Being charged with rootballs and stalks

[Rednick]

LEO gets on every once and a while.
Then they talk some shit and get marked.
Think of how much time you (I) waste on this site.
To LEO that is a complete waste of time when they can more easily just roll on a pothead, and work their way up the ladder using CIs and getting warrants.
Other growers are only interested in HOW you grow, not WHO you are...unless it is a pissing contest.
Someone interested in WHO you are, is probably LEO.

 

[Chester]

The Fox has got it.

Juries are frequently composed of folks who cannot get out of jury duty or are willing to sit around for that $15-40 a day.... The chances of getting 12 intelligent, thinking jurors is easily demonstrated using an ordinary snowball and blowtorch.

Very few jurors today, know that it is the duty of a jury to judge the law as well as the accused. So, when the judge or prosecutor tells them they must convict, they don't typically have the balls to tell the judge to f**k-off and vote to acquit. They just baa like sheep, vote guilty and go home.

Do you really want to put your life in the hands of the average voter/juror??? 'Cause that's the effect of that dice roll.

The alcohol prohibition failed partly because juries refused to convict. 'Tis a shame that the quality of public education has declined so badly that this prohibition rarely encounters jury nullification.

When dealing with the law, always assume they've stacked the deck against you. Say nothing, admit nothing, and get the best lawyer/liar you can. Your ass depends on it.

Stay safe.

 

[David762]

Then again ...

Then again ...

The Fox has got it.

Juries are frequently composed of folks who cannot get out of jury duty or are willing to sit around for that $15-40 a day.... The chances of getting 12 intelligent, thinking jurors is easily demonstrated using an ordinary snowball and blowtorch.

Very few jurors today, know that it is the duty of a jury to judge the law as well as the accused. So, when the judge or prosecutor tells them they must convict, they don't typically have the balls to tell the judge to f**k-off and vote to acquit. They just baa like sheep, vote guilty and go home.

Do you really want to put your life in the hands of the average voter/juror??? 'Cause that's the effect of that dice roll.

The alcohol prohibition failed partly because juries refused to convict. 'Tis a shame that the quality of public education has declined so badly that this prohibition rarely encounters jury nullification.

When dealing with the law, always assume they've stacked the deck against you. Say nothing, admit nothing, and get the best lawyer/liar you can. Your ass depends on it.

Stay safe.

if you do go to a jury trial, you might just get one or more assholes just like me that believe in jury nullification, and who take their civic duties seriously. I have served on juries before, and it seems that I have a basic tenet that I live by -- i question authority, and the motives of authority. Like I said, I'm a real asshole ...

 

[Chester]

Yeah it only takes one "asshole" like you or me on a jury to make that difference.

I like to have folks explain to me who was the victim. Who exactly was harmed.....

Still, chances of getting lucky and getting a gold-plated asshole on your jury are slim. The economy is doing a wonderful job of erasing the sheeple's blind faith in the infallibility of government though.


Stay safe.

 

[David762]

Yeah it only takes one "asshole" like you or me on a jury to make that difference.

I like to have folks explain to me who was the victim. Who exactly was harmed.....

Still, chances of getting lucky and getting a gold-plated asshole on your jury are slim. The economy is doing a wonderful job of erasing the sheeple's blind faith in the infallibility of government though.


Stay safe.

I think that those "slim chances" get better when you have a good (smart) lawyer, as opposed to getting a court-appointed lawyer, which imho is a crap-shoot. But the whole point of a jury trial instead of trying to plead your case down is to make the Powers That Be fight for each and every conviction. This will clog up the court system, and cost these DAs much more time and money. When you factor in jury nullification, the success rate of these prosecutors will drop significantly. At some point, the DAs will become much more selective in the cases they even initiate, let alone prosecute. Eventually, they may even stop prosecuting these victimless "crimes" that more correctly should have been addressed as a medical instead of a criminal issue. And if I ever go to prison for growing harmless beneficial plants like cannabis, I will not subject myself to to the parole system -- the Powers That Be will have to house & feed me for whatever time I serve. F' them.

