Please help keep me out of federal prison by writing a letter to the judge

My name is Peter McWilliams. I am a cancer survivor living with AIDS. I was arrested in July 1998 on federal medical marijuana charges, even though I live in California, a state that approved medical marijuana use in 1996.

In November 1999, the federal prosecutors successfully obtained an order prohibiting me from mentioning to the jury that I have AIDS, that marijuana is medicine, that the federal government supplies eight patients with medical marijuana each month, or that California has a law permitting the very act that I was accused of violating.

As I never denied my medical marijuana cultivation, that left me with no defense whatsoever. To avoid an almost certain guilty verdict and a ten-year mandatory-minimum sentence, I pled guilty to a lesser charge. (The whole story is at http://www.petertrial.com) My sentencing for this charge will be on March 27, 2000. The deadline for turning in letters of support is February 20, 2000.

Would you please take the time to send a letter, or a fax, or even an e-mail, to the judge on my behalf? It would make all the difference in my world.

The letter need not be long or eloquent. One sentence is sufficient.

The judge can sentence me to 0 to 5 years. The federal sentencing guidelines place my recommended (but not mandatory) sentence in the 5-year range. It is probably unavoidable that I get a sentenced to some time -- perhaps the full five years.

What I am asking the judge -- and what I am asking you to ask the judge -- is that I be able to serve my sentence under "home detention," also known as "electronic monitoring." (An electronic transmitter would be permanently fastened to my ankle and my whereabouts would be monitored 24 hours a day. I would not be able to leave my home except for medical or court appointments. As I live in Los Angeles, this will allow me to write my books, including Galileo LA.)

In writing the Judge King, please observe these commonsense guidelines:

1. Please be respectful. The judge owes me, or you, nothing. You are asking for a favor. When Judge King was asked to allow me to use medical marijuana while out on bail, he said to the attorneys on both sides, in a voice trembling with compassion, "I am struggling mightily with this. Please, struggle with me." Alas, there was nothing in federal law that permitted him to allow me to break federal law, even to save my life, but I believed the sincerity of his struggle. Personally, I don't want judges rewriting law as they see fit. Judge King is a good judge upholding a bad law. My sentence,however, is at his discretion. I believe he will be fair, that he will read the letter you send, and he will be moved by your heartfelt request. I believe we owe courtesy to the King.

2. Please focus on my health (www.petertrial.com/undetectable.htm) and my contributions to society (through my books www.mcwilliams.com/books) as reasons why I should receive home detention or electronic monitoring (the term can be used interchangeably). The legal arguments will be made by my attorney.

3. If you know me, please say so, and state any positive character traits you may have noticed wafting by from time to time. (This letter is not written under oath, so you will not be arrested for perjury.)

4. If you have read any of my books, please say so. If they helped you, please say how. (Exception: Please do not mention "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do." See 5.)

5. Please do not give your opinion of the War on Drugs (unless you're in favor of it), how the government treated me in this case (unless you approve), your views on medical marijuana (unless you're against it), or anything else critical of the status quo. Save those remarks, however well-reasoned and accurate, for letters-to-the-editor. Such comments may be counterproductive in a letter to a federal judge.

6. If you can, please keep the letter to one page, and no longer than two.

Actual letters (those things made popular in the last millennium, printed on paper, put into envelopes, and sent through the Post Office) are best. Typed is better, but handwritten is fine. Please use the most impressive letterhead to which you have legitimate access. (Your business stationery is better than your personal stationery, for example.) If you don't have stationery, you can create a letterhead on any word processor in about two minutes.

Please address the letters to:

"The Honorable George H. King"

and begin the letter:

"Dear Judge King,"

Please mail the letters TO ME at:

Peter McWilliams 8165 Mannix Drive Los Angeles, California 90046

If you know you're probably not going to get around to writing a letter (and I know just how you feel -- I don't know where to find an envelope any more, much less a stamp -- please send a fax (signed, on letterhead, if possible,but if not, that's fine) to:

323-650-1541

If you think you might not get around to sending a fax, please send an e-mail. Please write at the bottom of the e-mail "You have my permission to reformat this letter, print it, and sign my name at the bottom." Your name will be signed for you, next to which will be the initials of the person signing it. Please include your complete mailing address.

The e-mail address is peter@mcwilliams.com

Finally, please circulate this request as widely as you can -- post it on bulletin boards, send it to receptive people on your e-mail list, send it out in newsletters, put it on your web page. Kindly use your creativity,but, please, no spamming.

If you cannot post the entire message of this missive, the online address of this request is www.petertrial.com/letters.htm.

