NJWEEDMAN refuse's to comply with NJ - DNA LAW!

'This is another case of "NJWEEDMAN" standin up for your rights'



The Gov. and the stooges in the New Jersey state legislature may not care about the CONSTITUTION but I do. I'm willing to suffer the consequences for standing up in protection of the constitution in the face of these FACIST POLITICIANS who regularly ignore the protections of the Constitution and the principals of freedom this country stand on in enacting new laws.


McGreevey signs DNA sampling bill into law

The Associated Press

September 23, 2003

TRENTONN.J. - Drivers who get traffic tickets will now be paying a little extra to fund the state's new law that requires the collection of DNA samples from every convicted criminal in New Jersey

The state intends to collect samples from more than 140,000 criminals in the next two years and will pay for the team of 40 scientists that will conduct the processing with a $2 surcharge on traffic tickets. The surcharge is expected to raise about $8.2 million a year. 

The new scientists at state police labs will cut the time it takes to analyze crime scene samples from 210 days to 30, authorities said. Officials said previously that the additional scientists would also reduce a backlog of the processing of more than 1,100 criminal cases.

Gov. James E. McGreevey signed the bill into law Monday at TrentonPsychiatricHospital, which houses the state's criminally insane and will be where the DNA samples will be taken. The governor then went behind bars to watch the DNA sampling process, which involves rubbing a swab inside the mouth, performed on Corrections Commissioner Devon Brown.

McGreevey and other officials touted the new law as a crime-fighting measure. By increasing the state's DNA database, police can crack down on career criminals by identifying and tracking them after their first conviction, they said.

"To repeat offenders, we know who you are, we're coming after you and you're going to be behind bars," McGreevey said.

Anyone convicted of a crime, from the most serious felony down to simple assault, will now be required to provide a DNA sample. The 110,000 people already in prison or under the supervision of parole or probation officers also are to have their DNA cataloged. Those who finished parole or probation before the new law was signed are not required to provide a sample.

Officials said the new law would make investigations and prosecutions more effective and would help exonerate the innocent.

Previously, authorities collected DNA samples only from those convicted in sex crimes, kidnappings and homicides. The state's database now contains only 10,000 DNA samples collected since 1995.

New Jerseyis the 24th state to require some form of sampling from all convicted criminals. Attorney General Peter Harvey said other states have had success in solving long-dormant homicides and other cases since implementing DNA sampling.

Harvey predicted the New Jersey law would survive any legal challenges and said it does not interfere with a defendant's right to due process.

"This isn't just a measure to convict," the attorney general said. "It's also a measure to exonerate."

Nevertheless, civil liberties advocates say they are concerned.

Ed Barocas, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the state has gone too far since its initial testing law, which required samples only from sex offenders.

"Once the government was given that inroad it has expanded beyond belief," Barocas said. "Now a 13-year-old who shoplifts will have his DNA code collected by the government and maintained throughout his life.

"We're becoming more and more of a surveillance society."

S.J. parolee tries to block DNA testing

Courier-Post Staff 

Thursday, October 2, 2003

New state law forces convicts to give samples for database

PembertonTownship parolee is seeking an injunction in the Federal U.S. District Court (Camden) to block a law that requires anyone convicted of a crime in New Jersey to provide a DNA sample for a state database. 

The law also requires the 110,000 people already in prison or under the supervision of either a parole or probation officer to submit DNA by providing saliva samples. 

"It's just another example of the government interfering with people's lives," said Edward Forchion, who is enrolled in the state's Intensive Supervision Program. 

Forchion, who tried to change his legal name to NJWeedman.com, is head of the Legalize Marijuana Party. 

He was sentenced to 10 years in prison in December 2000 for possessing 25 pounds of the drug. He served 17 months before being admitted to the 20-month parole program in April 2002. 

Forchion, who received a letter from the state warning he could be arrested if he fails to submit to the testing, filed a motion for the injunction Tuesday in Federal Court on the grounds that the measure is an ex post facto law

He claims the law - which Gov. James E. McGreevey signed Sept. 22 - retroactively alters defendants' rights by increasing the punishment imposed at the time a crime was committed. 

Forchion said his parole is over and he is awaiting a court date to formally declare him a free man. He said he served his time, and that his plea bargain and sentence mentioned nothing about providing a DNA sample.

The law may not be considered punishment, but rather a bill that protects the public, said Perry Dane, a RutgersUniversity law professor. 

"There's been similar debates on the sex offender registry statutes," Dane said. "Even in that context, the courts have upheld sex-offender registration.

"This seems to be a new form of identification, and the state certainly has the right to maintain information on former prisoners," Dane added. 

The state intends to collect DNA samples from more than 140,000 people in the next two years. A $2 surcharge on traffic tickets will pay for the process.








On Oct. 16th, I was informed that the above "challenge" was dismissed due to a technicality and I would have to re-file. 



(filed Oct 24th, 2003

"NJWEEDMAN" challenging state law
involving incarceration and DNA
By John Reitmeyer
BCT staff writer 
Oct. 5th, 2003

Marijuana activist Ed "njweedman" Forchion of Pemberton Township is challenging a recently enacted state law that requires all state prisoners and parolees to submit DNA samples. 
Forchion, who is serving a parole term for a marijuana-distribution conviction, has filed an injunction in federal court in Camden that would exempt him from complying with the state's new DNA sample law

Forchion argues the new law is simply an "ex post facto," or after-the-fact, form of punishment that is also an illegal invasion of his privacy. 

