Diverse Sanctuary & Designing Your World!

Archive for the ‘LATEST’ Category

H.R.1227 – Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

 

legalize-marijuana-leaf-red-white-blue-flag-300x300

 

 

 

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TODAY AND SUPPORT THIS BILL TO REMOVE CANNABIS/MARIJUANA FROM THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT!

THIS IS THE CLOSEST THING TO A “REPEAL” BILL THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED AND IT IS BEING SUPPORTED BY MOST ACTIVISTS!

 

Find your legislator HERE!

 

To write or call the White House, click here

 

AND FINALLY, WE USE TWITTER!

The White House 

@WhiteHouse

 

President Trump

@POTUS

 

 

February 27, 2017

Mr. Garrett (for himself, Ms. Gabbard, and Mr. Taylor) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL

To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Application of the Controlled Substances Act to marihuana.

(a) In general.—Part A of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“SEC. 103. Application of this Act to marihuana.

“(a) Prohibition on certain shipping or transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

“(b) Penalty.—Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”.

(b) Table of contents.—The table of contents for the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–513; 84 Stat. 1236) is amended by striking the item relating to section 103 and inserting the following:

“Sec. 103. Application of this Act to marihuana.”.

SEC. 3. Deregulation of marihuana.

(a) Removed from schedule of controlled substances.—Subsection (c) of Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended—

(1) by striking “marihuana”; and

(2) by striking “tetrahydrocannabinols”.

(b) Removal of prohibition on import and export.—Section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) in subparagraph (F), by inserting “or” after the semicolon;

(B) by striking subparagraph (G); and

(C) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (G);

(2) in paragraph (2)—

(A) in subparagraph (F), by inserting “or” after the semicolon;

(B) by striking subparagraph (G); and

(C) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (G);

(3) in paragraph (3), by striking “paragraphs (1), (2), and (4)” and inserting “paragraphs (1) and (2)”;

(4) by striking paragraph (4); and

(5) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.

SEC. 4. Conforming amendments to Controlled Substances Act.

The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 102(44) (21 U.S.C. 802(44)), by striking “marihuana,”;

(2) in section 401(b) (21 U.S.C. 841(b))—

(A) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in subparagraph (A)—

(I) in clause (vi), by inserting “or” after the semicolon;

(II) by striking (vii); and

(III) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (vii);

(ii) in subparagraph (B)—

(I) by striking clause (vii); and

(II) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (vii);

(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking “subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D)” and inserting “subparagraphs (A) and (B)”;

(iv) by striking subparagraph (D);

(v) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D); and

(vi) in subparagraph (D)(i), as redesignated, by striking “subparagraphs (C) and (D)” and inserting “subparagraph (C)”;

(B) by striking paragraph (4); and

(C) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively;

(3) in section 402(c)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 842(c)(2)(B)), by striking “, marihuana,”;

(4) in section 403(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 843(d)(1)), by striking “, marihuana,”;

(5) in section 418(a) (21 U.S.C. 859(a)), by striking the last sentence;

(6) in section 419(a) (21 U.S.C. 860(a)), by striking the last sentence;

(7) in section 422(d) (21 U.S.C. 863(d))—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “marijuana,”; and

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking “, such as a marihuana cigarette,”; and

(8) in section 516(d) (21 U.S.C. 886(d)), by striking “section 401(b)(6)” each place the term appears and inserting “section 401(b)(5)”.


All Actions H.R.1227 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

 

03/16/2017
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Action By: House Judiciary

03/03/2017
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Action By: House Energy and Commerce

02/27/2017
Referred to House Judiciary
Action By: House of Representatives

02/27/2017
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Action By: House of Representatives

02/27/2017
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Action By: House of Representatives

02/27/2017
Introduced in House
Action By: House of Representatives


https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1227/all-actions

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1227/BILLS-115hr1227ih.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1227/BILLS-115hr1227ih.xml

Additional LINKS of Information:

http://www.constitutionalcannabis.com/kentucky-house–senate-action-alerts.html

https://www.facebook.com/Kentucky-House-Senate-Action-Alerts-133526500152199/

Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

Source: Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

Thorne Peters and his 4/20 “Potcastathon”

peters

I was very much looking forward to a three hour 4/20 show with Thorne Peters on Facebook.