Thank you from the bottom of my weary but very grateful heart.

Enjoy.

Peter McWilliams peter@mcwilliams.com

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), February 14, 2000

Answers

I'll try to be brief as possible, but I just want to say again that all of the issues that people complain about can be remedied by education. We have had an education for the last 80 years, but it hasn't been for the citizens benefit. The men who wrote our Constitution knew from experience that there would always be those who would do their best to exploit those that they were supposed to protect. So they wrote an article in the Constitution providing for abolition of unfair laws. It's called jury nullification. Where a jury can nullify a law by declaring it unconstitutional. Don't expect to hear this from a lawyer, prosecutor, or judge; they didn't get to where they are by protecting your rights, and it's rare when it happens. You have to find a lawyer with guts enough to inform the jury. Actually, it is his right and obligation to do so. And don't forget, the judge is sworn to uphold the constitution.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 14, 2000.

---well, it's sorta late for pete now (except for a letter to the judge on sentencing), but seems to me, sometime, some case, someplace, some lawyer is gonna get hip and use the jury nullification law to strike down the federal law completely, and cal would be a good place to start. All it would take is a close jury, then drop that little nugget. It needs to be done with the various federal firearms laws as well. And the stupid tax code. Out with the stoopid laws! Ha! It's time that the gubbmint listened to the people, rather than dictating to the people. Last year over SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND people were arrested for reefer. this is NUTZ! It's against the constitution , the declaration of independence, common sense, personal freedoms and economics. Georgie freekin Washington smoked hemp flowers mixed with his terbaccy, fer gawdsake. Prohibition and criminalization does NOT work, didn't work with booze, all we got out of that was organized crime and the beginnings of the organized police state.

And this poor guy, sheesh, I hope the pigs who busted him choke on their doughnuts. All ya'all "law-n-order" types, see what ya get, a nice ole police state, swell, just swell. All ya'all baby boomers with kids now, you never inhaled back then, right? But let]s lock em all up, we gotta have "law-n-order" at ANY cost. Gotta get "tough" on...what? this crime here? pathetic...booze creates such more pain and misery and lost production and broken homes and abused kids and spouses and REAL crime, but that's OK,here, have some designer label trendy white wine, and keep locking up all these hardened criminals. Keep making billions for the smugglers and corrupt cops and big bankers, keep building more and more jails, keep making more and more people criminals--just no whining when the police state catches up with YOU, eventually they'll be some lame "law" that YOU will be found guilty of. Pretty soon everyone will be "guilty" of something unfortunately, then it will be too late to do anything about it. and if you aren't, why they'll just plant evidence on you and lie in court, a la lapd scandal going on now, if you're lucky that is,if not they might just shoot ya, then use a throwdown gun to "prove" you were dangerous.

man, I'm in a lecture mood today, gotta check the moon phase or something....of course, they've all been good points...

; >)

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 14, 2000.

The so-called "War on Drugs" is actually a war on the people -- a sizable percentage.

Ayn Rand (author "Atlas Shrugged") said something like: The government has no power over an innocent person; to get power over a person, the government has to make him (her) guilty -- a criminal. Hey, if you make all the dopers criminals -- felons -- and felons can't vote, then there is less and less likelihood of anti-drug-war (pro-freedom) laws being passed, or drug-war (anti-freedom) laws repealed.

And every one of you -- especially you wacko Christian conservatives -- who are so busy pumping for Big Brother to mind everyone's business, your turn in the barrel is coming up. (Already has -- Ruby Ridge and Waco were practice runs).

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 14, 2000.

Zog and all -- Jury Nullification is a good idea (look up "Fully Informed Jury" or FIJA on web). Unfortunately, while the jury can nullify the law by a proper vote (not guilty) in a particular case, that does nothing to get the law(s) repealed. The pigs just go arrest someone else, some piglet District Attorney on the make, with visions of becoming Attorney General, is only too happy to prosecute. The only way to get the pigs to back off is to make it personally unattractive to them to be the a*holes they are. And to make it personally unattractive for all the Christian conservative a*holes to support the war on drugs and other interferences with freedom.

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 14, 2000.

A,

You said "wacko Christian conservatives" want big brother in everyone's business. I think you have a screw loose, my friend. I know many "Christian conservatives", and a few of them are wacko, but I can't think of ONE, that wants big brother butting into everyone's business. You are way off base here.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 14, 2000.