The new law Forchion is challenging was signed by Gov. James E. McGreevey on Sept. 22. The law is seeking to boost the state's database of DNA evidence by expanding the crimes for which DNA samples are collected. 

Before the law was enacted, only offenders who committed violent crimes or serious sex offenses were required to submit DNA samples. Now, anyone convicted of burglary, weapons offenses, theft of items above $250 and other fourth-degree offenses must submit DNA samples. The law also applies to all offenders currently in state prison or those being supervised by the state through parole or probation programs. 

The governor and state legislators touted the law as a way to enhance criminal investigations with a bigger database of DNA evidence. The new law also tacked $2 onto every traffic fine collected in the state to pay for upgrades to DNA-testing laboratories and to hire at least 40 new scientists. 

Forchion, however, said the law should not apply to people who have previously been convicted of a crime because the U.S. Constitution protects additional protects additional punishments from being added to the original penalities after the fact. 

By a quirk of luck and timing two days after NJWEEDMAN filed his motion on Constitutional grounds theU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled the Federal DNA data base was unconstitutional! – This should have some impact on NJWEEDMAN’s case.

Court Strikes Down U.S. Prisoner DNA Law
Oct. 3, 2003

The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court has declared a 3-year-old law that requires federal inmates and parolees to give blood samples for the FBI's DNA database to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

In a 2-1 decision handed down Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 on grounds that the routine sampling denied inmates and parolees of their Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches.

Law enforcement officials, according to the opinion, wrongly took the blood samples because there was no legal suspicion that the convicts were involved in other crimes.

The Justice Department declined comment.

Government lawyers had argued that taking blood was no different than taking fingerprints. Two of the panel's three judges, however, rejected that proposition as a "false analogy."

Equating fingerprints and blood "obscures the constitutional difference between invasive procedures ... and an examination or recording of physical attributes that are generally exposed to public view," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

The ruling could have a sweeping impact on criminal cases in California and other states.

Blood samples taken from federal prisoners and those on supervised release have been used to convict hundreds of people on crimes such as murder and rape. It was too early to say whether those convictions would survive, said Monica Knox, a deputy public defender of Los Angeles.

Knox also said the decision, if it stands, could nullify state laws that require the taking of blood from inmates and parolees. The court covers Alaska,ArizonaCaliforniaHawaiiIdahoMontanaNevadaOregon and WashingtonState.

"Most states have similar laws," Knox said. "This could gut those."

Most of the 1.4 million genetic profiles in the FBI's database are from prisoners and parolees, said bureau spokesman Paul Bresson. The FBI does not track the number of samples in the database that match physical evidence collected from unsolved crimes.

California, however, does track that number, said state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Matches have occurred about 400 times, including one that led to the conviction of a man in the 1993 rape and murder of two San Diego youths.

Scott Erskine, 40, was serving a 70-year term on unrelated rape charges when his blood matched semen taken from the 1993 crime scene. Last year, his blood also was linked to evidence taken from the 1989 rape and slaying of a Palm Beach County, Fla., woman.

It was not immediately clear whether the decision would allow those who have given blood to have it withdrawn from the databank, for use by police nationwide.

The case decided Thursday concerned Thomas KINCADE, on parole for a Los Angeles bank robbery who refused to give a sample. A lower court judge had upheld the law.

Knox said she expected legal battles on whether the ruling, if it survives appeals, would be applied differently to parolees and those still in prison

"I believe the opinion applies to prisoners, too," Knox said. "There will be more litigation on this, I'm sure."

The San Francisco-based panel said its decision does not overturn rules that, for example, allow random drug testing of students who play school sports. 

In dissent, Judge DiarmuidO'Scannlain said recent Supreme Court precedents did not require the court to conclude the DNA act was unconstitutional because convicts have fewer rights than nonconvicts.

In addition, he said the court in 1995 sided with an Oregon law requiring certain convicts to submit to a DNA registry - a ruling he said should stand. 

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and overturned federal appeals court in the country. The court's three-judge panels are known for several contentious rulings, including one that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools and a decision last month that postponed California's recall election. That ruling was later overturned by a larger 9th Circuit panel. 


Other stories on the Net:


Read the opinion: 


November 11th, 2003

Link to Forchion's 'WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Suit Seeks Limits on DNA Sampling
Broadened law challenged as unconstitutional invasion of right to privacy

Jim Edwards
New Jersey Law Journal

When New Jersey's law requiring anyone convicted of a crime to hand over a DNA sample was enacted on Sept. 21, it reminded Ed Forchion - a marijuana-legalization activist better known as "NJWeedman" - of Minority Report. 

In Minority Report, a short story by sci-fi author Philip K. Dick that became a movie starring Tom Cruise, crime rates are reduced to zero as the police arrest people for wrongs they only plan to commit. 

The new law is an ominous step toward that Big Brother-type scenario, Forchion believes. As DNA will be used to solve crimes that have not yet been committed, he says, it requires searches of people who are not yet suspects. 

