'This is another
case of "NJWEEDMAN" standin up for
GOV. to "KISS HIS ASS..!"
PICTURE TO HEAR INTERVEIW
WHILE YOU READ THIS PAGE!
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.
TO SEE "KISS MY ASS COMMERCIAL"
McGreeveysigns DNA sampling bill into law
The Associated Press
- 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
every convicted criminal in New
state intends to collect samples from more than 140,000 criminals in
next two years and will pay for the team of 40 scientists that will
the processing with a $2 surcharge on traffic tickets. The surcharge is
expected to raise about $8.2 million a year.
new scientists at state police labs will cut the time it takes to
crime scene samples from 210 days to 30, authorities said. Officials
previously that the additional scientists would also reduce a backlog
the processing of more than 1,100 criminal cases.
James E. McGreevey signed the bill
law Monday at TrentonPsychiatricHospital,
which houses the state's criminally
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
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
by identifying and tracking them after their first conviction, they
repeat offenders, we know who you are, we're coming after you and
going to be behind bars," McGreevey
convicted of a crime, from the most serious felony down to simple
will now be required to provide a DNA sample. The 110,000 people
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.
said the new law would make investigations and prosecutions more
and would help exonerate the innocent.
authorities collected DNA samples only from those convicted in sex
kidnappings and homicides. The state's database now contains only
DNA samples collected since 1995.
the 24th state to require some form of sampling from all convicted
Attorney General Peter Harvey said other states have had success in
long-dormant homicides and other cases since implementing DNA sampling.
predicted the New
law would survive any legal challenges and said it does not interfere
a defendant's right to due process.
isn't just a measure to convict," the attorney general said. "It's also
a measure to exonerate."
civil liberties advocates say they are concerned.
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
samples only from sex offenders.
the government was given that inroad it has expanded beyond
said. "Now a 13-year-old who shoplifts will have his DNA code collected
by the government and maintained throughout his life.
becoming more and more of a surveillance society."
parolee tries to block DNA testing
October 2, 2003
New state law forces convicts to give samples for database
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
to provide a DNA sample for a state database.
law also requires the 110,000 people already in prison or under the
of either a parole or probation officer to submit DNA by providing
just another example of the government interfering with people's
said Edward Forchion, who is enrolled in the state's Intensive
who tried to change his legal name to NJWeedman.com,
is head of the Legalize Marijuana Party.
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
parole program in April 2002.
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
in Federal Court on the grounds that the measure is an ex
post facto law.
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.
said his parole is over and he is awaiting a court date to formally
him a free man. He said he served his time, and that his plea bargain
sentence mentioned nothing about providing a DNA sample.
law may not be considered punishment, but rather a bill that protects
public, said Perry Dane, a RutgersUniversity
been similar debates on the sex offender registry statutes,"
said. "Even in that context, the courts have upheld sex-offender
seems to be a new form of identification, and the state certainly has
right to maintain information on former prisoners," Dane added.
state intends to collect DNA samples from more than 140,000 people in
next two years. A $2 surcharge on traffic tickets will pay for the
challenging state law involving
By John Reitmeyer
BCT staff writer Oct.
activist Ed "njweedman" Forchion of Pemberton Township is challenging a
recently enacted state law that requires all state prisoners and
to submit DNA samples.
who is serving a parole term for a marijuana-distribution conviction,
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
form of punishment that is also an illegal invasion of his
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
by expanding the crimes for which DNA samples are collected.
Before the law was enacted, only
who committed violent crimes or serious sex offenses were required to
DNA samples. Now, anyone convicted of burglary, weapons offenses, theft
of items above $250 and other fourth-degree offenses must submit DNA
The law also applies to all offenders currently in state prison or
being supervised by the state through parole or probation
The governor and state
the law as a way to enhance criminal investigations with a bigger
of DNA evidence. The new law also tacked $2 onto every traffic fine
in the state to pay for upgrades to DNA-testing laboratories and to
at least 40 new scientists.
Forchion, however, said the law
apply to people who have previously been convicted of a crime because
U.S. Constitution protects additional protects additional punishments
being added to the original penalities
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
base was unconstitutional! – This
have some impact on NJWEEDMAN’s case.
