ROBERT EDWARD FORCHION
office of: N.J. Gov. James McGreevey
N.J. Capitol Building - Box 001
N.J. Capitol Building - Box 001
RE: I refuse to comply with L. 2003, c. 183, I will not surrender any DNA!
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
I have a right to dis-obey this new law. This law was passed long after I was convicted, thus this law can-not constitutionally be applied to me. Last year (ISP) the Intensive Supervision Program issued a illegal “gag order” on me, ordering me not to speak to the press or talk about marijuana both protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. ISP jailed me for dis-regarding it’s gag order. I spent 5 months in jail (Aug-Jan) in defense of the constitutional right of free speech. I again am willing to defend the constitution. We either have a Constitution or we don’t. I consider myself a foot soldier in defense of our Constitution and I will fight you over this violation and expect to be jailed.
"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.
is clear to me that you signed this bill into law as another feel good
legislation yet you’ve ignored the fact that this country has a Constitution
which serves as the law of the law and all laws must conform to Constitutional
standards. Even we prisoners parolee and probationers are protected by the
Constitution. “prison walls do not form a barrier
separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution.” Turner V Safley, 482
It is clear Constitutional Law that state Legislatures, shall not pass laws, after a fact done by a subject, or citizen, which shall have relation to such fact, and shall punish him for having done it. The prohibition considered in this light, is an additional bulwark in favour of the personal security of the subject, to protect his person from punishment by legislative acts, having a retrospective operation. If this Bill was directed at future convicts it probably would’ve passed Constitutional muster, but in its present form I’d bet it won’t.
The founding fathers of this country placed the Ex Post Facto clause in the Constitution to protect citizens from the very type of legislation you’ve just signed. Fortunately the Founding fathers also provided that citizens may challenge a law and thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judiciary and a jury – that each enactment of law must pass before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate it.
I have presented my challenge to U.S. District Court (Camden) federal Judge Irenas, as a motion in case# 02-cv-4942, until this law passes the test of Constitutionality I will not provide any DNA (*including urine) to any government agency.
Robert Edward Forchion, Jr
Sept. 23rd, 2003
Administrative Office of the Court: Administrative Law Judge, Judge Richard Williams
ISP Director, Harvey Goldstein-ISP officer, Shirley Lemmon
AOC counsel, Thomas Russo-DAG, Christopher Josephson
*URINE – I accepted urine testing for “drug purposes” when I was admitted into the ISP, I have surrendered urine for over a year with no problems but now the state has changed the rules and will be attempting to retrieve my DNA possibly from my urine per L. 2003, c. 183 thus I now refuse to surrender even this until a Judge decides the Constitutionality of L. 2003, c. 183.