrant did not come up, just maybe it was an honest mistake? If that is the case why conspire to cover up information that could prove a crime of false arrest was committed? Some time after Driessen was released from jail, he went to the Sawyer County Police Department and complained of the Crime of false arrest that he had reason to believe was perpetrated against him, the person who interviewed him said they would not investigate the matter. Also in the motion to dismiss Driessen wrote: False information was given (§942.03), my character was defamed (§942.01), my private property was entered (§942.08(2)(d)) and I was falsely imprisoned (§940.30).
United States Constitution applies:
Article 6 (Fourth Amendment) rights were violated: The Montana warrant had no probable cause on May 26, 2006 because he was no longer a fugitive from justice because he had returned and did his time and was released time served on April 6, 2004. The marijuana pipe with 0.291th of a gram of marijuana in it was not described as something that was to be seized in the warrant that was determined not to be valid because the Wisconsin bail jumping and the Montana felony fugitive charges were dismissed prior to the jury trial.
Article 7 (Fifth Amendment): Driessen's rights were violated because he was held in Idaho on the Montana warrant and on February 18, 2004, a judge in Idaho dismissed that Montana warrant because the state had failed to meet it's burden; so when Driessen was arrested in Wisconsin on May 26, 2006 he was twice put in jeopardy for the same alleged offense. The charges originating the Montana felony fugitive warrant were dismissed on April 6, 2004. Driessen had served his time on lesser charges and was released with time served for the crime for which he was charged and no hold was put on him for any Montana warrant because it had been dismissed. Driessen was twice in jeopardy for the same charges when he was arrested in Hayward Wisconsin on May 26, 2006. The Sawyer County judicial and enforcement agents ignored fact and railroaded Driessen contrary to protection granted him from such personal intrusion by the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Article 16 (14th Amendment): A mistake was made on May 26, 2006 when I, Ken Driessen was arrested on a warrant that has been proven invalid by such warrant being dismissed prior to a trial where that said warrant was used as probable cause for a search and seizure of Driessen's private property which was the subject of alleged criminal possession. If that property had been a gun, it would have had to be returned to Driessen, the rightful owner. Furthermore, Judge Yackel's Order limiting Driessen's defense in a manner which denies him of the ability to present facts concerning the circumstances under which he was arrested and searched and the jury the right to review and consider those facts is a travesty of justice and a violation of Driessen's 14th Amendment right to due process.
Claim of Unconstitutionality of Marijuana Possession Laws
Note: the 5th Item in the index of the Record is a claim of Unconstitutionality.
Marijuana laws, from the beginning of their enactment and to this very day, are an unconstitutional grab of money and power by a group of legislative, judicial, and law enforcement thugs who have and continue use such laws to their personal benefit and the benefit of fellow members of their professions by demonizing, disenfranchising, imprisoning and outright stealing from individuals exercising there unalienable right to the control of their individual minds and bodies. The brute force, lies and deception of the public to keep these sadistic, immoral, oppressive, unconstitutional laws on the books itself costs the greater population a far greater expense than any perceived damage marijuana has caused society resulting in the elevation of the stature of the most hateful self centered immoral, hypocritical, greedy two faced creatures who are able to lie with a straight face on the Planet. There is no constitutionally acceptable moral basis for laws prohibiting the possession and personal use of "marijuana" by individual citizens. The crimes of persons responsible for upholding such illegitimate laws are a greater damage to society as a whole than by the act a person using and possessing marijuana; an act that a reasonable person can believe give the user relief from physical and psychological pain and protection from infection of certain diseases. It is a flaw in the human group social communication and structure that allows greedy self serving individuals to climb the social ladders to positions of authority only to advance the prosperity and agenda of a few at the expense of the many. Unless prohibitionists acquiesce, admit the errors of a 70 year old rule of law they are enforcing; although not personally responsible for enacting; and devise an equitable plan to fairly repeal and abolish Marijuana prohibition; they are actively taking part in a conspiracy of treason against the Constitution. By continuing to criminalize over 94 million Americans who have tried marijuana (NSDUH), voiding the constitution as it applies to a record 829,625 persons arrested for marijuana violations in 2006 (FBI), law enforcement and judicial agents are hereby recognized as criminal, such acts defined here consist of crimes against humanity, nature and valid US code.
Ancient History of Mankind's Use of Marijuana
The first evidence of the medicinal use of cannabis is found in the book Pên-ts’ao Ching, attributed to the Emperor Shen-nung of about 2000 B.C. Since Chinese medicine has its origins in magic, this book provides records of the Chinese using marijuana both in their medicinal and ritual practices. It was used in cases involving menstrual fatigue, gout, rheumatism, malaria, constipation, and absentmindedness, and to anaesthetize patients during surgical operations.([13]) Other historical therapeutic uses of cannabis that are also emphasized in folk medicine throughout modern Asia include ‘wasting diseases.’ For example, in Thailand, “cannabis is frequently used to stimulate the appetite of sick people and make them sleep… its use to counteract diarrhoea and dysentery is equally common.”([14])
In Chris Bennett’s book Green Gold: Marijuana in Magic and Religion he says, “there is some very good physical evidence that indicates cannabis played a part in some of the native cultures prior to the arrival of Columbus.”([104]) In 1985, Bill Fitzgerald discovered resin scrapings of 500-year-old pipes in Morriston, Ontario containing “traces of hemp and tobacco that is five times stronger than the cigarettes smoked today.”([105]) Other archaeological evidence includes stone and wooden pipes and hemp fibre pouches that were found in the Ohio Valley from about 800 A.D.([106]) HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL USES OF CANNABIS AND THE CANADIAN "MARIJUANA CLASH"Prepared For The Canadian Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs
Leah Spicer,Law and Government Division,12 April 2002, http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/library-e/Spicer-e.htm
A Short History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States
1600-1890s
Domestic production of hemp encouraged
American production of hemp was encouraged by the government in the 17th century for the production of rope, sails, and clothing. (Marijuana is the mixture of dried, shredded flowers and leaves that comes from the hemp plant.)
In 1619 the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp. Hemp was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.
