'NJ Weedman' welcomes his arrest on marijuana charges

NJweedman has done much for the cause.

To be meek? Whispering in the wind? Nah, better to speak clearly.

Good luck Nj and keep up the good fight.:)
 
VIDEO -- To My Jury!!!

.
.
.
CLICK THIS IMAGE TO SEE VIDEO


​



I PLAN ON CHALLENGING THE LAW​


I plan on fighting my case with a large amount of publicity and in your face truthfullness. - Some may call it be a radical. I dont, im a LEO anyway so it's just my nature. Im going to be openly calling for my JURY to simply say NOT GUILTY - to invoke Jury Nullification and invalidate the current criminal laws of New Jersey. Even if i dont actually win, there is no doubt in my mind i will be presenting a case that others will emulate. I have said since the 90's that Jury Nullification was the way to win this war on us. -- i dont agree with the slow approach of gradual medical marijuana laws sweeping the country then start another round of total legalization (hundreds of thousands of citizens will be imprisoned in the meantime (maybe even me). I believe that the laws are changing way to slow. THE government both state and federal now know that marijuana is not a schedule 1 drug. It is clear ( so says least 14 states, including NJ) that marijuana was wrongly classified as a schedule 1 drug, and the government(s) should re-classify it and legalize it. PERIOD


phrozen said:
Site was started in 1999.
Click to expand...
Exactly what i said - "in the 90's i used to post here." - Occasionally i come here just to read the post that link to me. I have a reverse hit counter on my site and can see where hits are coming from. Over the years ive been talked about here at bluelight on more than one occasion. IN 1999 I think i was a little ahead of my time for the conservative types here at bluelight, mj has become even more mainstream now and i noticed not as many haters as before.



Those who say shut up, or we dont want to hear your mouth - usually have nothing to say or do themselves. They just sit behind their screen names and act like they are more intelligent, more knowledgeable etc., etc., etc., but most of those types also have no balls.

 
Last edited:
njweedman, I've been arrested in New Jersey for weed before, all I can say is, I'm glad somebody like you is out there willing to tell the state government their laws on marijuana are just ridiculous. You and I both know the only reason NJ pot laws are so harsh is because there are budgets to balance and cops to keep employed, in the face of rampant corruption and falling rates of real crime. I say it's about time a state full of liberal, progressive minded people start having laws that reflect this!
 
Ive never understood the < ounce of weed being the only thing decriminialised/legalised/acceptable... IMO police should have to prove intent to distribute, not base on quantity..

Of course 1 tonne of bud aint gonna be personal use, i dont see how any man could smoke that before it went all mouldy...

Anyways, take it to them man. Put it plain and simple. I think its a great start.
 
NJWeedman:

Isn't jury nullification a tenuous defense, considering it isn't necessarily a legitimate defense in the eyes of the law in NJ except for libel and you used it before and the judge commented that he was surprised the prosecutor didn't object, from the Philadelphia Inquirer 9/20/2000:

In his opening statement, Forchion asked the jury to invoke its power to nullify the law under which he was charged - even though two Superior Court judges had affirmed the prosecution's request that he not be allowed to advertise the concept.

As Forchion was finishing his statement, he said he was surprised that Wynne had not objected to his bringing up the nullification power.

Judge Stephen W. Thompson interjected, "So am I."

Wynne declined to comment.
Click to expand...

BTW I had problems pulling up many pages from your website that I had visited before, but fortunately google (and others) cache some pages. Hope you're not having hosting problems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for jury nullification but good luck unless you're in Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, or Oregon where it is a more accepted defense (and good luck even then). I think jury nullification is a sensible defense, but as many might expect most of the legal establishment (prosecutors, judges, etc) seem to take a dim view of it and may suppress jury nullification arguments. Most attorneys I know wouldn't advocate a jury nullification defense due to the slim chances of winning or getting a good deal with such a defense.

Also, I believe many people who get roped into jury duty (and aren't excused by prosecution or defense) tend to be older, law and order types and aren't as likely to favor marijuana or nullification as the general public, as it's mostly younger (and busier) Americans favoring marijuana decriminalization according to most polls I've seen.

As I'm a sceptic in general I don't believe you posted on a Bluelight made up of "conservative types" in 1999, the site was founded 'here' late 1999, or could say what forums were here then, what the site focused on primarily, what's come and gone since or what the TLD of this website was without doing any research. I'd certainly like to know when and where you found an abundance of conservative, cop types and racists here, I've never known that to be the makeup of this community or something those running the site would approve of or allow.