"When you watch that movie, you're thinking, this is incredible. They're arresting people and convicting them of a future crime. And now they're taking our DNA," Forchion says. "You're not supposed to round people up for future crimes. I figured I'd be the one to step up and challenge it right away." 

On Oct. 23, Forchion filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in U.S. District Court in Camden. He is challenging the constitutionality of the law on the basis that it requires an invasive search without probable cause and wrongly applies retroactively to those who made plea deals in which DNA was never discussed. 

Forchion's rap sheet is too long to be described here - he's been arrested more than 30 times - and his list of self-generated press cuttings is even longer. He's currently in the Intensive Supervision Program after being released from a 16-month jail spell on a marijuana-dealing conviction. 

Not surprisingly, eight days after Gov. James McGreevey signed the expansions to the DNA Database and Databank Act, N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.17 (amended at PL 2003, c. 183), Forchion received a letter from his ISP judge, Superior Court Judge Shirley Tolentino, demanding that he "submit to having a blood sample drawn, or other biological sample collected, for purposes of DNA testing." 

In the past few weeks, thousands of similar letters have gone out across the state as county sheriffs' departments and ISP officials gear up to take cheek swabs from former criminals who thought they had paid their debt to society. 

The state Parole Board had taken 970 cheek swabs at its 13 offices across the state as of last Thursday, according to Executive Director Michael Dowling. Between 11,000 and 12,000 people are in the parole system at any one time, and all eventually will provide the state with their DNA. 

As a result, criminal defense attorneys have been fielding telephone calls from former clients worried about the new requirement. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has received about 30 such calls so far. The original law and amendments in 2000 had focused only on serious crimes, such as sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, endangering and luring a child, and certain aggravated assaults. 

Forchion's challenge has gotten some attention. The ACLU last week filed an amicus brief in the case, Forchione v. Bartlett, Civ. A. No. 02-4942. "Mr. Forchion is seeking only a preliminary injunction, and it's clearly reasonably likely that he will succeed on his challenge to the DNA law as the Ninth Circuit has already come to that conclusion," says Edward Barocas, the ACLU's legal director. 

Barocas refers to the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 2 holding, in United States v. Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095, that an armed robber on parole was within his rights to refuse to provide his blood for a DNA database. The case involved the "most fundamental and traditional preserves of individual privacy, the human body," the court wrote. To allow DNA collection would be to allow suspicionless searches prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. 

County prosecutors in New Jersey, however, take a jaded view of Forchion's motion. They argue that Forchion should have thought about his privacy rights in 1997, before he was caught delivering a 100-pound bale of marijuana hidden in a cooler to his brother. 

"Convicted offenders forfeit certain rights even under the constitution. This may be one of them," says Burlington County Prosecutor Robert Bernardi. "It seems to me that the state has a compelling interest in developing this database which would override the rights of these individual defendants to be able to refuse to give a sample," he says. 

As for the Minority Report scenario, "I don't buy that argument," says Andrew Yurick, a former GloucesterCounty prosecutor and president of the New Jersey Prosecutors' Association. "We're not assuming they'll do anything, we're hoping they don't commit other crimes. But about 80 percent of those who commit crimes commit more than one." 

Post-Plea Sampling 'Debatable' 

Two prosecutors allow that Forchion's ex post facto argument - that his plea deal is wrongly being altered to include this DNA test - may be his strongest. 

"Truthfully, I believe he might have a point on the retroactivity," says Passaic County Prosecutor James Avigliano. "If someone enters a plea agreement and this was not part and parcel, I can understand why they would be upset at this," says Avigliano, though he supports the law. 

Bernardi also pauses for thought on that issue. "That's obviously a debatable question," he says. "I'm sure [the Attorney General's Office] had their people research this so it would withstand constitutional scrutiny." 

Attorney General Peter Harvey, whose lawyers wrote the law, and Deputy Attorney General Christopher Josephson, who is defending the case, decline to comment. 

A similar ex post facto issue in Megan's Law involving community notification of a released offender's presence had its constitutionality tested in a string of state and federal courts, with the most recent ruling coming in August, in A. A. v. New Jersey341 F.3d 206. That decision reiterated the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in March, in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, that the new, post-conviction burden on the offender was a necessary collateral effect of the state's more compelling need to prevent child abuse. 

The meat of the ACLU's interest, however, is to prevent the state from legalizing a generalized search without cause or suspicion. DNA does more than merely definitively identify someone the way fingerprints do; medical history and eugenic information is also potentially divinable from a DNA source. 

"What makes this case compelling is that this is bodily fluid," says Lawrence Lustberg, a partner at Newark's Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, GriffingerVecchione who wrote the brief with Gibbons fellow Gitanjali Gutierrez. "The Supreme Court has long viewed taking bodily pieces, blood or swabs or anything, as among the greatest intrusions that you can imagine, so that's the standard by which we think this could be judged. What could be more personal or private than your DNA?" 

Bernardi rejects that. The genetic sample itself isn't being kept, he points out, just the lab information that describes it. "The sample is only being tested for one thing, only a DNA profile. They're not testing for hepatitis B or a drug screen or any type of disease at all. It's strictly DNA. So I don't see that as an invasion of privacy," Bernardi says. 