1700 - 1900
POSSIBLE POTHEAD: GEORGE WASHINGTON, Father of Our Country
Washington's diary reports that he separated males from females in his hemp garden, "rather too late." Much speculation has ensued about whether or not Washington's reason for sexing his plants was to make a more smokable product. One thing is for sure: hemp was grown in the US colonies as far back as Jamestown, with several colonies ordering their farmers to grow it. Thomas Paines's pamphlet Common Sense lists hemp as the first requirement for revolution, writing that in the colonies "hemp flourishes almost to rankness." Thomas Jefferson also grew hemp on his plantation and went to great lengths to smuggle hemp seeds out of China. Jared Eliot wrote, "I am informed by my worthy friend Benjamin Franklin, Esq., of Philadelphia, that they raise hemp upon their drained lands. SOURCE: C. Conrad, Hemp: Lifeline to the Future, p. 25.
Domestic production flourished until after the Civil War, when imports and other domestic materials replaced hemp for many purposes. In the late nineteenth century, marijuana became a popular ingredient in many medicinal products and was sold openly in public pharmacies. During the 19th century, hashish use became a fad in France and also, to some extent, in the U.S.
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes." Abraham Lincoln
"A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln
1906 - Pure Food and Drug Act
Required labeling of any cannabis contained in over-the-counter remedies.
1900 - 20s - Mexican immigrants introduce recreational use of marijuana leaf :
After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana. The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching "Marijuana Menace," and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.
1930s - propaganda induces fear of marijuana: During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana. This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by "racially inferior" or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.
Creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and Harry J. Anslinger was the first Commissioner of the FBN and remained in that post until 1962.
"Mellon, in his role as Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to be head of the newly reorganized Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD), a post he held for the next 31 years." (Herer 1998: pg. 29).
Harry J. Anslinger Quotes:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations
with Negroes, entertainers and any others." -Harry J. Anslinger, testimony to Congress, 1937
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing" Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1948
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is taken by .....musicians. And I'm not speaking
about good musicians, but the jazz type..."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"It is commonly used as an aphrodisiac, and its continued use leads to impotency. This has been observed among the natives of India."
"I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions."
Anslinger then changes his story during the Communist Witchhunt:
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
Anslinger Denies Gateway Theory:
MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.
MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing" Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1948
1932 - Uniform State Narcotic Act : Concern about the rising use of marijuana and research linking its use with crime and other social problems created pressure on the federal government to take action. Rather than promoting federal legislation, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly encouraged state governments to accept responsibility for control of the problem by adopting the Uniform State Narcotic Act.
1936 - "Reefer Madness" : Propaganda film "Reefer Madness" was produced by the French director, Louis Gasnier. The Motion Pictures Association of America, composed of the major Hollywood studios, banned the showing of any narcotics in films.
1937 - Marijuana Tax Act : After a lurid national propaganda campaign against the "evil weed," Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. The statute effectively criminalized marijuana, restricting possession of the drug to individuals who paid an excise tax for certain authorized medical and industrial uses.
The Marijuana Tax Act is implemented, largely by the efforts of Anslinger. This turns out to be one of the most significant actions to illegalize industrial hemp. The same year, DuPont patented nylon and the polluting wood-pulp paper sulfide process (Herer 1998: pg. 27). Anslinger testifies before Congress that, "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind." (Herer 1998: pg. 33).
"In early 1937, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Walter Treadway told the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that, 'It may be taken for a relatively long time without social or emotional breakdown. Marijuana is habit-forming… in the same sense as… sugar or coffee." (Herer 1998: pg. 29-31).
1940s - "Hemp for Victory" : During World War II, imports of hemp and other materials crucial for producing marine cordage, parachutes, and other military necessities became scarce. In response the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched its "Hemp for Victory" program, encouraging farmers to plant hemp by giving out seeds and granting draft deferments to those who would stay home and grow hemp. By 1943 American farmers registered in the program harvested 375,000 acres of hemp.
1944 - La Guardia Report finds marijuana less dangerous : New York Academy of Medicine issued an extensively researched report declaring that, contrary to earlier research and popular belief, use of marijuana did not induce violence, insanity or sex crimes, or lead to addiction or other drug use.
1951-56 - Stricter Sentencing Laws : Enactment of federal laws (Boggs Act, 1952; Narcotics Control Act, 1956) which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana. A first-offense marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000.
1960s - Marijuana use popular in counterculture : A changing political and cultural climate was reflected in more lenient attitudes towards marijuana. Use of the drug became widespread in the white upper middle class. Reports commissioned by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson found that marijuana use did not induce violence nor lead to use of heavier drugs. Policy towards marijuana began to involve considerations of treatment as well as criminal penalties.
1968 - Creation of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs : This was a merger of FBN and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs of the Food and Drug Administration.
1969 -
LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
395 U.S. 6
LEARY v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 65. Argued December 11-12, 1968. Decided May 19, 1969.
The US Supreme Court found that the tax stamp scheme, which was the legal basis on which all marijuana laws were founded, was unconstitutional.
1970- Repeal of most mandatory minimum sentences : Congress repealed most of the mandatory penalties for drug-related offenses. It was widely acknowledged that the mandatory minimum sentences of the 1950s had done nothing to eliminate the drug culture that embraced marijuana use throughout the 60s, and that the minimum sentences imposed were often unduly harsh. Marijuana differentiated from other drugs. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act categorized marijuana separately from other narcotics and eliminated mandatory federal sentences for possession of small amounts.
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) founded.
1972- Shafer Commission : The bipartisan Shafer Commission, appointed by President Nixon at the direction of Congress, considered laws regarding marijuana and determined that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalized. Nixon rejected the recommendation, but over the course of the 1970s, eleven states decriminalized marijuana and most others reduced their penalties.
1973 - Creation of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) : Merger of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNND) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE).
1974 - High Times founded
1976 - Beginning of parents' movement against marijuana: A nationwide movement emerged of conservative parents' groups lobbying for stricter regulation of marijuana and the prevention of drug use by teenagers. Some of these groups became quite powerful and, with the support of the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), were instrumental in affecting public attitudes, which led to the 1980s War on Drugs.
1986 - Anti-Drug Abuse Act - Mandatory Sentences : President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, instituting mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes. In conjunction with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the new law raised federal penalties for marijuana possession and dealing, basing the penalties on the amount of the drug involved. Possession of 100 marijuana plants received the same penalty as possession of 100 grams of heroin. A later amendment to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act established a "three strikes and you're out" policy, requiring life sentences for repeat drug offenders, and providing for the death penalty for "drug kingpins."
