DELAWARE RALLY
October 30, 1998
by Julian Heicklen
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13
 Hi. I wish to thank Richard J. Schimelfenig, the Hempman, and the Walk and Roll Rally for the opportunity to speak to you. I believe that it is immoral to arrest someone for owning a veetable.  Furthermore I am a miser. One-third of all people entering state and federal prisons are doing so for non-violent narcotics crime.  Keeping them there costs a lot of money, my money.  I object to supporting dopeheads in prison, when they should be free and working to support me.
 I could tell you all of the reasons why marijuana should be legalized. However you know those already. Instead I will speak to you about the Marijuana Smoke Outs and the subsequent court proceedings.
A. HISTORY
 First let me give you some history. About 3 years ago, I became aware of the enormous prison population in the United States. We are now the number one police state in the world with 645 persons per 100,000 population incarcerated. Russia is second with 590. Many Western European countries run under 100 incarcerations per 100,000 people.
 I became involved with many prison groups. I led a class in Talmud for the Jewish prisoners at the local state prison. I became active in the Pennsylvania Prison Society, CentrePeace, The Justice Fellowship, and Project Change of Centre County. None of these organizations were active enough for me. In 1996, I founded a citizens lobby organization called Smart on Crime. The purpose of this organization is to reduce the prison population. We came to the conclusion that the largest group of people that should not be in prison are non-violent drug users. They constitute fully 1/3 of all people being sentenced to prison at the preset time. I contacted many federal and state representatives about decriminalizing drug use. This was futile. Even those legislators that agreed with me in part or whole said that they would not vote to soften drug laws, because they wanted to be reelected.
 In 1997, I also organized the Libertarian Party of Centre County. This organization and Smart on Crime decided that the next approach should be to go to the courts and convince a jury to nullify the law. This is an accepted legal defense. To get into the courts requires being arrested for a crime and having a jury trial. At noon on January 15, 1998, I smoked a marijuana joint in front of 100 people at the main university gate. Much to my surprise, I was not arrested. I repeated this 3 times at weekly rallies until an arrest was made. I then continued the weekly rallies, but did not smoke. I said that my goal was accomplished, and that I would not smoke again as long as I received a fair, impartial, speedy trial in front of a jury of my peers. Very soon, it became apparent that this was not to be the case. At the 7th rally, I resumed smoking marijuana joints. I have been arrested 11 times, six for smoking marijuana. See a history of the Smoke Outs on my home page at http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13.
B. TRIAL IRREGULARITIES
 This is my response to an open letter to me from Robert A. Weaver published in the Centre Daily Times of October 18, 1998. Mr. Weaver attended my trial and saw a very bitter and hostile elderly gentleman. I am very bitter and hostile, because I love our children and hate to see them in prison for owning vegetables. I am bitter and hostile because I resent that our schools are teaching the students lies about drugs, but let them graduate high school without ever having read the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions. I am bitter and hostile because the community wants to control my body. No-one is going to tell me what to do with my body, as long as I do not harm anyone else. If I want to put drugs into my body, I will do so. This decision is not subject to majority vote. There is only one vote that counts, and that is my vote.
 Mr. Weaver said that I angrily accused Mr. Sloane, the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case, of corruption. I certainly did, because the District Attorney accused me of intent to distribute marijuana, and Judge Charles Brown informed the jury at jury selection that I was so charged. Both Mr. Sloane and Judge Brown had to retract that charge at the trial, because every police officer involved in the arrests said that I was not so charged.
 Mr. Weaver said that I angrily accused Judge Brown of outrageous claims. I certainly did, and they are all true. Judge Brown refused to allow my expert witnesses to testify. He denied witnesses that I had subpoenaed. He refused to let me use viewgraphs to refute the testimony of Robert Wagner. He even prohibited the showing of a video tape of the marijuana smoke outs. Imagine that! I could not introduce as evidence video tapes of the alleged crime. He informed both the prosecution and defense that it would be limited to 15-minute opening statements and 20-minute closing statements. I though that this was a court trial, not a timed sporting event. It didn't make any difference how much you had to say, you couldn't say it all. Judge Brown started my sentence immediately at the conclusion of the trial, before I had time to file an appeal.
 Judge Brown lied so many times, it is hard to enumerate them all. He said that jury nullification was not a permitted defense. He lied to the jury at jury selection when he said that I had been charged with intent to distribute. At the pre-trial hearing, he dismissed my court stenographer and said that I could obtain copies of the transcripts from Jan Smith. When I requested these transcripts before trial, she and he denied them to me. Judge Brown did not even know the definition of marijuana as outlined in PA Public Statute 35Ð780. Our defense team had to explain it to him in the middle of the trial. Judge Brown failed to describe the law properly to the jury.
 Mr. Weaver said that I put the state on trial. I did, and it failed to follow the law. I was denied a speedy trial. I was not indicted by a grand jury, as required by the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Twice when I requested this right, Magistrate Bradley Lunsford found me to be in contempt of court. Magistrates Prestia and Sinclair bound me over for trial for possession of paraphernalia, charges that had to be dropped, when every police officer involved in the arrests denied them.
 The ultimate irony is that the bulk of the prosecution's case was that I possessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). However THC is specifically excluded in the law from being evidence of marijuana possession. Pennsylvania Statute 35Ð780 defines marijuana as: "Marijuana consists of all forms, species and/or varieties of the genus Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin; but shall not include tetrahydrocannabinolsÉ" The reason for this is that THC is a legal prescription medicine.
 Mr. Weaver said that I tried to destroy the reputation of a fellow chemist. He destroyed his own reputation. He said that molecular mass was not important in determining diffusion times in thin layer chromatography (TLC), when in fact it is the most important factor in doing so. He said that cis and trans isomers were the same compound, an error that a sophomore chemistry student should not make. The cis THCs are not psychoactive, whereas one of the trans THCs is.
 Mr. Wagner claimed that he examined the seized cigarettes under a magnifying lens and determined that they were marijuana. However he presented no pictures of either the sample or of an authentic marijuana leaf. In fact he presented no evidence at all except his opinion. I have spoken to an expert taxonomist, who informed me that if the leaves were crushed, no identification could be made in this way.
 Mr. Wagner claimed that he performed the DuquenoisÐLevine screening test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Again he presented no evidence for his contention that the test was positive. In the scientific literature there are listed about 20 compounds that give a positive test result.
 Mr. Wagner claimed that he performed TLC experiments and found THC. He presented no plates or pictures of plates, no spectra of the isolated spots, no controls, no duplicates, no differentiation between cis and trans, no evidence that it is the right trans compound, and no diffusion distances. Again, he presented no evidence at all, only his word that he did the experiment, and that the results were positive.
 Finally, Mr. Wagner did not present a bound logbook giving the dates and experiments performed. He presented no evidence whatsoever that he performed any laboratory test or that he obtained the results he claimed.
 Mr. Weaver said that my own jury has spoken against my efforts. This was not my jury. It was the state's rigged jury. At jury selection on August 3, 1998, the venire from which my jury was picked had 147 people. Of these, 142 provided their ages.
 Of the population of adults in Centre County, 11.8% live in University Park. The expected number of University Park Residents in the venire is 17. Any number below 8 would be a statistically significant deviation (2s). The actual number of University Park residents in the venire was 0.
 The age distribution of adults (over 18 years of age) is 24.1 % within the ages of 18 and 21 and 55.1% within the ages of 18 and 34. For the 142 people whose age was listed, the expected values between 18Ð21 and 18Ð34 years of age, respectively, are 34 and 78. Statistically significant deviations (2s) occur for numbers below 21 and 62, respectively. The actual number of individuals in the respective age groups was 4 and 29.
