UK -Jamie Barnes Freeman Cannabis Grower

[Hyrion]

Your citations and clear identifications of your opinion separate from your quotes of other opinions leaves a lot to be desired.

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.

That's a direct quote from Wikipedia. Given Wikipedia's editing policies and the reality that popular opinion can weigh more heavily then the opinion of the original author of a work (which, in reality, should be considered THE authoritative voice of said work):

• you probably do not want to rely on Wikipedia as your source of truth for avoiding experiencing such unpleasantries as prison time

Here's a link to the original work by Francis Bacon: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2443150 ... uble_tract

You can read the original book as scanned in (pdf format) and review the preface yourself. There's only one mention of maxims:

Fiftly, whereas I might have made more flourish and ostentation of reading, to have vouched the authorities, and sometimes to have enforced or noted upon them, yet I have abstained from that also, and the reason is, because I judged it a matter undue and preposterous to prove rules and maximes; [snip]

Having read the entire preface (and no further into the book) the position of Wikipedia is quite mistaken (my humble opinion) with regards the representation of what Francis Bacon authored in his preface with regards maximes and lawwes.

If you wish to continue to rely on the [mis]representations as presented in Wikipedia, or any other non-authoritative source with regards the Law (any Jurisdiction's Laws of any age), then that is up to you.

You should have sufficient information above combined with Francis Bacons original authorings to convince you that you need to find a more authoritative source for your Legal research relative to actual Law and the applications thereof in a real Court.

As a result, I won't be providing any further references for your perusal - this will end my part in the discussion.

[notorial dissent]

bopalot, you are not only wrong about maxims, but you are dead wrong.

That aside, if there is a maxim that you can point to that is on target to the discussion, please feel free to quote it, and the source, "words to the effect" don't cut it here or in court. We really honestly would like to see what you are referring to.

Secondly, if you feel that "thomas hobbes" is to blame for your misfortune, please also feel free to quote his statement(s) about maxims being the same as law, and again, "words to the effect" don't cut it here or in court. Just as an aside, what do you have against capital letters?

PeanutGallery's comments are quite on point, if you think the law is wrong, speak to your representative, assuming you know who that is, and I don't. If that fails, there are several MP's who are of the same persuasion as you and you might see if you can work with them, although as I recall, there track record in Parliament isn't any better than yours, as there seems to be no ground swell of public interest in doing what you happen to want.

[grixit]

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

Switched to a legal drug, huh?

[grixit]

this is the best forum in the world.

Politics is off topic, but civics is nearly always relevant.

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

Please do, albeit probably on one of the more general boards.

[bopalot]

look im hardly learned in law and never have claimed to be. some of you on here are really helpful and some are just dick heads. however. when did i state that the what i said wasnt from wikipedia? ive seen that a few places. do any of you believed i have turned anyone over? or scammed something in any way? i dont get the hostility.

[Jeffrey]

I haven't seen anyone being hostile towards you and I guarantee none of us are trying to act hostile towards you.

Parliament in the UK, Congress in the US, Parliament in Canada, has the power to outlaw substances like marijuana even if it's not harmful or as harmful as other substances. It sucks that you got busted growing it, but there's no way for you to fight this in the courts. You have to do it the way people are doing it, by voting and through activism. There are political parties in UK and Canada working on legalization, in the states although no political parties have officially made it part of their platform there are state-based initiatives for legalization and at the current pace things are going, eventually what you were doing will be legal or will only require a license.

But for now, either don't grow pot or don't get caught and again, unless an actual lawyer told you that you have grounds for appeal and a good chance of winning, don't waste the money and time that an appeal will drain from you.

[notorial dissent]

bopalot, I’m sorry if you’re feeling picked upon, as I am quite sure that wasn’t the intention of anyone posting here, and I haven’t seen anything that leads to any other opinion. Now what I have seen is some VERY just criticism of your attributions. We don’t care if you state your opinion, at least as long as you do it within the parameters of the discussion and politeness, as long as it is obvious that is what it is, or if you quote from some source, but we, or at least I for certain, tend to get really cranky when people post stuff to support their opinions without stating where it came from. We ALL have this deep seated and peculiar fetish of liking to be on the same page as the person posting. They may well have come up with an insight we’d never had before, but we do like to be able to see for ourselves. There is no such thing as a double secret source only the author has.

I will go back to part of the comment that Hyrion made. Wikipedia is a sometimes useful source for quick bits of information, it is however not to be confused with a reliable source. It is often a good starting point, but it is not something I would want to base an entire supposition on.