1988 -
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Matter Of
MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
1989 - Bush's War on Drugs :President George Bush declares a new War on Drugs in a nationally televised speech.
1996- Medical Use Legalized in California : California voters passed Proposition 215 allowing for the sale and medical use of marijuana for patients with AIDS, cancer, and other serious and painful diseases. This law stands in tension with federal laws prohibiting possession of marijuana.
Marijuana prohibition conclusions:
The state and federal laws prohibiting marijuana were based on false moral grounds designed to keep the police forces of the alcohol prohibition employed after that unconstitutional, hideous, police state, gangster, black market enticing 18th Amendment was repealed. Harry Anslinger was a self-serving racially prejudice bigot. Anslinger, William Randolph Hurst among others, spread unconstitutional prohibitionist propoganda to suit their self-serving political and monetary gain. A 1997 US department of justice study found that more people are in state prison for drug violations that for violent crimes. The Department of Justice reported that at year-end 2003, federal prisons held a total of 158,426 inmates, of whom 86,972 (55%) were drug offenders. By comparison in 2000 federal prisons held 131,739 total inmates of whom 74,276 (56%) were drug offenders, and in 1995 federal prisons held a total of 88,658 inmates of whom 52,782 (60%) were drug offenders. The US has less than 5% of the world’s population but over 23% of the world’s incarcerated people.
http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2006nov_factsheet_incarceration.pdf
Although not the law of the land, the declaration of independence is a statement, which irrevocably states the spirit of which this nation was formed, and it is fair to say the spirit of that declaration is still the spirit of the majority of its citizens. It is not within the framework of the US Constitution for those in positions of power to determine that the use of certain plants and their substances to relieve physical or psychological pain and stress is a criminal act. Supporters and operators of the laws prohibiting marijuana possession and ingestion have infringed upon Driessen's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The war on drugs is a war against his person and almost half the adults of this nation. In short, considering the lack of foresight of persons who have instigated and defended marijuana prohibition; Driessen here claims that such a prohibition does violate every Constitutional Amendment forming the part of the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.
Medicinal Nature of Cannabis
Note: marijuana was known as cannabis before prohibitionists renamed it marijuana
Medical Marijuana – The FDA Loses More Credibility
The FDA is getting the reputation of letting drug company representatives make decisions for the country (see Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee meetings²), approving dangerous drugs (see Frontline interview with Sidney Wolfe, MD), and not performing follow-up on approved drugs (see ³FDA says firms still lagging on follow-up drug studies²). Now, add to this list the fact that the FDA throws science out the window and makes decisions that have no basis in reality. This bureaucracy recently stated that ³smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States...² This statement was made apparently without any research and demonstrates that the needs of cancer patients play little if any role in the decisions of this disgraceful organization.
In 1999, the government¹s own prestigious Institute of Medicine looked at this issue and published a report titled: ³Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.² Their conclusions included, ³The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. The therapeutic effects of cannabinoids are best established for THC, which is generally one of the two most abundant of the cannabinoids in marijuana. The combination of cannabinoid drug effects (anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and pain relief) suggests that cannabinoids would be moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.²
In fact, there are literally hundreds of articles that appear in the peer reviewed medical and scientific literature that discuss marijuana's effects in pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. Just last month an article in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology concluded that, ³Cannabinoids present an interesting therapeutic potential as antiemetics, appetite stimulants in debilitating diseases (cancer and AIDS), analgesics, and in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy and glaucoma.²
Beyond ameliorating the side-effects of chemotherapy, research also suggests that marijuana may play a role in killing cancer cells. Recent journal articles have discussed how the chemicals in marijuana (i.e. delta9-THC) suppress or inhibit the growth of a variety of cancer cells invitro including breast cancers cells, brain cancer (glioblastoma cells), and leukemia cells. See for example:
Brain Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells.
Leukemia Targeting cannabinoid receptors to treat leukemia: role of cross-talk between extrinsic and intrinsic pathways in Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-induced apoptosis of Jurkat cells.
In fact, the knowledge that cannabinoids suppress Lewis lung carcinoma cell growth has been known for30 years.
The FDA¹s illogical position not only ignores peer reviewed medical research, but also disregards nearly 5,000 years of history. Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for over 4,800 years. Surviving texts from China, Greece and Persia confirm that its psychoactive properties were recognized, and the ancient doctors used it for a variety of illnesses and ailments. These included a whole host of gastrointestinal disorders, insomnia, headaches and as a pain reliever, frequently used in childbirth. Prior to 1937, at least twenty seven medicines (containing marihuana) were legally available in the United States. #12 Marijuana Policy Project, Medical Marijuana Briefing Paper (2005 In fact, cannabis was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1850 until 1942. (For more background seeMedical cannabis.) Cancer Monthly, 2006-05 http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3463
Quotes from:
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Matter Of
MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce
death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied
marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would
theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within
about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis
marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.
30. Norman E, Zinberg, M.D., one of Dr. Weil's colleagues in
the 1968 study mentioned in finding 2, above, accepts marijuana as being
safe for use under medical supervision. If it were available by
prescription he would use it for appropriate patients.
31. Lester Grinspoon, M.D., practicing psychiatrist researcher
and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, accepts
marijuana as safe for use under medical supervision. He believes its
safety is its greatest advantage as a medicine in appropriate cases.
32. Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D., a psychiatrist practicing in
Berkley, California who treats substance abusers as inpatients and
outpatients, accepts marijuana as safe for use under medical supervision.
33. Richard D. North, M.D., who has treated Robert Randall for
glaucoma with marijuana for nine years, accepts marijuana as safe for use
by his patient under medical supervision. Mr. Randall has smoked ten marijuana
cigarettes a day during that period without any evidence of adverse
mental or physical effects from it.
34. John C. Merritt, M.D., an expert in ophthalmology, who has
treated Robert Randall and others with marijuana for glaucoma, accepts
marijuana as being safe for use in such treatment.
35. Deborah B. Goldberg, M.D., formerly a researcher in
oncology and now a practicing physician, having worked with many cancer
patients, observed them, and heard many tell of smoking marijuana
successfully to control emesis, accepts marijuana is proven to be an
extremely safe anti-emetic agent. When compared with the other, highly
toxic chemical substances routinely prescribed to cancer patients, Dr.