It was going to be about the use of “No Men’s Rae” when pleading a Marijuana case,  and was featuring several guests along with Mary Thomas-Spears of Kentucky for Cannabis who was offering a different view on the use of this plea in a Court of Law, which apparently Mr. Peters did not wish to hear.  However, he DID invite her to his show for her to give her point of view and I knew it would be a good debate … or at least I thought it would be… 

There has been a much heated environment of late concerning “No Men’s Rae”, particularly on Facebook where both Thorne Peters and Mary Thomas Spears reside.  Both are long time Activists.  Mr. Peters is from Tennessee and Ms. Spears, is a long time Kentucky resident.  Both have had a number of legal cases involving Cannabis/Marijuana and are no strangers to the Legal System. 

RELATED:  Is No Men’s Rae “The plea to SET US FREE” ?

 

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fthorne.peters%2Fvideos%2F1309776462436029%2F&show_text=1&width=560

I, as well, received an invitation from him.  I am assuming because I wrote the article concerning “No Men’s Rae” about  a week ago.

I invite you onto my 4/20 LIVE POTCAST to call in and talk about activism. I will be on from 4:20 pm ET til 4:20 pm PT 3 hours LIVE!

Thu 1:52pm

Psycho Mary will be calling in.

I replied later that day,

Thu 5:05pm

Need a call in #…. Isn’t Mary supposed to be on the show? At what time? Im listening!!!

Chat Conversation End

I knew as soon as I saw that message from him, and the way he referred to Ms. Spears, that it probably wasn’t going to be a fair debate, but thought maybe that was just his way of being “funny”.

Ms. Spears also speaks slowly and has a very deliberate voice, explaining details as she goes, and tries very hard to tell it in a way that everyone will understand.   When someone deliberately tries to talk over the top of her in a conversation, as he did, she can get very annoyed, understandably.  He purposefully spoke above her and never gave her a chance to fully explain herself, and as well actually made  “fun” of her during the “conversation”, (if you could even call it a conversation).  He had previously during the show used an automated voice of her commenting about “No Men’s Rae”, to which she had no chance to respond.  (Please review video starting at @1:55).

Oh and I finally listened to his broadcast and he sounds like he studied one of my broadcast nearly repeats everything I said only in stead of screaming repeal he is screaming no Mens Rea (Rev. Mary)

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmarythomas.spears%2Fposts%2F654968434600555&width=500

 

No automatic alt text available.

Mary Thomas-Spears aka Rev. Mary EITHER IT IS BEING CENSORED OR IGNORED. NEITHER CAN CHANGE THE TRUTH LINK

It suffices to say that I believe that there is no place for this kind of badgering between Activists.  There are a lot of us, we all have differing opinions on a lot of things.  We should not be harassed when being spoken to especially in a public conversation. 

When looking at the comments displayed under the video it seems there where a few with a differing opinion of No Men’s Rae and a few others which were not happy with the way Ms. Spears was treated while a “guest” on his show.

I was very disappointed and I feel it puts a cloud over the issue when a “Host” acts as Mr. Peters did on his show.  Everybody center’s on the ongoing “entertainment” instead of the real issue – the Justice System in this Country.  But then entertainment invites listeners and gets people talking and I’m thinking maybe that was what he was trying to do – use her for entertainment purposes?  I hope that he thinks before being this disrespectful to anyone again!

We will be watching when “No Mens Rae” goes to Court in July!

And yes, I still wish him much luck in his endeavors!

As well, I have much respect for Rev. Mary Thomas-Spears and her opinion.  I have seen years of Activism and teaching as well as actual Court Cases in the  Justice System which she has endured.  She has spent years learning from Activists such as Jack Herer, Gatewood Galbraith,  Ron Kiczenski, Joseph Zoretic as well as educating  Cannabis Activists, including myself, and I have never had her tell me anything that did not prove to be true.

I trust her judgement.

The following is a few excerpts from Facebook Messenger conversations:

Rev. Mary:  His Attack Began on the Comments he left on post on my wall he then starts contacting people on my list I guess to attack me personally… Because then I get this from Jeri Rose…

Jeri Rose:  just got this PM from that man (Thorne Peters), trying Mens R Here is what he wrote: She identifies herself as a psychic. If her victory had any merit, I would not be facing CANNABIS charges and no one else would be arrested…I will accomplish that on July 31, 2017. 750k getting arrested every year, only a brain dead sheeple would declare a legal victory. Getting your own ass off the hook with a begging plea for mercy does none of us any good. Follow the law. NO MENS REA.

Rev. Mary:  At which point I think… Really????That’s what your going to do??? Make personal attacks to my character like a government agent or psych-ops?

