Posted on 01/02/2013 7:47:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Chris Williams, a Montana medical marijuana grower, faces at least five years in federal prison when he is sentenced on Feb. 1. The penalty seems unduly severe, especially because his business openly supplied marijuana to patients who were allowed to use it under state law.
Yet five years is a cakewalk compared to the sentence Williams originally faced, which would have kept the 38-year-old father behind bars for the rest of his life. The difference is due to an extremely unusual post-conviction agreement that highlights the enormous power prosecutors wield as a result of mandatory minimum sentences so grotesquely unjust that in this case even they had to admit it.
Of more than two dozen Montana medical marijuana providers who were arrested following federal raids in March 2011, Williams is the only one who insisted on his right to a trial. For that, he paid a steep price.
Tom Daubert, one of Williams' partners in Montana Cannabis, which had dispensaries in four cities, pleaded guilty to maintaining drug-involved premises and got five years of probation. Another partner, Chris Lindsey, took a similar deal and is expected to receive similar treatment. Both testified against Williams at his trial last September.
Williams' third partner, Richard Flor, pleaded guilty to the same charge but did not testify against anyone. Flor, a sickly 68-year-old suffering from multiple ailments, died four months into a five-year prison term.
For a while, it seemed that Williams, who rejected a plea deal because he did not think he had done anything wrong and because he wanted to challenge federal interference with Montana's medical marijuana law, also was destined to die in prison. Since marijuana is prohibited for all purposes under federal law, he was not allowed even to discuss the nature of his business in front of the jury, so his conviction on the four drug charges he faced, two of which carried five-year mandatory minimums, was more or less inevitable.
Stretching Williams' sentence from mindlessly harsh to mind-bogglingly draconian, each of those marijuana counts was tied to a charge of possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, based on guns at the Helena grow operation that Williams supervised and at Flor's home in Miles City, which doubled as a dispensary. Federal law prescribes a five-year mandatory minimum for the first such offense and 25 years for each subsequent offense, with the sentences to run consecutively.
Consequently, when Williams was convicted on all eight counts, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 80 years for the gun charges alone, even though he never handled the firearms cited in his indictment, let alone hurt anyone with them. This result, which federal prosecutors easily could have avoided by bringing different charges, was so absurdly disproportionate that U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter offered Williams a deal.
Drop your appeal, Cotter said, and we'll drop enough charges so that you might serve "as little as 10 years." No dice, said Williams, still determined to challenge the Obama administration's assault on medical marijuana providers. But when Cotter came back with a better offer, involving a five-year mandatory minimum, Williams took it, having recognized the toll his legal struggle was taking on his 16-year-old son, a freshman at Montana State University.
"I think everyone in the federal system realizes that these mandatory minimum sentences are unjust," Williams tells me during a call from the Missoula County Detention Facility. But for prosecutors, they serve an important function: "They were basically leveraging this really extreme sentence against something that was so light because they wanted to force me into taking a plea deal." Nine out of 10 federal criminal cases end in guilty pleas.
The efficient transformation of defendants into prisoners cannot be the standard by which we assess our criminal justice system. If the possibility of sending someone like Chris Williams to prison for the rest of his life is so obviously unfair, why does the law allow it, let alone mandate it?
weellll..
the libs have been using that one for decades now to pass everydamn social program they see fit..
but justice Roberts, ya know, the one people are calling a traitor, actually ended this practice with his ruling on fubocare....
you should really read his ruling, there are some solid bars of gold in there, and plenty of ammunition to fight the libs ( if only we did not hand them this election )..
Jack ass.
Your post maybe one of the most stupid on FR in a long time.
rewards and bounties for private citizens to out their families and neighbors that have those evil scary guns.
And BTW, don't try to cut a fast one. Mine were all stolen.
It used to be Jazz Musicians, Now it’s Rappers and Basketball players.
Actually, the limit goes further than that. The 'commerce clause' was for the purpose of gathering taxes at the point of entry. The federal government was to regulate commerce between these points so the States (and Indian tribes) would all get a reasonable 'share' of taxes from imports and exports from foreign countries.
It has nothing to do with the movement or production of goods occurring within or between the States themselves.
Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 455
-----
So, keep in mind that those advocating the War on Drugs are doing no less than advocating Treason.
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but not the line of reasoning.
The War on Drugs is treason simply because the federal government was NEVER given the suthority to make laws concerning the People, only to act as a municipality in their area of exclusive legislation....the city of Washington, D.C.
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
View of the Constitution of the United States / Note B
If I were a juror in your courtroom, I would carefully weigh all the evidence, then vote to acquit and urge my fellow jurors to do the same, citing jury nullification.
Even if they did not follow my example, I would still vote to acquit to make sure that the trial ended in a hung jury and force the government to retry him, if for no other reason than to spite a jerk like you.
Of course it is.
Just check out Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo if you don't believe me. Everything they did within their own borders was in accordance to legal statutes from their legislators.
