marcosolo, 14. Februar 2004 um 14:12:13 MEZ

In Sachen Staat gegen Hanf - Bezirksgericht Zürich gegen CHanf

Als einer von einem Häuflein von mehr oder weniger aufrechten 12 Zuschauern und 4 Reportern wohnte ich am Freitag, dem 13. Februar 2004 der öffentlichen Verhandlung gegen François Reusser und die CHanf bei, um herauszufinden, woher im Moment bei unseren Richtern der Wind in Sachen Cannabis Legalisierung weht.

Allein das Datum gibt schon zu allerhand Spekulationen Anlass. Pech für wen wohl? Die Robin Hoods der Hanfszene, oder die gewählten Volksvertreter im Nationalrat, die sich bisher nach dem Vorbild des Deserteurs Bush dem Thema noch nicht einmal angenomen und diesbezüglich ihre Pflicht genausowenig erfüllt haben?

On verra. Wie auch immer, es war das erste Mal, das ich in meinem Leben nicht nur am TV, sondern als realer Zuschauer und Berichter diese Weblogs, an einer Gerichtsverhandlung teilnahm.

Die anwesenden Richter entsprachen durchaus den gängigen Erwartungen. Politically correct gekleidet, mögen sie durchaus bei den meisten von uns ihre Autoritätsrolle, wirkungsvoll unterstützt durch ihre Sitzhöhe erwirkt haben, bei mir hingegen wirkten sie eher wie alle anderen Mitmenschen, die einfach nur Kraft ihres Amtes und ihrer Rolle als Job, über die zukünftige Entwicklung der Freiheitsrechte der Angeklagten zu befinden hatten.

Der peinlich genaue Durchgang der Akten brachte für mich als Nicht-Insider einiges an Fakten, um überhaupt in der Lage zu sein, beurteilen zu können, worum es hier ging. Bis auf einen Barbetrag, der bei François Reusser beschlagnahmt wurde, einigte man sich darauf, dass diese Fakten der Wahrheit entsprachen.

Eindrücklich waren die Plädoyers der beiden Verteidigerinnen, schon dadurch, wie unterschiedlich sie vorgetragen wurden.

Die Verteidigerin des Nebenangeklagten, ziemlich jung, kam perfekt vorbereitet, mit mindestens 16 Seiten, Punkt für Punkt auf die Ankagepunkte zurück und forderte bei der Geldwäscherei einen Freispruch, indem sie analytisch fundiert die Gründe zerrupfte und die durch Abwesenheit glänzende Staatsanwältin froh darüber sein kann, wenn ihr nicht, wie bei der Deutschen Bank und Ackermann, Fehler in der Prozessführung vorgeworfen werden.

Die Verteidigerin des Hauptangeklagten hatte nur eine Seite aber ein paar Jahrzehnte mehr Praxis vor ihrem Stehpult. In bravouröser Art fordert sie Freispruch auf der ganzen Linie. Ihr Mandant sei schon genug bestraft worden und man solle ihn nicht aus politischen Gründen, stellvertretend für ein von diesem Staat unbewältigtes Problem, präventiv bestrafen.

Interessant wurde es dann aber, als zu vernehmen war, dass nicht nur die Steuer-, sondern auch die Mehrwertsteuerbehörde und die Gerichte 6 Razzien lang der ganzen Sache zuschauten und finanziell ohne Unterbruch fortwährend tüchtig weiter absahnten (Zuhälter?), und nun Reusser vorwarfen, dass er von der Sache gewusst haben und sage und schreibe auch noch profitiert haben soll.

Jeder neun mal sieben Kluge könnte hier als logische Folgerung gleich Anklage gegen den Staat, speziell das Hohe Gericht und die Steuerbehörde einreichen und für diesen Fall wegen Befangenheit ablehnen.

Wenn man dann noch dazunimmt, dass das Zürcher Gesundheitsinpektorat Proben konfiszierte, analysierte und mit einem Dokument, dass die auf den Verpackungen angegebenen THC Gehalte bestätigte, an CHanf retournierte, kann man kaum glauben, dass derselbe Staat nun als direkt Verantwortlicher, dass das Geschäft wieder auf die Gasse und in die Händer der Mafia kommt, die Verantwotlichen bestrafen wird.

Ich hoffe auf die Vernunft dieses Gremiums und werde den schriftlichen Spruch, sobald vorhanden, an dieser Stelle veröffentlichen.

 

... Link

marcosolo, 30. Dezember 2003 um 20:07:11 MEZ

Narco Nations

Adam Saytanides, February 14, 2003

Mexican Congressman Launches Pan-American Battle vs. "the repressive policies of the U.S."