U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas has yet to set a date for oral arguments. 





On Nov. 20th, 2003 the ISP re-sentencing panel released me from ISP effective on Dec. 3rd, 2003. (SEE: RELEASED FROM ISP ). The ISP re-sentencing panel did not order me to submit to DNA sampling. Yet on Nov. 26th, members of the Attorney Generals Office came by my house an delivered a letter ordering me to give a sample on Dec. 2nd, 2003. (SEE: CODIS-LETTER).


retrieve my DNA from your lips!

Man cited for defying demand for DNA sample

Courier-Post Staff 

PEMBERTON TWP. - A township man who refused to submit DNA samples to the Department of Corrections was issued a contempt of court citation Thursday. 

Ed Forchion was scheduled to submit a DNA saliva sample to the Camden County Probation Office on Tuesday Dec. 2 as part of a new law requiring samples from people in prison or under the supervision of either a parole or probation officer. 

Instead, Forchion sent a defiant letter to Gov. James E. McGreevey and the Department of Corrections. 

"I won't be there. I refuse to surrender my DNA!" Forchion said in the letter dated Nov. 27. 

Forchion said he received several phone calls Tuesday Dec. 2 from the state's Intensive Supervision Program informing him he would be found in contempt of court and possibly arrested. 

Forchion said the DNA testing violates ex post facto law and was not a condition of his 10-year prison sentence in December 2000 for possessing 25 pounds of marijuana. He served 17 months before being admitted to a 20-month intensive supervision program in April 2002. His parole ended at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday.Dec.3. 

"If they passed the law after I got convicted I wouldn't even be fighting this," he said. "You either have the Constitution or you don't. You don't go making exceptions to it along the way." 

On Thursday morning, Forchion said he evaded officers parked outside his home, but was served the citation at a convenience store in Wrightstown. 

A hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 12. 

"I am guilty of contempt," he said. "I did not give up my DNA and have no plans to do so."





Please click on the POT-TV image above and watch this weeks show with Lorretta Nall. She actually reads the first paragraph of my letter to Gov. McGreevey where I tell him to "KISS MY ASS and retreive my DNA from your lips". I don't understand why my local press hasn't printed what I actually said. -- "Maybe if I go to court I'll tell the Judge to delivery a personal message to the Gov from me and show my ass in court!"

Also check out:

Some-one follow the money - are they invested?

Since New Jersey Attorney Assistant General Christopher Josephson refuses to settle my "FREE SPEECH" lawsuit ( 03-cv-4942 ).

It looks like I'll be forced to make both the "FREE SPEECH IMPRISONMENT" and this "DNA CONTROVERSY' - POLITICAL ISSUES in my campaign for the 3rd District Congressional seat! I don't think certain people in Government will be happy with this. TOUGH, I wasn't happy to spend five months in jail for saying "LEGALIZE MARIJUANA"! What I'm also going to do is send numerous "DNA-legal arguement packets" into the prison system, this will produce numerous prisoner lawsuits. Prisoner have nothing to do, this will be a way of occupying their minds.



TRENTONIAN staff writer,

(12/9/2003) - Marijuana activist ED "njweedman" Forchion better known as "Njweedman" was issued a contempt of court citation for refusing to submit DNA samples to the department of Corrections Thurday.

Forchion's defiance in the face of the new law requiring specimens from prison inmates could heat up into a constitutional battle.

"It's a claer violation of EX POST FACTO law," said Forchion in a phone interveiw yesterday.

If you have protections like this, you don't have a democracy."

Forchion said that giving up samples was not part of his December 2000 prison sentence.

He served 17 months of a ten year prison sentence for being in possesion of 25 pounds of marijuana. His subsequent 20 month intensive supervision program implemented in April 2002 ended Wednesday.

While Forchion was supposed to give in to the DNA submission demands of the Camden County Probation Office last Tuesday, he remained defiant.

"If they passed the law before I was convicted I wouldn't even be fighting this," he said in a Courier Post interveiw.

"You either have a constitution or you don't. You don't go making execptions along the way."

The Constitutional matter hinges on whether laws can be made retroactive. A federal Judge has proposed that the Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law represent Forchion in the matter.

Forchion will be in court Dec 12, where Superior Court Judge Millenky will rule if he is guilty of contempt.

"People who passthese laws know what they're doing," Forchion said.

"The powers that be are leading us into a big Brother scenario."

__________ _______________





Burlington County Times

'Constitutionality of new DNA requirement challenged'


CAMDEN - Marijuana legalization advocate Ed "njweedman" Forchion has completed a 20-month parole term for drug possession, but his legal problems are not yet over.

On Dec. 2, the day before state officials officially notified Forchion he was discharged from the Intensive Supervision Program, the Camden County Prosecutor's Office filed court papers alleging the Pemberton Township resident failed to comply with a new state law mandating every person convicted of a crime provide a sample of DNA for inclusion in a database.

Forchion has challenged the constitutionality of the law. He believes it is an after-the-fact form of punishment that is also an illegal invasion of his privacy.

A hearing has been scheduled for Friday before a judge in Camden to determine whether to hold Forchion in contempt for failing to provide a DNA sample, and whether to extend his parole until he does, according to court papers.

