State of New Jersey

          -Vs- 

Forchion -aka- njweedman             motion: To withdraw bribery induced plea
                                                                                                                                             3596-10-98
                                          - REASONS -

(1) I was being denied a fair trial at the time  plea was accepted - I denied witness’s, or legal
assistance to adamantly or Zealously assit me in “my defense”. - (exhibit - Legal defense) - 
( motion to be releived of assistance of counsel - August 31st, Jaime Kaigh)

(2) - I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss this legal matter(plea) with my lawyer 
(Mr. Boswell - Ocean Co. Public defender’s Office) - assigned to this matter.

(3) - At the time of the plea - I was suffering from a bout of anxiety, this is related to the
depression problems I’ve made the court aware of repeatedly. In fact I had even told Judge
Thompson I suffered from bouts of anxiety on record (Sept 18th) when Juror number three
suffered a similar courtroom affliction and was relieved of her obligation to serve. As well as on
previous occasions. On numerous occasions (see court trial records) I had asked for a
psychological report after Judge Rosenwigz had ordered it. (Nov. 13th, 1998)- In fact had
presented a old report from 1997. - Again Camden County PDO refused to fund it., it may have
also been used to support my contention that marijuana is a medicine. - Not a schedule 1 drug. 

(4) The state’s offer was a illegal act of bribery - in violation of 18 U.S.C. 210(c)(2) - this bribery
was designed to keep me from presenting my legal defense of Jury Nullification, to a jury. 
Bribery is a illegal act - law enforcement is denied the oppurtunity to engage in illegal acts to
prosecute citizens

(5) The State resurrected the Ocean County case, after the probationary period for the sole
purpose of presenting it as added leverage to force me to accept a plea instead of utilizing my
right to a Jury trial. (June24th-2000) - This was purely political, and unjust. 

(6) The State unjustly charged me with a new offense on Feb 8, just to again present more
pressure to get me to relinquish my right to a Jury trial. - The State of New Jersey has no
justistiction in this matter. - I was looking forward to a fully jury trial in this matter as well. 

 (7) The State of New Jersey - arrested me and detained me for 13 days
(Sept. 1st thru Sept. 13th),deliberately interfering with my opportunity to prepare for my defense.
This was a political detention.  Sept 18th, trial date was set on Sept 11th, I had 2 business days
upon release to prepare for trial. Again my court appointed “legal assistance” failed to assit me at
all. - BTW - the charge I was held on was totally dismissed for lack of evidence. No surprise !
                                                
                                                 FACTS
    On Sept 20th, 2000. I reluctantly and mistakenly, illegally accepted the state’s act of bribery. 

The state has for almost three years been attempting to bribe me out of my right to a fair jury trial.
On numerous occasions the state offered me more of my freedom, in exchange for my guilty
testimony. On Sept 20, Th. 2000 , the third day of my trial, I suffered a anxiety attack and
succumbed to the state’s undue pressure. - The fact that I had no assistance in preparing my
defense or any financial help (from the Public Defender’s office in acquiring/presenting witness’s
for my defense, greatly increased the pressure, the court’s lack of concern when presented these
constitutional violation’s read into the court record on Sept. 18th.  /see attached -court read
statement/  played into my anxiety), in obtaining witness’s on my behalf. - Previously before
Judge Brown I had complianed to the court that the state was attempting to bribe me out of my
“right” to a fair Jury trial. 

On Sept 18th, I again brought this to the attention of the court, in Judge Thompson’s chamber’s
when I again refused to accept the proceeds of bribery. 

My legal assistant and the prosecutor conspired to prevent me from presenting my chosen legal 
defense, OPEN ADVOCATION of JURY NULLIFICATION, and conspired to bribe me into
making false statements (plea). By denying me the opportunity to legally defend myself. 
(exhibit A-Public Defender’s statement) --(exibit B-State Prosecution statement)   
                                             

                                    ARGUMENT: 
 Why I’m motioning the court to allow me to withdrawal my Guilty Plea.

 1. -From the day I was arrested, (Nov. 24th, 1997) and learned I was the first defendant
charged under a new law signed by Gov. Whitman on August 4, 1997. I have insisted on a
Jury Trial where I intended to use a defense of OPEN ADVOCATION of JURY
NULLIFICATION.  I swore I would never sign away my right to a Jury trial. 