Thorne Peters (to Rev. Mary):
I will be reading your take on NO MENS REA from your group post on my LIVE @ 4:20 pm CT POTCAST as a shining example of how even intelligent people can be led astray by flock mentality. Perhaps you should listen to the facts from a court of law. If your position on MENS REA is true, then how come Negroes didn’t follow the laws against them? …

Mary Thomas-Spears:
You are singing to the choir here but your also wrong in your approach
Apr 11
Mary Thomas-Spears:
@Thorne Peters Yes! I know! I already proved that in court = pot is Legal already!
Years ago as you can see by the above!
Problem is, it is still Prohibited by an Unconstitutional CSA!
And you are wrong about how your going about it!
Because of your being out of order…
Order is very important!
I say this to you as someone who has been there and who has been through more from experience in an attempt to help.
Please try to understand that you are contradicting yourself
And they will use it to their advantage because it is what they do
Hear ???

Thorne Peters:
I invite you onto my 4/20 LIVE POTCAST to call in and explain your position. I will be on from 4:20 pm ET til 4:20 pm PT 3 hours LIVE! Call in and set me straight if you are up for it.
Today at 12:11am · Sent from Web

Thorne Peters:
My 35 years as a strip club dj has trained me to win over all audiences . . . my charming wit is undeniable. My deviant style pales in comparison to the evil inflicted by the DA. I am following the law. EWE THE SHEEPLE and The Ministerz of Injustice seek to redefine the law by ignoring the fact there is NO MENS REA for POTHEADZ. You proved NOTHING, because people are still busted for POT After my case the jig is up.
10 hours ago · Sent from Web

Mary Thomas-Spears:
ok good luck with your slide show in Court
10 hours ago

Mary Thomas-Spears:  Still don’t have a number and I am being told by everyone around me not to lend my name to any more of your BS just so you know!

#

I received this message from Rev. Mary:

About my calling myself a psychic…
See these posts here
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=859464480858420&id=287554521382755

I don’t have to be psychic to know his games will not work in their Courts because that is their Game!

Just saying… When he hadn’t read the transcripts from Any Of My Cases or Others Whom I have Advocated on behalf of…. He is Clueless as to how I addressed any thing or What We Proved!!!

and it was all recorded as well by voice recorders and video…

So like I said, he is only helping him and tooting his own horn and really he is just tooting his own horn and helping himself to a jail cell in my humble opinion!

 

PLEASE REVIEW THE LINKS BELOW:

 

https://www.facebook.com/thorne.peters/videos/1309776462436029/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2017/04/13/is-no-mans-rae-the-plea-to-set-us-free/

https://marythomasspearsblog.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/marythomas.spears/posts/654968434600555

https://marythomasspearsblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-most-important-lesson-in-understanding-how-you-are-screwed-by-the-words-used/

https://revmarythomasspears.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-why-and-how/

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1756126138033609&id=100009087183261&ref=bookmarks&refid=52&__tn__=%2As

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1756018908044332&id=100009087183261&ref=m_notif&notif_t=like

SMK

The “Lessor of Evils” as a Defense for Marijuana

 

MARY 2

 

I must start out with a initial plea of Guilty but Innocent in Order to initiate the Process of establishing no “Mens Rae” with the Motion of a “Lessor of Evils” defense, based on having no other choice but evil in the case at hand!

As for guilt, I have none and I have already proven it by my already having plead Guilty and Not! Based on a Motion for a “Lessor of Evils”.

I am then given the chance to introduce all the evidence in Court that in fact proves my innocence and my lack of guilt in the case or crime I am being charged for…

The real two evil choices you/we are currently given in a Marijuana Case is either ~

A)

I/you/we know we are being forced into choosing between the Evil of choosing to “Uphold” an evil Abusive LIE… = Unconstitutional Controlled Substance Act = Prohibition which they created to divide the Market place for double the profit in order to drive prices, as this also allows for more venues or avenues, for them to profit in while they enslave everyone we love… and everything through their unconstitutionally declared “Foreign Synthetic War” on Nature, I mean drugs! The “drug war” which evidence shows has already destroyed too much and too many in America… While be forced to give up my/your already won Supreme Court decision of Leary vs The U.S, which established Constitutional Inalienable Sovereign Freedoms and Rights… While we bend over for Evil…

Or

B) We risk being deemed evil and getting arrested, criminalized, going to prison, or even worse dying… shot by a cop… For doing the right thing and flexing my Constitutional Inalienable Sovereign freedoms and rights to utilize this plant untaxed, which was upheld in the Supreme Courts Ruling in Leary vs The U.S.!

For my/your/our needs and or the needs of others…

Which they have deemed as evil? And want to call me/you/us a criminal for  violating and breaking their Unconstitutional Illegal overreach and Acts of Congress and Statutes… Not Law! to use this non-toxic food as it was freely Divinely and Sacramentally given to us as a nontoxic most nutritious meat first!  As we also now know that we are all in fact, Endocannabinoid based species or life forms and we also know that it is in fact malnutrition that causes the majority of disease and death…

While many are suffering in pain, in jails or prison, starving and dying from not having this food and the genocide and Slaves being caused by all their propaganda Legal Lies – Legalize BS Babble being told by their Big Corporate Industrial Synthetic Military Prison Church Complex!