[littleFred]

Opinions are always interesting, but we need to say whose opinions they are, and we also need to cite the source so that interested readers can see the context. It is too easy to quote a single sentence out of context, giving a misleading impression of what the author actually meant.

The classic example is "Lord Denning said that promissory notes are to be treated as cash", so SovCits claim that everyone is obliged to accept PNs as if they were cash, when Lord Denning did not mean that at all.

[Hyrion]

when did i state that the what i said wasnt from wikipedia? ive seen that a few places.

That's part of the problem:

• you did not state where your quote was from

By not identifying a source, you either inadvertently or deliberately prevent others from reviewing the information and:

• 1: forming their own opinions with regards the potential accuracy

• 2: reviewing any evidence used to support such a clause and provide potential evidence to counter the statement - such as being able to review existing Law in context and see how it might apply to whatever situation was identified

I don't even know:

• 1: if it was Wiki you decided to quote or whether you quoted another source or whether you read that in so many places you were able to author it word for word, puctuation for punctuation, from memory

• 2: if I found the correct work the clause in the Wiki article is intended for

• 3: if the original work linked to in Wikipedia was the work which the statement was extracted from

• 4: if it was a word for word quote out of a specific work

• 5: if it was an interpretation of whoever originally penned that specific statement relating to their understanding of the original work (whatever the original work actually is)

The list of unknowns at this point goes on. That's why it's so very important for you to identify the original source of whatever point you are making that you believe supports your position. It would also be incredibly helpful if you actually identified what you believe your position to be.

do any of you believed i have turned anyone over?

No one has made any such claim in any context that I can see. I have no idea where that potential thought even ties into the discussion anywhere.

or scammed something in any way?

Again, no one has spoken to such a position from what I can see.

Perhaps you can identify a particular post and the context to which the post was authored which you have interpreted as hostile and/or accusing you of "turning someone over" or scamming.

The bottom line is:

When we don't know what point you wish to make in the appeal - we can't help identify associating Laws, cases, citations, etc. with which to help you.

You made what I understood to be a reference to what you believe to be a Legal Maxim that it appears you intended to use in a Court of Law. That is what I understand to be the current context of the discussion. I outlined why you might not want to rely on that and instead focus your energies elsewhere. That's all I did. Consider that definitely non-legal advice in the context of whether or not you want to rely on the "maxim" you quoted to try and avoid prison time or completely ignore it (and everything else I've said) as you wish.

But if you wish us to help you research - then you have to be willing to provide us with more information then you have so far if we're going to be of any real help. Given how little information you've provided, the only help we can really provide is in the constructive criticism department which includes not only identifying why we believe what you have stated is wrong but also includes suggestions on how things can improve, provide advice like lobbying your congressman, etc.

[PeanutGallery]

Firstly I don't think you've harmed anybody or turned anyone over or scammed anybody out of anything. In fact I don't think anybody who is currently involved in this thread thinks that of you. If I have given that impression then I apologise it was not my intent.

I will say that I thought your actions when you were going down the OPCA route were stupid and I stand by that assessment. I think those arguments are not the best ones to make and that they will fail. I believe you now hold a similar opinion and I think that opinion is smart.

Now to deal with the issue you have is that in order to successfully appeal your conviction you need to do one of two things.

Either:

1. Convince the court there was an error in your earlier trial that led to your conviction

or;

• Provide convincing evidence that shows you are in fact innocent of the crime you have been convicted of.

This is a summary of the grounds as detailed on the courts own page on appeals available here.

Based on your own testimony, your statements on YouTube etc, your police interview, I do not think you have any realistic hope of convincing the court of number 2. You admitted to growing Cannabis. I'd also say that the notion of "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in an appeal, simply because you have been proven guilty and must instead prove innocence. That is a much taller order (as now in theory you have to show that you did not do an act or did not intend it).

Therefore I believe you should pin your hopes on number 1, if you wish to appeal. Now I admit I was not privy to your trial, the Judge may well have prevented you from making the argument you wanted to make and you may feel aggrieved about this, I would say that I would feel aggrieved if a defence to a charge I wished to use was ignored, so this would seem to be your best shot. However even though this is your best shot it might not be successful and may not lead to the result you want. The appeal court may well decide that the Judge was right to restrict you from making certain arguments as they may well have been irrelevant to the actual charge.

I don't doubt that you are feeling hard done by and perhaps see any criticism of your plans as being directed at you or in some way highlighting a perceived deficiency. They are not meant as such. We deal with the reality of the situation, if we did not we would be doing you a disservice, we would instead by bigging you up knowing you were going to fall.