 I had asked for data about sex, race, and religion for each juror, but this information was not provided
 Before jury selection on August 3, 1998, Judge Brown announced that the trial date was set for September 21, which was Rosh Hashanah. I objected. At the pre-trial conference, I had informed both the court administrator and Judge Brown that date was unacceptable. The court administrator said that was too bad; the date would be September 21, 1998. Judge Brown asked all members of the venire to excuse themselves if this date was inconvenient for them. Of course all the Jews were excused. Three hours after the completion of jury selection, Judge Brown changed the trial date to October 7, 1998.
 My jury of 14 members contained no residents of University Park, no Jews, no persons of color, and no-one between the ages of 18Ð21. There were only two members below the age of 35, even though the Centre County population is 55.1% below this age.
 Mr. Weaver said that I should not be stirring up strife in our youth and community. Mr. Weaver, it is the anti-drug warriors that are stirring up strife in our youth by throwing them in prison for minding their own business and in our community for being an agent of tyranny. My supporters and I are trying to end the strife.
FUTURE PLANS
 Originally our purpose was to re-legalize marijuana. We approached the legislatures at both the state and federal levels. We quickly learned how corrupt the legislatures are, and that no progress would be made there. Then we planned one Marijuana Smoke Out to get arrested and bring our case to the judicial system. Because we were denied a speedy trial, we continued the Marijuana Smoke Outs in protest. I still was hopeful that I could receive a fair trial. From the trial of October 7, 1998, we have learned that was not the case. The courts are corrupted worse than the legislatures. The rule by law has vanished from our land.
 Our goals have changed. Re-legalization of marijuana is no longer enough. Our aim now must be to alter the government, but not through violence or force. We must return to constitutional government and a society ruled by reason, not tyranny.
 Since the organs of government have failed, we must institute massive civil disobedience, not just Marijuana Smoke Outs. If the court won't follow the law, why should we? We must elect Libertarian Party candidates to government positions. The Libertarian Party is the party of principle and freedom. It is unalterably opposed to the criminalization of drug use. This year you have the opportunity to vote for its state wide candidates for U. S. Senator and Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania.
 It is not the purpose of the law to do immoral or ridiculous things. If the law is immoral or ridiculous, then the jury must vote not guilty and nullify that law. We are involved in a struggle for the soul of America. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to your own body. The issue is not marijuana. Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we will live in freedom or under tyranny. Choose freedom. The lighted marijuana weed is the torch of freedom.
 
 The issue here is not marijuana. Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we will live in freedom or under tyranny. The most basic of all human rights is the right to your own body. The lighted marijuana weed is the torch of freedom.
STRATEGIES
 It is our intnent to make the prohibition on marijuana look ridiculous by comparison to other activities in our society.  Some of these are:
1. We must protect our youth from harm
 It is often heard that drugs must be illegal, because we love our children and must protect them from harm. This argument is insincere. The prohibitionists do not care one bit about our children. If they really wanted to protect our children from harm, they would outlaw football. Now there is a dangerous activity. It glorifies violence. Every single football player suffers some permanent injury that nags him for the rest of his life. Some are paralyzed from football. Occasionally one dies. Those things do not happen from marijuana use.
 Unlike marijuana, football is highly criminogenic. It leads to student riots, public drunkenness, gambling, and ticket scalping. Football has completely corrupted our universities. Football players are terrible role models for our youth. Any prohibitionist that seriously wants to protect children would not be interested in marijuana, but would be fighting to ban football.
2. Marijuana is a gateway drug to hard drugs
 Many people, especially government officials, propagate the belief that marijuana is a gateway drug; it leads to use of harder drugs. The fact is that 83% of marijuana users do not graduate to hard drugs.
 However, these people will tell you that 95% of cocaine users used marijuana before they used cocaine. They are wrong. Marijuana is used by 99.8% of cocaine users. But let me tell you something else. Milk was used by 100% of cocaine users before they started snorting coke or crack. Milk is the true gateway drug, and it should be made illegal.
 Unlike marijuana, which is not addictive, milk is highly addictive to a certain segment of the society; that segment under 6 months of age. Do you know what happens if you take milk away from a milk-addicted baby? The withdrawal symptoms are excruciating. The baby gets terrible stomach pains and screams uncontrollably. It is terrible to hear. Eventually if deprived of the milk, the baby gets sick and dies. There is nothing else known that is this addictive.
 If we are going to stamp out hard drugs, we must stamp out milk first. Milk should be made illegal. If a woman gives her baby milk, she should have her breasts removed. Some of you bleeding hearts may say that without milk many babies will die. Probably so, but isn't this preferable to the disease of addiction that inflicts and undermines our society?
3. Irresponsibility should not be rewarded.
 It is not right that the responsible people have to care for people that harm themselves. Why should the taxpayers support with welfare and medicare, those irresponsible people that have abused their bodies by using drugs? I say we shouldn't do it. Anyone that abuses his or her body does not deserve government support. That includes illicit drug users, as well as users of alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco. It includes any one that has an athletic injury or medical problem. Any person that recklessly endangers his or her body should not receive government benefits. That includes anyone that rides a bicycle, drives a car, or flies in an airplane. Many accidents happen in a shower or bath tub. Any person that bathes should be prohibited from partaking in government programs. Mining, farming, and cooking are particularly dangerous. Anyone engaged in these activities should be barred from benefits of all government programs. Why should we responsible people pay the bills of the irresponsible?
 Of course, it is only fair that anyone barred from all government programs should be exempt from income and social security taxes. I have just recited for you the Libertarian Party Platform. If you agree with it, register Libertarian, sign up with the Party, and sign the Party petitions. All the necessary papers are available at the Libertarian Party table at this Marijuana Smoke Out.
AUTOMOBILE PROTEST
 I love our children. I want to do everything I can to protect them, and that is why we blocked traffic on October 22, 1998. Automobile accidents are responsible for more child deaths each year than any other accident and most natural causes. We want to outlaw the automobile. Anyone owning an automobile should be imprisoned.
 There are many reasons why the automobile should be prohibited. These are:
1. Unlike marijuana, which has never been responsible for a single death in all of human history, the automobile kills 44,000 people each year in the United States alone. It maims and injures many more people.
2. Unlike marijuana, which improves the environment, the automobile damages the environment. Its emissions are the chief cause of photochemical smog.
3. Unlike marijuana, which is not criminogenic, the automobile is highly criminogenic. It leads to manslaughter, reckless endangerment, driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, and parking violations. It also is used in the commission of crimes, such as arson and armed robbery.
4. Unlike marijuana, which has been used as a medicine for 4800 years, the automobile has no known medical use. Marijuana is used to treat glaucoma, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, asthma, spasticity, pain, and nausea, among other things. No-one has ever recovered from a disease by driving a motor vehicle or even had relief from symptoms. In fact the automobile is responsible for the deterioration of the physical stamina of the American people. If automobile drivers would walk or bicycle instead of driving, they would be in better physical health.
5. Unlike marijuana, the automobile destroys the family and the moral fiber of society. It has ended most extended family relationships, because family members no longer live near each other. It provides teenagers with freedom that they cannot handle. Unlike marijuana, the automobile promotes recklessness and irresponsibility in teen agers. Unlike marijuana, it gives rise to hedonistic impulses, particularly in regard to teenage sex.
6. Unlike marijuana, which is not addictive, the automobile is highly addictive. People deprived of their cars display irritability and irresponsibility. They will do anything to ride a motor vehicle, including hiring taxis and riding buses. They cannot be cured from this addiction. The only way to eliminate this cursed addiction from society is through harsh punishments.