The lawyers assigned to assit me have refused too. I know I’m not like most defendants - I know about jury
nullification - I know that all laws are subject to challenges. This was a new law, subject to challenge. It is ironic
that in 1994 Megan Law was passed and the Office of the Public Defender has been the main challenger of it,
protecting child molester’s but ignoring the injustice’s, unconstitutionality of this new marijuana law.  The office
of the public defender profits off the law. 

  "Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended
by the Founding Fathers. Those Patriots intended the jury to serve as one of the tests a law must
pass before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Thus the Constitution provides
five separate tribunals with veto power – house of representatives, senate, executive, Judges and
JURY– that each enactment of law must pass before it gains the authority to punish those who
choose to violate it. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet
imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 I wanted to tell the truth, about marijuana. Using NJ Constitution Article 1 (6):
Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth maybe 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. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. - In effect the Jury has the right to Judge a law as well as evidence. - I wished to legally
present a defense of “ THE LAWS WRONG NOT I.” - the state and members of the local
bar -feared such a defense and conspired to prevent me from presenting it. 

     In  1986 the New Jersey Supreme Court decided in,  New Jersey -Vs- Ragland 105 NJ 189,  “@208Defendant’s position is that the nullification power is one of the essential attributes of his right to a trial by jury, and that it is desirable. Given that premise, the conclusion is inescapable--The Jury should be told” - the right of a Pro Se defendant to utilize Jury Nullification was affirmed.  The right of a Jury to nullify a law that it deems unjust,
mis-applied, unconstitutional or just against a juror’s conscience is constitutionally permissible function of a jury.
As also affirmed in (1972 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 473F. 2d 1113 ) - “ unreviewable and irreversible power
... to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial Judge. The pages of history shine upon
instances of the jury’s exercise of it’s prerogative to disregard instructions of the Judge: for example, acquittals
under the fugitive slave laws” and again upheld  in UNITED STATES -Vs- BURHART 501 f.2d 993 (1974)  -
“The Jury stands as the Bulwark against laws which it deems unjust or excessively harsh. The present law of “Jury
Nullification”[ the Jury’s power to acquit a defendant out of a refusal to apply the law to the facts clearly
evidencing a criminal violation] seems not to require or permit a judge to tell the jury that it has the right to
ignore the law as charged but to allow a defense attorney some leeway in persuading the jury to acquit out of
conscience of mercy or obedience to a higher law.” -  I my case which I openly wished to utilize these rights as a
Defense ,  the “legal advisor” assigned to assit me refuse too, citing his oath as a officer of the court. - This left me
with no legal assistance for “his defense” as guaranteed by the NJ and federal Constitutions, and the court order in
my case. 

  I was Pro Se as a way of utilizing Jury Nullification, but being Pro Se in no way excludes my right to counsel for
assistance again as per the NJ and federal constitutions. I repeatedly made this clear, I needed a lawyer for
assistance. The counsel assigned refused to operate in such a capacity. Without the counsel for assistance this left
me feeling powerless and psychologically defeated on the third day of my trial. - At that point the state’s repeated
attempts to bribe me out of my right to a Jury trial was successful out of despair and helplessness it was reluctantly
accepted.

 I plead Guilty not because I was guilty but because the system refused to assit me with my defense. I was faced
with continuing as a defendant faced with a possible punishment of twenty five years or more in a unfair trial or
accepting the state’s bribery offer of a flat ten year sentence with no bar on parole, in exchange for false guilty
testimony to all charges. Ultimately, I succumbed to the pressure’s of the state’s repeated bribery attempts, and in a
moment of high anxiety accepted. 

  Originally I was just fighting the charges stemming from Nov 24, 1997, (then to add leverage to get me to accept
a plea and give up my right to a Jury Trial where I was openly advocating the secret right of Jury Nullification. )
The state arrested me a charged me with conspiracy on Feb 08, 2000, and again on June 24th 2000 the state
resurrected a old charge from 1996 that had been previously been disposed of in Ocean County. If convicted of all
three, I could have faced  life in prison.  New Jersey’s  “three strikes law”  went into effect in March 1997. These
two charges were political , they were malious and only intended to force me to shut up, (stop telling the truth
about marijuana) and to accept a state offer. This offer was not really for my benefit but for the state’s benefit. The
state wanted to keep it’s lucrative MARIJUANA PROHIBITION  intact. If I had been successful in presenting my
defense to my jury and they (the Jury)  had decided to rule in my favor the state could have lost the law Gov.
Whitman had signed in August 1997. I personally was just hoping for a HUNG Jury, which BTW I believe I would
have obtained. 