Goldberg accepts marijuana as clearly safe for use under medical
supervision. (See finding 17, above.)
36. Ivan Silverberg, M.D., board certified in oncology and
practicing that specialty in the San Francisco area, has accepted
marijuana as a safe anti-emetic when used under medical supervision.
Although illegal, it is commonly used by patients in the San Francisco
area with the knowledge and acquiescence of their doctors who readily
accept it as being safe for such use.
The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been
accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very
ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would
be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand
between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of
the evidence in this record.
The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator
conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no
lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that
it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge
recommends that the Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to
Schedule II.
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young.html
Marijuana Compound May Fight Lung Cancer Apr 17, 2007:
While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows. Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer’s ability to spread.
The compound “seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells,” explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. “It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth,” said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study.
The findings were to be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Los Angeles.
Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in the world. Lung tumors that over-produce the EGF receptor tend to be extra-aggressive and don’t respond well to chemotherapy.
THC is the main active ingredient of Cannabis sativa –marijuana. It has been shown to inhibit tumor growth in cancer, but specific information on its action against lung cancer has so far been limited.
In the new study, the researchers first showed that two different lung cancer lines, as well as samples from patient lung tumors, produced the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2.
Endocannabinoids — cannabinoids produced naturally in the body — are thought to have an effect on pain, anxiety and inflammation when they bind to cannabinoid receptors.
Next, the researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice implanted with human lung cancer cells. After three weeks of treatment, tumors shrank by about 50 percent in animals treated with THC, compared to those in an untreated control group, the researchers reported.
The findings may shed light on a question that has been puzzling Horovitz: Why hasn’t there been a spike in lung cancer in the generation that smoked a lot of marijuana in the 1960s.
“I find it fascinating, wondering if the reasons we’re not seeing this spike is that THC inhibits lung cancer cells,” he said. “It would be very ironic, although you certainly wouldn’t tell somebody who smoked cigarettes to add marijuana.”
From: http://www.meta-religion.com/Health/Cancer/marijuana_lung_cancer.htm
HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES? Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO 340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders) 150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose) 180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) 1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol 14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs. 3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA 0
(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole. Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded ($6 million), First & Second Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al. LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).
Medicinal Nature of Cannabis conclusion:
The prohibitionist law-writers, judges and police have no right to tell any citizen or me which doctor or scientists research I should entrust my life and health to. It is absolutely within my Constitutionally guaranteed right to believe that marijuana is beneficial to my over all health and well-being, and to ingest marijuana by inhalation and ingestion being free from persecution. Truth cannot be monopolized and manipulated to suit the seers income and power in society within a Constitutional Republic claiming to uphold democratic principles. It is the DEA and ONDCP that are selling the self serving snake oil in the form of police state, police brutality and the largest per capita prison population on the planet to benefit their profession and themselves at the expense of the majority. Until the errors of Constitutional violation written into laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana are repealed, those government agents who enforce criminal sanctions including fines, imprisonment and supervision are themselves part of a criminal conspiracy.
Cannabis intake is important to my health and longevity. Current cannabis/marijuana laws are cruel and unusual and protect on one accept those who have a vested economic interest in continuing the prohibition of marijuana, which is so obviously unconstitutional.
Driessen here states that he has worked in mechanical, industrial, and mining settings and has been exposed to asbestos, arsenic, diesel smoke particulates and many other known cancer causing carcinogens and self medicating with marijuana has been shown to reduce the chances of becoming diagnosed with cancer. Beside the fact that he and many other of the 94 million persons who tried marijuana (NSDUH), can deduce that marijuana prohibition violated every amendment to the bill of rights, in the cause of health and well-being, such prohibition is cruel and unusual within Article1 §6 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, see:
Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
Exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is a basis for a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment. Risk from environmental tobacco smoke was a basis for a cause of action. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993).
Government's Compelling Interest Claim
Marijuana was first federally prohibited in 1937. Today (2001), more than 83 million Americans admit to having tried it. Sources: Marihuana Tax Act of 1937; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Summary of Findings from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, 2002), Table H.1, from the web at http:://www.samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/2k1NHSDA/vol2/appendixh_1.htm, last accessed Sept. 16, 2002.
Marijuana is the Nation's most commonly used illicit drug. More than 94 million Americans (40 percent) age 12 and older have tried marijuana at least once, according to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).23
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana2.html
Washington, DC: Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today, September 18, 2006, "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself," former President Jimmy Carter has said. "Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."
In 1987, Al Gore admitted to his use of marijuana while an under grad at Harvard,
Source: Newsweek, 11/16/87
November 5, 2003 - Boston, MA, USA Boston, MA: Presidential candidates John Edwards (D-NC), John Kerry (D-MA) and former Vermont governor Howard Dean each admitted that they had previously smoked marijuana in response to an e-mailed question during last night's "America Rocks the Vote" debate, which aired live on CNN. Their responses drew a rousing ovation from the audience.
"George W. Bush certainly did drugs until 1974." Source: Nicholas Kristoff, NY Times reporter who profiled Bush in a series of articles for the paper, 8/1/00 on NPR's Fresh Air
Updated: 1:00 p.m. CT Feb 23, 2005. NEW YORK - President Bush was concerned “his mistakes as a youth” would disqualify him from running for the nation’s highest office, said an old friend who secretly recorded private conversations in which Bush appears to acknowledge past drug use. “I don’t want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago,” Bush said in recordings made when he was governor of Texas and aired Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “And I mean that. It doesn’t matter if it’s LSD, cocaine, pot, any of those things, because if I answer one, then there will be another one. And I just am not going to answer those questions. And it may cost me the election.”
The recordings were made by Doug Wead, a former aide to George W. Bush’s father, in the two years before the younger Bush became the Republican nominee for president in 2000.
Former NJ Senator Bill Bradley (D) states, "Several times in the early 1970s I had taken a few puffs of marijuana." Source: Associated Press
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Justice Thomas, nominated by President Bush in 1991 to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, admitted to smoking, "at least part of a marijuana cigarette in college and possibly one in law school as well."
Source: The Tennessean; 7/15/91
Representative James P. Moran (D-VA) Representative Moran admitted to his experimentation with marijuana in 1992 shortly after attacking his Republican challenger for using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager.
