UK -Jamie Barnes Freeman Cannabis Grower

[bopalot]

are any of yous handy finding maxims? theres a maxim, that says words to the effect of " if one is willing to buy a product that could cause harm, the purchaser has consented and its an agreement between them." or somethng like that.

can anyone help?

[wanglepin]

are any of yous handy finding maxims? .... " if one is willing to buy a product that could cause harm, the purchaser has consented and its an agreement between them." or somethng like that. can anyone help?

Maxim
Equity does not relieve a person of the consequences of his or her own carelessness.
Or
Equity will not grant relief from a self-created hardship.
Or
No one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault.

[PeanutGallery]

The trouble with Maxims is, that unless they come from a very specific part of a Judgement, specifically the "Ratio Decidendi" sometimes shortened to "Ratio" or reasons for the decision, they aren't binding. They are however sometimes nice and pretty and can put a point rather succinctly and sound good. But they won't override or overrule the law.

To take the maxim you seek to it's logical conclusion, that if I agree to buy something that causes harm and someone else agrees to sell it to me, there should be no prohibition on me buying a Handgun. A handgun can cause harm. A handgun is also strictly prohibited within the United Kingdom. I cannot simply say that the consent of two private individuals overrides the law, which has been created to prevent anyone from owning a handgun as their is the potential for it to be used criminally.

The law has also prohibited the cultivation and sale of Cannabis. You can't say that because someone has theoretically agreed to buy the Cannabis, knowing what it should do, it's a private matter and the law doesn't apply. The law does apply, because the law currently says that Cannabis is prohibited, the reasons behind that prohibition don't matter to the law. The law is what the law is and the courts aren't going to be minded to change it easily. Not at the appellate level at any rate. They don't have the power and they won't have the inclination.

Having said that, the points you raise can be used to make a valid question, but they should be put to the right forum. The courts don't deal with what the law should be, but rather interpret what it is. Parliament determines what the law should be and if you wish to argue that Cannabis is not harmful, or that individuals should have the right to decide for themselves, or that the current prohibition does not prevent the use of the drug but simply pushes it into the shadows, then that argument should be made to Parliament and not to the courts.

Arguing that Cannabis should be legal to the courts is simply barking up the wrong tree. The courts hands are tied to the whim of Parliament and that is where your argument should be.

[bopalot]

dont i know it lol.

[Jeffrey]

Also worth pointing out, maxims have no legal authority.

It looks like you're still stuck with some OPCA/Freeman concepts, the misuse of maxims is something Rob Menard promoted heavily in Canada, adopted by Dean Clifford and other people influenced by Menard. Pre-Menard, maxims were used by SovCit groups in the US in the 90's before Oklahoma City bombing and Ruby Ridge. In particular there's a copy of a John Quaid lecture from the 90's in which he discusses how they invented the use of maxims for pseudolegal purposes.

To quote Bouvier's law dictionary:

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury

So unless the Judiciary has agreed X is a maxim, it's nonsense.

[Hyrion]

Also worth pointing out, maxims have no legal authority.

A very good point. I wonder if those that end up falling for OPCA arguments (whether sov cit, freemen, de-taxers, whatever they want to call themselves) have trouble separating philosophy and "the perfect world" from reality.

Maxims of any sort are great philosophical tools - but many, many times our positions of philosophy, positions of "how things should be", do not coincide with how things really are in Society today.

So that'd be my best suggestion for Jamie: recognize that the current state of laws, of societal norms, behaviors, etc. do not necessarily coincide with the maxims/philosophy of how you believe things should be.

It's far easier to be prosperous when you work with the flows of Society then if you work against them.

[bopalot]

i never said that maxims had legal authority. i only asked if anyone knew the maxim i was on about. im just having trouble finding it. i never said i was gonna base a defence on that maxim. i wouldnt base a defence on a pile of maxims.

it was only a question i thought would be worth asking here.

as for no grounds of appeal i dont think no one on this forum was at the trial? were they? if they were they would know what happened for what i believe the grounds of appeal are. how do yous know there are no grounds appeal?

from my experience being opca, the only use for it is for ppl who believe they can absolve therselves of guilt using these methods. avoid liabilities. which is something i have never done and was probably one of the biggest things that took me off the opca route.

a legal maxim is a well established proposition thats been well established in law. there used in courts to assist advocates to argue a position. even though you say they have no legal authority they have been described as having the same power as a statute. he who doesnt claim his rights has none. and maxims are perfect for this alone.

[bopalot]

im also aware of normative and positivist principles are aswell.

[notorial dissent]

A legal maxim is a magic incantation used by sovruns and FOTL to get themselves in further and deeper. They are good for a good laugh in court, by the opposing side, and little else. they have NO legal standing or status, any more than that great font of all wisdom an antique dictionary. Generally, just to add to the festiveness and frivolity of the situation, the favorite maxims of the sovrun FOTL OPCA crowd bear little resemblance to the one most people actually know making it even harder to take them seriously.