I don't know who else some of your comments regarding hiding behind screen names and not having any stones would be aimed at but me. Fine, let hatred in to your heart and direct it at me, someone it seems you make assumptions about (race, religion, outspokenness, intelligence, guts, etc) and yet know practically nothing about. I sincerely wish you get the best outcome from your trial.

But again, selfishly, I wish that those involved with marijuana distribution in a not completely illegal manner to maintain a profile that is seen as respectable to the voting public.

Who do we, the people, want to be the face of decriminalization: outspoken people with "square" backgrounds and jobs and minimal (if any) criminal history like George Soros, John Sperling, Peter Lewis, Rep. Ron Paul, those running MAPS, the Drug Policy Alliance and similar organizations, or someone who has criminal convictions and a controversial history that most of voting mainstream America would likely label a radical and be offended by?

George Soros is largely credited with breaking the Bank of England and the success of Georgia's Rose Revolution, I think Soros and the other super rich and powerful named above should be trusted to be the face of marijuana decriminalization or find him/her as they have the $ to get anyone. They can provide a large percentage of funds needed for decriminalization efforts without it really hurting them financially. I'd far rather it was George Soros (nothing personal against him, of course) or the like arrested and fighting, employing the most brilliant legal minds trying to get marijuana decriminalized, or legal precedent set, in court due to an incident such as the one NJWeedman is the victim of.
 
Mr weedman, good luck with your case and with your approach.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the legalization of other drugs, or drug prohibition in general?

I would heed what T-2 is saying, we need warriors to end modern prohibition, and we also need to be careful how we present ourselves in the straight court of public opinion.

I have one story about a great patriot against the war on drugs. That was Marion Barry, mayor of DC from 1979-1991. While serving as mayor of this countries' capital, he was an outspoken critic of the drug war. He drew the line with PCP, but no ones perfect. Anyway, he became a target of the establishment and the FBI tapped him smoking crack with hookers in a hotel room in 1990. He did a 6 month jail stint for that. The silver lining in this case, he was elected to city council after he got out and was re-elected mayor of DC for the term 1995-1999. I think he is still in the city council. Anyway, he slogan was something like "Marion might not be perfect, but he's perfect for DC."

This countries cannabis laws were rooted in simple racism- because one racist prick, HR Hearse, misused the 1st Amendment to get federal drug laws enacted just to be an asshole- even Aslinger, 1st directory of the FBN (forerunner of the FBI) was opposed to a national ban on cannabis- he felt it should be left up to the states (at 1st at least).

Today we who use or have ever used illegal drugs are the oppressed minorities- whose civil rights have been trampled.

ps- in your defense, don't forget the Decleration of Independence.
 
Last edited:
slimvictor said:
So true.
But in numbers, we are a huge minority!
Click to expand...

This is why I have a special place in my heart for anyone who openly champions the cause of drug law reform, who doesn't even like or use drugs themselves. Kind of how I respect bohemians who continue to fight for the rights of the downtrodden (and not just drug users), even after they themselves are successful. With such people, I can be absolutely sure they're motivated entirely by principle and the good of the whole, and not by self-interest.
 
thinctwo said:
But again, selfishly, I wish that those involved with marijuana distribution in a not completely illegal manner to maintain a profile that is seen as respectable to the voting public.

Who do we, the people, want to be the face of decriminalization: outspoken people with "square" backgrounds and jobs and minimal (if any) criminal history like George Soros, John Sperling, Peter Lewis, Rep. Ron Paul, those running MAPS, the Drug Policy Alliance and similar organizations, or someone who has criminal convictions and a controversial history that most of voting mainstream America would likely label a radical and be offended by?

George Soros is largely credited with breaking the Bank of England and the success of Georgia's Rose Revolution, I think Soros and the other super rich and powerful named above should be trusted to be the face of marijuana decriminalization or find him/her as they have the $ to get anyone. They can provide a large percentage of funds needed for decriminalization efforts without it really hurting them financially. I'd far rather it was George Soros (nothing personal against him, of course) or the like arrested and fighting, employing the most brilliant legal minds trying to get marijuana decriminalized, or legal precedent set, in court due to an incident such as the one NJWeedman is the victim of.
Click to expand...

At least you concede that it is 'selfish' of you to wish for only supposedly respectable people being involved in cannabis law reform.