Source: Peter Baker, Washington Post; 10/20/92
Susan Molinari (R-NY): Former US Representative Susan Molinari, keynote speaker at the 1996 Republican National Convention, claimed to have "experimented" with marijuana during her college years at a State University of New York in the 1980s.
Source: Associated Press and San Francisco Chronicle, 8/9/96
Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Former US Representative Newt Gingrich has admitted that he smoked marijuana when he was in college. Gingrich stated in 1995 article from The Economist, "That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era." In 1996 Gingrich attacked Mike McCurry for his admission of marijuana use: "They have a presidential press secretary in the White House, on camera, who says, of course he did marijuana in college, as though every student in American ought to say, 'Well, I can be like Mike McCurry.'" Source: Hilary Stout, Wall Street Journal; 8/8/96
Senator Connie Mack (R-FL): Mack, admitted that he, "smoked pot once but not often", when he was in his thirties. Mack denied use of marijuana in 1982 when he ran for the House and then admitted to it in his 1987 race for the Senate.
Source: Hilary Stout, Wall Street Journal; 8/8/96
Lincoln Chafee (R): Chafee, US Senate candidate from Rhode Island and son of Senator John Chafee admitted to using drugs several times while a student at Brown University.
Source: Julie Goodman, Associated Press
Governor Gary Johnson (R) is honest if not frank, in a discussion on 60 Minutes with Ed Bradley he said: I used marijuana. I smoked from my senior year in high school through college--and then basically quit after college. Bradley: So this wasn't a short term experiment? Gov. Johnson: This was not a short-term experience. I was something that I did. It was something that a lot of my friends did. I'm not offering an excuse for having smoked marijuana, but I will just suggest to you that from my experience, marijuana does not compare, from an impediment standpoint, at all to alcohol. Bradley: You've described marijuana smoking as cool. Johnson: Here is exactly the way I described marijuana as being cool, is--in the context of what you hear [about marijuana]. That, 'You're going to lose your mind. You're going to go crazy. You're going to die if you smoke marijuana.' And you know what? I smoked marijuana, and when I smoked it, none of these things happened. In fact, it was kind of cool. Bradley: What about marijuana [how should it be handled legally]? Johnson: Marijuana, I would suggest it could be similar to alcohol. Source: Sixty Minutes, 4/23/00
Governor George Pataki (R), New York's Governor George Pataki admitted that he tried marijuana. Source: Associated Press, 1994
Lieutenant Governor Mary Donohue (R),New York's Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue has admitted to experimenting with marijuana when she was a college student. In 1998, her daughter, Sara Kenney was caught with marijuana. Source: Associated Press 8/26/98
Source: Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 6/29/98
Governor Dr. Howard Dean (D): In 1996, the MD of Vermont admitted to his use of marijuana as a youth. Source: www.DRCNet.org
Dick Lamm (D): former Colorado governor and one-time presidential candidate for the Reform Party, said he had tried marijuana during kayaking trips to Colorado
Source: Peter Boyles; Denver Post, 8/21/96
Bruce Babbitt (D): Babbitt, former governor of Arizona, admitted that he had smoked pot when he was in college. Source: Newsweek, 11/16/87
Mike McCurry (D), Clinton's press secretary, has stated that "of course" he smoked marijuana as a college student. "I was a kid of the 1970s. Did I smoke a joint from time to time? Of course I did," stated McCurry in 1996. Source: Associated Press, 12/96
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) "the Governor" is shown smoking a marijuana cigarette after winning Mr. Olympia in the 1975 documentary film Pumping Iron. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger
Mike Bloomberg, Mayor NYC: According to the 4/16/01 issue of New York magazine, “Ask him if he ever smoked a joint in the past, and he replies, ‘You bet I did, and I enjoyed it.’”
In an era where Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman who brought forward the so-called "Barr amendment" blocking the District of Columbia's voter-approved medical marijuana law, is now a lobbyist for the pro-pot Marijuana Policy Project, anything can happen.
Norm Coleman (R) US Senator from Minnesota: Truly, nothing could better refute Norm Coleman's attacks against marijuana than the life of Norm Coleman. He smoked marijuana in college – like so, so, so many others – and now he is a U.S. Senator. He does not have lung cancer or schizophrenia. Source: Norm Kent, NORML board member
Conclusions concerning Government's Compelling interest claim:
People who have admitted to smoking marijuana are occupying some of the highest offices of our land, no pun intended. When I was arrested for marijuana who is the injured party, where is the victim that I caused injury to? I am a victim, when hypocritical legislative and judicial office holders uphold marijuana laws that so obviously have violated my fundamental constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The compelling state interest test is a test used by the US Federal Courts in due process and equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for state action and under the Fifth Amendment for federal action. It is part of the strict scrutiny analysis that a federal court will employ when either a suspect class is involved or a fundamental right. A government action or statute subject to strict scrutiny must satisfy a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court will give the strictest scrutiny of the state or federal action when it impacts or targets a specially protected class (race, ethnicity) or when a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right is involved (Freedom of Speech, Right to Vote). The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelling_interest
Habeas Corpus is translated: you have the body. I, Ken Driessen, have been in jail for possession of marijuana, I have in the past been on probation for marijuana possession. The penalty for this marijuana conviction is $854 dollars of fines and costs including $60 victim surcharge and my driver's license suspended which affects greatly my ability to obtain work and travel to work. Victim surcharge? The government has made me a criminal for exercising the fundamental right to the control of my mind and body and victimized me by taking my property, jailing me and fining me. Who is this victim? I hereby ask the state of Wisconsin to explain to me how and who was victimized by me inhaling a substance known to eases physical and mental pain while also protecting my body and mind from cancer, Alzheimer's and many more diseases than those that are listed the Medicinal Properties of Cannabis section of this brief?
I understand what strict scrutiny, rational basis test, suspect classification and immutable mean. This brief contains undeniable proof that the marijuana laws defraud a majority of the citizens of the United States by stealing and dividing wealth among persons who take partake in the profits of making the United States into a fascist police state. May I remind the good judges of this Appeals Court that it is a crime to make war against the American people, the "drug war", is a war and is therefore treason. These acts are crime under TITLE 18, PART I , CHAPTER 19, § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States I also understand what TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law means. I know that it is treason to make war on over 94 million Americans TITLE 18 , PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2381 Treason. I understand what TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2382 Misprision of treason is.