[PeanutGallery]

Very well, what do you believe the grounds of appeal are? What grounds will you be raising and how do you intend to present that argument?

Remember the Courts exist to enforce the democratic will of Parliament and the laws to which the Monarch has assented to be enforced in the United Kingdom. One law exists prohibiting the growth of Cannabis except in certain circumstances (for which a licence was required), you grew Cannabis, you did not as far as I am aware possess a valid licence to grow cannabis, you were convicted of doing this.

Equally from what I can tell you based your argument around trying to show that Cannabis was not harmful and the Judge prevented you from trying to use that argument. You may well feel hard done by, because the Judge didn't allow you to challenge the validity of the law that you were being tried under. From what I can gather the intent of your defence was to put the law on trial and in so doing to be absolved from "Guilt" and for that law to be struck down. Your method of doing this was seemingly to try and show that Cannabis doesn't cause harm. You seem to still be fixated on this issue.

The Court does not exist to prove or disprove the harm caused by Cannabis. It is enough for the Court that Parliament considered it harmful enough to prohibit and that the Monarch assented to this prohibition. If you want to argue that Cannabis does not cause harm and wish to challenge that, then your venue is Parliament and not the Courts. The Courts, like this forum, deal with the law as it is, Parliament determines what the law should be.

You are not the first person who has tried this tactic in courts, you also won't be the last as a glut of poorly written courtroom dramas has created this myth that it is a good tactic when in truth it is not and is in fact usually the worst tactic to try. The first issue is it shows a misunderstanding of what a Jury is and what they are their to do. The Jury are their to apply the standard of Guilt, namely that beyond reasonable doubt, the accused did the thing that they are accused of doing, which was against the law. The Jury are not their to make any determination of what the law should be, that is not the Jury's role.

In your case the Jury looked at the evidence, which included you admitting that you grew cannabis, then went away and asked themselves if they really thought you grew cannabis and were absolutely sure that you did a thing you admitted doing, they returned an answer that they thought "Yes, you did grow cannabis". The Jury would have been told that growing Cannabis was against the law, but they wouldn't have been told why it was against the law because the Jury isn't there to answer that question.

The Judge then took the verdict of the Jury, and applied the law to it. The Jury didn't have any say in the sentence you received, chances are they probably don't even know what your sentence was (from the one time I served on a Jury, I don't know what sentence was handed down to the person we convicted, I actually can't even remember his name).

You may well feel hard done by, because the Judge didn't let you mount the defence you wanted to use and may consider this to be your strongest ground. However it's been tried before and it didn't work then and it won't work now. You may want to present your argument that Cannabis does not cause harm, but the court is NOT the place for it. The place to present that argument is to Parliament and to members of Parliament who sit on committees dealing with the laws surrounding the prohibition of drugs.

In regard to your definition of Maxims, no maxim has the power of a statute. I don't know where you got that from or who described them as having that same power. The only phrase or saying that would have any legal power or significance to a court is a very specific part of a judgement called "Ratio Decidendi" look it up and then, instead of looking for "maxim's" look for case law that would help frame the argument you intend to make.

[bopalot]

thomas hobbes. he says they have the same power as a statute. im not saying thats true. im just saying thats what thomas hobbes says. you know who thomas hobbes is yes? he is pretty influential in he way we are governed in this country.

yous are trying to say maxims are meaningless and nothing to do with law. yous are sounding opca now :/

[bopalot]

and how would i ever get the chance to present my argument to parliament? theres no way thats possible.

[Jeffrey]

Bop, we gave you the Bouviers definition of a maxim, they only have the power of a statute if the courts or parliament say it does, otherwise every ridiculous maxim would be applicable. Feel free to look some of them up, there are maxims that endorse slavery, maxims that say women can't hold property, etc etc etc.

You present your argument to parliament by voting and convincing other people to vote in a certain way. That's the system we live in.

[Hyrion]

First off, with regards your "maxim":

theres a maxim, that says words to the effect of "if one is willing to buy a product that could cause harm, the purchaser has consented and its an agreement between them."

Whether or not there's an agreement between two people does not make a particular act legal under Law. So I'd suggest your maxim is not a true maxim in the sense it's universal. Why wouldn't an agreement be Legal? I believe there's this little Law that says "a contract to commit a crime is not a legally binding contract" - roughly paraphrased by one who is not a member of the Legal community (myself).

So while you - a member of Society - may want to believe in that "maxim": it's obvious that it is not a universal maxim as I - also a member of Society - do not accept that as a maxim.

As for Thomas Hobbes:

thomas hobbes. he says they have the same power as a statute.