7. Unlike marijuana, which is not a gateway drug, automobiles are gateway vehicles to "Harder" vehicles, such as limousines, taxis, recreational vehicles, buses, and trucks. Everyone who drives these vehicles started with the automobile.
 If you love our children, join me in blocking traffic. I ask that no-one under 18
 
1. Speedy Trial
 In Pennsylvania, a speedy trial is considered to be 6 months if the defendant is incarcerated or one year if the defendant is not incarcerated. I doubt if anyone considers this to be a speedy trial. How would you like to spend 6 months in prison and then be found not guilty? In California, a speedy trial is considered to be 30 days. In 1963, I was arrested along with 260 others who were sitting in at a racially segregated housing development in Torrance CA. We demanded speedy trials. The state said that it could not prepare the cases for trial in 30 days. The judge dismissed the cases.
 In Centre County, PA, I was first arrested by summons on February 13, 1998, for possession of marijuana on February 12, 1998. The preliminary hearing was set for March 25, a delay of 40 days. I filed a request for a speedy trial and suggested several dates and times during the period of February 25ÐMarch 5, 1998, for a preliminary hearing. The court administrator would only move the preliminary hearing to March 18. At the hearing, dates were set for arraignment, pre-trial conference, and jury selection, respectively, of April 21, May 26, and June 8, 1998. Because I was going to Florida, I requested a continuance of the May 26 conference to June 2. It was moved to July 17 (actually held on July 28 at my request), and the jury selection was moved to August 3, 1998. At jury selection, the trial date was set at August 20, 1998 (actually to be held on October 7, 1998, at my request). Thus the time set by the court for a speedy trial was from February 13 to August 20, 1998; a delay of 6 months and 7 days. None of this delay was caused by my requests for alternate dates.
2. Failure to Meet on Time
 My first preliminary hearing was called for 1:00 PM on March 18, 1998. In the morning I delivered "Meals on Wheels" to people shut in their homes. I finished at 12:30 PM, and traveled from State College to the courthouse in Bellefonte, a trip of 25 minutes. I was at the hearing promptly at 1:00 PM. I had no lunch. Magistrate Alan Sinclair appeared at 1:20 PM and proceeded with another case. I left the courtroom to eat and go home. I was informed that Magistrate Sinclair called my case at 3:00 PM. When I was not there, a warrant for my arrest was issued. I was arrested for failure to appear about 1 hour later and taken to Magistrate Carmine Prestia. I explained to him that I had appeared, but that Magistrate Sinclair did not appear, and that the wrong person was arrested. Magistrate Prestia dropped the charges and rescheduled my hearing for March 25, 1998. At that hearing, Magistrate Sinclair appeared at 1:25 PM and called my case right away. At subsequent hearings, I was the first one called.
 The failure to meet on time is an indication of lack of impartiality. The magistrates think that the defendants are beneath consideration. All other professionals meet their clients on time. The doctors are the worst, but even they do not keep someone waiting 2 or more hours. And doctors, unlike judges, have real emergencies.
3. Failure to Indict by Grand Jury
 Pennsylvania courts do not use grand juries for indictment. Amendment V of the U. S. Constitution states that no one can be held for trial for an infamous crime without presentment of an indictment by a grand jury. I am aware that the U. S. Supreme Court said that this provision of the U. S. Constitution applies only to federal crimes and not to state crimes. It is a mystery to me that this conclusion was reached. Nevertheless, we can assume that it is the law of the land.
 My case is somewhat special in that the act that I committed is deemed to be crime by both state and federal law. My contention is that it makes no sense that the criterion for a fair trial depends on who happened to make the arrest. If I had been arrested by federal law enforcement agents, a grand jury would have been convened. Therefore I demanded a grand jury hearing.
 Whether or not you accept my argument for a grand jury hearing, I am entitled to ask for it at my preliminary hearing. At two preliminary hearings Magistrate Bradley Lunsford found me in contempt of court for making the request. At my other two preliminary hearing, Magistrates Sinclair and Hoffman had no problem with me making the statement.
5. Manufactured Charges
 For all of my six arrests for smoking, the police officers filed charges of possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use. No mention was made of possession of paraphernalia or intent to distribute. For my first arrest Magistrate Prestia added the made-up charge of possession of paraphernalia. At the preliminary hearing, Magistrate Sinclair bound me over for trial for possession of both marijuana and paraphernalia.
 District Attorney Ray Gricar added the charge of intent to distribute for all six of my cases. I have no idea where he got this idea. It came entirely from his imagination. Judge Brown informed the jury at my jury selection of August 3, 1998, that I had been charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use and with intent to distribute. I objected, but he refused to withdraw the charge. The minds of the jury members now have been poisoned with a false charge.
6. Denial of Defense
 Judge Brown has issued an order prohibiting me from using the defenses of jury nullification or justification. Both are recognized legal defenses. The 1790 Constitution of Pennsylvania explicitly states that the jury has the right to nullify the law, and the U. S. Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld this opinion.
 Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:
 "Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 Likewise, the U. S. Supreme Court in Duncan v Louisiana implicitly endorsed the policies behind nullification when it stated: "If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In recent years, jury nullification has played a role in the trials of Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC for drug use, Oliver North for his role in the Iran-Contra Affair, and Bernhard Goetz for his assault in a New York City subway. But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 A detailed discussion of jury nullification is given on my home page at http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13. Go to my home page and click on Drugs and Crime. On that page is a link to Jury Nullification. Incidentally more detailed information about the Marijuana Smoke Outs and my trials is given on the link to Smoke Outs.
 The Jury Nullification article was given to Judge Brown in a motion that I filed. Joe Devecka, one of my attorneys, checked all of the cases mentioned in my paper, and assured the judge that they were correct.
 Judge Brown also has prohibited me from presenting documents giving information about marijuana. These documents include commission reports.
7. Denial of Video Recording
 I informed the court administrator that I would have my own camera man taking video camera pictures of all court proceedings. The Court Administrator, Maxine Ishler, advised me that it was against Pennsylvania law to have cameras in the court room. I appealed to the Court in a motion to ignore this law, because it conflicts with my right to both a public and fair trial. I needed video pictures for appeal purposes, because part of the testimony involves visual impressions and witness gestures.
8. Witnesses Denied
 I informed the court that I would have three expert witnesses testify. These are:
a. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Professor Grinspoon has written several books on Marijuana
b. John Morgan, Head of the Department of Pharmacology at CCNY Medical School. Professor Morgan has made a career of studying the medical effects of marijuana and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
c. William Regelson, Professor of Oncology at the University of Virginia Hospitals. Professor Regelson prescribes marijuana for his chemotherapy patients, even though it is a crime to do so.
Resumes and bibliographies of all three expert witnesses were presented to Judge Charles C. Brown, Jr. at the pre-trial conference of July 28, 1998. He did not look at the submitted material. He ruled that I could not have expert witnesses testify.
 I asked for immunity from prosecution for illegal users of medical marijuana that would testify on my behalf. Immunity request denied by Judge Brown.
 District Attorney Ray Gricar filed written accusations that I was charged with "Intent to distribute" in all 6 cases. No police officer, magistrate, or other court official filed such a claim. At the preliminary hearings, I was not bound over for trial on those charges. At the arraignments, I was not arraigned on those charges. However Judge Brown repeated those charges to the Jury after it had been selected on August 3, 1998. I subpoenaed District Attorney to appear as a defense witness at my trial of October 7, 1998. He had the subpoena quashed by Judge Brown. This denies me my Amendment VI rights of the U. S. Constitution, which states in part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the rightÉto be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favorÉ"
9. Consolidation of Cases
 Judge Brown consolidated my first four trials over my oral and written objections. The four incidents occurred on four different days in different police jurisdictions. The evidence and arresting officers were different in these incidents.