Forchion said last week he has no plans to comply. "Yes, I'm in contempt of court, but the court is in contempt of the Constitution," Forchion said.

John Wynne, the assistant Camden County prosecutor who is bringing the contempt charge against Forchion, could not be reached for comment.

Forchion had been enrolled in the Intensive Supervision Program since early last year in connection with an October 2000 conviction for possessing 40 pounds of marijuana. He served more than a year of a 10-year state prison term before being released in April 2002.

The parole program requires all participants to be employed full time, adhere to a nightly curfew, submit to frequent drug and alcohol testing and perform six hours of community service each month. Participants also must attend drug- and alcohol-treatment meetings.

In a Nov. 27 letter to the state Division of Criminal Justice and Gov. James E. McGreevey, Forchion was adamant against providing a DNA sample.

"It wasn't part of my plea bargain and I'm not agreeing to surrender my DNA," he wrote.

After he was notified of his release from the program, Forchion said he went to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and smoked marijuana to celebrate.

Forchion says he practices the Rastafarian religion and contends he uses marijuana for religious ritual. He believes a federal court ruling protects his right to use marijuana for religious purposes on federal property, such as the grounds surrounding the Liberty Bell.

He was not arrested, he said.

"I'd test positive (for marijuana) if they put me back in the program," Forchion admitted. Email: mmathis@phillyBurbs.com

"Why is it that I must fight all 9 snake heads of the state?" At everyturn, the snake of the state pulls out another head and tries to convince me not to enforce or exercise a "RIGHT" we are all given." Like my "FREE SPEECH" case, this has nothing to do with "marijuana" it's about the Constitution and protecting it from the tyrannts in Government who want to dismantel it. This DNA case to me is about up-holding the prohibition of the Government implimenting EX POST FACTO laws via "DNA legislation".

until Jan 13th.

'Njweedman' indicted for refusing to submit DNA; faces jail time  -- 1/11/2004




Burlington County

Marijuana-legalization advocate Ed "njweedman" Forchion may be heading back to jail.

On Thursday, a grand jury indicted the Pemberton Township resident for refusing to submit a DNA sample, which under a new state law is required of all state prisoners and parolees.

Forchion, who was convicted in October 2000 of possessing 40 pounds of marijuana, has challenged the constitutionality of the law in federal court. Since he was released from state prison in April 2002, Forchion believes it is an after-the-fact form of punishment that is also an illegal invasion of his privacy.

"It's about the Constitution, and this is another unconstitutional act on the part of the state," Forchion said.

The law, which Gov. James E. McGreevey signed Sept. 22, expanded the crimes for which DNA samples can be collected for inclusion in a database. Under the previous law, Forchion would not have to provide a DNA sample.

Bill Shralow, spokesman for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, said he was not aware of anyone else who has failed to comply with the new law.

"This particular indictment only applies to Mr. Forchion, but clearly the message is, people need to comply with court orders to submit DNA samples, or they can be held responsible," Shralow said.

Forchion is scheduled to be arraigned tomorrow in state Superior Court in Camden. If convicted, he faces up to 18 months in prison.

E-mail: jbodnar@phillyBurbs.com

January 11, 2004 6:47 AM







Article 1 Section 9





Weedman mission hits a serious snag

Inquirer Columnist


The Weedman strikes again.

This time, his antigovernment attitude - not his drug habit - may send him back to jail.

The Weedman is Ed Forchion, a dreadlocked Rastafarian asthmatic former truck driver from Burlington County who believes he has the religious and medical rights to puff pot.

He also happens to think the nation's drug laws stink, destroy families, and unjustly clog up the court system.

Forchion has become something of a celebrity activist in these parts, lighting up joints outside Independence Hall and inside the New Jersey Statehouse to lure reporters and force police to arrest him.

He has petitioned the courts to legally change his name to NJWeedman.com in an effort to draw more eyeballs to his pro-pot Web site.

Forchion probably should have faded into obscurity last year after finishing a short prison sentence for possessing 40 pounds of pot.

He couldn't. He wouldn't, even with a wife and kids to support.

Instead, the Weedman continued his crusade, railing against a new state law that requires a wider class of convicts and parolees to submit DNA to a criminal database.

Forchion says the law amounts to after-the-fact punishment and an invasion of privacy.

So he filed a federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

And when he was assigned a date to fork over his own DNA, he ignored it.

By his own count, the Weedman has nine active legal cases.

All have something to do with pot and the pothead's contention that weed - and the Weedman - have been unfairly vilified.

He claims he tracks them all in his head and on his computer, but with so many fires to fight, the details can escape him.

Take the Battle of Cherry Hill.

The Weedman contends he was sitting in his car outside a Dunkin' Donuts when cops, acting on a report of a suspicious person, searched the vehicle and found a stash in the ashtray.

He told me the case would be heard today. But it turned out he had a court date last week - and missed it.

Yesterday, the Weedman had no such trouble, arriving at the Camden County Hall of Justice more than an hour before his DNA case hearing.

During the weekend, he learned a grand jury had indicted him for refusing to submit his DNA.

Overnight, his act of civil disobedience became criminal contempt.