Strikes Down U.S.Prisoner DNA Law Oct.
3, 2003 By
The Associated Press
- A federal appeals court has declared a 3-year-old law that requires
inmates and parolees to give blood samples for the FBI's DNA database
be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
a 2-1 decision handed down Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
overturned the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 on grounds
that the routine sampling denied inmates and parolees of their Fourth
protection against illegal searches.
enforcement officials, according to the opinion, wrongly took the blood
samples because there was no legal suspicion that the convicts were
in other crimes.
Justice Department declined comment.
lawyers had argued that taking blood was no different than taking
Two of the panel's three judges, however, rejected that proposition as
a "false analogy."
fingerprints and blood "obscures the constitutional difference between
invasive procedures ... and an examination or recording of physical
that are generally exposed to public view," wrote Judge Stephen
ruling could have a sweeping impact on criminal cases in California
and other states.
samples taken from federal prisoners and those on supervised release
been used to convict hundreds of people on crimes such as murder and
It was too early to say whether those convictions would survive, said
Knox, a deputy public defender of Los
also said the decision, if it stands, could nullify state laws that
the taking of blood from inmates and parolees. The court covers Alaska,Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon
states have similar laws," Knox said. "This could gut those."
of the 1.4 million genetic profiles in the FBI's database are from
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.
however, does track that number, said state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
Matches have occurred about 400 times, including one that led to the
of a man in the 1993 rape and murder of two San
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
was linked to evidence taken from the 1989 rape and slaying of a Palm
County, Fla., woman.
was not immediately clear whether the decision would allow those who
given blood to have it withdrawn from the databank, for use by police
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
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
the DNA act was unconstitutional because convicts have fewer rights
In addition, he said the
court in 1995 sided
with an Oregon
law requiring certain convicts to submit to a DNA registry - a ruling
said should stand.
9th Circuit is the most liberal and overturned federal appeals court in
the country. The court's three-judge panels are known for several
rulings, including one that declared the Pledge of Allegiance
in public schools and a decision last month that postponed California's
recall election. That ruling was later overturned by a larger 9th
Seeks Limits on DNA
as unconstitutional invasion of right to privacy
Jim Edwards New Jersey
Law Journal 11-07-2003
When New Jersey's law requiring
of a crime to hand over a DNA sample was enacted on Sept. 21, it
Ed Forchion - a marijuana-legalization activist better known as
- of Minority Report.
In Minority Report, a short story
author Philip K. Dick that became a movie starring Tom Cruise, crime
are reduced to zero as the police arrest people for wrongs they only
The new law is an ominous step
Big Brother-type scenario, Forchion believes. As DNA will be used to
crimes that have not yet been committed, he says, it requires searches
of people who are not yet suspects.
"When you watch that movie,
this is incredible. They're arresting people and convicting them of a
crime. And now they're taking our DNA," Forchion says. "You're not
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
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
Forchion's rap sheet is too long
to be described
here - he's been arrested more than 30 times - and his list of
press cuttings is even longer. He's currently in the Intensive
Program after being released from a 16-month jail spell on a
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
a letter from his ISP judge, Superior Court Judge Shirley Tolentino,
demanding that he "submit to having a blood sample drawn, or other
sample collected, for purposes of DNA testing."
In the past few weeks, thousands
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
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
the state with their DNA.
As a result, criminal defense
been fielding telephone calls from former clients worried about the new
requirement. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has
about 30 such calls so far. The original law and amendments in 2000 had
focused only on serious crimes, such as sexual assault, murder,
endangering and luring a child, and certain aggravated assaults.
Forchion's challenge has gotten
The ACLU last week filed an amicus
in the case, Forchione v.
A. No. 02-4942. "Mr. Forchion is seeking only a preliminary injunction,
and it's clearly reasonably likely that he will succeed on his
to the DNA law as the Ninth Circuit has already come to that
says Edward Barocas, the ACLU's legal
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
his blood for a DNA database. The case involved the "most fundamental
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
motion. They argue that Forchion should have thought about his privacy
rights in 1997, before he was caught delivering a 100-pound bale of
hidden in a cooler to his brother.