I am reminded of how the USA "won" the Cold War against the USSR -- we outspent the Russians, until their economy could no longer support their geopolitical ambitions (like Afghanistan). Of course, the USA today is facing the cumulative economic disaster that those Cold War efforts began -- the USA's role as "world policeman" has replaced our Cold War military expenditures and beyond. It turns out that supporting crony corporations in our quest for mercantile colonial hegemony is far more expensive than the Cold War ever was. There was no "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War rainbow. Our "empire" is collapsing in front of our eyes.

Peace, and best regards.

 

[DasFox]

Yeah it only takes one "asshole" like you or me on a jury to make that difference.

You will never get on a jury unless you commit a FELONY...

THANKS

 

[Stress_test]

The fact is that IF everybody who is charged with a mj offense plead "Not Guilty, Jury Trial" and stuck to it; they would have mj decriminalized in months.

There is no way that the court system or jail systems could sustain it more than a couple of weeks. Look at the numbers. Our court and jail/prison is already slowed to nearly a stand still, and every branch of government is crying that they need more funding.

Ideally, don't get caught if you are in a state were weed is illegal, but IF you do then "Not Guilty, Jury Trial".
No pleas, even if you are caught dead to rights, make em prove it and more people will realize that there is no victim and how common it is.

To start with it would force more people to show up for jury duty, that alone will create HUGE awareness.

 

[Mountain]

To start with it would force more people to show up for jury duty, that alone will create HUGE awareness.

Don't know about others but have been through the jury selection process a few times and quite interesting. Was cool to watch the peeps get questioned and look at them from the defense and prosecution side. Most people want nothing to do with sitting on a jury and are whining and complaining just to have to go through the process. I knew who I would want on a jury for me but the general 'quality' of the people really sucked.

 

[Rednick]

This is where your Public Pretender will fuck you, especially if he wants to make DA one day and not become a criminal defense lawyer.
Jury Selection and Discovery.
That is where the lawyers make their big bucks, it is not some Hollywood, ala Jonnie Cochran 'Chewbacca Defense'.
It is their ability to prep the battlefield, so to speak. And to know when the other guy is bluffing.

 

[Stress_test]

You know this is actually like a slight reflection of my lifes situation...

About 10 years ago I was dating a lady whose brother was a dep. sheriff. A typical power trippin puke with no common sense and bragged about beating and abusing bums.
After she and I split, her brother started fucking with me. At first it was petty crap. But progressed to him setting me up and charging me with kidknapping. (Not literally, but the legal equivalent. I held an intruder at gunpoint after I called 911, until the law showed up.) He had set the whole thing up.
Since then he has screwed with me over anything he can, to the point of sitting in court, during trial and attempting to intimidate the jury and myself.

As soon as I had a document in my hand that declared my state would not attempt prosecution if I was a legal MMJ patient, I wanted so badly to go smoke a bowl on the courthouse steps!

It would have been like telling that piece of shit rat bastard badge packin punk to go suck a wet fart.

However, 10 years ago I had never even tried smokin pot.

People are learning. Sometimes we just need a nudge like being called to jury duty.

 

[Chester]

You will never get on a jury unless you commit a FELONY...

THANKS

Well then, we'll see. I am scheduled for such duty soon. Got the pre-screening letter a month or so ago, and if it the same pattern as in the past, there will be that "mandatory" appointment letter 2-4 months later.

Would be fun to be on a grand jury. I would find it difficult to indite for felony Bingo (true here), and other victimless crimes. Show me a corpse and sufficient evidence, and that murder perp get's his trial. Show me who was the victim in that illegal Bingo game......

I'd probably get kicked off after a short time.....

Ya never know. Secret is, answer honestly only the minimum to what is asked. Don't volunteer information and don't lie. Better silence than a lie. That was all they got Martha Stewart for, lying to an officer. Had she only said "I don't remember", instead of trying to be helpful.....

I'm pretty damned forgetful.....


Stay safe.

 

[medwa]

It worked for Bill Gates.

 

[!!!]

btw, you will be asked in court to provide the keys for the encryption you use. its the same as LEO opening safes.

I'm not sure if you are required to provide this info in US courts. What have the rulings been on this in previous cases?

But either way, to get past this problem, the program lets you have two keys. One opens up your highly illegal grow op pics, and the other opens up porn, or whatever else you'd like for the cops to see when they ask for your password.