MERIDA, YUCATAN: Mexican Congressman Gregorio Urias Germann delivered a stinging indictment of the Mexican and U.S. governments in his keynote speech at the drug legalization summit here today.

Systematic corruption in the highest offices of government is what makes global narco-trafficking possible he said. Urias insisted that this endemic corruption is what stifles congressional debate throughout the Americas.

"If we can't even discuss an alternative, if we can't even admit that the drug war is a failure," Urias proclaimed, "than we'll never solve the problem."

Urias, a federal representative from the state of Sinaloa, and assistant whip of the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) has introduced a bill in the Mexican Congress to establish a permanent Commission on Narco-trafficking and Organized Crime. The commission would evaluate the failure of current drug policies to combat the widespread addiction and rampant violence that persists throughout Mexico and the Americas.

Currently, "there is no space to reasonably talk about the pros and cons of decriminalization," Urias said.

"Our interests are the interests of the majority of society, not drug-users," he explained. "The health of our entire society depends upon the resolution of this problem."

Urias has witnessed firsthand the destruction wrought by narcotraffickers in his home state of Sinaloa. He lives 100 kilometers from the border area between Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and Sonora, an area so notorious for drug-running that it has been dubbed the "Golden Triangle."

The state is a hotbed of opium cultivation and heroin processing, and a key transport route for marijuana and cocaine shipments. Urias explained that it's been this way since the late 1800s, when Chinese immigrants planted heroin in the highlands. After World War II, he alleges, due to a secret agreement between the U.S. and Mexican government to boost revenue from illicit crops in Sinaloa, production skyrocketed.

"The Mexican government has always been in control of this business," Urias claimed, adding that the police and federal army tried to reign in the illegal poppy and marijuana cultivation, but was restrained by the executive branch of the Mexican government. Highly placed government officials, he said, "were defending the hidden interests of the most powerful" elements of society.

"If you look at all the main cartels operating in Mexico and worldwide, they originated in Sinaloa," Urias asserted to back up his accusations. Because of the Sinaloan syndicate's extensive smuggling experience, they were the first to go global, converting their businesses to move hundreds of tons of contraband to the United States and Europe.

Because the cartels operate around the world in collusion with elements of the U.S. and Mexican government, Urias said that even if a single Latin American nation could eradicate narcotrafficking, it would not hurt these mafia groups. They would just move their operations somewhere else, he reasoned.

Only an international strategy will be successful in ending the drug war, Urias believes. But he does not trust the United Nations or the Organization of American States to lead the way.

"Only the repressive policies of the United States are discussed in these forums," he complained.

In order to push the established international organizations towards a more enlivened debate, Urias joined the Parliament of Latin America, a body of congressional representatives from throughout Central and South America. He has proposed that the Parliament of Latin America begin a comprehensive study of drug legalization, and whether it would be a more effective way to undercut the profitability of the narco-cartels.

Even in the less conservative international Parliament, it took two years of convincing before they would even discuss his proposal seriously Urias said. And he is not confident that member nations will conclude that legalization is the best road to take in the end. But thatâ??s not the most important thing, he insisted.

"The issue is not yes or no to legalization, the issue is the path of dialogue," Urias concluded. "We are trying to find what is most acceptable to everyone; if we can get the debate to happen, we have won."

Adam Saytanides is a scholar at the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism. He has reported for the Progressive, In These Times and Pacifica radio.

For more coverage of the Out from the Shadows: Ending Drug Prohibition in the 21st Century conference see the Narco News Bulletin.

 

... Link

marcosolo, 29. Mai 2003 um 09:50:34 MESZ

War Against Marijuana Consumers

Our country's (USA) war on drugs places great emphasis on arresting people for smoking marijuana. Since 1990, nearly 5.9 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, a greater number than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. In 2000, state and local law enforcement arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations. This is an increase of 800 percent since 1980, and is the highest ever recorded by the FBI.

As has been the case throughout the 1990s, the overwhelming majority of those charged with marijuana violations in 2000-- 646,042 Americans (88 %) -- were for simple possession. The remaining 12% (88,456 Americans) were for "sale/manufacture", an FBI category which includes marijuana grown for personal use or purely medical purposes. These new FBI statistics indicate that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds in America. Taken together, the total number of marijuana arrests for 2000 far exceeded the combined number of arrests for violent crimes, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Like most Americans, people who smoke marijuana also pay taxes, love and support their families, and work hard to make a better life for their children. Suddenly they are arrested, jailed and treated like criminals solely because of their recreational drug of choice. State agencies frequently step in and declare children of marijuana smokers to be "in danger", and many children are placed into foster homes as a result. This causes enormous pain, suffering and financial hardship for millions of American families. It also engenders distrust and disrespect for the law and for the criminal justice system overall. Responsible marijuana smokers present no threat or danger to America or its children, and there is no reason to treat them as criminals, or to take their children away. As a society we need to find ways to discourage personal conduct of all kinds that is abusive or harmful to others. Responsible marijuana smokers are not the problem and it is time to stop arresting them.

