A huge catastrophe has occurred in New Jersey
The New Jersey Attorney General Office has issued a new directive that eviscerates the “confrontation clause” of the 6th amendment and the Press has largely ignored this Abuse of Govt.
James Madison who served as the fourth President of the United States from 1809 to 1817 and is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for his role in drafting the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, must be turning over in his grave.
(URBAN DEFENDANTS TO LOSE 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS)
The New Jersey Attorney General Porrino has issued a PROTECT SNITCH DIRECTIVE he claims preserves the integrity of the courts, but I know it actually undermines the 6th amendment’s “confrontation clause”. The State Attorney General has launched an effort he claims is to reduce witness intimidation, which the Attorney General described as a pervasive problem that exists in urban centers across New Jersey, where the “snitches get stitches” culture is common. Which to me is a classic dog whistle PR smear; “paint it with the brush of blackness to get whites to be accepting of it”.
I think the AG’s timing on this directive is linked to my Mercer County case, and designed to tilt justice further towards the Government. This slippery slope of justice is antagonist of the secret witness’s and courts the 6th amendment was supposed to prevent.
I think James Madison would be beside himself. This is what I’m talking about when I say, “the citizens of today have more to revolt about than the colonist in 1776 did".
State officials claim the names of snitches are listed in Brady discovery material, which is constitutionally provided to the defendant, and defense lawyers through the prosecutors, and that many of them have then been threatened because of it. Well maybe they shouldn’t be snitches but that’s not my problem or concern, my concern is simply demanding my right to a fair public trial before a jury of my peers.
I think the Prosecutor should name his directive “hide the accuser clause”. I demand to face my accuser – ZEV M. LAPIDUS.
The AG’s directive claims to require prosecutors to notify police that information is being provided through discovery so they can take preventative action to avoid acts of intimidation before they occur. Actually this message will be used as a signal as to what information to keep certain discovery material from defendant. Police will learn to keep “snitch info” out of BRADY material preventing defendants from actually facing their accuser, as the founders envisioned. Withholding “accuser info” denies the accused of a fair trial or defense.
His directive mandates certain protocols, such as the use of anonymous references in court pleadings claiming its to protect witness confidentiality and anonymity. The problem for law enforcement is defendants have a RIGHT to confront their accusers. With this directive Prosecutors will withhold the identity and names of “snitches”. When a prosecutor withholds a name it changes the case for the defendant, denies fairness and flies in the face of the intent of the 6th amendment.
US CONSTITUTION - Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and 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 for his defense
NJ CONSTITUTION Article 1 paragraph 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.
The State of New Jersey needs to restrict the RIGHT(s) of defendants to obtain convictions. This Directive and the statements made by the Attorney General paints a picture of goodness for his vile directive. His directive is a unconstitutional attempt to DENY defendants designed to railroad blackmen into prison without the fair opportunity to present a defense. How is a person supposed to defend himself or herself if they don’t know who said whom or what? This is a catastrophe!
In my case right here in Mercer County in Feb 2016 I got into a pissing contest with Capt. Gonzales of the local Trenton Police over hours of operation regulations. Capt. Gonzales was illegally ordering me to close at 11pm. I stayed open until 2am. I refused to close and this pissed him off. As Sgt Stokes told me ON VIDEO , “The CAPT was going to turn it up” on me and he did by launching a phony criminal investigation of me (ON MARCH 10th, 2016) for the sole purpose of punishing me for not complying. #NOCHICKENWINGSAFTER11pm
In March 2016 The Trenton Police used a “RAT-SNITCH” to create a entrapment case against me. To those who don’t know: Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992).
RECENT ENTRAPMENT CASES - read
This “snitch” Zev M. Lapidus who the police have listed as a confidential informant thought the affidavit was used to obtain the search/arrest warrant. He was sent on this MISSION by Trenton City Police Detective Yolanda Ward, and Trenton PD Officer Ronald POPE to convince me to provide him (ZEV) with marijuana. (Government agents may not originate a criminal design). I was not selling marijuana, I use marijuana everyone knows I use marijuana – I seek daily pain relief with marijuana for I am a bone cancer sufferer. Zev was sent by the police to induce me to commit the crime of marijuana distribution so that the POLICE could arrest me for my blatant resistance to their orders that I close at 11pm. This is a classic example of a entrapment and retaliation.
The prosecutor in my case Assistant Mercer County Prosecutor Stephanie Katz has fought to keep me from this basic BRADY material. She has motioned Judge Massi to keep my “snitches” information secret. ( http://www.njweedman.com/katz_brief_to_withhold_discovery.pdf)
Specifically she doesn’t want me to put Zev M. Lapidus image or name in the public realm; which I’ve obviously ignored. I’ve demanded his name solely to subpoena him to testify in open court to the accusations he made to the police of me. She has made false accusations that I’ve put him and his family in danger, on the contrary if anyone did that it was the police. I simply want to testify in open court to his reasons for setting me up for arrest, (was he paid, compensated or rewarded) I want to use his testimony to impeach his credibility and utilize a entrapment case to these charges. Mrs. Katz wants to hide him, and deny me the RIGHTS to a “fair Public Trial”.
My lawyer Edward Harrington Heyburn has filed a motion to reveal his information.
Now the Attorney General weighs in with this new directive how convenient! It’s clear to anyone that the Attorney General is attempting to undermine the RIGHT to face ones accuser. It looks like Stephanie Katz complained to the Attorney general which prompted this new directive and now will this effect Judge Massi’s ruling?
How will Judge Massi rule?
(Judge Massi was set to rule on 1/18/17 as of this publication 2/1/17 he has not yet )