I believe Ayn Rand said it best: The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws
Of course it is.
Just check out Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo if you don't believe me. Everything they did within their own borders was in accordance to legal statutes from their legislators.
I believe Ayn Rand said it best: The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws
Treason? I agree!
Ah, and therein we heartily disagree. For to construe a 'law' which is unlawful as legitimate is to assert that law holds no power: it is the assertion that true is exactly equal to false -- nothing at all can be built on such a foundation, for such a foundation excludes all logic and rationality.
What are you seeing that Clarence Thomas and Mark Levin overlooked?
you should really read his ruling, there are some solid bars of gold in there, and plenty of ammunition to fight the libs ( if only we did not hand them this election )..
Quote from the ruling where these solid gold bars and explain how they reverse any Commerce Clause or General Welfare case law.
You can start by telling us how Raich is curtailed by this ruling.
Here is one of many things I have written about the fubocare decision… keep in mind that the courts have used minority opinions as a kind of “back door” for judicial activism..
In your anger (and many others) over this decision, you have overlooked the bars of gold, and the removal of many abuses of the constitution contained in this decision..
First, fubocare sucks and I both hate and detest it..
with that in mind, here are the bars of gold, and the brilliance in obtaining them...
the libs have used 3 main hammers in their attack on the constitution and our way of life for over 80 years now... they have not veered in their attacks.. roberts took all of these hammers away with this ruling...
The libs have used the commerce clause with impunity, creating commerce in order to regulate it, as they tried here..
Roberts ruled that the commerce clause can no longer be used this way, and ruled that to be unconstitutional..
Now, here is the brilliant part... the minority opinion... concurs..
This hammer has been taken away, and with the minority opinion concurring with his ruling, the backdoor is effectively closed....
There goes hammer #1.
The libs have used the Necessary and Proper clause to pass anydamn social program they see fit..They tried it here..
Roberts ruled (I am going to paraphrase here) that the Necessary and Proper clause cannot be used to create social programs out of thin air...
And the minority opinion.... concurs..
Hammer #2 take away, back door closed..
Now the third one ( and this one is already being used ) is unfunded mandates to the states..
The fed issues a mandate, does not fund it, and threatens to take away fed dollars for failure to comply. This is hammer #3..
Roberts ruled that the feds cannot issue unfunded mandates with the threat of loss of other funds..
and the minority opinion.... concurs...
Hammer #3 taken away and back door is closed.
These 3 items have effectively rendered the libs entire game plan useless, and have removed the 3 major abuses of the constitution used by the libs for over 80 years...
As for the tax thing, it was always a tax, it was written as a tax, and sworn testimony by fubo’s own lawyer said it was a tax...and in no fewer than 17 places in the monstrosity of a bill it is called a tax...
The only people that said it was not a tax was fubo and his henchmen... gee, fubo lied, who would have guessed..
Roberts took this opportunity to state 2 things that are 100% true:
1) That it is not the Supreme court’s responsibility to save the people from themselves...this bill was written by duly elected representatives of the people..
2) That the voting public got the government they voted for, and need to take a greater responsibility for whom they cast their ballots..
I agree with both these statements.
I don't think we disagree at all. Consider:
Legal is the rule or regulation created by a valid legislature, and applied through the judiciary and administrative edicts of that society.
Lawful is the impact those rules and regulations have on that society.
The first is "the letter of the law" - the second is "the spirit of the law", and they should, in a just society, be equivalent.
Now consider "Roe v. Wade". Legal and unlawful.
'No longer' implies that it was used that way before, but that this is now changed. How are Raich or Wickard trimmed back in any way?
Now, here is the brilliant part... the minority opinion... concurs..
Where are you getting that? Read what Ginsberg herself said.
Unlike The Chief Justice, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision. I would also hold that the Spending Clause permits the Medicaid expansion exactly as Congress enacted it.
1) That it is not the Supreme court’s responsibility to save the people from themselves...this bill was written by duly elected representatives of the people..
So the duly elected Congress can start infringing 2A rights if that's what the people vote for?
2) That the voting public got the government they voted for, and need to take a greater responsibility for whom they cast their ballots..
This is supposed to be a constitutional republic with limitations on the federal government. SCOTUS is supposed to strike down acts which are repugnant to the Constitution, regardless of popular will, right?
If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that I don’t smoke the stuff and aren’t even tempted. If you responded without reading what I wrote, your response is worthless.
Potheads and other drug-addicted criminals are worthless. There’s nothing conservative about a drug addict.
Rebel against what? The original intent of the Commerce Clause?
Who’s delusional? You offered gratuitous advice that I should rebel and get off the stuff. I’m not on it. Also, get your facts straight. The Feds effectively outlawed marijuana in the 1938 marijuana tax law; gaining that power the feds moved on and now wants to over-rule the second amendment. Careful reading is s valuable life skill, look into it.
Rebel against what? The original intent of the Commerce Clause?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.