Overnight, a family man cherishing his freedom found himself facing 18 months behind bars.

If convicted, he could do time in state prison and wind up with a protracted parole that would force him to give up the ganja for years.

"I guess this is another one of those times my family's thinking: 'You did it to yourself,' " he said. "But I really didn't expect this."

Outside the courthouse, the Weedman handed out news releases while a buddy marched around carrying a sign reading, "Say no to DNA."

Given the Weedman's regular appearances inside, many of the lawyers leaving for lunch instantly recognized him.

"I've been coming here for seven years," the Weedman explained.

In the hall outside his courtroom, the Weedman shared his strategy.

He can't be guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to give his DNA, he said, because he had already filed his federal suit challenging the law.

Wrongo, said Assistant Prosecutor John Wynne, after police took the Weedman away to fingerprint him and file arrest papers.

"You get a court order, you have to obey it," Wynne said. "He should know this."

Naturally, the Weedman pleaded not guilty.

Luckily, he was released on his own recognizance so he could go home to his family and his job.

Thankfully, he'll have a real lawyer when the case resumes next month.

"I guess," he admitted, "this is above my jailhouse lawyering skills."

A self-aware stoner with the presence of mind to know he's out of his league?

What would the drug czars say?



Didn't you learn that all power and authority is derived from one single source in the United States? I did; it's called the U.S. Constitution! Why doesn't its powers, and protections apply to the average Joe, James , or Jamal? Why is it when the government accuses you of a crime, everything they do is claimed to be under the authority of law? Yet, when a citizen tries to use the same source "THE CONSTITUTION" as justification for charging a "STATE OFFICIAL" with a crime! It suddenly has exemptions or state official is "immune" ask Judge "house nigger" Bell. Who took my custody and visitation because I exercised "first Amendment Freedoms". Why is it okay for law enforcement to take the life of AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEN and POOR WHITEMEN for nothing; like the New Jersey State Police does. With no fear of arrest. Murder is Murder and people have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to lIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS, but at every turn our BIG BROTHER passes laws to deny that. I'm just sick and tried of the illusions created by our Government Officials - I've been driven to this point of just saying "KISS MY ASS". This just isn't about my DNA, it's about everything our media doesn't talk about. The fleecing our or rights in the name of the "DRUG WAR", and now in the name of homeland security, enough is enough, KISS MY ASS! I've drawn my line in the sand and I'm gonna hold it as long as I can!


Why doesn't the CONSTITUTION apply to me? First I went to prison for breaking the law, even though the law wasn’t constitutionally followed in order to convict me - (12/1/2000). Then I went to jail for 5 months for talking about changing the very law that had ruined/imprisoned me, inviolation of my constitutional right of "FREEDOM of SPEECH" (Aug-Jan 03) . The State officials who jailed me, broke the law. By jailing me for exercising my first amendment Rights they violated the CONSTITUTION. Why is all that okay according to Peter Harvey's Attorney Generals Office? Is it because I advocate changing the current public Drug Policy my rights aren't protected by Govenment Officials? My rights are never enforced so I have no intention of abiding by this "court order". Why doesn't the law apply to me? It’s apparent to me that the DREAD SCOTT DOCTRINE is still used here in New Jersey courtrooms.Negroes are so inferior that no whiteman is bound to respect the rights of a Negro..DREAD SCOTT Vs SANFORD,1857, 19 How. 393 U.S.-1857. This is how I was convicted the first time and how I was thrown in jail the second time and now I imagine I'll eventually be thrown in jail for a third time for failing to comply with this a illegal/unconstitutional law. Why should I, the law doesn’t respect me and state officials are allowed to break the law(s) without fear of arrest? They actually claim to be civilly immune from the law as well. African-American men are murdered by law enforcement officials all the time who think we aren’t entitled to the same protections the U.S. Constitution spell-out. Judge Bell took my child from me for "talking about legalization of my sacrament" another example of state officials violating my first amendment rights. Why should I respect any law? I was arrested 3 more times for just complaining to the Federal authorities that I had been “criminally denied my free speech rights” by state officials, even after a Federal Judge ruled that my RIGHTS were violated in FORCHION Vs BARTLETT still no criminal charges filed against these state officials.



But I base my refusal to comply with this new law with legal authority, the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has given permission to ignore a law that is repugnant to the Constitution. I have a RIGHT to ignore an “unconstitutional law”, I’m invoking that RIGHT in this case!


"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). “Where rights secured by the Federal Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them”. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491- "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."  Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

Not only is the new DNA law a unconstitutional example of a EX POST FACTO Law the very orders requiring convicts to submit to DNA testing were issued EX-PARTE. Ex-parte; is just as unconstitutional as an EX POST FACTO law, due process requires!


Legal definition of a Ex Post facto law: a law that retroactively alters a defendant's rights esp. by criminalizing and imposing punishment for an act that was not criminal or punishable at the time it was committed, by increasing the severity of a crime from its level at the time the crime was committed, by increasing the punishment for a crime from the punishment imposed at the time the crime was committed, or by taking away from the protections (as evidentiary protection) afforded the defendant by the law as it existed when the act was committed. “Every law, which makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or which inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798); Ex parte Garland,


EX PARTE: Upon or from one side only; one-sided; partial; as, an ex parte statement.{Ex parte application}, one made without notice or opportunity to oppose.{Ex parte council}, one that assembles at the request of only one of the parties in dispute.{Ex parte} {hearing or evidence} (Law), that which is had or taken by one side or party in the absence of the other.