[notorial dissent]

bopalot, if I understand what you've said, you believe you should be able to grow and smoke pot. You got busted and taken to court. You publicly admitted to the charges. You lost. Now while I do not pretend to expertise in English courts, they do run pretty much the way ours do, commonality of descent and all that, and when you go in to a court here on a charge, while the theory is that the prosecution has to prove their case, the reality is that they don’t usually go in to court unless they reasonably think they can, which means, in the real world you have to put on a defense, usually that means showing that you didn’t or couldn’t have committed the crime, and that doesn’t mean getting up in court and admitting to the charge with a yes, but explanation. They. Don’t. Care. If you broke the law and it can be proven you will be convicted. As PeanutGallery has pointed out, on appeal the only thing you can go on is that there was some kind of error during the trial that affected the outcome, there most probably wasn’t, or that the law was improperly interpreted or enforced, again doubtful. Basically, legally, you are stuck. At this point your best bet is to talk to the prosecutor and see if you can work out some kind of deal. Having a lawyer probably wouldn’t hurt, but is a bit late.

Otherwise, the only thing that I can see that you are guilty of is lack of clarity in your presentation and thought.

[Hercule Parrot]

and i do intend on appealling. any advice?

Don't do it. I admire your principled position, and I agree with your moral point, but this is about the law. At present cannabis is illegal, just as alcohol was during the US Prohibition Era.

No US defendant ever succeeded on the defence that "a martini doesn't do any harm, so if I want to drink one then it's my choice". It did not matter, and it still does not matter, whether the prohibited substance is objectively safe or dangerous. It doesn't matter, because the law stands regardless.

Take your energy to campaigning, try to change the law. Good luck, seriously.

[notorial dissent]

and i do intend on appealling. any advice?

On what grounds? Ineffective Counsel? You did it to yourself, so I don't think that would fly. Arguing you weren't hurting anyone isn't going to cut it with anyone. You violated the law, you got caught, you got convicted. There really isn't any wiggle room there.

[NYGman]

Quick example:

You blow through a red light late at night because no one was at the intersection. running the red, didn't hurt anyone, no property damage resulted from you running the red. However, a red light camera flashed a picture of you and your car, and you get a ticket. You can not argue that no one got hurt, so it was OK for me to run the red light. While that may be true, this time, the law is still valid, and you will be guilty. No amount of appealing will change the facts, you ran the red, you broke the law, you got a ticket. However, if you don't like the law, have it changed. petition your law makers to change the law, so that maybe after a certain time (eg. midnight) on certain less busy interactions, allow the lights to become either a flashing red (converting it to a 4 way stop) or flashing yellow (converting it to a yield) or a combination ( eg. E/W Flashing red, N/S Flashing Yellow).

However, even if you get the law changed, you still committed an offense when you ran the red light.

[LurkerRob]

Jamie is standing as a candidate for the "Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol Party" in the General Election in Thurruck.


https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/sites/defau ... thur_0.pdf

The Party.
http://cista.org/

Their leader
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32132684

The trouble is his potential voters will be too stoned to make it to the polling station.

I predict 500 votes.

Last election

General Election 2010: Thurrock[7]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6
Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6
Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4
BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1
UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
Christian Peoples Arinola Araba 267 0.6 N/A

[rumpelstilzchen]

Jamie is standing as a candidate for the "Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol Party" in the General Election in Thurruck.

Good on ya, Jamie. I wish you the best of luck.

[notorial dissent]

While I can feel Jamie's pain, well, no I really can't, I think he's a flaming idiot, but he's entitled to his particular idiocy, and if he wants to run for office more power to him. I can't really imagine he'll get all that many votes, single issue candidates seldom do, and in order to get any at all, he and all of his like minded would have to stay sober long enough to actually register to vote, and then remember to do it when the time came, and he'd actually have to get on the ballot, all of which takes time and effort. See my drift here. So I really don't expect big things of our boy Jamie here.

[PeanutGallery]

I also say good luck to him. Sure he may not be likely to win the election, but he is using legal methods to get his campaign into the public eye and to legitimately promote his views. He might be able to get people talking about the legalisation debate. He may pick up some votes, and I rather hope that he does.

[notorial dissent]

If he goes about it the right way and earnestly enough, maybe his position will get co-opted by one of the parties that can do something about it, that is about the only way he is likely to effect the change he wants, but it doesn't much sound to me like the Great British public is much interested otherwise.

[bopalot]

hello my learned friends.

maybe it was me. nevermind, my apologies. anyhow i come bearing good news.

tried posting link here but it didnt work. any how look up the thurrock general election candidates.