No. of Recommendations: 0
Amd a nice small legal business going...

http://www.keepmattfree.org
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It sounds like he knowingly violated a federal criminal law. I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If he's convicted, President Obama can pardon him, if he so chooses. It's not right for the justice department to pick and choose which federal laws to enforce and which not to. The Constitution says congress passes and repeals laws, not the justice department.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, not quite Phil, we've passed similar laws before, lost before, likely learned a bit each time. It's the current Law in in force here, the Feds are tromping on our CA Law... At some point this idiocy by the Feds has to be decided, maybe this is the case, we'll see..

Laws are selectively applied every hour of every day... It's not a black & white world we live in, we bend and change, it's time for that change. Matt's case may be the trigger.. Legalize it, tax it like tobacco, take away the backroom dealers and all the criminal crap it brings..

Have a toke, Phil.. Relax, don't sweat the small stuff..

weco
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
wecoguy,

It's the current Law in in force here, the Feds are tromping on our CA Law... At some point this idiocy by the Feds has to be decided, maybe this is the case, we'll see..

This has already been decided, long, long ago. Here in the US, you have to follow all the laws that apply in your jurisdiction. The city laws (if you're in a city), the county laws (if there are any), the state laws, and the federal laws. The feds are not "tromping" the CA laws at all. It's just that here in California, you have to follow all the federal laws and all the state laws.

For example, prostitution is legal under US federal law. Does that mean you could open a brothel in Los Angeles, since that's in the US? No, because it's illegal under California law (and probably under Los Angeles law too, for all I know).

Or to give another example in the other direction, there's no California law against entering the US without going through customs. Does that mean a Mexican citizen can sneak across the border directly into California, and that's legal because entering the US is "legal in California"? Of course not. It's still illegal under federal law.

Laws are selectively applied every hour of every day...

Clearly prosecutors have to use some decision-making in deciding what cases can be successfully prosecuted and what cases are hopeless. But no prosecutor should simply decide which laws are enforced and which are not. That's a job for the appropriate legislature.

It's not a black & white world we live in, we bend and change, it's time for that change. Matt's case may be the trigger.. Legalize it, tax it like tobacco, take away the backroom dealers and all the criminal crap it brings..

If the US Congress wants to legalize pot, that's fine. And if it does, congratulations to California for having pot already legal under California's laws, unlike many other states. Perhaps more states should follow suit.

But meanwhile, violations of the law should be prosecuted. Anything less reduces people's respect for the law, encourages people to pick and choose which laws they feel like following rather than assume they should follow all laws, and degrades the security of everyone.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, since we aren't lawyers, we don't get to decide, the courts will... I'd love to be on that Jury, help it move along into the real world. Pot's been around for centuries, and like alcohol it's being scapegoated. It'll be legal one day... The whole 'War on Drugs' is a farce, as is the 'Border Wars', all they are doing is filling our prisons for non-vioent petty crimes, keeping pot prices high, making the druglords richer and richer... Stupid, we pay more to house these 'criminals' than we're willing to pay for their healthcare. So go to prison, set for food, health, dental, mental care for the duration... It's tying up the courts, prisons uselessly.. Job security for guards, when so many others need decent jobs..

W had prohibition before, remember? How'd that work out? Made all the puritanical creeps happy, for a while, it seems to have gone badly, didn't it? Pot laws will go the same way...

Cigarettes do more harm in the world, they should be taken off the market, all subsidies cancelled. Look at the lobbying going on from that industry! In their back rooms they are planning on how to market legalized pot, you know they are...

Follow the money, that's what has to be overcome to make it happen...

It will happen... CA will lead the way... As usual...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No one really thought Obama would actually reduce the number of raids the DoJ would execute vis-a-vis the prior administration, did they? (they actually went up - way up)

Sounds like an opportune time for some locally-targeted intense public education about the concept of jury nullification, and let this guy be the guy whose case starts precedent. Just make sure not to say the phrase "jury nullification" where the judge can hear you, they don't like that - that's a guaranteed get-out-of-jury-duty ticket right there.