The ultimate goal of NORML and The NORML Foundation is to end the criminal prohibition of marijuana. We do not believe otherwise law-abiding citizens who smoke marijuana should be arrested and treated like criminals. Adults should be permitted to smoke marijuana in private. Federal prohibition of marijuana should be abolished and the states should be encouraged to experiment with different models of decriminalization.

Please read further so that you may know and exercise your rights.

Your Rights

The following information is intended as a brief summation of your constitutional rights and is meant to offer helpful hints at how to effectively assert and protect those rights within the context of a police encounter. Of course, this information is no substitute for consultation with an experienced attorney.

The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment reads, in part, "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." These amendments provide the foundation for the rights that protect all U.S. Citizens from intrusive law enforcement practices. If an officer violates your rights then any evidence discovered as a result of that violation must be suppressed from the evidence at trial. This is accomplished by filing a motion to suppress with the trial judge. Even if an officer obtained a warrant prior to searching, if that warrant is defective or not supported by probable cause, then the evidence must be suppressed. Often times, after the fruits of an illegal detention, interrogation or search are suppressed, the government is left with very little evidence and the charges are dismissed.

1. Don't Leave Contraband in Plain View Although law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before they can conduct a privacy-invading search, any illicit material that can be plainly seen by any person from a non-intrusive vantage point is subject to confiscation. An arrest and a valid warrant to search the rest of the area is likely to ensue. A "roach" in the ashtray, a pipe or baggie on the coffee table, or a joint being smoked in public are common mistakes which all too-frequently lead to arrests.

2. Never Consent Many individuals arrested on marijuana charges could have avoided that arrest by exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. If a law enforcement officer asks for your permission to search, it is usually because: (1) there is not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant; or (2) the officer does not feel like going through the hassle of obtaining a warrant. Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. If you do consent, you waive your constitutional protection and the officers may search and seize items without further authorization. If officers find contraband, they will arrest you.

If you do not consent to a search, the officer must either release you or detain you and attempt to get a warrant. The fact that you refuse to consent does not give the officer grounds to obtain a warrant or further detain you.

An officer can obtain a search warrant only from a judge or magistrate and only upon a showing of "probable cause." Probable cause requires an officer to articulate information that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that evidence of that involvement can be found within the object of the search.

There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement which permit an officer to search an area without a warrant or consent under certain circumstances. The important thing for you to remember is never to consent to a search or talk with an officer if you want to preserve your rights.

If an officer asks to search you or an area belonging to you or over which you are authorized to control, you should respond:

"I do not consent to a search of my [person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, blood, etc.] I do not consent to this contact and do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone)."

3. Don't Answer Questions Without Your Attorney Present Whether arrested or not, you should always exercise the right to remain silent. Anything you say to law enforcement officers, reporters, cell mates, or even your friends can be used as evidence against you. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Your right to remain silent should always be exercised.

4. Determining if You Can Leave You may terminate an encounter with officers unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. If you cannot tell whether you may leave, you can ask officers, "Am I under arrest or otherwise detained?" If the answer is, "No," you may leave.

An officer can temporarily detain you without arresting you if he has "reasonable suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. An officer must be able at a later time to articulate to a judge objective facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that you were involved in criminal activity at the point that you were detained. Also, the officer may perform a "pat down" or "frisk" on you during the detention if he has reasonable suspicion that you are armed. However, an officer may only reach into your pockets if he pats something that feels like a weapon.

When an officer attempts to contact or question you, you should politely say:

"I do not consent to this contact and I do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest I would like to go now (or be left alone)."

If arrested, you should again refuse a search of any kind and refuse to answer any questions. At this point you should insist on speaking to an attorney as soon as possible.

5. Do Not Be Hostile; Do Not Physically Resist There are times when individuals politely assert their rights and refuse to consent to a search but the officers nonetheless proceed to detain, search, or arrest them. In such cases, it is important not to physically resist. Rather, you should reassert your rights as outlined above in section 2.

6. Informing on Others The police and prosecutors often try to pressure individuals into providing information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of others. Threats and promises by police and prosecutors should be viewed with caution and skepticism. Decisions should only be made after consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney and examining one's own conscience.

Finally, consider downloading and carrying NORML's Freedom Card -- a quick reference guide to your rights and obligations when you are stopped by the police.

 

... Link