POLITICAL PRISONER

Video
Weedman Protests / Trial Coverage / American Dissident

   Ed Forchion considers himself a Political/Religious Prisoner of the U.S. Drug War, incarcerated because of his religious beliefs, which conflict with today's Drug War Politics. The state of New Jersey claims that Forchion is in prison because he broke the law and on the third day of trial, he accepted a plea bargain. Technically, they are both right; but should a man's freedom come down to one technicality winning out over another? Or is the concept of justice in these United States supposed to be about something higher?

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," wrote Sir Wiliam Blackstone in the late 1760's; and the primacy of Blackstone's legal thought is explicit even in our own time and place. "Blackstone is in the law at least, immortal" (U.S. Vs. Pardue, 765 f.Supp. 513, 523(W.D. Ark. 1991)) His maxim is known even to the layperson and forms the bedrock of our system of criminal justice, the precursor to the requirement that he who is convicted of a crime in the U.S. be found guilty only "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Couple that with the first line of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establish of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]" Forchion claims that the U.S. Congress violated the first amendment by passing the CSA - (Controlled Substance Act of 1970) which 100% outlawed marijuana, providing no religious exceptions.

This makes religions like RASTAFARI illegal to practice in the U.S.A. "home of the free." Ed Forchion is on record a practicing RASTAFARIAN; and RASTAFARIANISM is a well established religion that holds cannabis to be it's chief sacrament, as was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996 (U.S. Vs. BAURER, NO. 94-30073, 96 C.D.O.S. 756, 1996WL42240)

So the reasonable doubt in the matter at hand is simple and can be arrived at by way of a syllogism: If it is the case that 1) Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exersice of religion, 2) That RASTAFARIANISM is a Bona Fide Religion, 3) that cannabis is the chief sacrament of RASTAFARIANISM, and 4) that Ed Forchion is on record as practicing RASTAFARIANISM, then there is reasonable doubt as to whether Forchion could have been convicted of the "Crime" of possesion of CANNABIS without violation of his constitiutional RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RIGHTS!

Admittedly, though, there is more to Forchion's case than this: the gravamen against him is conspiracy to posses with intent to distribute over 25 lbs. if marijuana -(40 lbs.) - a charge he has never denied. However, even this is circumscribed in the above syllogism, in that as pointed out by the Reverend Roger Christie of the Hawai"I Cannabis Ministry: "It is mandatory [...] Ed was doing his ministerly duties to provide sacrament to those in need and want of it." Forchion says, "I'm not a drug pusher, I'm a provider of sacrament, everyone who has ever received the HERB from me has wanted it. There are no complaints from citizens, just from our oppressive and tryannical government.

This sort of responsibility is considered of such gravity by the law itself that written into even the VOLSTEAD ACT (the 1919 law giving federa; agents the power to investigate and prosecute violations of the EIGHTEETH AMENDMENT (i.e., ALCOHOL PROHIBITION) was a blanket exception for manufacture, use, etc., of alcohol for "sacramental purposes" (Title II, section 3) Christians were still allowed to use "wine" during the prohibition of alcohol! Why isn't there a similar religious exemption for marijuana during this current Prohibition on marijuana? Marijuana has been used as a religious sacrament for over 5,000 years. Forchion says, "Racism, our all white congress and state legislatures refuse to respect African religious customs or beliefs, many of which use marijuana. This is an example of RACIST RELIGIOUS intolerance and continued persecution of african-americans in america. Just as during slavery, we are forced to be christians."

Forchion tried to address these issues with a defense he called OPEN ADVOCATION of JURY NULLIFICATION. Even though JURY NULLIFICATION is legal (see FIJA.ORG) two judges in his case ruled they were illegal. The public defenders office refused to defend Forchion using this defense. The director of the Camden Office of the Public Defender called Forchion's chosen defence "anachy", refused to assist him with motions and tactics that would have supported his defense. He was refused the normally uncontested RIGHT of obtaining witness's in his favor.

But after three days of an unfair trial, where Forchion was denied the RIGHT to utilize the defense he had chosen - OPEN ADVOCATION OF JURY NULLIFICATION, denied the RIGHT to raise a religious defense, denied the RIGHT to present any witness (expert of otherwise) and denied the services or assistance of the Public Defender's Office, (Because the Public Defenders office refused to assist Forchion, he was forced to attempt to represent himself) He succumbed to the incredible pressure of the state to imprison and accepted a so-called deal.

For three years, Forchion had publicly fought these charges, running for U.S. Congress in 1998 and 2000, N.J. State assembly in 1999, as well as local county offices in 1998-99 & 2000. Forchion said, "when I was arrested, they read me my Miranda Rights, which states anything you say or do can and will be used against you at trial," Well I think it could also be used for you, so I ran for these offices as a way of reaching my potential jurors, (see NJWEEDMAN stories) and making public statements.

Fearing the potential consequences, (20 years, 12 before parole) of a legal system that, technically, considers marijuana (a CSA-Schedule 1 Drug) as more dangerous and/or with less preactical purposes than either cocaine or PCP (both Schedule 2 drugs) He accepted the deal and was sentenced to 10 years with a chance of parole after 2 years.

Even the plea bargain, though, is tainted by the fact that the prosecutor unethically presented the offer to someone other than the plaintiff's attorney: (Forchion himself) the prosecutor approached a public defender, who was acting as stand-by counsel, with the offer instead of Forchion, who was representing himself because the PDO refused to. Thus he should have been the one to receive all prosecutorial communications regarding the care first.

And so there is certainly reasonable doubt as to whether Forchion's first and six amendment RIGHTS were respected; and moreover, there is the additional stain on his conviction, in that he has been denied his constitutionally guaranteed DUE PROCESS (by virtue of the manner in which the plea was offered) So why is Ed Forchion in prison? Why can't he at least get a new trial after he was so obviously denied a fair trial the first time, which he has been endeavoring to obtain virtually since the day of his imprisonment (12/1/2000)? Will Forchion become the Mumia of the marijuana legalization struggle; like Mumia is to the death penalty issue! He would have you believe the reason he is being kept from a new trial are political and religious in nature. In light of the above facts, he appears he may be right, for in his case, it does not seem that justice is the highest principle being served.

Forchion says that the local lawyers of Camden County formed a conspiracy to prevent him from having a fair trial, now this conspiracy has been preventing him from appealing his unfair trial. Normally in New Jersey, after a conviction, you have 45 days to file a "Notice of Appeal" On Dec. 11th, 2000, Forchion signed a "NOTICE OF APPEAL" Yet, the N.J.PDO failed to file his "NOTICE OF APPEAL" with the N.J. Appellate Court until Sept 4th, 2001. 10 months later!! He says it wouldn't have been done at all if he hadn't been bitching, begging and complaining so much and complaining to everyone, including the attorney generals of the U.S.A. and N.J. Still as of this day, March. 1st, 2002) the public defender is still refusing to provide the services of the PDO ( pay for the transcripts they are obligated to provide to all indigent defendants). This is just part of the cover-up by the Public Defenders Office of their participation in his deliberate unfair trial. " 

The public defender allied themselves with the state prosecutors office in preventing him from utilizing a jury nullification defense, and became a friend of the court." Anyone who reads the transcripts would see that he was denied a fair trial, this case is an obvious TRAVESTY of JUSTICE. 

Forchion says, "At this point, it's not even about marijuana, it's about the constitution and it's BILL of RIGHTS to me. Everyone is entitled to the RIGHTS guaranteed by them, including WEEDSMOKERS."