     The State of New Jersey basis it’s marijuana laws on outright deliberate lie’s. The marijuana laws are really
political laws, status quo type laws that are taboo to attack if one wants a future.  Everyone testify before a court
must swear “to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. - except the state it self. In the case with
marijuana laws, the law itself is a lie, and no-one with any hope for a political future stands up to this lie. I wished
to tell the truth about marijuana as my defense. - 

According to NJ state law marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. I say that is a lie. Just look up the definition of a
schedule 1 drug and compare that to what is known about marijuana and anyone with a fourth grade education can
see the state flat-out lies about marijuana and arrests and ruin’s people based on this lies. THE LAW IS FLAWED.
This is what I wanted to present to the Jury, again the truth as per NJ Constitution article 1 (6)
 

Definition of a schedule 1 drug according to the CSA (Controlled Substance Act ) of  1970:  
All state and federal marijuana laws are based on this act including NEW JERSEY - 2c:35 which I charged with
violating. 

   The problem with this act is marijuana was deliberately, politically, maliciously mis-placed into schedule 1 ,
making it illegal when factually, scientifically it should be a schedule 2, 3, or 4 legal drug if placement was even
required. According to 21 u.s.c. & 321(p)  - Marijuana was grandfathered in as a old drug and need not conform to
modern standards, or classification’s. For Political reason’s the CSA ignored this 1938 law that to this day is still
ineffect.

   Schedule 1 : 
     (1)-The drug or substance has a high potential for abuse. 
     (2)-The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in  treatment in the UNITED STATES
     (3)-There is a lack of acceptable safety for use of the drug or other substance’s under medical supervision.  

       Factually-scientifically marijuana does not meet this required description. 

    (1)-I and millions of other’s call marijuana use  that ( “USE” )  not abuse.  note:  no-one has ever died from it.
          many use it for our benefit. 
    (2)-Marijuana has plenty of medical use’s, marijuana was used for thousands of years medically prior to the
          1937 US racial decision to attempt to ban it’s use.  The 1937 marijuana taxation act was a originally a Jim 
          Crow law aimed at blacks and Mexican’s who at that time were the only user’s on marijuana in this country 
         - The federal government itself dispenses marijuana  medicinally to patients, and license’s corporations to 
          duplicate it medicinal value with synthetic attempts to duplicate same medicinal value I.E. - marinol, THC 
          pills.  
     (3)-8 state’s have outright legalize marijuana for medical use and 32 others state’s recognize marijuana’s 
           medicinal value including New Jersey- It is on the ballot in 5 other state’s this NOV 7th, 2000. 

I made it known that I wished to utilize NJ CONSTITUTION article 1(6) - Which state’s:

 a person may freely speak, and in all prosecutions  - the truth may be given as evidence to the
jury.  - The fact that marijuana doesn’t fit the description of a schedule 1 drug I had intended to make a highlight
of my case, but unfairly, unlawfully. I was denied even expert witness’s to again tell the truth about marijuana. At
the time of the plea acceptance the state had it’s expert Dr. Songza Park, Sr. - of the NJ State Police laboratory in
west Trenton, NJ waiting to testify. I had three Dr.’s willing to travel, testify as my expert witness’s but the Office
of the Public Defender Refused to pay for the expense’s - Michael Freidmann told me to “ask NORML”- (1) DR
John P. Morgan , Professor of Pharmacology at CUNY, author of “Marijuana Myths and Facts” 1998. - (2) Dr.
Julian Hiecklien, Professor of Chemistry Penn State,. (3) Dr. Steven Fenichell, General Practitioner,  Ocean City
NJ. 

    Again,  this is a right ( to present the truth) as defined by the NJ Constitution but because the legal profession
wants to keep it’s cash cow (The Marijuana Laws) intact, as well as the state’s desire to keep it’s Marijuana
Prohibition intact I had no assistance in my defense, to the point even my right: to present witness’s was being
denied as per NJ Constitution Article 1: ( 10) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the
right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.