Religious freedom.
In the 8th paragraph of my Notice of claim of unconstitutionality, item 5, paragraph 3 of the second page religious freedom is mentioned. In reply to my claim of unconstitutionality, Sawyer County District Attorney Thomas Van Roy in short, wrote that State V. Peck, 143 Wis. 2d 624(1988); 422 N.W. 2d 160 set a precedence that over ruled any possible constitutional challenge to the state's marijuana laws; Judge Yackel agreed and ordered that the jury would hear none of it.
With his Order of April 17th, 2007, Mr. Yackel made an error of judgment by limiting my legal defense in a way that directly violates my First Amendment right to be reasonably free from religious persecution, relating to the use of psychoactive herbs for spiritual healing, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration ACT adopted November 16, 1993. I have held a notion that more than not, most judges, prosecutors, police and even defense lawyers have secret canons used to protect their profession similar to that of a mafia crime family. I know juries are relatively uneducated as far as understanding legal jargon and the implications of the US constitution, yet I would much rather have been judged by a jury of my piers than by a judge that has overridden the jury process violating my Wis. Article 1 §1, §3, §7 and US 5th, 6th, 14th Amendment rights to due process. The following five paragraphs contain recent case law, which I was not allowed to present to the jury in my defense:
We think that a substantial number of people using marijuana for medical purposes also use it for spiritual healing. We wish to inform you that in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the United States Supreme Court recognized the drug laws must provide exceptions for religious use under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
In United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1559 (9th Cir. 1996), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under the RFRA the marijuana laws must give way to religious freedom. This was confirmed again in 2002 in the case of Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).
A lot has happened since United States v. Bauer was decided in 1996. In 2000, Congress expanded the protection of the RFRA by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., expanding the meaning of "religious exercise."
42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A) states, "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to the RFRA in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005), to mean the standard in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) ("courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible.' Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.")
Several United States District Court rulings have recognized a fundamental right to use marijuana under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: United States v. Valrey, No. CR96-549Z (W.D. Wash. February 22, 2000), finding a fundamental right of a criminal defendant to use marijuana while on supervised release; United States v. Forchion, No. 04-949-ALL (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2005), finding the defendant's rights under the RFRA had been violated because the magistrate did not consider the impact of six of the conditions of release on the defendant's right to use marijuana; Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari v. Gonzales, No. C-06-4264 (N.D. Cal. February 2, 2007), recognizing the plaintiffs could make out a prima facie case under the RFRA for the religious use of marijuana.
There is another mitigating religious factor that certainly affected the juries impartiality. What I am speaking of are my closely held Constitutionally protected religious beliefs.
I have called myself a Spiritual Evolutionist for over 12 years now. This is a belief similar to Pantheism and ancient Pagan religious beliefs and practices. I have also have explored shamanism and feel that I may someday become a shaman which I define to be a medicine man knowledgeable of herbalism more so than what some would define as a witch doctor. Recently I've heard the term Scientific Naturalism. I don't consider myself an atheist because I've found that many of them spend more energy denying others their right to believe in God than development of their individual spiritual paths. A horse is said to be spirited if it has decided to rebel and resist letting a human ride and control it, therefore to that extent animals have a spirit, which is more synonymous with free will than a bodiless entity.
When one considers that women are the fairer of the sexes, they give birth and have the ability to give nourishment to infants and the association of Mother Nature has been made; one may ask, why do we call it a God and Not a Goddess? Although many of Jesus' parables and moral teachings ring true, I accept it that man invented God and this mythical being is on the same level of reality as Santa Claus.
Time space energy and matter are too real and complicated to be dreamt up by any being who is created in our own image. I believe it is a very arrogant ritualistic, unhealthy, mystical childlike tradition to believe a father like figure created us in his own image.
Years ago I read that scientists thought the universe was about 25 billion years old and more recently with tools such as the Hubble telescope, they figure it is more like about 13.7 years old. I prefer to believe as science tells me, that the Sun is about 4.5 billion years old and the Earth formed a very short time after; rather than a gray bearded dude that loves you until you cross him and he shows you his wrath, created it all in 7 days about 6000 years ago. Life may have started from the natural forces of molecular energies, lightening and waves beating on the rocks; or it may have came from outer space to evolve from single cells into dinosaurs, primates, bipedal mammals and eventually humans started to look about like we do 2 million years ago.
Not believing in a male God has nothing to do with me being a loving, religious and spiritual person. Every second of every day and every human, every living thing is important to me because substantially more chance than not, we will become extinct. It is possible that we may avoid extinction if every human acts in a spiritual unison similar to the way each individual cell acts within one human body. Einstein has given us a powerful clue when he calculated the theory of relativity, which brought us past the physics of Isaac Newton from 1987, when he published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Now we know black holes really do exist in the universe, which pull matter, light and everything around them in so fast, that such things disappear by traveling at light speed or beyond. This means we need to develop a theory beyond Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity because the theory of relativity states that as matter approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite, i.e. black holes exists in the universe and is therefore not infinite. I figure, as a species we are going to discover or evolve into a state that is beyond time where one second and eternity are equal. Spirit may be an echo or reflection from the future the only realm where our possible connection to infinite being may exist.
Many who believe in an omnipotent male creator being also remain compassionate and respectful of others whose beliefs differ from their own. With due respect to those, God to me is a totally opposing type of spiritual belief that elitist people, who have no clue, use to religiously proselytize controlling many as slaves to achieve their own greedy little short-term objectives. The Swaggarts, Bakers, Grahams, and Robertsons rake in millions representing themselves as persons who have a schizophrenic relationship with God as they carry on their own lusty agenda worshiping the paper which states "In God We trust" in scripted on it. To achieve there kingdom on Earth, they need more babies, cars, houses, roads, planes and skyscrapers to be produced so they can ride the top of the economic wave to infinity until my lovely planet if destroyed with a final Armageddon apocalypse and judgment day of extinction.