From A History of Jury Nullification:

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizens safeguard of liberty." (1788)

"The Magna Carta was a gift reluctantly bestowed upon his subjects by the King. Its sole means of enforcement, the jury, often met with hostility from the Crown. By 1664 English juries were routinely fined for acquitting a defendant. Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn for preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned until they paid the fines. One juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay the fine and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. Chief Justice Vaughan held that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushells Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common law history of the jury."

"Jurors exercised their power of nullification in 18th century England in trials of defendants charged with sedition and in mitigating death penalty cases. In the American Colonies jurors refused to enforce forfeitures under the English Navigation Acts. The Colonial jurors veto power prompted England to extend the jurisdiction of the non-jury admiralty courts in America beyond their ancient limits of sea-going vessels. Depriving "the defendant of the right to be tried by a jury which was almost certain not to convict him [became] . . . the most effective, and therefore most disliked" of all the methods used to enforce the acts of trade. (Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1938) XI, 110)"

John Hancock, himself on trial, argued

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizens safeguard of liberty." (1788)

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizens safeguard of liberty." (1788)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 14, 2000.

--The wanting to deny freedom for others, while complaining about your own loss of freedoms crosses all lines. Neither concervative nor liberal nor any other flavor of person is immune for wanting the "exception" for his or her cause. It has nothing to do with religion, either, all religions maintain that theirs is the one true religion (at least the ones I'm aware of), including the absence of religion. When you demonize the other, you are also saying you are better, that the other is not "worthy" of freedom, religious or social, that only you should have freedom, that other guy must be condemened or go to jail or something.

I maintain you should want freedom for all, even those who are not of your culture, beliefs, religion, political persusasion,age, gender, gender preference, race, economic class, ethnicicity, cultural background,etc,etc,etc. Once you start making exceptions-either for the other guy for making something "unlawful" thereby creating him a criminal, or by asking for the exception for yourself while denying that same thing for another, then you are hypocritical.

Howzzthis one-everyone wants to do something about "those crazy drivers" we all know and love and complain about to each other, well, this is the US, will the first person who never speeds, and who always maintains proper distance between cars, and who always uses their turn signals and never runs yellows please raise their hand?

..thought so.......now where's all those "crazy drivers" now, hmmmmmm?

pogo-->"we have met the enemy, and he is us".

We all deserve what we get, this state of affairs is the result of societal inaction, hypocrisy, looking the other way, and getting priorites skewed. We are ALL guilty. I'M guilty, guilty of being not as aware or involved as I should have been, guilty of thinking "the other guy" would look out for MY freedoms, thinking "the other guy" would write the letters, make the phone calls, go to the meetings, use the media, do the talking, do all the things necessary for freedoms. Well, it appears that that "other guy" is sorta absent without leave, how does it feel for ya'all? Is that "other guy" taking care of YOUR freedoms? Are you sure he's looking out for yours? Are you looking out for HIS? What's your deep down personal status there? No reply needed, just a look, an honest look is all that's required.

tough questions, eh? 24 hours in a day, a lot can get done, a lot....

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 14, 2000.

Howzzthis one-everyone wants to do something about "those crazy drivers" we all know and love and complain about to each other, well, this is the US, will the first person who never speeds, and who always maintains proper distance between cars, and who always uses their turn signals and never runs yellows please raise their hand?

I'm right here. However, I would like to clarify one minor point: "running yellows" is legal. That is, it is legal to enter an intersection when the light is yellow. It is illegal to enter an intersection when the light is red.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 14, 2000.

The wanting to deny freedom for others, while complaining about your own loss of freedoms crosses all lines. Neither concervative nor liberal nor any other flavor of person is immune for wanting the "exception" for his or her cause.

This is correct with one exception: libertarians may NOT deny freedom for others. Anyone who claims to be a libertarian while denying freedom for others is either lying or deluded, as this is logically impossible given the nature of libertarianism.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 14, 2000.

J -- Did you ever hear of drug laws, anti-abortion laws, statutory rape laws, "beautify the city zoning laws"...? Every conservatice I've met or seen on TV spouts off about "there ought be a law..."

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 14, 2000.

The Law by Frederick Bastiat (1848) [Translated by The Foundation for Economic Education. Permission to reprint granted without special request.]

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), February 14, 2000.

A,

I am a Christian. In some ways I am very conservative. In other ways, I would be considered very unconservative.

I believe that no one should infringe upon the rights that God has given to every man, woman, and child, as enumerated in the Constitution. For instance, if you want to get stoned all day, that is up to you as far as I am concerned. I will pray that you see the error of your ways.