Just in order for us to… be, eat, heal, sleep, maintain,… Naturally as it was Divinely ordained by/in Nature and/or G-d…

As apposed to being forced to utilize addictive and/or become dependent and/or being poisoned by all of it… Their patented chemical synthetic look alikes… When we know for a fact, that Cannabis/Marijuana is non-toxic… Breaks Addiction and Dependency while it has has so many other good industrial uses… For our sustainability and tranquility!

https://marythomasspearsblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/is-no-mans-rae-the-plea-to-set-us-free/comment-page-1/#comment-5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leary_v._United_States

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-statutory-law-and-constitutional-law

http://norml.org/library/item/introduction-to-the-endocannabinoid-system

Is No Men’s Rae “The plea to SET US FREE” ?

14518195_1791805051103482_1638685857_n

 

April 13, 2017

The debate over whether or not to use “no mens rae” when facing a Cannabis charge in a Court of Law has been brought to the forefront with Thorne Peters who is facing charges for Marijuana and paraphernalia possession which begins on July 31, 2017 in a Memphis, TN Court of Law.

There is always two sides to every story and multiple opinions, therefore I will attempt to present both opinions that I have been offered, as far as the use of no “mens rae” in a Court of Law.

In the first scenario Thorne Peters feels that no “mens rae” or having no guilty mind at the time the charge was incurred, is of itself enough to render a not guilty verdict if given the chance in a trial by jury.

In the second scenario Rev. Mary Thomas Spears differs in opinion as she states that no “mens rae” plead as a defense from the beginning of a trial is not in anyone’s best interest because this plea is meant to establish the fact the the defendant did not, in fact, know that they were guilty of a crime at the time.  It does not mean that you feel you were not guilty at the time because of your beliefs.

In a Facebook message today, Thorne Peters sent the following to me:

Image may contain: 4 people, people standing and outdoor

Judge Neil Gorsuch, of Denver, Colorado, a Supreme Court Justice nominee, (now confirmed) defends the lawful right of people using drugs and cannabis, as well as a variety of consensual acts currently prohibited.

In his 2006 book, “Assisted Suicide and the Right to Euthanasia”, Gorsuch claims that people have the right to die, kill themselves or join suicide pacts. He also supports the rights of citizens to use drugs, commit prostitution and even sell their body parts.

“If a person has the right to die, they also have the right to use drugs.”

Gorsuch claims the legal standard of “mens rea” (the guilty mind) does not apply to consensual acts.

In Memphis, since February 2015, CANNABIS Proactivist THORNE PETERS, known as “THE KINGPIN”, has been using a “no mens rea” defense against Possession for sales of CANNABIS charges . . . a case that has been set off for trial on two different occasions and is currently reset for trial in Division 1 on July 31, 2017 . . . 29 months after the arrest.

Judge Paula Skahan explained to Peters that “no mens rea” is a matter for the jury to decide. Peters claims the State is reluctant to go to trial because there are no legal grounds to proceed because he had “no mens rea.”

“When I make my case to the jury at THE TRIAL OF THE MILLENNIUM, I will prove my rights are being violated and we will have the legal mantra to end CANNABIS Prohibition. “NO MENS REA!”

Peters notoriously ran a “420 Friendly Nightclub” in Millington, TN which was closed as a Public Nuisance in 2009. He spent 19 months in jail fighting drug trafficking charges that were dropped. Peters was arrested for toking POT from an apple at the courthouse on 4/20/2011. In 2014, he spent a year dealing POT on Facebook; making YouTube videos that he posted to the walls of the local authorities seeking to be arrested. “The only way to make our case is to make the jury understand there is no mens rea. We must follow the law; not seek to change it.”

Once again Peters will represent himself, only this time he claims his case will represent all of CANNABIS Universe.

A case for NO MENS REA cannot be defeated in court, because we have no accuser and we have consent. Like it was in the JIM CROW south, we are being violated by political policies enforced with criminal codes that oppress us.

We will be following this trial till its conclusion, so stay tuned.


