UK -Jamie Barnes Freeman Cannabis Grower

[PeanutGallery]

The CPS guidelines for the cultivation of cannabis are available online here: link.

A significant factor will be the number of plants that Jamie has been convicted of growing and the role the court deems him to have had in the operation. From what I can gather, based on very limited knowledge, Jamie certainly had a leading role in what seems to be either a category 2 or category 3 cultivation. With that level of a cultivation intent to distribute is already assumed in the sentencing (it's too much volume for even the most dedicated rastafarian to smoke by their lonesome).

If it's a cat 2 the starting point for sentencing is 6 years. If it's a cat 3 the Judge will start at 4 years. Now it may be that the Judge may determine that Jamie had a significant role (to some extent he's borderline between the two) for Cat 2 it starts at 4 years and for Cat 3 1 year. While I don't see many aggravating factors (which is good for Jamie) I don't see any mitigating ones either (which is not good for Jamie).

He may get time off his sentence for having been on a tag, possibly the only 'benefit' his sovrun antics will have gotten him.

However I would think that Jamie will be spending some time at her majesty's pleasure.

[Normal Wisdom]

Undeterred by his failure to overturn the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act, Jamie is planning to appeal his guilty verdict.

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

[wanglepin]

Undeterred by his failure to overturn the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act, Jamie is planning to appeal his guilty verdict.

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

the jury were lapping it up.

so was I watching that

[PeanutGallery]

The trouble I have with Mr Barnes' videos is that I always question if I do in fact know what he means. I'm not sure he does. He also doesn't seem to understand that a jury of his peers have decided that beyond a reasonable doubt he broke the law. I can't see him getting leave to appeal, so I think he's going to have a disappointing start to the new year.

From listening to Jamies account of the court proceedings I can only say that his arguments seemed puerile and showed a childish knowledge of how the law works. I would imagine most of his legal arguments were based on having watched poorly scripted courtroom dramas and thought that was how it was done.

What is quite sad is that Jamie doesn't seem to understand the legislation he is complaining about. He doesn't accept that society and the law has deemed that Cannabis is a harmful narcotic. Because he doesn't believe that Cannabis is harmful, physically, he doesn't consider that society may have formed a different view - as evidenced by its prohibition.

[littleFred]

Jamie follows a common SovCit trail of thought:

(A) The law should be what I want it to be.
(B) Therefore, the law is what I want it to be.

Even Quatloosians might believe in (A). Most normal people don't believe in (B), or that it logically follows from (A).

To justify (B), SovCits insert a load of BS between (A) and (B) that explains how wonderful/natural/common/God-given their desired laws are. And they comb through old foreign dictionaries in attempts to rationalise (B). When statutes and case law contradict old foreign dictionaries they can be ignored because the only evidence that counts is evidence that supports (B).

[PeanutGallery]

That mode of thought is sadly not limited to our SovCit friends, it's actually a rather well documented psychological phenomena called "Confirmation Bias".

We can all be guilty of it, for instance we Quatloosians might assume that a SovCit should always fail in court due to their errant beliefs and flawed arguments. We therefore run the risk of automatically dismissing their claims as failures before they have been heard. This runs the risk of convicting a SovCit of a crime that they may not in fact have committed.

At the risk of sounding somewhat Vulcan, the driving force normally attributed to being behind SovCit arguments is emotion. They believe things should be a certain way and are incapable of looking at an issue dispassionately.

[Arthur Rubin]

At the risk of sounding somewhat Vulcan, the driving force normally attributed to being behind SovCit arguments is emotion. They believe things should be a certain way and are incapable of looking at an issue dispassionately.

(Emphasis added.) I don't think SovCit syndrome is in the DSM. Perhaps it should be....

[Normal Wisdom]

Jamie has been given an 18 month suspended sentence for his grow activities. He hasn't said whether he still plans to go ahead with his appeal against conviction.

[bopalot]

yh the freeman tjing is defo a no no. but believe it or not i will tell them i was selling it again next time. seeing as gw pharmaceuticals is already selling it and its being grown in the uk. at trial all my questions got asked but the judge told the witnesses not to answer. he said i had legal arguments that werent for that court. i made it clear during the trial i was gonna sell it. i made economic argument for it. i asked for an aquittal from the jury but obvs never got it. im appealling. the prosecution didnt make one single objection during the whole trial. i told the jury the judge would have to direct them to find me guilty but i had to break the law to have the argument. i compared it to the abortion situation in my closing speech. how abortions whether right or wrong had to be regulated for safety reasons. hospitals are better for abortions than back street practices etc.

the one and only problem i have from experience during this trial was the doctrine of parlimentary supremacy. there are no seperation of powers.

[bopalot]

"Jamie follows a common SovCit trail of thought:

(A) The law should be what I want it to be.
(B) Therefore, the law is what I want it to be."


if im a soverign citizen? then who are my subjects..?

and i do believe there is no harm in cannabis and i do understand that the general position is that there is. if yous could show me the harms id really really appreciate it. and its a mind altering substance. im not advising kids to use it and never would.

my point is that in uk we are being governed by a rule that was made in 1971 for dangerous and harmful substances.

so where were the harms? this was fun reading. =)

[PeanutGallery]

Welcome to Quatloos Mr Barnes, first of all may I say I think it's quite commendable that you have abandoned your previous beliefs and have gone out of your way to counsel others against following that path. I would certainly say that my observation of you is a young man who is passionate about his beliefs and who directs considerable energy into his actions.

I believe I said earlier in the thread that your energy, in regard to seeking the reformation of the Cannabis laws would be better spent engaging with a campaign group who also have that intent. Continually going to court to deliver the same argument would be fruitless. While I believe in the rule of law, I also believe that the law must change with society. Therefore I would suggest writing to your MP and asking them, or you could campaign for the Green Party who also would intend to remove Cannabis from the misuse of drugs act.

