UK -Jamie Barnes Freeman Cannabis Grower

[LurkerRob]

Jamie was charged last year with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (He got off).

While waiting for the case to come to court he had to make some money so he turned to growing cannabis.

He wrote to Parliament and the Queen telling them what he intended to do but as they didn't tell him this was illegal in 10 days he went ahead.

He's arrested for cultivation of cannabis .He admits growing, says he intends to sell his crop but as England is a common law jurisdiction doesn't think it’s an offence.

He spouts Freeman drivel all the time,legal fictions,joinder etc.
His case comes to court next year.

He has many videos up on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/thebopalots/videos

His arrest interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwu6VOlmDbk

Reporting the theft of his cannabis and his kidnap(arrest) to the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ELIjF86nn0

[ArthurWankspittle]

Not even bothered to listen to his drivel but noticed this in the description:

I mean seriously. im contemplating getting the addresses for all the gang members from the met and going round theres with my mates and robbing them.

Also known as conspiracy to commit theft. As soon as someone in LE realises he's videoing and posting stuff on YouTube he may well be getting some extra attention. If he tries that in court, he WILL get extra attention.

[The Dog]

Somebody else has had the same idea.

A 31-year-old man complained to police that his cannabis had been stolen - and found himself arrested for producing the drug, a court heard.
Aaron Chambers shouted for help when men armed with baseball bats smashed their way into his home in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, after hearing about his drug-growing enterprise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z32CHcNhBD

[PeanutGallery]

Last night I was feeling rather especially bored and decided to check young Jamies YouTube channel. He's posted up a new video where he seems somewhat disillusioned with the Freeman woo he's been using. Of course he's conflicted and thinks he should fight his charge, but he seems to be accepting that he's going to be found guilty. He recognises that their is a difference between civil and criminal and that no person using Freeman woo has walked free from a criminal court.

He admits to using the Freeman woo and also that there "weren't no successes and that". This seems to show that on some level he knows what he is doing isn't going to work although he's still planning to stick with his woo. He realises that he won't be allowed to opt out of the misuse of drugs act and that trying to raise this defence will fail and seems to be pinning his hopes on being able to convince the Judge and Jury that by producing cannabis he caused no harm.

Jamie seems to be holding out hope that he will be such a skilled orator that he convinces the Jury to nullify the law surrounding the production of cannabis. He'll fail because Juries aren't informed about nullification and because the Judge will prevent him from raising any arguments in regard to the ethical nature of the law he has been charged under, the criminal court is not the place to argue the justness of a law passed by Parliament. If Jamie wants to legalise or de-criminalise cannabis then he would be better placed using his energy to engage with the system and try to drive change from within.

Here is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl9KryU ... lTXSNX49Iw

[Normal Wisdom]

In a recent open forum with Commonly Known As Dom and a few others he said that he has asked for 5 days court time simply to mount his defence.

Edit: Having just watched the video he's going to need more than 5 days!

[notorial dissent]

.... seems to be pinning his hopes on being able to convince the Judge and Jury that by producing cannabis he caused no harm.

Jamie seems to be holding out hope that he will be such a skilled orator that he convinces the Jury to nullify the law surrounding the production of cannabis. He'll fail because Juries aren't informed about nullification and because the Judge will prevent him from raising any arguments in regard to the ethical nature of the law he has been charged under....

That may be what he will try for, but mostly he'll fail because trying to convince an English jury, let alone an English judge, of any of those things would be well nigh impossible, and I don't remember English juries ever being big on nullification. I don't even think it is within the English lexicon of concepts. So basically, he knows the FOTL woo is bull droppings, and he still doesn't have the sense to drop it and pass on to something new, which tells me he isn't very smart at all, even all things considered. I get that he has an issue with the law, but throwing yourself in front of a speeding train isn't going to get it changed, and that is where the really stupid comes in to play.

[PeanutGallery]

I agree that it's a stupid tactic. Especially because he could direct his energy towards reformation of the law that will convict him.

In regard to the nullification attempt, it's been my experience in English courts as a juror, that before any evidence is put before the Jury the Judge will rule on its admissibility if it is not admissible then the Jury never hear of it so that they cannot be influenced by it. Jamie's attempts to introduce evidence challenging the validity of the law will fall into that category. The court won't entertain them because that court isn't the appropriate forum (such a challenge would need to be brought as a Judicial Review of the law in question at the High Court - at least to start).

The Jury (and this is based on my own experience) aren't going to question the validity of the law in this case. It's not egregious or discriminatory and certainly not one that makes a man a martyr. They will be instructed to make their decision on the facts that have been presented to them in court. These facts will include Jamies own confession, in a police interview, that he did grow these plants and grew them with the intent to sell.

The best thing Jamie could do right now is to change his plea to guilty - he will benefit from a sentencing reduction - accept whatever punishment the court metes out and then devote his energy towards reforming the law on the use of Cannabis in the UK.

[notorial dissent]

The best thing Jamie could do right now is to change his plea to guilty - he will benefit from a sentencing reduction - accept whatever punishment the court metes out and then devote his energy towards reforming the law on the use of Cannabis in the UK.

True, that would be the sane sensible thing to do, and best solution given the situation, so it almost a dead bang certainty that it isn't what is going to happen.

[littleFred]

At a recent hearing, Jamie persuaded the judge that he no longer needed an ankle tag, and that unconditional bail was suitable. His knock-down argument? That he had given up his frivolous OPCA notions.