10. Jury Rigging
 The original jury pool for the August 3 jury selection consisted of 400 persons from Centre County. Only the names and addresses of the jury pool were provided by the Court. Of the population of adults in Centre County, 11.8% live in University Park. This means that the expected number of jury pool members from University Park is 47. Any number below 35 would be a statistically significant deviation (2s). The actual number of University Park residents in the jury pool was 4.
 At jury selection on August 3, 1998, the venire had been reduced from 400 to 147. Of these, 142 provided their ages. The expected number of University Park Residents is 17. Any number below 8 would be a statistically significant deviation (2s). The actual number of University Park residents in the venire was 0.
 The age distribution of adults (over 18 years of age) is 24.1 % within the ages of 18 and 21 and 55.1% within the ages of 18 and 34. For the 142 people whose age was listed, the expected values between 18Ð21 and 18Ð34 years of age, respectively, are 34 and 78. Statistically significant deviations (2s) occur for numbers below 21 and 62, respectively. The actual number of individuals in the respective age groups was 4 and 29.
 I had asked for data about sex, race, and religion for each juror, but this information was not provided
 Before jury selection on August 3, 1998, Judge Brown announced that the trial date was set for September 21, which was Rosh Hashanah. I objected. At the pre-trial conference, I had informed both the court administrator and Judge Brown that date was unacceptable. The court administrator said that was too bad; the date would be September 21, 1998. Judge Brown asked all members of the venire to excuse themselves if this date was inconvenient for them. Of course all the Jews were excused. Three hours after the completion of jury selection, Judge Brown changed the trial date to October 7, 1998.
 For jury selection, Judge Brown asked the questions from lists provided by the prosecution and defense. Normal procedure in this court is to allow the attorneys to ask their own questions. I provided 15 questions, of which Judge Brown covered 10 in his questioning. Among the questions that Judge Brown did not cover were questions regarding attitudes and experiences with Jews as well as involvement with pro-drug prohibition organizations.
 My jury of 14 members contains no residents of University Park, no Jews, no persons of color, and no-one between the ages of 18Ð21. There are only two members below the age of 35, even though the Centre County population is 55.1% below this age. I do not know if there is an active anti-Semite or active drug prohibitionist on the jury.
11. Trial Length
 At the pre-trial conference of July 28, Judge Brown set the length of the trial at 1/2 day without consulting either the prosecution or defense staffs. My opening statement is several hours. I have a 7-hour videotape of the Marijuana Smoke Outs to present. I intend detailed cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses. I have 23 of my own witnesses to question, and I have a closing statement to make. I will not be allowed to present my case at all.
12. Denial of Evidence
 The evidence seized by the police was sent to the State Crime Laboratory for testing. The complete reports given to me were: "The contents of item 1.1 weighed (amount given) and contained marihuana (Schedule I)."
 Repeatedly, I have asked for all supporting information, documentation, laboratory reports, and data for both the test and control samples. Specifically, I need to have the dates on which the tests were run, descriptions of the tests with specific operating conditions, which compounds were tested, and the results of the test (not the operator's conclusion). Further I need the dates on which the reports were written, the dates on which they were sent to the police, which police officers received them with dates of receipt, the dates on which they were forwarded to the District Attorney, and the dates on which they were received by the District Attorney's office.
 I have received none of this information.
13. Denial of Transcripts
 At the pre-trial conference of July 28, 1998, I provided my own court reporter, as I had done at the preliminary hearings. I was informed that she would not be allowed to record the proceedings of either the pre-trial conference or jury selection, because the Court had provided its own court reporter. I was assured that I would be able to obtain transcripts of the proceedings.
 On September 18, 1998, I contacted the court reporter about obtaining transcripts of the pre-trial conference and jury selection. She informed me that she was too busy to provide them until after the trial date of October 7, 1998.
 I have filed a motion with the Judge requesting the transcripts, but no action has been taken as of September 24, 1998.
 What can you do to rectify this situation? The price of justice is eternal publicity. Write letters to every publication that you can. Please attend my trial on October 7, 1998, at 9:00 AM at the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte. Thank you.
MARIJUANA SMOKEOUT NEWS
State College, PA
October 15, 1998
by Julian Heicklen
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13
E-mail: jph13@psu.edu
 
Smart on Crime & Centre County Libertarian Party
 Hello! Thanks for coming out. I am Professor Julian Heicklen, and I believe in freedom. The criminal cases for my arrests of June 22, 1998, in Bellefonte and July 9, 1998, at the Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts in State College have been dismissed by the District Attorney. Apparently District Attorney Gricar has informed the press that the cases have been dropped, because Professor Heicklen has learned a lesson.
 District Attorney Gricar is correct. I have learned a lesson from my trial of October 7, 1998, for the arrests of February 12, March 19 and 26, and April 2, 1998. The lesson that I learned is how corrupt the courts are.
 I was tried for possession of a small amount of marijuana on October 7, 1998, as a result of my smoking at four marijuana smoke outs in State College. Prior to the trial, Judge Charles C. Brown, Jr. issued orders denying me the right to introduce jury nullification or a justification defense, both of which are recognized legal defenses. He denied witnesses that I had subpoenaed. He prohibited the showing of a video tape of the marijuana smoke outs. Imagine that! I could not introduce as evidence video tapes of the alleged crime. He informed both the prosecution and defense that it would be limited to 15-minute opening statements and 20-minute closing statements. I though that this was a court trial, not a timed sporting event. It didn't make any difference how much you had to say, you couldn't say it all.
 At jury selection, Judge Brown informed the jury, over my objection, that I was being tried for possession of a small amount of marijuana and with intent to distribute. Before the trial, Assistant District Attorney Sloane informed the judge that was not true, and that there was no intent to prosecute for intent to distribute. At the trial, both Judge Brown and Mr. Sloane admitted the error to the jury. Also several police officers testified that I was not charged with either intent to deliver of possession of paraphernalia.
 I proposed three expert witnesses. These were:
a. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Professor Grinspoon has written several books on Marijuana
b. John Morgan, Head of the Department of Pharmacology at CCNY Medical School. Professor Morgan has made a career of studying the medical effects of marijuana and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
c. William Regelson, Professor of Oncology at the University of Virginia Hospitals. Professor Regelson has testified to the efficacy of marijuana as a medicine.
Judge Brown denied their appearance. The prosecution presented one expert witness, Mr. Robert Wagner, of the state crime laboratory. He had a master's degree in chemistry, but no training in analysis of marijuana compounds. He co-authored one publication in a different field. Upon examination at trial, he stated that molecular mass did not influence diffusion distances in thin layer chromatography (TLC), when, in fact, it is the most important property determining diffusion distances. He claimed that cis and trans geometrical isomers were the same compounds, an error that a sophomore in chemistry would not be expected to make. Yet he was allowed to testify as an expert.
 
 Mr. Wagner claimed that he examined the seized cigarettes under a magnifying lens and determined that they were marijuana. However he presented no pictures of either the sample or of an authentic marijuana leaf. In fact he presented no evidence at all except his opinion. I have spoken to an expert taxonomist, who informed me that if the leaves were crushed, no identification could be made in this way.
 Mr. Wagner claimed that he performed the DuquenoisÐLevine screening test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Again he presented no evidence for his contention that the test was positive. In the scientific literature there are listed about 20 compounds that give a positive test result.
 Mr. Wagner claimed that he performed thin layer chromatography (TLC) experiments and found THC. He presented no plates or pictures of plates, no spectra of the isolated spots, no controls, no duplicates, no differentiation between cis and trans, no evidence that it is the right trans compound, and no diffusion distances. Again, he presented no evidence at all, only his word that he did the experiment, and that the results were positive.
 Finally, Mr. Wagner did not present a bound logbook giving the dates and experiments performed. He presented no evidence whatsoever that he performed any laboratory test or that he obtained the results he claimed.
 The ultimate irony is that the bulk of the prosecution's case was that I possessed THC. However THC is specifically excluded in the law from being evidence of marijuana possession. Pennsylvania Statute 35Ð780 defines marijuana as: "Marijuana consists of all forms, species and/or varieties of the genus Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin; but shall not include tetrahydrocannabinolsÉ" The reason for this is that THC is a legal prescription medicine.
 Originally our purpose was to re-legalize marijuana. We approached the legislatures at both the state and federal levels. We quickly learned how corrupt the legislatures are, and that no progress would be made there. Then we planned one Marijuana Smoke Out to get arrested and bring our case to the judicial system. Because we were denied a speedy trial, we continued the Marijuana Smoke Outs in protest. I still was hopeful that I could receive a fair trial. From the trial of October 7, 1998, we have learned that was not the case. The courts are corrupted worse than the legislatures. The rule by law has vanished from our land.
 Our goals have changed. Re-legalization of marijuana is no longer enough. Our aim now must be to alter the government, but not through violence or force. We must return to constitutional government and a society ruled by reason, not tyranny. If you are attacked by either police or bystanders, go into the fetal position, and use your hands to protect your head. Under no circumstances, even if provoked, use violence.
 Our plan to alter the government is a two-pronged one. The short-term tactic is massive civil disobedience, not just Marijuana Smoke Outs. If the court won't follow the law, why should we? Our first effort will be to increase the frequency of the Marijuana Smoke Outs. Our next Marijuana Smoke Out is planned for this Saturday, October 17, 1998, at the tailgate party of the football game. We will meet behind the Intra-Mural building four hours before game time and remain until the game begins. All of you are invited to attend and participate. Bring your friends. I ask that no-one under 18 years old smoke marijuana. We appreciate your support, but if minors smoke, it will hurt our cause. If arrested, give only your name and address. Go limp and make the officers carry you away from the demonstration. Plead not guilty and ask for a speedy, jury trial.
 Also I will be involved in a debate with Dr. Thomas Bernard in the recreation room of Pollock Commons on Monday night,
October 19, 1998, at 7:00 PM. Again you all are invited to attend, and I hope that you will.
 The second prong of our program will be to elect Libertarian Party candidates to government positions. The Libertarian Party is the party of principle and freedom. It is unalterably opposed to the criminalization of drug use. I am pleased to announce that the Centre County Libertarian Party will be running at least 4 candidates for public office in Centre County in 1999. They are Carla Moquin, Samar Lovejoy, Jay Ferguson, and Tom Martin. This year you have the opportunity to vote for our state wide candidates for U. S. Senator and Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania.
 Sitting next to me is Ken Krawchuk, the 1998 Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. Ken is a man of principle dedicated to freedom. He has attended many of our Marijuana Smoke Outs and stood with us 100%. If he is elected governor, he has promised to pardon all non-violent drug offenders in our prisons. With his election, the drug war in Pennsylvania will be over immediately upon his taking the oath of office. Vote Libertarian in November. I now have the honor and privilege to introduce you to the man who, with your help, will be the next Governor of Pennsylvania. While he speaks, I will light the torch of freedom! Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you our next Governor, Ken Krawchuk.
 Ken Krawchuk and our local candidates for office in 1999 addressed the crowd.  About 30 of our supporters were there and held signs, but well over 100 passerbys heard and saw the demonstrations.  Heicklen was the only person to smoke marijuana on this day.
HEICKLEN'S CLOSING STATEMENT, 8Ð6-98
A. TRIAL IRREGULARITIES
 Ladise and Gentlemen of the jury, there have been some irregularities in this trial.  Let me enumerate them for you.
1. Speedy Trial
 In Pennsylvania, a speedy trial is considered to be 6 months if the defendant is incarcerated or one year if the defendant is not incarcerated. I doubt if anyone considers this to be a speedy trial. How would you like to spend 6 months in prison and then be found not guilty? In California, a speedy trial is considered to be 30 days. In 1963, I was arrested along with 260 others who were sitting in at a racially segregated housing development in Torrance CA. We demanded speedy trials. The state said that it could not prepare the cases for trial in 30 days. The judge dismissed the cases.
 In Centre County, PA, I was first arrested by summons on February 13, 1998, for possession of marijuana on February 12, 1998. The preliminary hearing was set for March 25, a delay of 40 days. I filed a request for a speedy trial and suggested several dates and times during the period of February 25ÐMarch 5, 1998, for a preliminary hearing. The court administrator would only move the preliminary hearing to March 18. At the hearing, dates were set for arraignment, pre-trial conference, and jury selection, respectively, of April 21, May 26, and June 8, 1998. Because I was going to Florida, I requested a continuance of the May 26 conference to June 2. It was moved to July 17 (actually held on July 28 at my request), and the jury selection was moved to August 3, 1998. At jury selection, the trial date was set at August 20, 1998 (actually to be held on October 7, 1998, at my request). Thus the time set by the court for a speedy trial was from February 13 to August 20, 1998; a delay of 6 months and 7 days. None of this delay was caused by my requests for alternate dates.
2. Failure to Meet on Time
 
 My first preliminary hearing was called for 1:00 PM on March 18, 1998. In the morning I delivered "Meals on Wheels" to people shut in their homes. I finished at 12:30 PM, and traveled from State College to the courthouse in Bellefonte, a trip of 25 minutes. I was at the hearing promptly at 1:00 PM. I had no lunch. Magistrate Alan Sinclair appeared at 1:20 PM and proceeded with another case. I left the courtroom to eat and go home. I was informed that Magistrate Sinclair called my case at 3:00 PM. When I was not there, a warrant for my arrest was issued. I was arrested for failure to appear about 1 hour later and taken to Magistrate Carmine Prestia. I explained to him that I had appeared, but that Magistrate Sinclair did not appear, and that the wrong person was arrested. Magistrate Prestia dropped the charges and rescheduled my hearing for March 25, 1998. At that hearing, Magistrate Sinclair appeared at 1:25 PM and called my case right away. At subsequent hearings, I was the first one called.
 The failure to meet on time is an indication of lack of impartiality. The magistrates think that the defendants are beneath consideration. All other professionals meet their clients on time. The doctors are the worst, but even they do not keep someone waiting 2 or more hours. And doctors, unlike judges, have real emergencies.
3. Failure to Indict by Grand Jury
 Pennsylvania courts do not use grand juries for indictment. Amendment V of the U. S. Constitution states that no one can be held for trial for an infamous crime without presentment of an indictment by a grand jury. I am aware that the U. S. Supreme Court said that this provision of the U. S. Constitution applies only to federal crimes and not to state crimes. It is a mystery to me that this conclusion was reached. Nevertheless, we can assume that it is the law of the land.
 My case is somewhat special in that the act that I committed is deemed to be crime by both state and federal law. My contention is that it makes no sense that the criterion for a fair trial depends on who happened to make the arrest. If I had been arrested by federal law enforcement agents, a grand jury would have been convened. Therefore I demanded a grand jury hearing.
 Whether or not you accept my argument for a grand jury hearing, I am entitled to ask for it at my preliminary hearing. At two preliminary hearings Magistrate Bradley Lunsford found me in contempt of court for making the request. At my other two preliminary hearing, Magistrates Sinclair and Hoffman had no problem with me making the statement.
5. Manufactured Charges
 For all of my six arrests for smoking, the police officers filed charges of possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use. No mention was made of possession of paraphernalia or intent to distribute. For my first arrest Magistrate Prestia added the made-up charge of possession of paraphernalia. At the preliminary hearing, Magistrate Sinclair bound me over for trial for possession of both marijuana and paraphernalia.  Magistrate Sinclair did not write the report of charges himself.  Neither did he have a secretary type the report.  Magistrate Prestia typed up the report.  Is Magistrate Prestia Mr. Sinclair's secretary.  No!  Magistrate Prestia typed the report, because he and Magistrate Sinclair were in collusion to convict me of a false charge.
 District Attorney Ray Gricar added the charge of intent to distribute for all six of my cases. I have no idea where he got this idea. It came entirely from his imagination. Judge Brown informed the jury at my jury selection of August 3, 1998, that I had been charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use and with intent to distribute. I objected, but he refused to withdraw the charge. The minds of the jury members now have been poisoned with a false charge.
 On September 21, 1998, Mr. Sloane sent me a clarifying letter stating that: "You have pointed out to the court your concern with the language which deals with possession of a small amount of marijuana 'with intent to distribute it but not to sell it' as well as actual 'distribution of a small amount of marijuana but not for sale'. While the language that appears on your criminal information is legally accurate, in that there are alternative theories of culpability, I wanted to point out to you that these are not the theories of culpability under which the Commonwealth is alleging that you are in violation of the statute.  To be more precise, we are merely alleging your possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use at the respective demonstrations in question."
 Why didn't Mr. Sloane clarify that at jury selection, when Judge Brown misinformed the jury? Because he wanted the jury to believe it. It is plain and simple jury tampering.
6. Denial of Defense
 Judge Brown has issued an order prohibiting me from using the defenses of jury nullification or justification. Both are recognized legal defenses. The 1790 Constitution of Pennsylvania explicitly states that the jury has the right to nullify the law, and the U. S. Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld this opinion.
 Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:
 
 "Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems
inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 Likewise, the U. S. Supreme Court in Duncan v Louisiana implicitly endorsed the policies behind nullification when it stated: "If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it." But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 In recent years, jury nullification has played a role in the trials of Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC for drug use, Oliver North for his role in the Iran-Contra Affair, and Bernhard Goetz for his assault in a New York City subway. But Judge Brown says that Jury nullification is not a permissible defense.
 A detailed discussion of jury nullification is given on my home page at http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13. Go to my home page and click on Drugs and Crime. On that page is a link to Jury Nullification. Incidentally more detailed information about the Marijuana Smoke Outs and my trials is given on the link to Smoke Outs.
 The Jury Nullification article was given to Judge Brown in a motion that I filed. Joe Devecka, one of my attorneys, checked all of the cases mentioned in my paper, and assured the judge that they were correct.
 Judge Brown also has prohibited me from presenting documents giving information about marijuana. These documents include commission reports.
7. Denial of Video Recording
 I informed the court administrator that I would have my own camera man taking video camera pictures of all court proceedings. The Court Administrator, Maxine Ishler, advised me that it was against Pennsylvania law to have cameras in the court room. I appealed to the Court in a motion to ignore this law, because it conflicts with my right to both a public and fair trial. I needed video pictures for appeal purposes, because part of the testimony involves visual impressions and witness gestures.
8. Witnesses Denied
 I informed the court that I would have three expert witnesses testify. These are:
a. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Professor Grinspoon has written several books on Marijuana
b. John Morgan, Head of the Department of Pharmacology at CCNY Medical School. Professor Morgan has made a career of
studying the medical effects of marijuana and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
c. William Regelson, Professor of Oncology at the University of Virginia Hospitals. Professor Regelson prescribes marijuana for his chemotherapy patients, even though it is a crime to do so.
Resumes and bibliographies of all three expert witnesses were presented to Judge Charles C. Brown, Jr. at the pre-trial conference of July 28, 1998. He did not look at the submitted material. He ruled that I could not have expert witnesses testify.
 I asked for immunity from prosecution for illegal users of medical marijuana that would testify on my behalf. Immunity request denied by Judge Brown.
 District Attorney Ray Gricar filed written accusations that I was charged with "Intent to distribute" in all 6 cases. No police officer, magistrate, or other court official filed such a claim. At the preliminary hearings, I was not bound over for trial on those charges. At the arraignments, I was not arraigned on those charges. However Judge Brown repeated those charges to the Jury after it had been selected on August 3, 1998. I subpoenaed District Attorney to appear as a defense witness at my trial of October 7, 1998. He had the subpoena quashed by Judge Brown. This denies me my Amendment VI rights of the U. S. Constitution, which states in part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the rightÉto be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favorÉ"
LIST OTHER WITNESSES DENIED
9. Consolidation of Cases
 Judge Brown consolidated my first four trials over my oral and written objections. The four incidents occurred on four different days in different police jurisdictions. The evidence and arresting officers were different in these incidents.
10. Jury Rigging
 The original jury pool for the August 3 jury selection consisted of 400 persons from Centre County. Only the names and addresses of the jury pool were provided by the Court. Of the population of adults in Centre County, 11.8% live in University Park. This means that the expected number of jury pool members from University Park is 47. Any number below 35 would be a statistically significant deviation (2s). The actual number of University Park residents in the jury pool was 4.
 At jury selection on August 3, 1998, the venire had been reduced from 400 to 147. Of these, 142 provided their ages. The expected number of University Park Residents is 17. Any number below 8 would be a statistically significant deviation (2s). The actual number of University Park residents in the venire was 0.
 The age distribution of adults (over 18 years of age) is 24.1 % within the ages of 18 and 21 and 55.1% within the ages of 18 and 34. For the 142 people whose age was listed, the expected values between 18Ð21 and 18Ð34 years of age, respectively, are 34 and 78. Statistically significant deviations (2s) occur for numbers below 21 and 62, respectively. The actual number of individuals in the respective age groups was 4 and 29.
 I had asked for data about sex, race, and religion for each juror, but this information was not provided
 Before jury selection on August 3, 1998, Judge Brown announced that the trial date was set for September 21, which was Rosh Hashanah. I objected. At the pre-trial conference, I had informed both the court administrator and Judge Brown that date was unacceptable. The court administrator said that was too bad; the date would be September 21, 1998. Judge Brown asked all members of the venire to excuse themselves if this date was inconvenient for them. Of course all the Jews were excused. Three hours after the completion of jury selection, Judge Brown changed the trial date to October 7, 1998.
 For jury selection, Judge Brown asked the questions from lists provided by the prosecution and defense. Normal procedure in this court is to allow the attorneys to ask their own questions. I provided 15 questions, of which Judge Brown covered 10 in his questioning. Among the questions that Judge Brown did not cover were questions regarding attitudes and experiences with Jews as well as involvement with pro-drug prohibition organizations.
 My jury of 14 members contains no residents of University Park, no Jews, no persons of color, and no-one between the ages of 18Ð21. There are only two members below the age of 35, even though the Centre County population is 55.1% below this age. I do not know if there is an active anti-Semite or active drug prohibitionist on the jury.
11. Trial Length
 At the pre-trial conference of July 28, Judge Brown set the length of the trial at 1/2 day without consulting either the prosecution or defense staffs. My opening statement is several hours. I have a 7-hour videotape of the Marijuana Smoke Outs to present. I intended detailed cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses. I have 27 of my own witnesses to question, and I have a closing statement to make. I was not be allowed to present my case at all.
12. Denial of Evidence
 For the arrest of the incident of February 12, 1998, all of the police reports were sent to me promptly except for the one from Detective William Wagner. Detective Wagner was the person who performed the laboratory test for marijuana. In spite of my continued request for all police reports, his was not sent until September 30, 1998, seven months and 18 days after it was filed. I did not recieve it until 5 days before the trial.
 The evidence seized by the police was sent to the State Crime Laboratory for testing. The complete reports given to me were: "The contents of item 1.1 weighed (amount given) and contained marihuana (Schedule I)."
 Repeatedly, I have asked for all supporting information, documentation, laboratory reports, and data for both the test and control samples. Specifically, I need to have the dates on which the tests were run, descriptions of the tests with specific operating conditions, which compounds were tested, and the results of the test (not the operator's conclusion). Further I need the dates on which the reports were written, the dates on which they were sent to the police, which police officers received them with dates of receipt, the dates on which they were forwarded to the District Attorney, and the dates on which they were received by the District Attorney's office.
 I have received none of this information.
13. Denial of Transcripts
 
 At the pre-trial conference of July 28, 1998, I provided my own court reporter, as I had done at the preliminary hearings. I was informed that she would not be allowed to record the proceedings of either the pre-trial conference or jury selection, because the Court had provided its own court reporter. I was assured that I would be able to obtain transcripts of the proceedings.
 On September 18, 1998, I contacted the court reporter about obtaining transcripts of the pre-trial conference and jury selection. She informed me that she was too busy to provide them until after the trial date of October 7, 1998.
 I have filed a motion On September 19, 1998, with Judge Brown requesting the transcripts before trial, but that motion was denied.
 
B. THE WHOLE TRUTH
 In a court of law, one is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The prosecution has failed to fulfill this requirement. It has told lie after lie.
 Police Officer Robb said that Alan Gordon yelled that he sold me a joint.  Actually Mr. Gordon was saying that he sold a joint to Andrew Burke.  Mr. Gordon never sold me a joint.
 Detective William Wagner stated that I passed a joint to Andrew Burke, when in fact, I traded joints with him.  Detective Wagner's implication was that I was distributing marijuana.
 Detective Wagner claims that he field tested the cigarette seized from me for marijuana, and the result was positive.  He did no such thing.  He tested for THC, a legal substance, not marijuana. Even that test was not proof.  It only indicated that THC could be one possibility of many.
 Mr. Robert Wagner of the state crime lab claims that he tested for marijuana and obtained a positive result.  He did no such thing.  He tested for THC, a legal substance, not marijuana. That test, if he ever performed it all, was flawed. It proved nothing whatsoever.
 Magistrates Prestia and Sinclair filed false charges of possession of paraphernalia. They did this in collusion with each other.
 Magistrate Lunsford found me in contempt of court for asking for my constitutional right to indictment by a grand jury.  He said that I did not have to make the statement, that I could have filed it as an attachment to the record. My attorney advised me that this was not so.
 District Attorney Ray Gricar filed the false charge of intent to distribute.  Even his assistant district Attorney, Mr. Sloane acknowledges that this charge was false, but he did not correct it.
 Judge Brown lied so many times, it is hard to enumerate them all.  He said that jury nullification was not a permitted defense. He lied to the jury at jury selection when he said that I had been charged with intent to distribute.  Mr. Sloane did not correct him, thus leaving a false claim with the jury.  When the court reporter absented herself, he told me that he would put my objections at the jury selection process on the record.  He did not do this.  He dismissed my court stenographer and said that I
could obtain copies of the transcripts from Jan Smith.  When I requested these transcripts before trial, she and he denied them to me.
 Mr. Sloane denied having evidence in his possession when indded he did.  He refused to send the report of Detective William Wagner until one week before trial.  In addition, I was never provided with actual laboratory reports of the chemical analyses of either Detective William Wagner or Mr. Robert Wagner.
 I must admit that so far I have not fulfilled my obligations either. I have told you the truth, but not the whole truth, because I was prohibited from doing so.  Judge Brown only would let me tell you the damaging devidence and arguments and not the beneficial ones. Now I will try to fulfill my obligation to you and tell you the whole truth.
INTRODUCE EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE BEEN DENIED INCLUDING SUPPOSED TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
C. CHARGE TO THE JURY
 The test of guilt is whether I have done anything against the peace and dignity of the state. I maintain that I did not. It is what this court has done to me, and countless others, that is against the peace and dignity of the state. The prosecutor claims that I smoked marijuana, but could not produce the laboratory results to prove it. There are >460 compounds in marijuana. The test the state crime lab claims to have made is for a compound that the state law excludes in the definition of marijuana. In one case, I was charged by the arresting officer with possession for personal use only.  District  Magistrates Prestia and Sinclair tried to fry me and change it to intent to posession of paraphernalia without a shred of evidence. District Attorney Gricar added the charge of intent to distribute in all four cases without a shred of evidence.  Mr. Sloane made no effort to correct these lies until after the damage was done.  The District Attorney's office has lied to you. Can you trust anything that it claims?
 Video recording of this trial was prohibited, so that there is no visual record for appeal.  During the political demonstrations my rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government were abrogated.  I have been denied a speedy trial.  As a result I have invested 9 months of my life and about $10,000 in these court cases.  I have been arrested 11 times and imprisoned 4 times.  Twice I was placed under excessive bail in conflict with the 8th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.  The usual bail for the offense of possession of a small amount of marijuana is $500.  In the two trials that are yet to be heard, my bail was set at $10,000 and $50,000.  In the latter case, an almost total stranger paid the $50,000 and bailed me out, so then the bail was reduced to zero.
 Three magistrates and two judges refused to grant me a hearing in front of a grand jury.  Magistrate Lunsford twice found me in contempt of court for asking for this right.  The court had the jury pool depleted of all the Jews and all the residents of University Park.  Young adults were grossly under-represented.  I was denied the opportunity to find out if any of you jurors are anti-Semites or strong supporters of continuing drug prohibition, either of which would have disqualified you.
 Judge Brown lied to both the jury and to me.  He told the jury that I had been charged with intent to distribute.  This was an outright lie, and it was slander.  I had never been charged with any such thing.  He told me that only the state legislature could nullify the law.  This was another outright lie, since courts nullify laws all the time.  That is a primary function of the judiciary: to act as a check on a legislature that has gone crazy.
 
 Judge Brown refused to let me submit a list of written questions to the jury pool.  He would not let me ask oral questions, contrary to the practice of this court  He did not even ask all of the questions that I submitted to him.
 Judge Brown has refused to let me defend myself.  He refused to let me use the argument of jury nullification, a recognized legal defense.  He would not let me read to you critical documents relating to a justification defense.  He would not let me call my expert witnesses to the stand to testify.  Meanwhile the prosecutor was allowed to call his expert witness, who did not have a clue about what he was doing and probably perjured himself.  The only test he claims to have run for marijuana was for a legal substance that is not included in the legal definition of marijuana.  He did not run this test properly, if he ran it at all.  Judge Brown refused to grant immunity to my witnesses that are illegal users of medical marijuana, so that they did not testify.  He would not permit officials of this court to testify as defense witnesses, even though they have accused me of crimes discussed at this trial.  This is a denial of my 5th Amendment right to call witnesse and face my accusers in open court.
 The judge's opinion of this case does not matter. You cannot trust that he even is telling you the truth, since he has been shown to be an inveterate liar.  Furthermore he is not deciding this caseÑyou are. That is why we have jury trials. The judge cannot direct a verdict. That is your decision alone. You cannot be punished, or even questioned, for your decision. The jury is the conscience of the community. Its purpose is to prevent oppression by the state. What I want is justice. I cannot get it without your help.
 The judge may instruct you to decide in accordance with the letter of the law. But contrary to his instructions, you are not here to enforce the letter of the law; you are here to see that justice is done. If only the law were to be upheld, the judge is more knowledgeable about the law than you are, and he could render a more accurate decision. There would be no point to a jury trial. Juries are needed to see that, after all of the circumstances are considered, justice is done. That task is too important to entrust to a judge, whose judgment is clouded by his deep involvement with the law. If the Commonwealth's evidence meets all the criteria for guilt, the judge will instruct you that I should be found guilty, but not that I must be found guilty. My future, and to a significant extent, the future of our country is in your hands. Probably you never will have such an opportunity again to directly exert such influence. You can choose tyranny and vote guilty, or you can choose freedom and vote not guilty. Choose Freedom.
 If you have some hesitation in your mind, then there is reasonable doubt. Maybe the other 11 jurors are ready to vote guilty, but you have some hesitation, so you hold out for not guilty. It is now 5:00 PM. You are going to be late for dinner? You cannot get to a telephone. The other jurors are getting hostile. Do you still hold out for not guilty? Now it becomes 6:00 PM. All of you are missing your dinner. You know that your significant other will be angry. The other jurors are more hostile. Now what? It is 7:00 PM, you were supposed to take your child to the movies. The other jurors now are livid. Do you give in and send a man to prison?
 To find me guilty you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that I violated a statute, that I had criminal intent, that there was no public safety in what I did, and that there is no reason to grant mercy. A resonable doubt must fairly arise out of the evidence that was presented or out of the lack of evidence presented. It is your decision, and yours alone, to make. The judge cannot make this decision for you. If I did not violate the peace and dignity of the community, then you must vote not guilty. Your job is to render justice.
 It is not the purpose of the law to do immoral or ridiculous things. If the law is immoral or ridiculous, then you must vote not guilty and nullify that law. We are involved in a struggle for the soul of America. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to your own body. The issue is not marijuana. Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we will
live in freedom or under tyranny. Choose freedom. The lighted marijuana weed is the torch of freedom.
 
 
 The reasons to re-legalize marijuana are several:
1. Moral
 It is immoral to arrest someone for owning a vegetable. We have the right to keep and bear vegetables. The most fundamental of all human rights is to have control over your own body. As long as you are not harming others, your body belongs to you to do what you wish.
2. Economic
 It costs about $26,000 per year to keep someone in prison. In addition, the inmate is not earning, so his tax dollars are lost to the community. Often an inmate's family has to go on welfare. The total cost for imprisonment can run up to $50,000 per year per inmate. There now are about 50,000 people incarcerated in the U. S. for non-violent marijuana offenses. The total cost to keep these people in prison is about $2.5 billion per year.
3. Social
 We are criminalizing an enormous percentage of the population. In 1994, 7% of all U. S. males of age 18 or older entered prison or jail.
 A male has a 9% chance of being incarcerated in state or federal prison during his lifetime based on 1991 incarceration rates.
 Two-thirds of convicts now entering prisons are doing so for non-violent crimes.
 One-half of these are for non-violent narcotics violations.
 From 1980 to 1995, the incarcerated population in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections quadrupled.
4. Agricultural
 Hemp is a valuable agricultural product. It is used to make clothing, shoes, diapers, rope, cellophane, paints, fuel, chain lubricants, biodegradable plastics, paper, fiberboard, cement blocks, food, cosmetics, and soap. The Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution were written on hemp paper. Hemp was the number one crop on George Washington's plantation at Mount Vernon. It was the number two crop on Thomas Jefferson's plantation at Monticello.
5. Food
 Hemp seed is a highly nutritious source of protein and fatty acids. Hemp seed has the second-highest amount of protein of any food (soya being the highest). It is low in saturated fat. One handful of hemp seed per day will supply adequate protein and
essential oils for an adult.
6. Environmental
 Hemp normally requires very little fertilizer and grows well almost anywhere. It is pest resistant, so it requires no pesticides. Hemp puts down deep roots, which is good for the soil. Hemp has been known to grow on the same soil for 20 years in a row without any noticeable soil depletion. One acre of hemp can produce as much paper as four acres of trees. Hemp paper is more durable than paper from trees. Hemp requires a growing season of 100 days, while trees must be grown for 20 years or longer before they can be used commercially.
7. Medical
 Marijuana has been used as a medicine for 4800 years. It helps epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. It is a pain killer and an anti-nauseant. Many very sick people are being denied appropriate medical care, because it is a crime for a doctor to prescribe, or even advise, his patients to use marijuana.
8. Pleasure
 Finally a reason to legalize marijuana is because it provides pleasure to some people. That is what the anti-drug people really detest. You will notice that there is no movement to outlaw glue, which probably is much worse for you than marijuana. That is because glue sniffing does not provide much pleasure.
 The reasons against re-legalization of marijuana are:
1. We must protect our youth from harm
 It is often heard that drugs must be illegal, because we love our children and must protect them from harm. This argument is insincere. The prohibitionists do not care one bit about our children. If they really wanted to protect our children from harm, they would outlaw football. Now there is a dangerous activity. It glorifies violence. Every single football player suffers some permanent injury that nags him for the rest of his life. Some are paralyzed from football. Occasionally one dies. Those things do not happen from marijuana use.
 Unlike marijuana, football is highly criminogenic. It leads to student riots, public drunkenness, gambling, and ticket scalping. Football has completely corrupted our universities. Football players are terrible role models for our youth. Any prohibitionist that seriously wants to protect children would not be interested in marijuana, but would be fighting to ban football.
2. Marijuana is a gateway drug to hard drugs
 Many people, especially government officials, propagate the belief that marijuana is a gateway drug; it leads to use of harder drugs. The fact is that 83% of marijuana users do not graduate to hard drugs.
 However, these people will tell you that 95% of cocaine users used marijuana before they used cocaine. They are wrong. Marijuana is used by 99.8% of cocaine users. But let me tell you something else. Milk was used by 100% of cocaine users
before they started snorting coke or crack. Milk is the true gateway drug, and it should be made illegal.
 Unlike marijuana, which is not addictive, milk is highly addictive to a certain segment of the society; that segment under 6 months of age. Do you know what happens if you take milk away from a milk-addicted baby? The withdrawal symptoms are excruciating. The baby gets terrible stomach pains and screams uncontrollably. It is terrible to hear. Eventually if deprived of the milk, the baby gets sick and dies. There is nothing else known that is this addictive.
 If we are going to stamp out hard drugs, we must stamp out milk first. Milk should be made illegal. If a woman gives her baby milk, she should have her breasts removed. Some of you bleeding hearts may say that without milk many babies will die. Probably so, but isn't this preferable to the disease of addiction that inflicts and undermines our society?
3. Irresponsibility should not be rewarded.
 It is not right that the responsible people have to care for people that harm themselves. Why should the taxpayers support with welfare and medicare, those irresponsible people that have abused their bodies by using drugs? I say we shouldn't do it. Anyone that abuses his or her body does not deserve government support. That includes illicit drug users, as well as users of alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco. It includes any one that has an athletic injury or medical problem. Any person that recklessly endangers his or her body should not receive government benefits. That includes anyone that rides a bicycle, drives a car, or flies in an airplane. Many accidents happen in a shower or bath tub. Any person that bathes should be prohibited from partaking in government programs. Mining, farming, and cooking are particularly dangerous. Anyone engaged in these activities should be barred from benefits of all government programs. Why should we responsible people pay the bills of the irresponsible? Of course, it is only fair that anyone barred from all government programs should be exempt from income and social security taxes.
Summary
 We are involved in a struggle for the soul of America. The issue is not marijuana. Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we will live in freedom or under tyranny. Choose freedom. The lighted marijuana weed is the torch of freedom.
 If you are attacked by either police or bystanders, go into the fetal position, and use your hands to protect your head. Under no circumstances, even if provoked, use violence. Thank you for your cooperation.