When I walked into the Sawyer County Court House on August 9, 2007, to appear in front of a jury trial, I saw a plaque on the wall that stated that our national motto is "In God We Trust", knowing dam well what hypocritical, heretical, jewdeo-Christio-Islamic religious blasphemy it is to put "In God We Trust" on our money, it shocked me. Then in order try and say my piece, presenting my case to the jury the best I could while being constantly hushed with "objection, sustained, objection sustained, objection sustained" for hours; I first had to take an oath: "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God." I hesitated before I answered because I wanted to say "No I do Not Believe In God" but I knew once I was asked such a ridiculing provocative thing at a time that my freedom was on the line for possessing .291th of a gram of marijuana in a pipe, I had no logical choice but to say "yes I do".
I try to be humble and respectful of other people's religious beliefs the best I can. I love life, my family, my friends, my country, nature and my planet with all my heart and soul.
I do not deserve to be treated this way because I think marijuana is a gift from the nature of the universe that enlightens me, relaxes me and helps me keep my body and mind healthy. Making me a criminal; taking my freedom and all the monetary worth that I have worked hard for away because I believe I have the right to the control of my mind and body, and I chose marijuana as a religious sacrament which I use to commune with nature, is a wicked crime against me. Life, liberty, religious freedom, health and more is all denied to me through marijuana prohibition laws. The wealth taken from me is given to sadistic fascist police state thugs whose only happiness comes from brute force and hatred of others inflicting pain on those helpless innocent humans. While some persons hold abstinence from mind altering substances as morally correct, such precept is not based on Constitutional principles and is therefore not valid law. My US Constitutional 1st Amendment right to religious freedom and my Wisconsin Constitutional Article 1, § 18 and § 19 to the same have been violated by marijuana prohibition.
EQUAL RIGHTS
Medical Marijuana: 220 Pounds and Still Smoking
On November 20, 2005 Irv Rosenfeld, a Ft. Lauderdale stockbroker, will have smoked 220 pounds of US government marijuana/cannabis over a 23-year period. The longest using patient in the federal governments Compassionate Use Program, with only 7 US citizens being shown such compassion, Irv has benefited from this medicine without negative side effects of any type.
“The US government has never had a moment’s hesitation about providing him
and the other six US citizens this medicine. The researchers at NIDA knew
from the outset of this program that cannabis was non-toxic to humans
and of significant benefit for the health of some individuals”, said Al Byrne, co-founder of the national educational charity called Patients Out of Time.
“They knew, because all of the more than two-dozen studies conducted by countries
around the globe, including the US, have come to that conclusion.”
“Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program:
An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis”
by E. Russo, MD and M.L. Mathre, RN, confirmed that for four of the federal patients studied including Irv (the others wished to remain anonymous) the government was right. View PDF Irv is both a teacher and competitor in the sport of sailing for the handicapped.
Contact:
Al Byrne
Patients Out of Time
1472 Fish Pond Rd.
Howardsville, VA 24562
(434) 263-4484 (434) 263-6753 fax
Irv Rosenfeld
877-447-9625 x 120
954-536-9011 cell
I deserve equal protection of the law. Although I am not asking the government to give me my 220 pound of pot, I am asking that the Appeals Court reverse the conviction which is the subject of this appeal, and the authorities no longer put me in jail, fine me and take my cannabis. The fact that even one person in the United States has been granted the Compassion that has been evidentially and totally denied me is a travesty of justice. When compared to persons accepted into the Federal Government's Compassionate Use program, the Criminal sanctions I have been forced to endure, which are the subject of this appeal, illustrate an obvious violation of my 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.
County Ordinance Violation
As mentioned in the STATEMENT OF THE CASE section, District Attorney Van Roy offered me an option of pleading guilty to a County Ordinance Violation, which I refused to plead guilty to. Below is the state statute, which gave Van Roy the authority to offer me such a plea:
Date of enactment: January 4, 2006
2005 Senate Bill 21 Date of publication*: January 19, 2006
2005 WISCONSIN ACT 90
AN ACT to amend 59.54 (25), 59.54 (25m) and 961.577 of the statutes; relating to: county ordinances regarding drug paraphernalia or the possession of marijuana.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented insenate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 59.54 (25) of the statutes is amended to read:
59.54 (25) POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. The board may enact and enforce an ordinance to prohibit the possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana, as defined in s.
961.01 (14), subject to the exceptions in s. 961.41 (3g) (intro.), and provide a forfeiture for a violation of the ordinance; except that any person who is charged with
possession of more than 25 grams of marijuana, or who is charged with possession of any amount of marijuana following a conviction for possession of marijuana, in
this state shall not be prosecuted under this subsection. Any ordinance enacted under this subsection by a county with a population of less than 500,000 does not apply in
any municipality that has enacted an ordinance prohibiting the possession of marijuana. Any ordinance enacted under this subsection by a county with a population of
500,000 or more applies in every municipality within the county.
SECTION 2. 59.54 (25m) of the statutes is amended to read:
59.54 (25m) DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. The board of a county with a population of 500,000 or more may enact an ordinance to prohibit conduct that is the same as that
prohibited by s. 961.573 (1) or (2), 961.574 (1) or (2), or 961.575 (1) or (2) and provide a forfeiture for violation of the ordinance. The board may enforce an ordinance enacted under this subsection in any municipality within the county.
SECTION 3. 961.577 of the statutes is amended to read:
961.577 Municipal ordinances. Nothing in this subchapter precludes a city, village, or town from prohibiting conduct that is the same as that prohibited by s. 961.573 (2), 961.574 (2), or 961.575 (2) or a county with a population of 500,000 or more from prohibiting conduct that is the same as that prohibited by s. 961.573 (1) or (2), 961.574 (1) or (2), or 961.575 (1) or (2). SECTION 4.0Initial applicability. (1) The treatment of section 59.54 (25) of the statutes first applies to a violation of a county ordinance enacted
under that subsection occurring on the effective date of this subsection.
* Section 991.11, WISCONSIN STATUTES 2003?04 : Effective date of acts. “Every act and every portion of an act enacted by the legislature over
the governor’s partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication
as designated” by the secretary of state [the date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment].