On Sept 22, 2003 Gov McGreevey signs L. 2003, C. 183 into law. Immediately The Administrative Office of the Courts sends out two "memos" that were delivered to all county assignment Judges. This resulted in County Judges and Administrative Judges issuing orders to everyone to submit to DNA sampling. I received my order on Sept 30, 2003.


These Orders’s were infact “Ex-Parte Orders” and citizens who received this Order were not given Notice or Opportunity to be heard (oppose or consent) which absolutely violates Due Process.  Also, there is nothing in this law that sets out what the penalty is for violating this Order; I guess I’ll find out on Dec. 12th before Judge Millenky in Camden County Superior Court.


As of December 4, 2003, John Weick, of the AOC, who is responsible for implementing this law into the Courts has said, “that it is up to the Attorney General's Office to decide what they want to do when someone refuses to comply with the Order”. – WHAT, “who’s” been smoking the ganja, now? That is absurd!


What this means is: In effect the Judge (Judiciary) is acting as the enforcing agency for the Legislature by enforcing the law, which is not the function of the Judiciary.  This same argument can be made for all objections to the Order where this matter comes before the Court; i.e. a contempt hearing. Which I now have scheduled for Dec.12th, 2003 in Camden Superior Court. How does the court even try to attempt to serve as the enforcer of a law, this doesn’t fit into any of the checks and balances system I learned in school. Why doesn’t the Constitution apply?


Maybe because we are prisoners/parolee’s and probationers the court thinks we aren’t entitled to the protections of the Constitution? This (btw) is absolutely incorrect. The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that “prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution.” Turner V Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).


For every citizen in NJ, when a law is passed, and it is believed to have been violated, an arrest is made by the police/prosecutor and then that person comes before the Judiciary.  APPARENTLY state officials think: For “convicts” (citizens) under this Ex PARTE Order Requiring DNA, the legislature has made an illegal EX POST FACTO law and the Judiciary itself is (prosecuting) enforcing this law. It’s not supposed to work that way, it is very apparent to me that this law is so flawed that it would never pass constitutional muster the way it is now written, or how its been implemented. I refuse to comply. Not only do I say McGreevey can kiss my ass but he’s an ASS for signing this crap!






                              ROBERT EDWARD FORCHION, Jr


DNA - CONTEMPT CASE starts JULY 22th, 2004. I will not take a plea, if the Governor wants my DNA he can "kiss my ass" or a jury can convict me of contempt! But the Jury may see it my way and NULLIFY this law and acquit me!


"kiss my ass gov."







(CAMDEN-NJ) An advocate of legalized marijuana continued his fight Thursday against a state law requiring him to provide a DNA sample as a condition of his probation.

Wearing a T-shirt showing marijuana plants superimposed on an American flag, R. Edward Forchion said the law, which requires anyone convicted of a felony to provide a DNA sample, violates his privacy.

In addition, said public defender James Klein, the law became effective after Forchion's guilty plea in 2000 to possession of 25 pounds of marijuana.

DNA samples are sent to a national database, the Combined Organized DNA Index System.

Until legislation was passed in New Jersey in September 2003, DNA samples were taken only from sex offenders.

Superior Court Judge Robert G. Millenky said he will rule on Forchion's challenge after reviewing briefs from Klein and Assistant Camden County Prosecutor John T. Wynne Jr.

Forchion was charged with criminal contempt after he refused to give the sample.

Providing the saliva sample is "not an onerous burden on someone," said Wynne. "It's one of the things that happens to you when you commit a crime.

"If I come into this building, I submit to a search," by sheriff's officers manning a security desk at the Hall of Justice.

"But they don't go into your mouth," responded Millenky. "People convicted of crimes still have some rights."


'Weedman' wins fight over DNA sample
By JOHN REITMEYER Email: jreitmeyer@phillyBurbs.com
Burlington County Times

September 8th, 2004

(Camden-NJ) -  A New Jersey Superior Court judge has ruled that marijuana-legalization advocate Ed "NJWEEDMAN" Forchion is not guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to give the state a sample of his DNA.

The decision doesn't overturn a 2003 state law requiring criminals to submit DNA samples to the state, but it clears Forchion, a Pemberton Township resident who is running for Congress and the Burlington County Board of Freeholders, from facing a criminal penalty for not complying with the statute.

At issue is Forchion's opposition to a law that requires criminals to give a DNA sample when they are sent to jail or sentenced to probation. The law also required anyone in jail or on probation at the time of its passage in September 2003 to submit DNA samples to the state. Forchion was enlisted in the state's probation-like Intensive Super-vision Program on a 2000 marijuana-distribution conviction at the time.

Despite his outspoken defiance of the DNA-sample law, the state discharged Forchion from supervision Dec. 3, 2003, without forcing him to submit a sample. A month later, a grand jury in Camden County indicted Forchion on a charge of contempt for not complying with the law.