The only problem is the size of the file won't make much sense sometimes. Example: If you have 100mb of grow op pics on 1 end of the file, and 100mb of family-friendly or pr0n pics on the rest of the file, the file will be 200mb. But LEO will count only 100mb when you give them the password for the "safe" side of the encrypted disk. I'm not sure how technical they get into these things though.

My passphrase is (along the lines of) "I'm not unlocking shit, biatch!"

 

[DasFox]

I'm not sure if you are required to provide this info in US courts. What have the rulings been on this in previous cases?

SO FAR...no demand to supply passphrase UNLESS Patriot Act violation...then ALL bets are off...

THANKS

 

[Mister Postman]

Hemmed up I feel for you bro. What a fucking nightmare of a situation. I can see going down with the feds for 100+plants growing, but for 10 plants, and possibly a years worth of old rootballs. FUCK!! Hang in there bro. Put whatever is left into a good lawyer.

 

[EastFortRock]

I read this and found every root ball and stem on my property and put it in a random dumpster .

 

[hippydan]

I read this and found every root ball and stem on my property and put it in a random dumpster .

It's definitely an eye-opener, that's for sure. I'm glad the OP shared his story so that we may benefit from his troubles. Good luck Hemmed!

 

[Hemmed up]

The advice that really saved my ass when it mattered most was to have an "oh shit" fund tucked away. Take as much loot as you can and keep it away from where you rest your head. Remember a decent fed lawyer will cost you around 10k plus ++ and thats the low end. Without my lawyer Id be with the public pretender, right now. when they had me in for questioning they were talking about all the money they took from my place and suggested that I go with the federal public defender. Saying " federal lawyers are nothing like the state public defenders" and they reccomended I go with one of the 3 available. Its been over a month and we still dont know shit. They hold there cards until they have to play them is what the lawyer is saying. So as of right now the only thing Ive learned is that since I got out is that my casse isnt a priority for the feds and who knows how long this could take.... In the meantime Im getting a real job...so. Ill keep you guys posted as things develop. Thanks for the support.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/932/932.F2d.856.90-3230.html

p.s.

 

[Hemmed up]

As part of the 1995 revisions of the federal sentencing guidelines, the Sentencing Commission defined the word "plant." The Commission essentially adopted the Ninth Circuit\'s definition as stated above in the Burke case. Specifically, beginning November 1, 1995, for the purposes of the federal guidelines, a plant is defined as:

. . .An organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marijuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marijuana plant.) (Sec. 2D1.1 Application Note 22, as revised.)

 

[Hemmed up]

(b) "Plant" means any marijuana plant in any stage of growth.