MOTION TO DISMISS POT BUST

Thorne Peters·Sunday, November 15, 2015

snapshot

“It is not against the LAW to grow deal and toke POT! It is against an unjust Political Policy known as PROHIBITION, which is as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as JIM CROW!”~ THE KINGPIN THORNE PETERS!
“ILLEGAL v. UNLAWFUL” . . . a distinction with the greatest difference. LINK


JUDGE PAULA SKAHAN (TN),

“….As far as “Mens Rae”, those are issues for a trial in front of a jury…” 


Now comes a differing opinion from Rev. Mary Thomas-Spears and the group of “Americans for Cannabis” which is also a repeal organization.

407802_10150588781162994_1598323166_n
Mary Thomas-Spears shared Constitutional Cannabis‘s post to the group: Kentucky for Cannabis™.

From another educational page of mine here on FB… –

Constitutional Cannabis

First Lesson to remember in Law is – That despite what you believe all the words mean… That those words are translated back to their Latin Definitions by the Courts = like Doctors

The Judges, Lawyers,… Use Latin Words and Terms to communicate and do their business!

“Where being a good Catholic boy pays off!” ~ Gatewood Galbraith

So your first lesson is? They do not want you to know what they are saying as they hide the true meanings of the words… While they taught you to read a Webster’s Dictionary….

They use Black’s Law Dictionary or West Business Law for the most part.

It is very important to note that both of these Dictionaries quote Cannon Law.

As the Law is an extension of the Law of G-d handed down or Canonized by the Roman Catholic Church and or Mosaic Law.

Just as Government is the extension of, incorporation or Corporation, Corpse = Dead Body of the Administration or Ministry established by the Church for Control and Profit = why the Church is Tax Exempt and why Courtrooms look like churches with pews…

Any questions??? About any of this?

Continuing on…

Bernard Lucas

I have a question for you Mary. I see a number of cannabis activist’s promoting a #NoMensRea (No Guilty Mind) To be used as a cannabis defense when charged with cannabis possession in a court of law. I have not seen any documentation or court cases, or defendants having their cannabis case dismissed by using the plea #NoMensRea? I don’t think activist’s should be promoting this defense when courts may be most likely to ignore this defense? Would you please be able to clear up this possible misconception and set us straight on this defense?

Mary Thomas-Spears

TY! Bernard Lucas for asking a question that I have asked myself, as it is a good question!
The question is #NoMensRea ?
No!!! I do not promote the use of this defense
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/basicElements/CommonLawMensRea.asp
Why???
I am not an Attorney so you can not construe this as Legal Advise as I share my understanding from research and experience only.

Making that your Defense is like making an Insanity Defense in my opinion.
Which is nearly impossible for most conscious people to pull off…

Why? It has to be proven or established to at least what?  Cast doubt upon a Jury…
I can see more than one problem with this defense in any Court in any case where it may be proven that the defendant was aware of the Laws in Question? Or the Charges brought before them… Or where they did anything covertly = any attempt to hide what they was doing… Or was not out open and upfront with their actions on….

Why? Because all the Prosecution has to prove at this point is, were you aware of the Law(s) and did you knowingly intend to break the Law = you intended to commit harm upon the State or Feds… As they are claiming to be the victim at this point.
It opens a can of worms that is hard to keep alive in the Courtroom without addressing their unconstitutional over reach… Like their claiming to be the victim!

Common Law Mens Rea

nationalparalegal.edu

 

Bernard Lucas

“Excellent answer Mary. Just as I had thought about it from my research. Kentucky for Cannabis™ and all Americans For Cannabis groups, pages etc. Will not be promoting anything like this defense. Which may send a defendant the wrong message.”

In another post on Facebook Mary states the following in response to a discussion with Thorne Peters,

I CHALLENGE ANYONE ATTACKING ME AND DEFENDING #ThornePeters to document ONE CASE where his Motion for #NoMansRae has ever worked in a Courtroom when filed in the ORDER of Process in which he had ADVISED OTHERS to FILE it .

As I have already stated – IN MY OPINION- THE PROPER ORDER OF LEGAL PROCESS IS,

One friend wrote – “Her point is you have to be Arrested first!”  That isn’t my point at all but it is true.  No and Yes! Yes, you must first be arrested,

No,

HE IS OUT OF ORDER IN THAT  you have to first be willing TO ACCEPT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU KNOW, =  the current LAW WHICH YOU CHOSE TO BREAK.  You know you chose to break an Unconstitutional Act of Congress!  An Unconstitutional Act that is an Evil Lie! = ADMIT YOUR GUILT = START BY FILING A PLEA OF GUILTY BUT INNOCENT BASED ON A MOTION OF “LESSOR of EVILS” as YOUR DEFENSE  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH  #NoMansRea. Otherwise you are pleading insanity in these cases.   I am just saying  that they know that you knew you were choosing to break the law = commit evil according to them! The next comment I have later added for clarity fact is – Unless you follow the Order of Process given above how will you be able to prove your case?  Because unless you first admit you knowingly broke an Unconstitutional Law,  how will you ever get to introduce the evidence that it is in fact, an unconstitutional, evil law? You can’t.