Everyone, and anyone, who has an ounze of respect for humanity, and justice, should get involved.

I happen to think NJWeedman is highly respectable; no pun intended. Maybe not to the puritanical, bible belt, redneck, racist and corrupt elements which inhabit some quarters of America; but 'anyone' who would stand up for justice wins my respect. Any one who challenges, illogical, racist based, inequitable laws which seek to place so many 'millions' of people in 'cages' for possesion of a 'plant' should be commended; not ridiculed; even if such ridicule is perhaps veiled and based upon ignorance and personal beliefs which are so at odds with precisely with what NJ is fighting against.

Might you like to put forward your view of why you think NJweedman is not respectable...either to you, or the 'voting public' as you put it? What has he done to lose your's, or other members of the public's respect? Was it that he was shafted by his Ex? Or the dread-locks? Prior cannabis convictions?

Could it be, that people such as NJ are more reflective(if one would like to use vissual references) of exactly the types of people who are all too often 'caged' because 'Mr rich white man' started this 'war' on people who are Mexican, black, poor, or uneducated; while the white boys are more likely to be set free? If that is true, maybe NJ is the perfect person to be representing the interests of all those people who are not being represented and subsequently 'fucked over'? Perhaps he is a recognisable face that such minorities, and indeed 'all people'...all 'good people', can relate to; and that which would get to the heart of the issue? Ie Black, dread-locks...possibly not well off...so many blacks in 'cages' precisely because no one is representing them?

Are you proposing that NJ hire a Harvaard white boy lawyer because he'd be percieved as respectable? pfft.

Sorry to be a bit harsh on you - I can tell you mean well - but you did come across to me any way, as an insulting to NJ the way you seemingly compared him to the super wealthy or other 'faces' which 'some' might consider more 'respectable'.

And while people such as George Soros, have contributed much money toward ending cannabis prohibition, which is good, it could easily be argued that he is a crook through and through having made billion$ just off financial transactions the integrity of which would be questionable to say the least. So too some of the other 'billionaires' - how many rocks did they crush to aquire such a massivly disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth? Of course 'they' should at least 'give' back a 'small portion' of what they took off others. The money comes from somewhere doesn't it? Off of labour primarilly. It's just that when Goldman sacks and Enron and Xerox and Worldcom and all the other financial guru's and lawyers are thought of as respectable because they are white and wear suits and ties...and can ussually buy their way out of the 'cage' while the Hispanic is caged mercilessly for 20 years because he possessed a plant is considered a 'low life' - maybe NJ is setting an example for every one?

As if George Soros or any of such ilk would ever fight a real battle.

Good luck NJ - wishin you well, and may the truth set you and all the captives free.
 
-thinctwo- As I'm a sceptic in general I don't believe you posted on a Bluelight made up of "conservative types" in 1999, the site was founded 'here' late 1999, or could say what forums were here then, what the site focused on primarily, what's come and gone since or what the TLD of this website was without doing any research. I'd certainly like to know when and where you found an abundance of conservative, cop types and racists here, I've never known that to be the makeup of this community or something those running the site would approve of or allow.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to just lie about something as petty as that. - I went to prison in 2000 (Dec 1st), but by then i had be banned from here. Your screen name doesnt look familar so i wasnt even referring to you. The only name i remember from back then i think was TROUBLE_42 or something like that. He still stalks me around the forums calling me names etc., etc., etc., .

He has a negative rant about me now at marijuana.com -

NJ CONST Art., 1, par., 6​
In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Click to expand...

The key words being ALL PROSECUTIONS ​
Im being prosecuted, I want to tell the truth about marijuana to my jury and i want my jury to judge the law as well as the facts in this case.

I'll reply to others too. Just was checking my e-mail real fast and saw this.
 
jspun said:
Mr weedman, good luck with your case and with your approach.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the legalization of other drugs, or drug prohibition in general?

I would heed what T-2 is saying, we need warriors to end modern prohibition, and we also need to be careful how we present ourselves in the straight court of public opinion.

I have one story about a great patriot against the war on drugs. That was Marion Barry, mayor of DC from 1979-1991. While serving as mayor of this countries' capital, he was an outspoken critic of the drug war. He drew the line with PCP, but no ones perfect. Anyway, he became a target of the establishment and the FBI tapped him smoking crack with hookers in a hotel room in 1990. He did a 6 month jail stint for that. The silver lining in this case, he was elected to city council after he got out and was re-elected mayor of DC for the term 1995-1999. I think he is still in the city council. Anyway, he slogan was something like "Marion might not be perfect, but he's perfect for DC."