See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17) (defining "plant" as "an organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marihuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marihuana plant)") (emphasis added); see also Foree, 43 F.3d at 1581 (holding that "cuttings and seedlings are not marihuana plants unless there is some readily observable evidence of root formation") (quotations omitted).
Neither the statute nor the current Sentencing Guidelines define the term "marihuana plant." But although the question is one of first impression in this circuit, every other court that has considered the issue has concluded that, for sentencing purposes, root formation is the sine qua non of a marijuana "plant." See United States v. Delaporte, 42 F.3d 1118, 1994 WL 706105 at * 2- * 3 (7th Cir. 1994); Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.; United States v. Burke, 999 F.2d 596, 601 (1st Cir.1993) ("at the first sign of roots, a plant exists for sentencing purposes"); United States v. Edge, 989 F.2d 871, 876-79 (6th Cir.1993) (plant exists if there is "some readily observable evidence of root formation"); United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610, 616 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Bechtol, 939 F.2d 603, 604-05 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Eves, 932 F.2d 856, 858-60 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 884, 112 S. Ct. 236, 116 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1991); [**26] United States v. Carlisle, 907 F.2d 94, 96 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Angell, 794 F. Supp. 874, 875 (D.Minn.1992), sentence vacated on other grounds, 11 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 2747, 129 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1994); United States v. Fitol, 733 F. Supp. 1312, 1314-16 (D.Minn.1990) ("To distinguish two plants from one plant cut into two pieces, there must be some evidence of individual growth after the severance, such as the growing of roots from a cutting.") 12
U.S. V. Robinson, 35 F.3d 442;, (9th cir. 1994)
Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.
si·ne qua non (sn kwä nn, nn, sn, kw)
n.
An essential element or condition: "The perfect cake is the sine qua non of the carefully planned modern wedding" (J.M. Hilary).
[Late Latin sine qu (caus) nn, without which (cause) not : Latin sine, without + Latin qu : ablative of qu, which, what, who + Latin nn, not.]
Here is a case from the 4th cir. which is an uncitable case but, it surely shows how the federal courts think and rule in the case of clones,seeds and dead plants.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERTRAND ANDER MILES, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-5153
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
319 Fed. Appx. 266; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6269
December 5, 2008, Argued
March 25, 2009, Decided
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
PRIOR HISTORY:* [**1]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. (3:07-cr-00214-HEH-1). Henry E. Hudson, District Judge.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: A jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, convicted defendant of manufacturing and conspiring to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants, and of maintaining a place for the distribution, storage, or use of marijuana. Defendant appealed from his conviction.
OVERVIEW: The jury was presented with sufficient evidence to support its finding that defendant manufactured and conspired to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants. A police officer testified that he personally counted 63 of defendant's marijuana plants and that each plant had roots. Although the only testimony that brought the number of plants from 63 to 100 was the testimony of a jailhouse informant, the court would not reweigh the district court's credibility findings. Also, the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's proposed jury instruction because marijuana was considered all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., including seeds under 21 U.S.C.S. § 802(16). There was no case law or statutory authority to support defendant's contention that a jury instruction, derived from a comment in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, which required a plant to have a root system in order to be considered a "marijuana plant," was correct. Finally, given that there was a sufficient basis to attribute defendant with 90 percent of the marijuana produced, it appeared that the district court's forfeiture amount was generous.
OUTCOME: Defendant's conviction was affirmed.



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIO L. DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-15533 Non-Argument Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
242 Fed. Appx. 645; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16141

July 6, 2007, Decided
July 6, 2007, Filed
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
PRIOR HISTORY:* [**1]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D. C. Docket No. 05-00114-CR-FTM-33-DNF.
United States v. Dominguez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41565 (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2006)
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

Neither the applicable statutes nor* [**10] our pattern jury instructions defines the term "marijuana plant." the term is defined with regard to sentencing: a marijuana plant is "an organism having leaves* [*649]* *and a readily observable root formation." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. This is relevant because a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence applies when a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) involves 100 or more "marijuana plants." 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii).
There is no question that Dominique developed his proffered instruction based on our language in Foree that a "marijuana plant" has "three characteristic components readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves." 43 F.3d at 1581 (quotation marks omitted). But that was not the holding of that case. We held that, for the purposes of sentencing, "cuttings and seedlings are not 'marihuana plants' within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) unless there is 'some readily observable evidence of root formation.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Edge, 989 F.2d 871, 877 (6th Cir. 1993)). As our subsequent cases have confirmed, root formation alone was central in the Foree decision. See United States v. Shields, 87 F.3d 1194, 1197 (11th Cir. 1996)* [**11] (en banc) (noting that Foree held that marijuana cuttings are not considered plants unless they developed roots); United States v. Antonietti, 86 F.3d 206, 208 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that Foree held that cuttings or seedlings are not considered plants until they develop their own roots).
Thus, Dominguez proffered jury instruction was not a correct statement of the law and, therefore, failed the first prong of the Garcia test, which states that the defendant must offer a substantially correct jury charge. See 405 F.3d at 1273.
Additionally, in Foree, we expressly stated that a defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the definition of "marihuana plant" at trial. 43 F.3d at 1582. Foree was solely focused on sentencing issues, and we held that a definition during trial was unnecessary because the definition of a "marijuana plant" has nothing to do with the government's burden of proof as to the underlying offense. Id. The elements of the charged offenses include (1) possession and (2) the intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841. Regardless of the exact number of "marihuana plants" at issue here, there is no question that Dominguez possessed at least some number of plants with* [**12] the intent to distribute them. That is all that was required to sustain a conviction. See id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested instruction.
AFFIRMED.