Legal Help

[Joseph Hart]

I know the laws so its not really legal help as much as a question of Should I? (and no I'm not high right now )

Last year I was charged with 'POSS MARIJUANA/1ST OFF' and 'DRIVING/POSSESSION OF CTRL SUB'.(these are the actual charges so i left it to its technical abbreviation)

I was dismissed with DRIVING/POSSESSION OF CTRL SUB by the judge and FILED/NOLO PLEA on the other charge.  Which I regret because the court-provided-lawyer was supposed to represent me yet said nothing during the pretrial.  My community service hours are almost complete and will be complete for the 1 year requirement.  I do not plan on going to jail nor want to pay further fees to this stupid state.

Now the reason I am asking for legal help.  I'm willing to ask several questions at my "reassignment" when I present my serviced hours to the court.  I do not want to mail the filed report of hours committed(security reasons).  When I do so, I want to ask several question to the court about public safety while 'POSS MARIJUANA/1ST OFF' and 'DRIVING/POSSESSION OF CTRL SUB'.  I'm sure its not really pushing my luck but I want to bring concern to the court that I caused no harm to anyone else, also, that I was not in proportion of their danger to the public health, also, that the drug was my own and not intended for the flow of substances in commerce and in health as to prevent their improper diversion.  (This next part will push their buttons) Since my rights were and are justified, the powers of investigation, enforcement, and adjudication were not required to implement the presented purpose and the established system of substance control, which is, uniform with the laws of the United States and of its states.  If I caused no harm, intended no harm, and that I posed no danger to the public's health, since the amount confiscated was merely resin and could not be used for further usage, why was I arrested?

Notice, I was not charge for DUI.

The Charges and Court Ruling: http://courtconnect.courts.ri.gov/pls/ri_adult/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=61-2007-15543&begin_date=&end_date=
The Law:

TITLE 21
Food And Drugs
CHAPTER 21-28
Uniform Controlled Substances Act
ARTICLE 21-28-1.01
Short Title and Definitions
SECTION 21-28-1.01

   § 21-28-1.01  Short title and declaration. – (a) This chapter may be cited as the "Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act", and shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose.

   (b) The general purposes of this chapter are as follows:

   (1) To establish a more rational system of regulating substances which may pose a danger to the public health;

   (2) To create a system for classifying the substances relative to their abuse potential, their medical utility, and their likelihood of creating dependency;

   (3) To fix penalties for the sale, possession, or manufacture of substances which are in proportion to their danger to the public health;

   (4) To develop a system of tracing the flow of substances in commerce and in health as to prevent their improper diversion;

   (5) To establish and define the powers of investigation, enforcement, and adjudication required to implement the above purposes; and to establish a system of substances control which is, to the extent possible, uniform with the laws of the United States and of its states.

[jzacker]

Now the reason I am asking for legal help.  I'm willing to ask several questions at my "reassignment" when I present my serviced hours to the court.  I do not want to mail the filed report of hours committed(security reasons).  When I do so, I want to ask several question to the court about public safety while 'POSS MARIJUANA/1ST OFF' and 'DRIVING/POSSESSION OF CTRL SUB'.  I'm sure its not really pushing my luck but I want to bring concern to the court that I caused no harm to anyone else, also, that I was not in proportion of their danger to the public health, also, that the drug was my own and not intended for the flow of substances in commerce and in health as to prevent their improper diversion.  (This next part will push their buttons) Since my rights were and are justified, the powers of investigation, enforcement, and adjudication were not required to implement the presented purpose and the established system of substance control, which is, uniform with the laws of the United States and of its states.  If I caused no harm, intended no harm, and that I posed no danger to the public's health, since the amount confiscated was merely resin and could not be used for further usage, why was I arrested?

You want the judge to tell you why you were arrested? 

Are you suggesting you should have gotten a ticket?  Or are you suggesting that marijuana should be legal? 

The thing about judges is that you have to lead them to the result you want.  That's what lawyers do, they never ask the judge to resolve a legal question, the TELL the judge why they should rule in THEIR favor.

So, think about what you want the result to be, then work towards that result.  So, what do you want the result to be?

[Joseph Hart]

Ill edit it to "present to the court" rather than the judge.

The purpose is to inform the court that I was within the general law.  To spread the word.  Ill take Ridley Report's recent advice and bring a camera. I did not pose a danger to the public health.  Then I start to sing Ben Harpers song "Burn One Down"

[jzacker]

Ill edit it to "present to the court" rather than the judge.