JT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm sure, by the time any of it gets to trial, Jury selection will be very carefully done...

We really need to clear out the leftover Puritans... Legalize, put it on the shelf next to the Gentleman Jack, and just move on...

Cocaine, Meth, etc, forget it, but Pot, leterrip! It's legal. As a glaucoma victim, I want the option down the line! Brownies, need Brownies!

weco
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm sure, by the time any of it gets to trial, Jury selection will be very carefully done...

Wait, you mean the beneficent public servants of the DoJ (arbiters of fairness, pursuers of truth!) would actively engage in stacking the jury to circumvent due process and assure a conviction? Gasp! Perish the thought! Wonder if that might ring any bells to folks who want to keep ceding more and more power to the .gov whenever they grab for it...

JT,
never support a power to a politician of your party that you'd be uncomfortable with in the hands of a politician of another party
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, I said it will be carefully done, by all parties...

Been in a Courtroom lately? Been on a Jury lately?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Carefully done by whom? And to what end?

Been in a Courtroom lately? Been on a Jury lately?

As a matter of fact, I was in a courtroom on Monday of this week, and it was the third time in 12 months. Got called for jury duty but I can never get on one because I always have business trips already booked and ticketed that prevent me from serving (I don't commute every day by car, I commute once a week, every week, by plane), so I get postponed and come back 6 months later.

Why, have you? Is there a process by which those who are interested can volunteer rather than wait for the summons and deal with how things shake out? I'm sure being on a particular jury can enlighten someone as to how that particular judge's kingdom is run, but that is by no means a guarantee that it's an experience typical of other jurors throughout the land.

JT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you are actively ducking and dodging you duty to serve... Might have guessed...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you are actively ducking and dodging you duty to serve... Might have guessed...

You need a reading comprehension class. I would *LOVE* to get on a jury; I would *LOVE* to be on Matt's jury.
But when the chronology looks like this:
1) Employer: book flights every week for 6 months in advance
2) Jury summons: show up Monday January 14th
3) I show up Monday, get put in a pool for selection
4) Judge says the trial will last 10 days and asks, "Who's got a prepaid vacation or business trip within that period?"

Your suggestion is that I either a) lie to the judge that I *don't* have a trip already ticketed or b) give my boss and the airline the finger and stick around to *maybe* get selected as one of 12 to serve. Interesting.

JT,
apparently I forgot the old adage about not feeding the troll
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Decent corporations make allowance for Jury Duty. Are they a responsible American Corporation? Apparently not. We had guys off the job for 8 months, a year, all covered... Nobody is that vital that allowances can't be made!


Hmm, yes, troll... You do realize the only reason I ever replied to your post was that TMF's setup for looking at Replies to my Posts, it ignores those in the P-Box, Ignored Fool Yaps like yourself... You gained that honor last year sometime with some of you other HUYA postings.. I see nothing to change that...


weco
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
HUYA? Don't know that one. I know YMMV, but that may be a foreign concept to one as "my way or the highway" as you appear to be.

So I went from "actively dodging" to "working for an evil corporation that's messing with the jury system!" Awesome. It's not about the company (yes, jury duty is paid time off), it's about the travel. Trip is booked. Show up to court. Judge asks, "Do you have a trip booked?" I must answer.... what exactly? If I was working in-town with no travel booked I could stay and be selected and be out X weeks and still be paid - and I would welcome the opportunity.

In my experience, the only people who use the p-box are those who love to dish it out but can't take it.

JT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wait, let's back the truck up - why the hostility in this particular thread? I'm on your side on this one; I'd love to be on the jury so I could educate the other 11 on jury nullification and acquit Matt of all charges because the law is unjust.

As a libertarian I've gotten very used to agreeing with people on one thing while disagreeing with the same people on other issues - makes it an absolute necessity to compartmentalize to survive it with friendships intact. In my experience those on the hard-Dem and hard-Rep side have less contact with those kinds of situations and it doesn't come as easily for them.

JT
Print the post Back To Top