In response, Forchion, who faced a possible 18-month prison term, challenged the indictment and the DNA-sample law.

In a decision issued last week, Judge Robert G. Millenky said the state isn't allowed to pursue contempt charges against criminals who refuse to submit DNA samples because the 2003 law did not call for any criminal penalties for noncompliance. The law only allows the state to keep criminals in jail or on probation until they comply with the DNA-sample law, and since Forchion had already been released, he was not subject to any penalty, the judge wrote.




Your not getting my DNA!

Judges can only consider the constitutionality of a law if not doing so would otherwise prevent them from issuing a ruling and Millenky said he wasn't forced to do that in this case. Still, Forchion touted the decision as a victory for challengers of the law.

"They say the little guy can't beat city hall, well NJWEEDMAN just beat the entire state," Forchion said.

Camden County Prosecutor Vincent P. Sarubbi, whose office successfully tried Forchion on his original drug of-fense, said he would appeal the decision.

"This decision establishes a dangerous and far-reaching precedent that could result in litigants ignoring court orders," Sarubbi said.

Staff writer Mike Mathis contributed to this report.

September 8, 2004 7:54 AM






NOV., 2004

The State Of New Jersey appeals to the New Jersey State Appellate Court the decision by the lower court to "dismiss the indictment against NJWEEDMAN, at  oral arguements on March 3rd, 2005 the State admits that over 2000 other New Jersey citizens have refused to comply with the DNA law. Yet, only NJWEEDMAN was prosecuted for refusing. - "This this a case of selective prosecution.




Court upholds ‘Weedman’ DNA ruling

CAMDEN -- An appellate court Friday upheld the Superior Court of New Jersey’s decision not to charge Robert Edward "Weedman" Forchion with refusing to comply with an order to supply DNA samples to police.

Forchion, a frequent candidate for office, a Rastafarian by faith and a pro-legalization marijuana activist,said he was elated when he got the news Saturday.

"I am happy. Now I don’t have to supply a DNA sample," Forchion said.

In 1997 Forchion was convicted on possession of more than 40 pounds of pot. He believes that smoking marijuana is a sacrament.

He served 17 months of a 10-year prison sentence and was released in April 2002. He was thrown back in jail four months later after he produced a pro-marijuana commercial but was released because a judge determined the commercial was protected by his right of free speech.

After his release he was notified that he, as a convict, had to supply authorities with a DNA sample, Forchion said yesterday.

The state, effective Sept. 22, 2003, required that everyone who has served a sentence or other supervision as a result of a crime supply DNA samples.

The appellate court agreed with Forchion’s argument that he didn’t violate the Sept. 22, 2003 order by Judge Shirley A. Tolentino because he wasn‘t ordered to appear at a certain time or place, according to the April 8, 2004 decision.

The judge’s order "...stated you will be notified at a later date as to a time and place where this sample will be taken," according to the decision.

A separate memorandum dated Nov. 25, 2003 actually gave the notice for Forchion to appear on Dec. 2, 2003 at the Camden County Hall of Justice.

"The defendant did not violate that order. ...Under these unique and extraordinary circumstances, we must conclude that there was no clear judicial order (Forchion) disobeyed and ...the indictment was appropriately dismissed," the decision said.

Forchion refused to give a DNA sample and filed a suit in federal court saying the requirement was unconstitutional.

"I learned that 2,000 other citizens have refused to comply with the law," Forchion said.

"My DNA is safe from the government for now."


Appeals court upholds refusal to provide DNA sample
Burlington County Times

TRENTON - An appeals court has upheld the dismissal of criminal contempt charges against marijuana-legalization advocate Ed Forchion for refusing to give the state a sample of his DNA.

"I don't think the government should have my DNA, or anyone's DNA," Forchion said yesterday. "There was no way I was going to voluntarily give it."

The state Attorney General's Office said yesterday it was considering an appeal.

At issue is Forchion's opposition to a law that requires criminals to provide DNA samples when they are sent to jail or sentenced to probation. The law also required anyone in jail or on probation at the time of its passage in September 2003 to submit DNA samples to the state.

Forchion, who lives in Pemberton Township, was enrolled in the state's probation-like Intensive Supervision Program on a 2000 marijuana-distribution conviction at the time.

Despite his outspoken defiance of the DNA-sample law, the state discharged Forchion from supervision Dec. 3, 2003, without forcing him to submit a sample.

A month later, a grand jury in Camden County indicted Forchion on a charge of contempt for not complying with the law. The charge carried a possible prison term of 18 months.

In response, Forchion challenged the indictment and the DNA-sample law.

A Superior Court judge in Camden County dismissed the charges in September after Forchion argued the court order did not specify a certain time or place to provide the DNA sample.

The state Attorney General's Office appealed the decision, but the appeals court ruled Friday it agreed with the decision by the judge from the lower court. It further found that Forchion received a notice from his program supervisor that he would not be sanctioned for refusing to provide a DNA sample.

"Under these unique and extraordinary circumstances, we must conclude that there was no clear judicial order defendant 'disobeyed' (the law) and, therefore, that the indictment was appropriately dismissed," the appeals court wrote.

Email: mmathis@phillyBurbs.com

April 13, 2005 6:12 AM