The purpose is to inform the court that I was within the general law.  To spread the word.  Ill take Ridley Report's recent advice and bring a camera. I did not pose a danger to the public health.  Then I start to sing Ben Harpers song "Burn One Down"

Well you already plead guilty to the crime, so coming in now and saying 'i was within the law' sounds disingenuous.  and I know you plead NOLO, but that's really the same as pleading guilty in the eyes of the court.  So, you're going to be telling an audience to whom you previous plead guilty that you were within the law.  No one likes to listen to someone who contradicts himself.

What you may consider doing is telling the court that this experience has opened your eyes to the inherent flaws with our current drug laws and drug enforcement.  By doing this, you can express to the court that you have 'learned' something, but you can still stick to your belief that you didn't hurt anyone.  See, no contradictions!  Instead of arguing law, you argue policy.

[Lumpy]

Ill edit it to "present to the court" rather than the judge.

The purpose is to inform the court that I was within the general law.  To spread the word.  Ill take Ridley Report's recent advice and bring a camera. I did not pose a danger to the public health.  Then I start to sing Ben Harpers song "Burn One Down"

Well you already plead guilty to the crime, so coming in now and saying 'i was within the law' sounds disingenuous.  and I know you plead NOLO, but that's really the same as pleading guilty in the eyes of the court.  So, you're going to be telling an audience to whom you previous plead guilty that you were within the law.  No one likes to listen to someone who contradicts himself.

What you may consider doing is telling the court that this experience has opened your eyes to the inherent flaws with our current drug laws and drug enforcement.  By doing this, you can express to the court that you have 'learned' something, but you can still stick to your belief that you didn't hurt anyone.  See, no contradictions!  Instead of arguing law, you argue policy.

jzacker, what if he has a compelling story explaining that he did not understand, it was never explained to him, etc.?  I know that sounds wimpy but if he does it right, and I'm sure he can have a bunch of us show up (I will) with him to the court in solidarity.  Am I barking up the wrong tree here or what?  As a matter of protest, he was a victim and he had no idea what the implications would have been had he known he had other options which were not explained by thee court, not that it's their job these days.  Am I making sense?

[jzacker]

Ill edit it to "present to the court" rather than the judge.

The purpose is to inform the court that I was within the general law.  To spread the word.  Ill take Ridley Report's recent advice and bring a camera. I did not pose a danger to the public health.  Then I start to sing Ben Harpers song "Burn One Down"

Well you already plead guilty to the crime, so coming in now and saying 'i was within the law' sounds disingenuous.  and I know you plead NOLO, but that's really the same as pleading guilty in the eyes of the court.  So, you're going to be telling an audience to whom you previous plead guilty that you were within the law.  No one likes to listen to someone who contradicts himself.

What you may consider doing is telling the court that this experience has opened your eyes to the inherent flaws with our current drug laws and drug enforcement.  By doing this, you can express to the court that you have 'learned' something, but you can still stick to your belief that you didn't hurt anyone.  See, no contradictions!  Instead of arguing law, you argue policy.

jzacker, what if he has a compelling story explaining that he did not understand, it was never explained to him, etc.?  I know that sounds wimpy but if he does it right, and I'm sure he can have a bunch of us show up (I will) with him to the court in solidarity.  Am I barking up the wrong tree here or what?  As a matter of protest, he was a victim and he had no idea what the implications would have been had he known he had other options which were not explained by thee court, not that it's their job these days.  Am I making sense?

No, he can't say, 'I did not understand.'  It would be a lie, and the judge would be insulted.  Insulting the judge should not be his goal.  His goal should be to voice his dissatisfaction with the way the law and the courts treat good people.  Frankly, I think he should argue that 125 hours is too high and his community service should end.  That would be a valid and reasonable argument, and it would be appropriate to bring up in court.  At that time, he could also talk about the law and policy.

Railing at judges, although fun, isn't very productive unless you can put it into a context the judge can understand and process.  Don't go into court saying, "This is wrong!  This is immoral!"  It's a court of law, not a court of morality.  You should go in and argue law and policy.  Those are the things judges understand.  And since the law isn't on his side, argue policy.

[Lumpy]

Ill edit it to "present to the court" rather than the judge.

The purpose is to inform the court that I was within the general law.  To spread the word.  Ill take Ridley Report's recent advice and bring a camera. I did not pose a danger to the public health.  Then I start to sing Ben Harpers song "Burn One Down"

Well you already plead guilty to the crime, so coming in now and saying 'i was within the law' sounds disingenuous.  and I know you plead NOLO, but that's really the same as pleading guilty in the eyes of the court.  So, you're going to be telling an audience to whom you previous plead guilty that you were within the law.  No one likes to listen to someone who contradicts himself.