"Convicted offenders forfeit
even under the constitution. This may be one of them," says Burlington
County Prosecutor Robert Bernardi. "It
to me that the state has a compelling interest in developing this
which would override the rights of these individual defendants to be
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.
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
Two prosecutors allow that
post facto argument - that his plea deal is wrongly being altered to
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.
for thought on that issue. "That's obviously a debatable question," he
says. "I'm sure [the Attorney General's Office] had their people
this so it would withstand constitutional scrutiny."
Attorney General Peter Harvey,
wrote the law, and Deputy Attorney General Christopher Josephson, who
defending the case, decline to comment.
A similar ex post facto issue in
Law involving community notification of a released offender's presence
had its constitutionality tested in a string of state and federal
with the most recent ruling coming in August, in A. A. v. New
Jersey, 341 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
need to prevent child abuse.
The meat of the ACLU's interest,
is to prevent the state from legalizing a generalized search without
or suspicion. DNA does more than merely definitively identify someone
way fingerprints do; medical history and eugenic information is also
divinable from a DNA source.
"What makes this case compelling
this is bodily fluid," says Lawrence Lustberg,
a partner at Newark's Gibbons, Del Deo,
Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione
who wrote the brief with Gibbons fellow Gitanjali
Gutierrez. "The Supreme Court has long viewed taking bodily pieces,
or swabs or anything, as among the greatest intrusions that you can
so that's the standard by which we think this could be judged. What
be more personal or private than your DNA?"
that. The genetic sample itself isn't being kept, he points out, just
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
see that as an invasion of privacy," Bernardi
U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas
to set a date for oral arguments.
Nov. 20th, 2003 the ISP re-sentencing panel released me from ISP
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
came by my house an delivered a letter ordering me to give a sample on
Dec. 2nd, 2003. (SEE: CODIS-LETTER).
cited for defying demand for DNA sample
TWP. - A township
man who refused to submit DNA samples to the Department of Corrections
was issued a contempt of court citation Thursday.
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
or under the supervision of either a parole or probation officer.
sent a defiant letter to Gov. James E. McGreevey and the Department of
"I won't be
I refuse to surrender my DNA!" Forchion said in the letter dated Nov.
received several phone calls Tuesday Dec. 2 from the state's Intensive
Supervision Program informing him he would be found in contempt of
and possibly arrested.
DNA testing violates ex post facto law and was not a condition of his
prison sentence in December 2000 for possessing 25 pounds of marijuana.
He served 17 months before being admitted to a 20-month intensive
program in April 2002. His parole ended at
law after I got convicted I wouldn't even be fighting this," he said.
either have the Constitution or you don't. You don't go making
to it along the way."
Forchion said he evaded officers parked outside his home, but was
the citation at a convenience store in Wrightstown.
scheduled for Dec. 12.
"I am guilty of contempt," he said. "I did not give up my DNA
no plans to do so."
THE LORETTA NALL SHOW
COURTESY OF POT-TV
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!"
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.
PRISONERS-FILING DNA SUITS!
WEEDMAN CHALLENGES NEW LAW
TRENTONIAN staff writer,
TRYMAINE D. LEE
(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
Forchion's defiance in the face of the new law
requiring specimens from prison inmates could heat up into a
"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
THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES ME WITH
I CHARGE THE GOV WITH CONTEMPT! (12/10/2003)
'Constitutionality of new DNA
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
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:
"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".
'Njweedman' indicted for refusing to submit DNA;
faces jail time-- 1/11/2004
By JASONBODNAR BurlingtonCounty Times
advocate Ed "njweedman" Forchion may be
heading back to jail.
On Thursday, a grand jury
indicted the PembertonTownship 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
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.
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.
hits a serious snag By Monica Yant Kinney Inquirer Columnist
The Weedman strikes again.
his antigovernment attitude - not his drug habit - may send him back to
The Weedman is Ed Forchion, a dreadlocked
Rastafarian asthmatic former truck driver from BurlingtonCounty who
believes he has the religious and medical rights to puff pot.
happens to think the nation's drug laws stink, destroy families, and
unjustly clog up the court system.