Common Law Mens Rea:

Mens rea, or “guilty” intent, deals with what the defendant needs to have been thinking at the time he or she committed the actus reus* for criminal liability to attach. In order to be guilty of most crimes, the defendant must have had the mens rea required for the crime he was committing at the time he committed the criminal act. As with the actus reus, there is no single mens rea that is required for all crimes. Rather, it will be different for each specific crime. LINK

*(ac·tus re·us /ˌaktəs ˈrēəs,ˈrāəs/ noun  / Law noun: actus reus / action or conduct that is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused)


Mens Rea:
The state of mind that the prosecution, to secure a conviction, must prove that a defendant had when committing a crime.


Sheree 2009

In conclusion, first of all I do not think it is in anyone’s best interest to go into a Court of Law as a defendant and a defense attorney!  It is not a great idea to represent yourself in any circumstance, especially in trial.  Secondly, I would never try to use No mens rae because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the statutes will deem me guilty as charged if I tried to say I did not know marijuana was illegal!  **I definitely know that Marijuana is illegal – according to the statutes which the Government now have in place to regulate commerce – it makes it an offense to the Government that I was using, possessing or giving away Marijuana.  And I KNOW this.

Rather, if I were to pursue a trial by jury I would make a guilty plea and then use a “lesser of two evils” defense.  Because of the fact that I have a disability for which Marijuana is  “the lesser of two evils” versus a strong pharmaceutical pain reliever, I may be able to convince the jury to nullify my verdict.  Mind you that this is just an example but I think it explains the concept.  As Rev. Mary so eloquently explains to me…

**It is all good except where you say you know Marijuana is illegal! You know Gatewood and I already proved that it isn’t.

It is the “trafficking” or possession of a “controlled substance” = not an illegal substance but rather “Controlled“. Controlled by what ? An unconstitutional Act of Congress! That is illegal, not the Substance = you already have a established constitutional right to use marijuana = it is Legal through taxation = the marijuana tax act repealed by Leary = they can’t tax your right to use or possesses!

(What the hell Sheree ? You don’t believe Gatewood ? Or Leary vs the US?? And I respond, of course I know this Mary!  What the hell??  But evidently I must have used the wrong word somewhere, lol)

It is the currency = trafficking = entering the market place That’s controlled!!!

That becomes illegal when you violate the CSA, (Controlled Substance Act), as they are only given authority over Currency, the Market Place and Foreign War and why they can’t tell you what you can consume unless your eating the cash or currency it’s self!

Don’t be misleading by saying you know Marijuana is Illegal because the Constitution is the highest law in the land and according to it it isn’t !

You can say you know that entering the market place = when currency enters in – the trafficking in a “controlled substance” is illegal but not the substance it’s self!

And I respond by saying “Thank you for that clarification, Mary”!

It will be interesting to see how the trial proceeds in July.  I think it goes without saying that we all wish #ThornePeters the best of luck in his endeavor!  I hope that when it’s over Thorne can walk out of the Courtroom a free man and we can all get together and light up a big fat joint and celebrate the fact that we no longer have to feel guilty for breaking the Law to smoke a damn joint!

sk

 

Notes, Links, and definitions of interest:

Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Latin for “guilty mind”[1][2][3]) is the mental element of a crime. It is a necessary element of many crimes.  The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”. In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus (“guilty act”) and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code#Mens_rea_or_culpability

https://www.facebook.com/thorne.peters/videos/1293329740747368/

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/petersthorneopn.pdf

http://wreg.com/2015/02/05/man-known-for-marijuana-advocacy-in-jail-again/

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/petersthorneopn.pdf

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8317.html

https://www.facebook.com/MaryL.Thomas.Spears

https://www.facebook.com/MaryL.Thomas.Spears/posts/1755983124714577

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1756018908044332&id=100009087183261&ref=m_notif&notif_t=like

Yeah, I’m still around!

Testing the damn blog!

Laches? WARNING: Don’t Forfeit Your Rights!