The existence of the USG compassionate use program and the existence of a marijuana ordinance law that effectively decriminalizes marijuana in Wisconsin are undeniable proof that the marijuana laws, prohibiting marijuana through criminal sanction are fraudulent. The validity of the entire Wisconsin State and United States federal constitution is in question here. Article 14, section 1, commonly known as the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution grants each person equal protection of the laws. If a person who is a patient in the federal government's Compassionate Use Program is found or has been found to possess marijuana in this district, that person will be immune to the criminal sanctions I have been subject to. If one person found to possess marijuana receives a county ordinance citation versus criminal sanctions; the criminal marijuana possession laws are, from the time this brief is filed, void because they are unconstitutionally vague whereas they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
a. "An ordinance is unconstitutionally vague if it either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Connally v. General Constr. Co.,269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Such an ordinance is 'void for vagueness' and inconsistent with due process of law. Additionally, an ordinance may be void for vagueness if its imprecision is likely to encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, ..... U.S. ....., ....., 112 S.Ct. 2395, 2403 (1992) (stating that the First Amendment prohibits the vesting of unbridled discretion in government officials); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 (1972); Eaves v. Board of Clark County Comm'rs, 96 Nev. 921, 924, 620 P.2d 1248, 1250 (1980)." City of Las Vegas v. 1017 S. Main Corp., 110 Nev. 1227, 1231, 885 P.2d 552 (1994). No. 42.
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
Through reference to the facts of this case historically documented facts and law, this appellate has proven that state statutes and federal codes enforcing criminal sanctions resulting from the action of a person possessing and/or ingesting marijuana are unconstitutional.
Interpreting the law and stating case precedence to obscure the facts presented attempting to uphold an unconstitutional law violates Article 6 Section 2 of the US Constitution because the marijuana prohibition laws and case precedence are contrary and do not withstand the Amendments to that Constitution mentioned and defined as they apply to this case.
In other words an activity 94 million Americans have partaken in, that many high ranking elected officials have also admitted to have partaken in, cannot be considered criminal. To use saying such as "war on Drugs" to criminalize, rob and jail such a significant portion of the population is in actuality a war against citizens of the United States under the color of the law. We have arrived at a state of affairs concerning marijuana when, if a judge were to truly abide by their oath of office, they would have no alternative than do declare the laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana unconstitutional and void of force and affect. There is a tendency in a small group of people to believe that temperance and abstinence from the use of any substance that alters ones perception is morally corrupt and therefore criminal. In the interest of justice and compliance with the US constitution, people who use marijuana must now be protected from the prohibitionists and the war they are waging upon us citizens of the United States of America. There are already in place, laws pertaining to operating motor vehicles, heavy equipment and airplanes while under the influence of any drug to protect the people even if they are to be protected only from themselves in such instances as combining marijuana use with dangerous human activities; laws prohibiting simply possessing and using marijuana are redundant and unnecessary to the state's compelling interest.
The current US Supreme Court has, on what ground I don't know, made a slew of decisions that abandon the Constitution and their oath of office, seemingly in favor of some sort of unrestricted government and corporatocracy powers. With computers and the internet in is possible for many common people lay to the workings of legal professionals to record and collect cases and decisions that are obviously decided on some other basis than application of the constitution, common law and human decency. In fact there is currently no authority or force that will stop and reprimand judges for the misconduct of deciding cases in violation of his or her oaths to defend the constitution. Marijuana prohibition is an example of obvious monopolizing of justice in such a blatant way as to favor 1% of the people who control over 21% of the wealth is insurrection against the authority of United States and the laws thereof which are to be based upon the framework of the Constitution in order to be valid.
There are laws against such activity being conducted by Governmental officials:
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2383: Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Search this title:
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2381: Treason : Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Search this title:
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 19, § 371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States : If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
Other than by conscious, rational, collective efforts of societies to create a fair equitable justice system for the comfort and security of individuals in the group as a whole, we are so obviously ruled by laws of nature and survival of the fittest where brute force dominates the week and meek. Although far removed from natural occurring phenomena, human economical and political hierarchy has a survival of the fittest element given to which rising powers tend to have an aversion to constitutional concepts of all humans being created equal under the law.
Quotes from an October 2005 meeting held in the Oval Office attest to the truth of the distain many ellitist power brokers like George W. Bush have for the Constitution. “Mr. President, There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” one aide in the meeting said, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” When a person who says such a thing and as "Commander in Chief" of our nation allows, torture, extraordinary rendition, spying on US citizens, signing statements to flaunt the law and countless other instances of criminal activity, there may, for the time being, be no venue where truth and justice are accessible in the United States.
A current majority of the US Supreme Court Justices have made recent decisions such as: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) when they made George W. Bush president , Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) concerning medicinal marijuana, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) concerning eminent domain for private corporations over home owners, El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F. Supp. 2d 530 (E.D. Va. 2006), where the Supreme Court refused to hear a case about torture and extraordinary rendition on the grounds of protecting state secrets. All of which can be used to state that these judges have violated their oaths to defend the constitution and have pledged allegiance to the plutocratic corporatocracy. For now, it would be tempting for any judge to ignore the facts and the constitution, stay with rank and file to appease the judicial chain of command and concur with the Circuit Judge's decision concerning this Appeal and marijuana possession.
From this time on, no judge involved in this case can say the facts of the unconstitutionality of marijuana laws have not been presented to them. To continue to find individuals guilty of simple possession of marijuana is a violation of those people's rights and a crime on the part of the judges and prosecutors who conspire to enforce such sanctions. When criminals are in charge of our nation, there is no recourse, no body to petition in a quest for justice. We will be patient and attentive. Unconstitutional decisions are being recorded and the names of the judges who make them are being compiled. This Brief will be spread all over the Internet by the time you read it. There are no threats here just a promise that the people will rise up just as they have throughout human history whenever their rulers become drunk on power and lust for wealth to become tyrannical. Marijuana possession and use is not a crime.
Relief Sought
(1.) A State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals Order: Overturning, reversing or overruling of the conviction of the verdicts of August 9, 2007, finding Kenneth L. Driessen guilty of possessing marijuana (THC) and drug paraphernalia respectively; and the resulting Judgment of Conviction and Sentence filed August 20, 2007.
(2.) An Order from the State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals declaring findings of fact that state and federal laws criminally prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana are unconstitutional.
__________________________________ Dated ____________________
Kenneth Leroy Driessen (pro se)
12022 N. Co. Rd. T
Hayward WI 54843
715-634-2801
wiscokidd@hotmail.com
Ken Driessen
at_lib@hotmail.com