What you may consider doing is telling the court that this experience has opened your eyes to the inherent flaws with our current drug laws and drug enforcement.  By doing this, you can express to the court that you have 'learned' something, but you can still stick to your belief that you didn't hurt anyone.  See, no contradictions!  Instead of arguing law, you argue policy.

jzacker, what if he has a compelling story explaining that he did not understand, it was never explained to him, etc.?  I know that sounds wimpy but if he does it right, and I'm sure he can have a bunch of us show up (I will) with him to the court in solidarity.  Am I barking up the wrong tree here or what?  As a matter of protest, he was a victim and he had no idea what the implications would have been had he known he had other options which were not explained by thee court, not that it's their job these days.  Am I making sense?

No, he can't say, 'I did not understand.'  It would be a lie, and the judge would be insulted.  Insulting the judge should not be his goal.  His goal should be to voice his dissatisfaction with the way the law and the courts treat good people.  Frankly, I think he should argue that 125 hours is too high and his community service should end.  That would be a valid and reasonable argument, and it would be appropriate to bring up in court.  At that time, he could also talk about the law and policy.

Railing at judges, although fun, isn't very productive unless you can put it into a context the judge can understand and process.  Don't go into court saying, "This is wrong!  This is immoral!"  It's a court of law, not a court of morality.  You should go in and argue law and policy.  Those are the things judges understand.  And since the law isn't on his side, argue policy.

That makes more sense to me.  System, system, system...    Grrrrr!

[Joseph Hart]

Ill edit it to "present to the court" rather than the judge.

The purpose is to inform the court that I was within the general law.  To spread the word.  Ill take Ridley Report's recent advice and bring a camera. I did not pose a danger to the public health.  Then I start to sing Ben Harpers song "Burn One Down"

Well you already plead guilty to the crime, so coming in now and saying 'i was within the law' sounds disingenuous.  and I know you plead NOLO, but that's really the same as pleading guilty in the eyes of the court.  So, you're going to be telling an audience to whom you previous plead guilty that you were within the law.  No one likes to listen to someone who contradicts himself.

What you may consider doing is telling the court that this experience has opened your eyes to the inherent flaws with our current drug laws and drug enforcement.  By doing this, you can express to the court that you have 'learned' something, but you can still stick to your belief that you didn't hurt anyone.  See, no contradictions!  Instead of arguing law, you argue policy.

jzacker, what if he has a compelling story explaining that he did not understand, it was never explained to him, etc.?  I know that sounds wimpy but if he does it right, and I'm sure he can have a bunch of us show up (I will) with him to the court in solidarity.  Am I barking up the wrong tree here or what?  As a matter of protest, he was a victim and he had no idea what the implications would have been had he known he had other options which were not explained by thee court, not that it's their job these days.  Am I making sense?

No, he can't say, 'I did not understand.'  It would be a lie, and the judge would be insulted.  Insulting the judge should not be his goal.  His goal should be to voice his dissatisfaction with the way the law and the courts treat good people.  Frankly, I think he should argue that 125 hours is too high and his community service should end.  That would be a valid and reasonable argument, and it would be appropriate to bring up in court.  At that time, he could also talk about the law and policy.

Railing at judges, although fun, isn't very productive unless you can put it into a context the judge can understand and process.  Don't go into court saying, "This is wrong!  This is immoral!"  It's a court of law, not a court of morality.  You should go in and argue law and policy.  Those are the things judges understand.  And since the law isn't on his side, argue policy.

Well I could say that since it was my first time in court I felt extremely nervous and had anxiety at the time.

This is why I posted this in the Civil Disobedience forum.  I'm going to, hopefully, intimidate the court with a video camera

[Lumpy]

"Well I could say that since it was my first time in court I felt extremely nervous and had anxiety at the time.

This is why I posted this in the Civil Disobedience forum.  I'm going to, hopefully, intimidate the court with a video camera "

I'll be there if you want Joe.  Email me the date or let me know here.  It might help to have some solidarity with regard to getting more people from the 802-meetup and pointing cameras everywhere.  I'll be more than happy to keep my mouth shut and point the camera when the time comes.  I have some other AV equip that might also help.  Yes, of course, I'll wear a tie, cuff links, etc.

[CSAnarchist]

Well..... if they didn't give you a DUI charge then I guess that was their fault.

I am not a drug used so I honestly would not know.

If you did your service hours I guess you are ok.

I once got 2 months of community service for starting a riot at a Wal Mart because they kicked a man out simply because he wanted a refund for his medicine; FDA approved mind you.

So I guess you're ok.... I think.