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.
petitioned the courts to legally change his name to NJWeedman.com in an
effort to draw more eyeballs to his pro-pot Web site.
probably should have faded into obscurity last year after finishing a
short prison sentence for possessing 40 pounds of pot.
couldn't. He wouldn't, even with a wife and kids to support.
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.
says the law amounts to after-the-fact punishment and an invasion of
filed a federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
he was assigned a date to fork over his own DNA, he ignored it.
By his own
count, the Weedman has nine active legal
something to do with pot and the pothead's contention that weed - and the Weedman -
have been unfairly vilified.
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.
the Weedman had no such trouble, arriving
at the Camden County Hall of Justice more than an hour before his DNA
weekend, he learned a grand jury had indicted him for refusing to
submit his DNA.
his act of civil disobedience became criminal contempt.
a family man cherishing his freedom found himself facing 18 months
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.
this is another one of those times my family's thinking: 'You did it to
yourself,' " he said. "But I really didn't
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.
coming here for seven years," the Weedman
hall outside his courtroom, the Weedman
shared his strategy.
be guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to give his DNA, he said,
because he had already filed his federal suit challenging the law.
Assistant Prosecutor John Wynne, after police took the Weedman away to fingerprint him and file arrest
"You get a
court order, you have to obey it," Wynne said. "He should know this."
the Weedman pleaded not guilty.
he was released on his own recognizance so he could go home to his
family and his job.
he'll have a real lawyer when the case resumes next month.
he admitted, "this is above my jailhouse lawyering
self-aware stoner with the presence of mind to know he's out of his
the drug czars say?
WHY I'M NOT COMPLYING!
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!
KISS MY ASS
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
Then I went to jail for
5 months for talking about changing the very law that had
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
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
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
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!
one is bound to obey
an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late
256. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null
void." - Marbury vs. Madison,
5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). “Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation
would abrogate them”.Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436
p. 491- "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no
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
alters a defendant's rights esp. by criminalizing and imposing
an act that was not criminal or punishable at the time it was
increasing the severity of a crime from its level at the time the crime
increasing the punishment for a crime from the punishment imposed at
the crime was committed, or by taking away from the
evidentiary protection) afforded the defendant by the law as it existed
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
to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the
the Constitution. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390
(1798); Ex parte Garland,
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
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
illegal EX POST FACTO law and the Judiciary itself is (prosecuting)
this law. It’s not supposed to work that way, it is very apparent to me
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!
SUBMITTED BY A “INFERIOR
NIGGER” WHO WAS LOCKED UP WITH LAW-BOOKS,
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!
- 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.
decision doesn't overturn a 2003 state law requiring criminals to
submit DNA samples to the state, but it clears Forchion,
a PembertonTownship resident
who is running for Congress and the Burlington County Board of
Freeholders, from facing a criminal penalty for not complying with the
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.
his outspoken defiance of the DNA-sample law, the state discharged Forchion from supervision Dec. 3,
forcing him to submit a sample. A month later, a grand jury in CamdenCounty indicted Forchion on a charge of contempt for not
complying with the law.
response, Forchion, who faced a possible
18-month prison term, challenged the indictment and the DNA-sample law.
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
CLICK PICTURE TO SEE NJWEEDMAN
COMMERCIAL ABOUT THIS ISSUE
“KISS MY ASS..”
Your not getting my DNA!
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.
the little guy can't beat city hall, well NJWEEDMAN just beat the
entire state," Forchion said.
County Prosecutor Vincent P. Sarubbi,
whose office successfully tried Forchion
on his original drug of-fense, said he
would appeal the decision.
decision establishes a dangerous and far-reaching precedent that could
result in litigants ignoring court orders," Sarubbi
writer Mike Mathis contributed to this report.
THE STATE APPEALS
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
Court upholds ‘Weedman’ DNA ruling
ARTEMIS COUGHLAN, Staff Writer
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
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
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.
Appeals court upholds refusal to provide DNA
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
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.