In regard to the question of whether Cannabis causes harm, the question of who it harms or whether it harms or not is not one for the court, or likely this forum (we don't specialise in medical advice). It is however a question for Parliament. That is why campaign groups are an important part of our legislative body. As I said this isn't really a site for a debate on the pro's and con's of Cannabis use, a subject which I am divided on myself, my personal belief is that it should be legislated and permitted for those old enough to make a sensible choice, but I also believe it has the potential to cause harm. I know that young people will smoke cannabis, I have smoked in the past, I stopped when it started to make me feel extremely paranoid, however I also knew it was against the law when I did this. As such I can see that it, like all things which can give pleasure, has the potential to cause harm (which may not be due to toxicity but could be due to dependency or overuse) but I cannot say for certain if it does or not.

As you point out in 1971 Parliament passed a law prohibiting it. You likely know more about this law than I do, having, I imagine researched it much more. It's not unusual for old laws to restrict modern life. Most of the common law of the United Kingdom is considerable older than 1971 and some old laws remain equally valid (it as wrong now to murder as it was in the 1800's for example). The only way to change this law, now that it has been made, is through Parliament. Your argument about abortions, which I believe has merit, would likely be better made to MP's than to Judges and Jurors.

[Jeffrey]

but believe it or not i will tell them i was selling it again next time

I'm going to risk it and give you some legal advice, stop selling weed so there isn't a "next time".

[bopalot]

i really did enjoy reading ths thread. =)

yh that opca stuff is dangerous. theres a fella who was in court over a parking fine and is now in prison, from what ive heard is five months for contempt.for me however, it was an amzing learning curve and i hate to say it but i think u might be right about the courts. during the trial i found a quote in a book about human rights by helen fenwick and said words to the effect of...

"the courts have lost all power to control an act of parliament no matter how repugnant to morals it is. for example, if parliament choose to make a law to execute a certain race and the judge fails to uphold the statute and will of parliament, he should resign."

when i read that, i thougt ffs. lol.

[bopalot]

and i do intend on appealling. any advice?

[Jeffrey]

There's nothing for you to appeal Jamie, you broke the law and they caught you doing it. You're going to waste your time and money with this appeal business.

Unless you talked to an actual lawyer that recommended an appeal, don't do it.

[PeanutGallery]

I also have enjoyed watching you grow as a person, I do genuinely believe that you have the sense to know when you are wrong, as you did with the OPCA stuff and are able to admit it. To me that is an attitude that should be praised. Not many can admit their mistakes and fewer still are prepared to not only renounce their beliefs but also to warn others against following that path.

In regard to the Helen Fenwick quote, currently the law - through the ECHR and the associated Convention rights - allows for laws made by Parliament to be struck down as unlawful if they fail to adhere to those rights. This would prevent a law being passed that would command the destruction of a race of peoples (in fact it is because such laws have been made in the past and because genocide has been a very real thing that we have the ECHR and an appreciation of Human Rights).

To this end I would disagree with her statement, a Judge would rule that law illegal, as it is not compatible with the convention rights and absolutely should not resign because of it.

In regard to your appeal, firstly I am not a lawyer and would advise that you consult with one to get an opinion. However from my lay perspective I don't really see what grounds you could bring that the courts would consider and must agree with Jeffrey above. Broadly you can appeal if you feel that the Jury was misdirected as to what the law was, if new evidence exists that exonerates you of the charge, or if there was some other error of process or law (Again not a lawyer so that information may be inaccurate, if it is I would hope some other more learned poster would correct me). While you believe that the crime you were convicted of should not be a crime and that is a view you are perfectly entitled to have, the courts will disagree because Parliament has said it is a crime and Parliament hasn't changed their minds about it. Therefore the courts would likely strike out any appeal on the grounds that Cannabis causes no harm, because it doesn't need to cause harm to be illegal it just needs Parliament to have said that it is. To that end your energy would, I feel, be better directed towards campaigning for the reformation of the Cannabis laws and pushing for it's legalisation, of course should you succeed in reforming the Cannabis laws you might then be able to apply for your conviction to be expunged.

[whitehat]

Welcome to Quatloos Jamie,
I think the Law on drugs is outdated and only seem to make criminals out of folk, I would like to see drugs (maybe not all) regulated. I haven't smoked weed or in fact done any drugs but I understand people get some form of enjoyment from it.

Too much money is spent fighting the war on drugs and it simply doesn't work. I cant condone growing it to sell but maybe for you own use is a different matter. Going to a drug dealer to buy your choice of drug must put you in contact with harder drugs and also a question of where all the money ends up.

People that are caught with small amounts face criminal records that may have life changing effects like future employers may overlook a person with a record for drugs, they may find it very difficult to gain employment.

Like I said I cant condone growing to sell but I wish you well. The best advise given is consult a lawyer, country to belief on some forums they know there stuff.

[Pottapaug1938]

My son gave up smoking marijuana, years ago; but he is still active in the legalization movement. Some of his reasons have already been given; but another reason has to do with his grandmother/my mother-in-law, who was ill with pancreatic cancer in the spring of 1997. In her last months, she was so nauseous that she couldn't keep food down; and none of the anti-nausea drugs worked. Marijuana was the only way that she was able to keep food down; and my wife and I are especially pleased to see the advent of "medical marijuana" in Massachusetts.

[Arthur Rubin]

Moderator's note

Please discuss the law as it is, not as it "should be". Politics is banned from this site.

[whitehat]

If I have broken any of the rules I would like to say sorry and will learn from it. I'm still finding my feet here.