This countries cannabis laws were rooted in simple racism- because one racist prick, HR Hearse, misused the 1st Amendment to get federal drug laws enacted just to be an asshole- even Aslinger, 1st directory of the FBN (forerunner of the FBI) was opposed to a national ban on cannabis- he felt it should be left up to the states (at 1st at least).

Today we who use or have ever used illegal drugs are the oppressed minorities- whose civil rights have been trampled.

ps- in your defense, don't forget the Decleration of Independence.
Click to expand...


-----

Im not a hypocrite - part of my arguement is this is my body and i'll put whatever i want in it. The law has no claim to my body i chose to put marijuana in it. - So with that said if someone wants to put coke, or herion in his body he should be allowed to also. - ( In my opinion - All drugs should be legal, but regulated. - Especially mj)
 
blah said:
Might you like to put forward your view of why you think NJweedman is not respectable...either to you, or the 'voting public' as you put it? What has he done to lose your's, or other members of the public's respect? Was it that he was shafted by his Ex? Or the dread-locks? Prior cannabis convictions?
Click to expand...

Um, it seems that you are setting up a "straw man" to argue against, and claim racism or bias.

Thinctwo said "respectable to the voting public", and I believe that it is very clear what s/he meant.

The use of cannabis isn't "resepctable" to the voting public in general (as evidenced by the fact that cannabis is still illegal in all states), and dreadlocks and prior convictions will make him lose the respect of many mainstream people.

Note that I am not saying that this is reasonable or correct in any way. In fact, I believe that anyone who loses respect for someone because of their hairstyle is a small-minded ignorant fool. And I certainly wouldn't lose respect for someone due to their use of cannabis, or any drug.

However, what Thinctwo was saying is very clear. Many, many people are small-minded, ignorant fools. Thinctwo is not (based on what s/he said).

There is no need to set up a straw man and scream "racism" or "bias" based on what was said. We are all on the same team here, so in-fighting is unnecessary and not productive. We all want the legalization of all drugs (I may be assuming too much here, but it is my working assumption), and we are discussing ways to achieve that. Let's be cooperative and try to further the discussion.
 
Slimvictor...there may have been 'shades' of 'strawman' in my post, but I was trying to extrapolate upon what Thinctwo was 'suggesting' rather than necessarily painting he/she as a prejudiced racist pig.

When Thinctwo mentions the 'voting public' with reference to what is 'respectable' to them...I think that such a mind-set is exactly the very thing which should be challenged. Not with suits necessarily, but with the truth no less, regardless of the speaker, ie dread-locks or no dread-locks.

I'd also say that while there are some, or many extremists in America who do adhere to a 'war mongering directive' at the expense of all mankind...I believe that the majority are perfectly capable of distinuishing between a wolf and a lamb no matter the external charactertistics apparent. It is just that a small portion who hold most of the power, decieve, lie, cheat and steal for their own ends. 'They' are not interested in justice.

Clearly, it is not so much that Americans are stupid as much as gullible in that it is the minority 'media'(brain washing) which has put forward some idea that people such as NJ are not to be respected for persueing justice on the basis that he has dread-locks or past convictions. What is 'main-stream' again? Is it the bullshit Faux news would have every one believe, or is it something more tangible, ie human beings? Did not Faux news 'sell' an illegal war to the American public? You know the one, one million dead Iraqis(and counting) for the oil. That wasn't a case of stupid Americans, but a most despicable deception.

I do agree though; many people are small minded ignorant fools. But just because they are that, or racist, or engaged in corruption, does not mean that activists or others who seek equity, peace and justice, should pander to such small mindedness and become that which they oppose to do so.

I can fully appreciate what Thinctwo was saying though, it's just that I consider this approach to be disingenuous at best, and at worst, paradoxically fueling the very thing which created prohibition in the first instance, ie a lack of diversity=racism.

So the medical marijuana in California is taking off. Good for them. What are they now, some kind of high priests?

P.S: I do not believe all drugs should be legalised. Not for one moment. Personal possesion(very small amounts) perhaps, but not distribution etc.
 
this is a good fight and all movements have/need their radicals. i hope this babylon law doesn't end up harming you too much weedman. legalize it, decriminalize it, and i man, mr. mehm will advertise it. sinsemilla
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top