I find no such quote as you are suggesting from any sources - let alone reputable. Granted, this is a quick 5 minute search. There's a book by Thomas Hobbes, dated 1651, called Leviathan. You can pick up a free electronic copy from the Gutenberg Project. The only mention of "maxim" is in the context:

The Name Of Pontifex

It is also from the Roman Heathen, that the Popes have received the
name, and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. This was the name of him that in
the ancient Common-wealth of Rome, had the Supreme Authority under
the Senate and People, of regulating all Ceremonies, and Doctrines
concerning their Religion:

Don't trust me to quote correctly - just as you should not trust others (such as the OPCA gurus) to quote correctly - the book is available for you to read for free. Confirm what is presented. Here's a quote from Hobbes you might want to think about:

For words are wise mens counters, they do but reckon by them: but they are the mony of fooles, that value them by the authority of an Aristotle, a Cicero, or a Thomas, or any other Doctor whatsoever, if but a man.

I've provided a reliable source to quote Hobbes from: his own authorings. Perhaps you can do the same with regards the "maxim" you are refering to. Otherwise you may very well be mistakenly quoting he-who-is-not-hobbes or perhaps quoting Hobbes out of context. Either of those two will not help you in a Court of Law.

and how would i ever get the chance to present my argument to parliament? theres no way thats possible.

It is absolutely possible. You are not the only person to want their flavor of drug be made Legal. Get together with like-minded people, approach your elected representatives, and lobby to have the Law changed. A few of the States in the U.S. have succeeded in doing so. So claiming that tactic is impossible when it has succeeded is just a bit mistaken.

[PeanutGallery]

Presenting an argument to Parliament is actually quite easy. First you can attend a surgery with your local MP and discuss whatever you want to discuss with them. Your MP should hold a surgery and it's important to remember that they represent you and should listen to what you have to say. If they don't, there is an election coming up and nothing should prevent you from contacting the candidates to find out what their opinion is on Cannabis reform.

If your MP doesn't want to help, then you still have options. You can join a campaign group, such as CLEAR. They are a pressure group who's aim is to use numbers to force a debate in Parliament relating to the legalisation of Cannabis.

You can also put the same arguments to members of the House of Lords. Lords may be better than MP's because they aren't bound by the rules of only representing members of their constituency.

If you didn't want to join CLEAR then you could put your views across through written submissions to the relevant Parliamentary Select Committee, admittedly the last Drugs committee was formed in the 2010 Parliament and one isn't currently running so this may not be an available avenue.

You could also join the Green Party, who also believe in reforming the laws on Cannabis and either stand as a candidate for them or campaign on behalf of their candidate.

Finally if none of these options appealed to you, you could stand as an independent candidate and state your views. While you might not get elected, you would raise the profile of the debate you wished to have.

That is a list of ways and methods by which you could choose to help work with the law towards the reformation you seek. To say it is impossible is often the cry of those who's apathy has led them to not even try. You have enough energy to try and get your voice heard so why not badger your MP about it, they are their to listen to you.

Secondly Thomas Hobbes and his writings may have influenced the development of Political Theory and Political Thought, but they did nothing towards the law. Hobbes was not a legislator or a member of the Judiciary. His statement on Maxims was not binding on any court, his statement was not Law, and never will be no matter how hard you wish it was. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi, Ratio is the only thing with any power in law.

[Pottapaug1938]

A few years back, my son ran for State Representative (as an Independent) for the district where he lived at the time. One of his platform planks was the legalization of cannabis (which he had stopped using by that point). He came in a distant third; but he made a respectable showing in one town in which he didn't even campaign; and even better, he got the Democratic and Republican candidates to support it as well.

Dan is no longer active in the movement (his main interest now is craft beer, and he works at a local craft brewery); but others are still working on the effort:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinio ... sachusetts

[bopalot]

this is the best forum in the world.

im gonna make an appointment with my local mp. ill keep yous posted. thanks.

[bopalot]

leviathan is my fave book too =)

In Thomas Hobbes, Doctor and Student (p. 26), maxims are described as of the same strength and effect in the law as statutes. Not only, observes Francis Bacon in the Preface to his Collection of Maxims, will the use of maxims be in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of the whole law.

[Pottapaug1938]

leviathan is my fave book too =)

In Thomas Hobbes, Doctor and Student (p. 26), maxims are described as of the same strength and effect in the law as statutes. Not only, observes Francis Bacon in the Preface to his Collection of Maxims, will the use of maxims be in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of the whole law.

I wouldn't go that far on maxims, especially considering that Hobbes' statement was made many years ago. In law school (1974-78), I learned legal maxims; but I learned that they are essentially guides to the law, and not law themselves. I never would have used legal maxims in court or in documents without finding a sound legal underpinnings for them.

[Pottapaug1938]

A good article on statutory construction, and the use of maxims in that process, can be found here:

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

Among other things, the article illustrates how a maxim may lead to an erroneous conclusion:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

Our friends in the "sovereign citizen movement" are fond of this maxim; so when they see a law stating that the United States "includes" the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories, they reason that, since the 50 states (or, sometimes, "the 50 Union Republics") are not specifically mentioned, "the United States" does not include any of the states (or "Republics", and thus the law in question does not apply to them. Or, they take the Constitutional grant of certain exclusive legislative power to Congress and decide that, since they do not live within the District of Columbia or a federal base, dockyard, fort etc., Congress has no power to pass laws affecting them.