LACHES –
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/laches
This word, derived from the French lecher, is nearly synonymous with negligence.
     2. In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice, and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which it is discretionary and not compulsory in the court to afford. In courts of equity, also delay will generally prejudice. 1 Chit. Pr. 786, and the cases there cited; 8 Com. Dig. 684; 6 Johns. Ch. R. 360.
     3. But laches may be excused from, ignorance of the party’s rights; 2 Mer. R. 362; 2 Ball & Beat. 104; from the obscurity of the transaction; 2 Sch. & Lef. 487; by the pendancy of a suit; 1 Sch. & Lef. 413; and where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, coverture, infancy, and the like. And no laches can be imputed to the public. 4 Mass. Rep. 522; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 291; 4 Hen. & Munf. 57; 1 Penna. R. 476. Vide 1 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 436; 2 Id. 170; Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t.; 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3911.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
laches n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of “legal ambush.” Examples: knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of “affirmative defenses” in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the “statute of limitations” which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.).
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
A defense to an equitable action, that bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s undue delay in seeking relief.
Laches is a defense to a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks equitable relief. Cases in Equity are distinguished from cases at law by the type of remedy, or judicial relief, sought by the plaintiff. Generally, law cases involve a problem that can be solved by the payment of monetary damages. Equity cases involve remedies directed by the court against a party.
Types of equitable relief include Injunction, where the court orders a party to do or not to do something; declaratory relief, where the court declares the rights of the two parties to a controversy; and accounting, where the court orders a detailed written statement of money owed, paid, and held. Courts have complete discretion in equity, and weigh equitable principles against the facts of the case to determine whether relief is warranted.
The rules of equity are built on a series of legal maxims, which serve as broad statements of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident. The basis of equity is contained in the Maxim “Equity will not suffer an injustice.” Other maxims present reasons for not granting equitable relief. Laches is one such defense.
Laches is based on the legal maxim “Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.” Laches recognizes that a party to an action can lose evidence, witnesses, and a fair chance to defend himself or herself after the passage of time from the date the wrong was committed. If the defendant can show disadvantages because for a long time he or she relied on the fact that no lawsuit would be started, then the case should be dismissed in the interests of justice.
The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. Cases in law are governed by statutes of limitations, which are laws that determine how long a person has to file a lawsuit before the right to sue expires. Different types of injuries (e.g., tort and contract) have different time periods in which to file a lawsuit. Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations. However, unlike statutes of limitations, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief.
Real estate boundary disputes are resolved in equity and may involve laches. For instance, if a person starts to build a garage that extends beyond the boundary line and into a neighbor’s property, and the neighbor immediately files a suit in equity and asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the construction, the neighbor will likely prevail. On the other hand, if the neighbor observes the construction of the garage on her property and does not file suit until the garage is completed, the defendant may plead laches, arguing that the neighbor had ample time to protect her property rights before the construction was completed, and the court may find it unfair to order that the garage be torn down.
The laches defense, like most of equity law, is a general concept containing many variations on the maxim. Phrases used to describe laches include “delay that works to the disadvantage of another,” “inexcusable delay coupled with prejudice to the party raising the defense,” “failure to assert rights,” “lack of diligence,” and “neglect or omission to assert a right.”
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Picture

Picture

Nullify – Nullification?