[PeanutGallery]

While he's no longer an OPCA litigant, Mr Barnes has become quite vocal about his rejection of his beliefs and how he feels that falling into that hole has harmed him. Personally I think this is commendable, he made a mistake and it is to his credit that he has recognised this and made effort not only to correct and apologise to the court for his OPCA antics but also to try and prevent others from falling into the same trap by highlighting his mistakes and making them public. As an example he's posted a new video recounting how he used OPCA arguments at the Custody Suite and how they didn't help him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUHhQU8 ... e=youtu.be.

While he likely will receive a custodial sentence for his crime, if found guilty, I do hope that any sentence passed is fair and that he isn't unfairly penalised for having been taken in by those who pedalled this woo to him.

[Normal Wisdom]

While all the attention has been focused on Tom Crawford's non-eviction, Jamie Barnes has finally appeared in court on his "grow" charge. Understandably after his belated rejection of the OPCA defence this didn't attract any coverage from the FoTL community.

The trial doesn't finish until Monday when Jamie and his pal "TCup" present his defence argument. This broadly seems to be an assertion that growing and using cannabis shouldn't be illegal and therefore in all fairness he should be found not guilty and the law changed. The chances of success seem fairly slim.

Anyway, here is his summary of the case to date. I'd love to hear him address the jury on Monday ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFCM3G3 ... e=youtu.be

[PeanutGallery]

I'd be very surprised if Jamie or "TCup" manage to even get their argument, that the law is wrong and needs to be changed, in front of the Jury. Even if they did the Judge would then direct the Jury to ignore it and will likely give a direction that the Jury should ignore that testimony and concentrate simply on whether the defendant was growing cannabis plants for sale. Jamie does seem to know this and admits as much. Why he hasn't cut his losses and made a guilty plea to get some credit when it came to sentencing is beyond me.

[Jeffrey]

I think he's doing it as a political statement which is legitimate I feel.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think he's doing it as a political statement which is legitimate I feel.

I agree, but we all know that it's a doomed gesture. To challenge statute law in UK requires something above a provincial magistrates court.

[notorial dissent]

I suspect it also takes at least a middling understanding of the English judicial system, which seems to be totally absent in in this crowd from what I can see.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I think he's doing it as a political statement which is legitimate I feel.

There's lots of reasonable political views in the world, but I think that using scarce court resources on a quixotic gesture is reprehensible. There's people with a genuine need for trial waiting in pre-trial custody while Barnes indulges in this little ego-trip. If it's a jury trial then it's even worse. Using the extraordinary power to compel 12 strangers to sit in court and listen is reserved for serving justice, not to be forced to listen to someone's views, right or wrong.

[PeanutGallery]

I have to disagree about the waste of a Jury's time. It's Jamies right to have a Jury trial and also his right to represent himself (not sure he has any right to be represented by TCup). For those reasons I feel he is perfectly entitled to a Jury trial if that is what he wishes.

However the Judge should control the court. A common misconception about Jury trials (at least in England and Wales) is that the Jury is present throughout the whole of the trial, they actually aren't. There is a very simple reason for this, before the Jury comes in, the Judge asks the defence or prosecution to go over what they intend to put before the Jury. The Judge then rules on whether it is admissible or not.

If the Judge decides that some evidence is not admissible, not only is it not put before the Jury, but the Jury also never know it existed as such it cannot play a part in their deliberations and this simple practice prevents mistrials. If Jamie and TCup try to bring in evidence that the Judge has already ruled is inadmissible then the Judge will do everything to prevent it, including sending the Jury out. Should they persist then they may find themselves with an additional charge of contempt of court.

With this in mind the Judge should prevent Jamie from raising a lot of the points he wishes to raise because they will be irrelevant to the facts of the matter. As I see it the points Jamie and TCup may wish to raise are that Cannabis smoking harms nobody, which may or may not be true. It is irrelevant because the question being asked is was Jamie growing those plants and are those plants from the cannabis family. The Judge will, before sending the Jury off to deliberate, remind them of the relevant law and direct them to decide for themselves if Jamie had broken it.

Where I see this as a futile gesture is that to use the courts to protest a poor law, which I feel is a valid avenue, requires a considerable amount of legal skill, great ability to orate and a substantial amount of public debate on the law being questioned. None of these are present with Jamie and TCup's case. That is why I think this action is doomed to fail - that and also because in his police interview Jamie admitted growing the plants for profit and has been very clear that they were cannabis.

However not making a guilty plea is Jamie's right as is asking the jury to find him innocent. Jamie will face consequences for this action, which is only right, but we should not take away from him those rights because if we do we risk losing them for the innocent.

[Normal Wisdom]

As I understand it, the judge has been keeping a pretty tight rein on the questions that Jamie and TCup can ask. For example he would not allow Jamie to quiz the "cannabis expert" on it's harmful effects. He has also and much to Jamie's disgust, used "judicial immunity" to regulate the questions that Jamie wants to direct to the prosecution and the police.

Obviously Jamie is trying to put the law itself on trial and the judge, while allowing some flexibility, is determined to ensure that the focus remains on Jamie.

Incidentally I think TCup is attending in the role of "McKenzie Friend"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

[Normal Wisdom]

Guilty (of growing but not supply).

Returns to court in 4 weeks for sentencing.

[Jeffrey]

Got lucky then. I saw his police interview from when he was still trying Freeman stuff and he actually told the police that he was growing it to sell it, which I think even a public defender would have advised you not to admit. UK guys feel free to correct but I'm fairly sure "intent to distribute" is one of the things they slap on you to increase sentencing.