 
3.- The Judge errored in his Voir Dire - again preventing me from having a fair trial.

 - according to again NJ -Vs- RAGLAND  - The Judge was to “ in addition to being asked whether they (potential
jurors) believed they will be able to obey the court’s charge, should also be asked if they believed they will be able
to ignore the courts charge. If the nullification power is desirable, then, obviously, juries should include only
those people who are capable of exercising it”. In my case Judge Thompson didn’t do this and was in error for not
doing it. Again my legal advisor should have helped me object to this.  I’m not going to alledge the Judge did it
deliberately but had the trial gone to the Jury I would have asked for a mis-trial on this issue ( wrong jury
instructions at VOIR DIRE), if it was denied I would have asked for it on appeal.  -”assistance from the assit of
counsel would have been greatly appreciated at this point, but again assit of counsel failed to ever meet with me to
plan any strategy or tactic’s”

4. - Last minute Discovery admitted into record. 

    The biggest surprise of my trial wasn’t really the legal professions lack of assistance in my defense it was my
brother’s testimony. I didn’t get a copy of his plea agreement or statements until Sept 18th, the day my trial began.
He had re-assured me on several occasions that he didn’t mention my name at all. - Now he admits he didn’t think
I would really go to trial either and made the statements just to get the deal the state had offered. This is exactly
why state plea bargains should be illegal. They are nothing but state sanctioned bribery, bribery is a illegal act. - a
act that even state prosecutors should not be allowed to do. - Again plea bargains force citizens to make statements
that aren’t true in order to avoid imprisonment. I had asked on several occasions for all discovery material. In fact
on court record on July 18th before Judge Brown Mr. Wynne said , defense had every thing he had. Then on Sept.
the day of trial, Mr. Wynne presents this additional discovery, with a halfhearted explanation of just getting it. -
(yeah right - and I’m a Catholic) 

 a. The most valuable thing a person posses is his/her freedom. The state of New Jersey offer’s a person (my
brother) his or her freedom in exchange for testimony is a violation of ( 18 U.S.C. 210(c)(2) ) - that say’s  giving or
offering “anything of value... for or because of testimony is illegal. Leniency is something of value, a person’s
freedom is something of value.  The anti-gratuity provision of 18 U.S.C. 210 (c)(2) indicates congress’s belief that
justice is undermined by giving, offering, or promising anything of value for testimony,” - “If justice is perverted
when a criminal defendant seeks to buy testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does
so.” - In my case my brother testified to what the government wanted (ME) at his plea deal, deliberately with-held
that from me, thinking I wouldn’t go to trial. 
( 90% of all drug case’s are plea bargained away- according to Gloucester County Prosecutor Yurick- see exhibit 4)

b. Again had I had legal assistance I would have tried to have these statements thrown out, or at least objected to
it’s inclusion on this basis. My legal assistant didn’t even bother to appear, (Sept 18th, the first day of Trial) 
instead he sent one of his law partner’s daughter’s to baby sit me, she had no clue, or experience in a first degree
criminal trial. She didn’t advise me to object, probably because she wasn’t aware of the previous statements. Again
my right to counsel for assistance was vital to my case but because of the lack of assistance rendered, this
opportunity was lost. - 
 

                                                                                        DEMAND 
    That the court recognize the irregularities of the trial at the point plea was forced onto defendant and allow
defendant Edward Forchion to withdraw to withdrawal  GUILTY PLEA and have a fair JURY TRIAL as
guaranteed under the US and NJ Constitutions. The State of New Jersey Bribed defendant out of his right to a trial,
in a few moments of mental anguish. Defendant was getting no Zealous or Adamant assistance from court
appointed assistant, because of the conspiracy to prevent my legal defense between the Office of the Camden
County Public Defender’s Office and the State Prosecutor’s Office. The state’s offer of such leniency in exchange
for my “TESTIMONY” was a act of bribery.  The state obtained it’s guilty testimony from defendant with a illegal
act -”BRIBERY” , while defendant  was suffering from a mental breakdown. 

 EDWARD “njweedman” FORCHION  
PRO SE -