| The TIMES of Trenton
ACTUAL STORY Candidate's plea going to pot 10/19/00 By BETH E. FAND MOUNT HOLLY -- Last month, Ed Forchion felt like a winner when he accepted a reduced jail sentence in exchange for admission that he helped smuggle 40 pounds of marijuana into New Jersey. Since then, he has begun feeling more like a hypocrite who took a bribe. So Forchion, a candidate for a seat on the Burlington County freeholder board, says he plans to back out of the deal. The 36-year-old Pemberton Township man, who is running on the Legalize Marijuana Party ticket, says he isn't comfortable pleading guilty because he doesn't believe it should be a crime to smoke marijuana -- which he says he uses in his Rastafarian religion -- to alleviate back pain, clear his mind and boost creativity. Forchion had intended to argue that the jury should find the law flawed and acquit him. The protest candidate, who expects to get only about 1,000 votes in November's election, says he's ready to make that argument before a jury again, even though he has already lost his home, his trucking business and even a custody battle over a daughter because of his activism. Besides being charged several times for smoking marijuana during protests, he was arrested on charges he bought the drug just three days after he signed his plea agreement, something he took as a sign from God that he should pursue his beliefs. "I am a patriot," said Forchion, a married father of four who is free on $65,000 bail. "When people start allowing the government to treat you unfair, it spreads. That's why we have the situation we have now with the war on drugs." But it may not be that easy for Forchion to pull out of the deal. Camden County Prosecutor Lee Solomon said Forchion will have to convince a judge to void the deal by proving that his agreement was not voluntary, or that he was not adequately represented by an attorney, Solomon said. He said those arguments will probably be heard on Forchion's scheduled sentencing date, Dec. 8. Forchion expects to have no problem proving he was not properly represented. Forchion, who was going to act as his own lawyer, says he was entitled to help from the public defender's office but didn't get full cooperation. Jeff Beach, a spokesman for the New Jersey public defender's office, said that was because Forchion insisted on a jury nullification defense, meaning he intended to ask the jury to acquit him because they found applicable drug laws unreasonable. Jury nullification is not considered an acceptable defense in New Jersey, and Judge Stephen Thompson ordered Forchion not to pursue it, Beach said. As a result, he said, public defender Jaime Kaigh was not able to comply when Forchion asked him to subpoena certain witnesses and submit a motion asking the judge to allow the jury nullification defense. Kaigh deemed one witness ineligible as an expert because he was going to testify that marijuana has been wrongly classified as one of the most dangerous drugs by the U.S. government, Beach said. If Forchion is allowed to withdraw his plea, Solomon said Camden County will be "happy to try him" on charges he was involved in arranging for and picking up a shipment of 40 pounds of marijuana that came from Arizona to New Jersey in 1997. Forchion could face up to 20 years in state prison, at least 10 without parole. Under the plea bargain, he would serve up to 10 years, with his first chance for parole after two years. If he was accepted into an intensive parole program under the deal, he could spend as little as six months in jail, a Camden County assistant prosecutor has said. While Forchion says he doesn't expect to be acquitted, he feels certain he would end up with a hung jury after making his arguments. He says he was allowed to poll jurors before his trial was called off last month and found that at least five of them were on his side. Assistant prosecutor John Wynne disagreed, saying jurors seemed worried that the marijuana Forchion is accused of smuggling could have ended up in the hands of children. Forchion said the marijuana would have been sold to friends, and while it might have reached a few children, it would not have been marketed specifically to youngsters by drug pushers standing on street corners. He said the government could stop those who do sell marijuana to schoolchildren by legalizing the drug and regulating the way it is sold. "It should be in stores," he said. "The
government creates the black market."
'Weedman' wants to withdraw guilty plea By Mike Mathis CAMDEN - Ed "njweedman" Forchion is attempting to withdraw his guilty plea for conspiring to distribute 40 pounds of marijuana. Forchion, 36, a Pemberton Township resident who is running for Burlington County Freeholder and Congress on the Legalize Marijuana Ticket, pleaded guilty to lesser charges last month during his trial in state Superior Court here. However, Forchion has filed papers Oct. 11 to withdraw his plea, saying he agreed to it "in a moment of extreme anxiety and temporary loss of my faith." An observer of the Rastafarian faith, Forchion has said he smokes marijuana for religious reasons as well as to help ease back pain. He said he realized that entering the plea was wrong when he was arrested several days later after buying three ounces of marijuana in the Strawberry Mansion section of Philadelphia, he said. "I immediately knew I had made a mistake, and two days later God sent me another sign that my mission to free the herb was not complete and I had diverted from His mission," Forchion said. "The plea was not what God had intended of me." Assistant Camden County Prosecutor John Wynne said he would argue against allowing Forchion to withdraw the plea. A decision on Forchion's motion is likely before Forchion is sentenced in early December. "There is nothing in the motion that would be grounds for a withdraw of the plea," Wynne said. Meanwhile, Forchion's name will remain on the Nov. 7 ballot in both the freeholder and First Congressional District races. Forchion pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and to two unrelated cases. In exchange, he received a sentence under which he could spend as little as six months in prison and be subject to intensive supervisory parole (ISP) for up to 27 months. Had he been convicted of the more-serious distribution charges, Forchion could have been sentenced to more than 20 years in prison. Forchion's defense strategy was jury nullification, in which a jury decides not to enforce a law out of sympathy for the defendant. It was, however, a strategy the lawyer assigned to assist him in the trial refused to allow him to use, said Forchion, who represented himself in the case. Forchion was assisted by Jaime Kaigh, a Cherry Hill attorney who was assigned to Forchion through the state Office of the Public Defender, department spokesman Jeff Beach said. "I felt I was getting an unfair trial in the first place," Forchion said. "I got more leeway than I thought I would get, but I wasn't getting a fair trial. I wanted to present the truth, that the law (against marijuana use) is wrong." Beach said the defense strategy was barred by the
judge prior to the start of the trial. Forchion, a former truck driver who has been an outspoken advocate of legalizing marijuana, was charged with helping his brother and another man pick up a shipment of 40 pounds of marijuana at the Bellmawr Industrial Park on Nov. 24, 1997. The marijuana was shipped from a marijuana supplier in Arizona via Federal Express. Russell Forchion and Eric Poole pleaded guilty to lesser charges and served short jail terms. Forchion ran unsuccessfully against incumbent U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-1st, of Haddon Heights in 1998 on the Legalize Marijuana Party ticket. He also ran unsuccessfully last year for seats
representing the Eighth State Assembly District and on
the Camden County Freeholder board.
State of New Jersey -Vs- Forchion -aka- "njweedman"
motion: To withdraw bribery induced plea (1) I was being denied a fair trial at the time
plea was accepted - I denied witness’s, or legal (2) - I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss
this legal matter(plea) with my lawyer (3) - At the time of the plea - I was suffering from a
bout of anxiety, this is related to the (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 (6) The State unjustly charged me with a new offense
on Feb 8, just to again present more (7) The State of New Jersey - arrested me and
detained me for 13 days 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:
1. -From the day I was arrested, (Nov. 24th,
1997) and learned I was the first defendant 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 2. - In effect the Jury has the right to Judge a law
as well as evidence. - I wished to legally 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, 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 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 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 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 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: 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 Schedule 1 : Factually-scientifically marijuana does not meet this required description. (1)-I and millions of other’s
call marijuana use that ( “USE” )
not abuse. (3)-8 state’s have
outright legalize marijuana for medical use and 32 others
state’s 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 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 EDWARD
“njweedman” FORCHION
|