I have a problem when you break into my home to steal something so that you can sell it to get your next rock of crack. You see, it is where my rights begin, that your rights end. Or to be more precise, it is where someone else's rights begin where everyone's rights end.

My right to keep and bear arms does not mean that I can just shoot someone for any reason whatsoever. You see, that would infringe upon that person's right to life. Speaking of right to life, how you can think that a woman's convenience takes precedence over a child's right to live is beyond me.

Finally, do you really think that a twelve year old girl is old enough to decide that she is ready to have sex with a 20 year old man? You have some very interesting positions, A. I don't think that you really have thought them all through, though.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 14, 2000.

Amy, Peter said,

" I am a cancer survivor living with AIDS."

Would that cancer be Kaposi's sarcoma from AIDS, some AIDS related lymphoma, or some cancer unrelated to your AIDS status? To say "cancer survivor" in this context seems like an attempt to gain sympathy that might not be forthcoming if he said, "I developed AIDS after sharing IV needles while abusing narcotics, or having repeated unprotected sexual intercourse with strangers. Remember, AIDS is not the flu. Extrememly few people get this disease from blood transfusions, etc. The vast majority contract it from their behaviors. NOTE: Saying someone is *responsible* for their plight does not indicate a lack of compassion for them. For example, I can still feel sorry for a drunk driver who becomes paralyzed in an auto accident, but realize that it was his actions, and not fate, that caused his condition. "I was arrested in July 1998 on federal medical marijuana charges, even though I live in California, a state that approved medical marijuana use in 1996."

I live in California too, and when the state "approved" medical mj the feds SAID they would prosecute people who grew it. You knew you were breaking the law at the time you broke it.

In November 1999, the federal prosecutors successfully obtained an order prohibiting me from mentioning to the jury that I have AIDS, that marijuana is medicine, that the federal government supplies eight patients with medical marijuana each month, or that California has a law permitting the very act that I was accused of violating.

This happened in November of *1999* when you were arrested in July of *1998*? One and a half years later? Murder trials go to trial before this amount of time elapses, so something tells me I'm not getting the full story here.

"As I never denied my medical marijuana cultivation"

Right. You weren't just using mj you were "cultivating" it. How much was "cultivating"? One plant, or enough to sedate the Bay Area? The answer to that could explain a lot of your problems with the law. Again, please tell me the full story before you expect me to write a letter on your behalf.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 14, 2000.

Frank, do you think someone asking for help would expect it from you?

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 15, 2000.

Frank, if you go to his web page it will answer a lot of your questions. I don't think anybody wants to get Aids or associated cancers, so I don't know why you would bring that up. However, it does appear that he was growing enough to stone the whole town. I didn't know that they allowed you to use it but not grow it. That would imply that everyone who uses it is getting it from the Federal Gov. Oddly, he has not been getting it since his arrest, and is sick for hours every day after taking his Aids medicine. He is, as A@a.a probably knows, a rather popular writer with a liberatarian bent.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), February 15, 2000.

sarcasm
It's so obvious to me that a cancer patient, growing mj for his own use, in his own house, for purely medicinal purposes is the greatest problem our society faces and should be put in jail longer than rapists or other violent felons.
/sarcasm
Really makes me wonder . . . .

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob.bob.bob), February 15, 2000.

KoFE,

Yes, actually, but it would depend on what they were asking *for*.

I've had *some* experience with the AIDS population, and have seen people who kept having unprotected intercourse OR using IV drugs AFTER getting diagnosed as HIV+ because they didn't want to change their lifestyles, thereby SENTENCING INNOCENT PEOPLE TO DEATH. I personally believe that their actions are worse than my "uncaring" attitude.

Also, it costs around 15k to pay for the drugs and tests required by a single AIDS patient each year (not an HIV+ patient, but once they've progressed to AIDS). This is NOT counting hospitalizations secondary to their illness. For many AIDS patients this is something society has to pick up the tab for (read: we pay for in taxes) and COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR. My point here is that the reason these people are in the straits they are in is because of their behavior, and not bad luck. Why should I help put this guy back on the streets to further damage our society? Yes, he should receive appropriate medical treatment, but that's it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2000.

A,

Ruby Ridge and Waco happened on Clintons' watch. If ALL the conservatives you have met are as you described then you are in the wrong crowd. Your argument is flawed logically, painting an entire group based on meeting a few and as this forum amply illustratesnot all conservatives are like that so , as AYne Rand would say, check your premises. Erroronious conclusions are caused by incorrect presumptions.

One who has all of A. Rand's books since the 1950's.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), February 15, 2000.