NULLIFY
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nullify
verb abolish, abrogate, ad inritum redigere, annul, cancel, cast aside, counteract, countermand, declare null and void, deprive of efficacy, deprive of legal force, disannul, dissolve, invalidate, make useless, make valueless, make void, negate, neutralize, obliterate, offset, override, overrule, overturn, quash, recall, recant, render invalid, renege, repeal, repudiate, rescind, retract, reverse, revoke, suspend, vacate, vitiate, void
See also: abate, abolish, abrogate, adeem, alleviate, annul, balk, cancel, contravene, counteract, defeat, destroy, disable, disavow, discharge, disinherit, disown, disprove, dissolve, eliminate, eradicate, expunge, extinguish, extirpate, frustrate, invalidate, kill, negate, neutralize, obliterate, override, overrule, overthrow, quash, recall, recant, renege, repeal, repudiate, rescind, revoke, supersede, terminate, vacate, vitiate, void, withdraw
JURY NULLIFICATION
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.
The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the “triers of fact,” while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict. The most widely accepted understanding of jury nullification by the courts is one that acknowledges the power but not the right of a juror or jury to nullify the law. Jury nullification is most often, although rarely, exercised in criminal trials but technically is applicable to civil trials as well, where it is subject to civil procedural remedies such as the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
In criminal cases, however, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes final a jury trial that results in an acquittal, and it guarantees freedom from Double Jeopardy. This gives juries an inherent power to follow their own consciences in reaching a verdict, notwithstanding jury instructions or charges to the contrary.
QUASH
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1693
v. to annul or set aside. In law, a motion to quash asks the judge for an order setting aside or nullifying an action, such as “quashing” service of a summons when the wrong person was served.
RESCIND?
http://thelawdictionary.org/rescind/
To abrogate, annul, avoid, or cancel a contract; particularly, nullifying a contract by the act of a party. See Powell v. Linde Co., 29 Misc. Rep. 419, GO N. Y. Supp. 1044 ; Ilurst v. Trow Printing Co., 2 Misc. Rep. 3G1, 22 N. Y. Supp. 371.
(Black’s Law Dictionary)
UNCONSCIONABILITY?
http://thelawdictionary.org/unconscionability/
Degree of unreasonableness and unfairness of a contract or deal prompting a court to modify or nullify it.
UNCONSCIONABILITY DOCTRINE?
http://thelawdictionary.org/unconscionability-doctrine/
Legal principle where a court will modify or nullify conditions of contract placing one party at the other’s mercy.
VOID
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/void
That which is null and completely without legal force or binding effect.
The term void has a precise meaning that has sometimes been confused with the more liberal term voidable. Something that is voidable may be avoided or declared void by one or more of the parties, but such an agreement is not void per se.
A void contract is not a contract at all because the parties are not, and cannot be, bound by its terms. Therefore, no action can be maintained for breach of a void contract, and it cannot be made valid by ratification. Because it is nugatory, a void contract need not be rescinded or otherwise declared invalid in a court of law.
A void marriage is one that is invalid from its inception. In contrast to a voidable marriage, the parties to a void marriage may not ratify the union by living together as Husband and Wife. No Divorce or Annulment is required. Nevertheless, parties frequently do seek, and are permitted to seek, such a decree in order to remove any doubt about the validity of the marriage. Unlike a voidable marriage, a void marriage can be challenged even after the death of one or both parties.
In most jurisdictions a bigamous marriage, one involving a person who has a living spouse from an undissolved prior marriage, is void from the outset. In addition, statutes typically prohibit marriage between an ancestor and descendant; between a brother and a sister (whether related by whole blood, half blood, or Adoption); and between an uncle and niece or aunt and nephew.
A judgment entered by a court is void if a court lacks jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter of a lawsuit. A void judgment may be entirely disregarded without a judicial declaration that the judgment is void and differs from an erroneous, irregular, or voidable judgment. In practice, however, an attack on a void judgment is commonly used to make the judgment’s flaw a matter of public record.
A law is considered void on its face if its meaning is so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to the statute’s application (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 2d 322 [1926]). due process requires that citizens receive fair notice of what sort of conduct to avoid. For example, a Cincinnati, Ohio, city ordinance made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and conduct themselves in a manner that was annoying to passersby. A conviction carried the possibility of a $50 fine and between one and thirty days imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions of several persons found guilty of violating the ordinance after a demonstration and picketing (Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 [1971]). The Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it subjected citizens to an unascertainable standard. Stating that “conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others,” the Court said that the ordinance left citizens to guess at the proper conduct required. The Court noted that the city could lawfully prohibit persons from blocking the sidewalks, littering, obstructing traffic, committing assaults, or engaging in other types of undesirable behavior through “ordinances directed with reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited.”
ABROGATE
http://thelawdictionary.org/abrogate/
in a Finance Dictionary
1. To nullify a contract by means of mutual agreement. 2. To officially abolish a law.
Read more: Search for “nullify” | The Law Dictionary
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nullify

Picture

Maxim of law?

MAXIM of law – Government can only control what it creates. (The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.)
Nature and Natures God is the law and is what gives life to man and his “Rulers” and no legislative rule of a society can prohibit the very thing that gives it life. Legislative “rules” only have force of law, and no rule can take from the very law that gives it force.
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 256:
“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”
MAXIM –
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Maxim
A broad statement of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident. A rule of Equity, the system of justice that complements the Common Law.
Maxims were originally quoted in Latin, and many of the Latin phrases continue to be familiar to lawyers in the early 2000s. The maxims were not written down in an organized code or enacted by legislatures, but they have been handed down through generations of judges. As a result, the wording of a maxim may vary from case to case. For example, it is a general rule that equity does not aid a party at fault. This maxim has been variously expressed:
No one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault.
Equity does not relieve a person of the consequences of his or her own carelessness.
A court of equity will not assist a person in extricating himself or herself from the circumstances that he or she has created.
Equity will not grant relief from a self-created hardship.
The principles of equity and justice are universal in the common-law courts of the world. They are flexible principles aimed at achieving justice for both sides in each case. No maxim is ever absolute, but all of the principles must be weighed and fitted to the facts of an individual controversy. A rule does not apply when it would produce an unfair result. A party cannot insist that a strict technicality be enforced in his or her favor when it would create an injustice because equity will instead balance the interests of the different parties and the convenience of the public.

CONTINUE READING…

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: