justice

I cannot thank enough the man who brought NO MENS REA to my attention. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes. Often, we do not see them at first glance. Here I offer a chance to take another peek at one.

Would ya Look at this?

Mens  rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental  element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's  action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a  necessary element of many crimes.  

The standard common law test  of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non  facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not  culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process,  there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a  defendant to be guilty of a crime. As a general rule,  someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.

Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.  

In the USA, corporate law has usurped the Common Law, though the Common Law lives on in every individual who is breathing. It is alive & well each time one of us enters any of these criminal courts which are now operating under this fraudulent and unlawful bastardization of the law.   

The answer to these criminal courts is on the tongues of those who are being violated by these criminal actions.   

It is as simple as declaring, with authority, “No Mens Rea!” There is no guilt of the mind, there is no guilt in the act, the only crime is the arrest and the subsequent theft of time of the wrongfully accused.  

No Mens Rea cannot be ignored even by these corrupted criminal courts.  

No Mens Rea is the Law.

HOW  IS  POT  USE  A  CRIME?

In  Memphis,  THORNE  PETERS,  known  as  THE  KINGPIN  has  spent  the  last  decade  fighting  the legislation  against  POT  by  seeking  arrest  to  take  his  cases  to  jury  trial  as  his  own  lawyer.    

On  4/20  -  Smoker's  Day  on  2011,  PETERS  was  arrested  at  the  Shelby  County  Courthouse  for toking  POT  from  an  apple.

For  over  a  year,  PETERS  dealt  POT  on  Facebook,  posting  prices  and  making  videos  that  he  shared  onto  the  pages  of  public  officials  and  law  enforcement  before  being  arrested  on  gun  and  drug  charges...  

In  March  of  2018,  PETERS  was  found  guilty  of  using  a  firearm  during  the  commission  of  a  felony.

But  rather  than  reporting  to  his  sentencing  hearing  on  April  13,  2018,  PETERS  stood  in  front  of  the  courthouse  not  only  toking  POT  but  also  dealing  it  for  over  two  hours  while  police  officers  walked  by.    

Peters  declares  that  his  actions  prove  that  POT  charges  are  unlawful.    "How  can  it  be  a  crime  if  police  can  ignore  you  in  the  act?    They  are  sworn  to  prevent  crime,  not  witness  it.   

In  court,  PETERS  makes  the  case  that  PROHIBITION  is  a  human  rights  violation.    "PROHIBITION  is  Slavery,  Women's  Suffrage,  Jim  Crow  and  Gay  Bashing  by  legislation.    It's  a  witch  trial  in  a  kangaroo  court  where  innocent  slaves  are  railroaded."    

PETERS  believes  that  the  court  is  ignoring the  law  to  enforce  legislation.    "The  law  reads  that  for  the  act  to  be  guilty,  the  mind  must  be  guilty;  "MENS  REA".    Since  I  have  not  committed  a  crime,  I  have  no  guilty  mind."

PETERS  also  protests  that  legislation  violates  his  constitutional  right.    "I  have  a  right  to  face  my  accuser.    Since  there  is  no  accuser,  legislation  is  used  to  act  like  the  system  is  the  victim."

Currently,  34  states  offer  citizens  some  relief  from  CANNABIS PROHIBITION,  but  PETERS  does  not see  this  as  progress.    "We  must  never  accept  a  system  the  FREEDOM  of  some  people while  enfranchising  others.    It  is  FREEDOM  for  ALL  or  BUST!"

To  date,  Tennessee  has  seen  several  reform  bills  for  marijuana  die  in  committee,  so  PETERS  is taking  the  law  into  his  own  hands.  

  "I  AM  THE  LAW!    There  is  NO  MENS  REA.    The  law  is  based  on

FREEDOM  of  choice,  not  slavery  by  legislation."    

PETERS  has  yet  to  be  indicted  for  dealing  POT  at  the  courthouse.    He  will  return  to  court  on  May  30  seeking  a  new  trial  for  his  gun  and  POT  conviction.

MOTION TO DISMISS POT BUST

THORNE PETERS·SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2015

PpP . . . MAKE YOUR OWN CASE!!!  Take this motion and stuff it up the assholes of the Court that is violating your Inalienable, Human and Civil Rights to toke, deal and grow CANNABIS by enforcing the unconstitutional Political Policy of PROHIBITION.  

(Write in the info for your Court.)

IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF______________________
FOR THE__________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ____________
______________________________________________________________
STATE OF _______________
Plaintiff,
VS.                                                                                                DOCKET  NO. _________
_______________________                                        DIV ______
Defendant.
___________________________________________________________
                                                 MOTION TO DISMISS
________________________________________________________________

Pro Se Defendant, ____________________________ moves the Court to dismiss the instant proceeding for the Possession of CANNABIS and/or Possession for Sales of CANNABIS and/or Cultivating CANNABIS being brought by the State against the Defendant in this matter. As grounds for this motion, Defendant would show the Court as follows:

1.  Defendant contends the State has failed to make its prima facie case that Defendant committed a criminal act with the intent to do harm to a person, property or puppy. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. (The act is not culpable unless the mind is also guilty.)  Page 1 of your law books.

2. Defendant claims CONSENT to possess CANNABIS for personal use, as a consenting adult in a FREE country.

3. Defendant claims CONSENT to sell CANNABIS and will provide witnesses who purchased CANNABIS from Defendant to support the claim of CONSENT as a defense against liability.

4. Defendant claims CONSENT to cultivate CANNABIS/HEMP according to the laws of nature that requires use of these plants to balance the ecology by giving mankind sources of  medicine, energy, textiles, fuel, food that are biodegradable and non harmful to people and the planet.     

5.  Defendant contends the State has presented an Attenuated, Defective Affidavit by charging Defendant with "Manufacturing" CANNABIS. CANNABIS is cultivated. Based on the language of Criminal Code T.C.A. 39-17-417, used by the State to bring said charges, there is no assertion that it is illegal to cultivate CANNABIS. Further, unlike the other substances on the Controlled Substances Act, CANNABIS is not manufactured into another product through a “control process”, but, rather, is “controlled” by an artificial criminal code unlawfully enforced by unconstitutional political policies. The onus is upon the State to articulate the “control process” that “manufactures” CANNABIS in order to lawfully proceed against Defendant.     

6.  Defendant contends CANNABIS fails to meet the Frye/Daubert Standard to be categorized as a drug. At Preliminary Hearing in the case of State of Tennessee v. THE KINGPIN THORNE PETERS, for Possession for Sales of CANNABIS on April 24, 2015, Division 25, Shelby County Court, Judge Rhonda Harris, presiding, supported this position by sustaining Defendant's objection to the State referring to CANNABIS as a "drug" and to Defendant as a "drug dealer". The State was admonished to refer to CANNABIS as "Marijuana"and to Defendant as a "Marijuana Dealer" on THE KINGPIN’s point that drugs don't grow on trees.      

7.    Defendant contends 6th Amendment Constitutional Right to face an accuser is being denied because the State cannot produce a victim. The State is in conflict with the facts of the case, by proceeding against Defendant for committing a crime while bringing charges under the artificial category of: VICTIMLESS CRIME.   

8.    Defendant contends 14th Amendment Constitutional Right to Equal Protection under the law is being violated by political policy, since the State and the Court offer no proscription for relief for Defendant to legally obtain CANNABIS.    
9. Defendant contends Substantive Due Process (the penumbras) is being violated by the State for failing to recognize legal remedies in courts from 23 other states and growing that uphold the Constitutional guarantees of citizens that protect them from CANNABIS-related arrests and prosecutions.

10.  Defendant contends under the Full Faith & Credit Clause, courts must respect rulings by other courts that do not enforce an unconstitutional CANNABIS Prohibition against citizens.

11.  Defendant contends the State is violating First Amendment Right to exercise religious freedom.  CANNABIS is recognized as a Holy Sacrament of the Church, and is used in religious practices in multiple faiths in the worship of various Gods and spirits around the world, with citing going back over 5000 years in multiple religious texts. The First Amendment of The Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.  

12. Defendant contends CORPUS DELICTI cannot be provided by the State in any CANNABIS case, as there is no Constitutional evidence to offer proof that a crime has even been committed.     

13. Defendant claims the State cannot articulate QUO WARRANTO to prove they have the authority by law to inflict criminal codes on citizens based on political policies outside the Constitution.

14.  Defendant contends the unconstitutional Prohibition being enforced by the courts against the use, sales and cultivation of CANNABIS, frustrates the administration of justice and hinders the search for truth. See: Witch Trials; Slavery; Comstock Law; The Mann Act; The Volstead Act; Anti-Miscegenation.  

Defendant offers these on-point landmark historical cases of the Constitutional guarantees of a citizen(s) being violated by a political policy enforced by the courts as if it was a law, only to be overruled, reversed and overturned as immoral, ignorant and evil . . . as it will be when history reviews the unlawfully unconstitutional enforcement of CANNABIS Prohibition in this era.  

Blackstone’s Ratio, “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, (1765) “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

* Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
* Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 (1931)
* Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
* Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956)
* Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)  
* Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S. 479 (1965)
* Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
* Timothy Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)  
* Stanley v. Georgia, 395 U.S. 557 (1969)
People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208  (1973)
* Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974)
* Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988)
* Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
* Lawrence v. Texas,  539 U.S. 558 (2003)
* Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)

* "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court, in: American Communications Association v. Douds  339 U.S. 382 (1950)

In reliance on the above-delineated constitutional statutory guarantees, Defendant hereby moves the instant case be immediately dismissed, expunged, with all associated costs assessed against the State of ________________.  

* Your next recourse is to file a MOTION FOR A CLAYTON HEARING to have the case dismissed in the “furtherance of justice.”  People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (1973)

N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 210.40 grants the defendant (or the prosecutor or the court) the power to apply for relief:

“First, it directs the court to find, under the general concept of the "furtherance of justice" stated in its provisions, that the "dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in an injustice."

This describes every manner of POT bust. See link below . . .

MOTION FOR CLAYTON HEARING . . .  https://www.facebook.com/notes/thorne-peters/motion-for-clayton-hearing/900079273405752?pnref=lhc