Update: Carroll Will Participate ; Not Fight ; Resist Any Fines

February 18, 2009 by Nick Ryder
Filed under: Ryder Report, Update

In a well publicized and attended protest, Andrew Carroll held a small piece of marijuana near downtown Keene. His purpose was to illustrate in person how just holding a plant can draw unprovoked violence and kidnapping from government, an organization claiming to “serve and protect” the common man. Approximately 20 minutes after his protest began, Keene police officers showed up, and took Andrew away in handcuffs for “unlawful possession of marijuana.” After being held by police for about an hour, he was released with a court date to enter a plea on a class B misdemeanor.

That court date is on March 3rd, at 8:30am in the Keene District Court. There is less than 2 weeks until then, and Andrew agreed to an interview to answer some questions about the upcoming day. While he will be attending his hearing, and possible trial, Andrew says he will not be preparing any legal defense, and says “Any statement I make in my defense will be a moral one; I won’t argue legally because I’m clearly guilty of a crime.”

For more information, see Andrew’s interview below.

http://www.enigmacurry.com Ryan McGuire

I commend you Andrew, but while you have broken the law, you have committed no crime.
Anonymous

I'm pleading to a marijuana possession case in two weeks from now. I commend you.
Zecharo

I suppose it depends on how you define crime. If it's simply an unjust act then the real crime was the arresting of Andrew.
Patriot Henry

"I commend you Andrew, but while you have broken the law, you have committed no crime."

No, he violated an unconstitutional statute that may have the appearance and form of the law but in fact is a crime itself.
http://WeAreTheFounders.com Kawlinz

Use these Maxims of Law

Nothing inconvenient is lawful.

Nothing against reason is lawful.

Law is the dictate of reason.

Law is the science of what is good and evil.

What is inconvenient or contrary to reason, is not allowed in law.

The reason ceasing, the law itself ceases.
Patriot Henry

"

Nothing against reason is lawful."

Good maxims. As Jon Roland of the Constitution Society said "The law does have to be logical. Otherwise it is not law. It is

arbitrary rule by force." – from "The Principles of Tyranny,

http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.txt
patrick

Imagine if you will that pot was legal, just how do you think that would change things in this country?

The first thing I thought was another taxable product,

like alcohole,cigaretts,gas, you get the picture.Then

you can save taxpayers money by eliminating unnessary drug enforcement agencies concerned with pot. I dont know what this country spends per year on keeping pot out of our country, but if we produced it here You would't need them. The goverment could control pot easier and alot cheeper than fighting the lost war on pot. Its not just the money either, it would eliminate petty,I won't say crimes,but a waste of time It would free up the court rooms and jails for real criminals. Its a win win situation all around. Our goverment and all americans would benifit. good luck andrew
Zecharo

ugh. not sure i want the government to benefit from anything xD
patrick

its a package deal, our goverment IS AMERICAN
Joel

Andrew, I admire your enthusiasm, but fighting the system this way is not the way to get things done. What your doing is simply putting a bunch of enforcement officials on a power trip, and you *will* lose in the fight. You also lose your ability to ever apply for federal financial aid since this is a drug charge.

Instead, as the code enforcement official told Ian Freeman, ***VOTE***. That's the established way to get things changed. Living in a community comes with its own sets of rules, some of which are helpful, and some which are self-serving for a select few.

You want something changed, do it the right way.
Patriot Henry

“Andrew, I admire your enthusiasm, but fighting the system this way is not the way to get things done.”

I agree since he isn't planning to defend himself.

“ What your doing is simply putting a bunch of enforcement officials on a power trip, and you *will* lose in the fight. “

I agree. However, if he were to defend himself using the written law and long established fundamental principles of our rule of law – then he still might lose but a whole lot more people would know that he's the victim of a horrible open conspiracy to deprive him of his rights in direct conflict with the rule of law.

“You also lose your ability to ever apply for federal financial aid since this is a drug charge.”

The loss of the ability to apply for illegal welfare is not really a loss at all.

“Instead, as the code enforcement official told Ian Freeman, ***VOTE***. That’s the established way to get things changed.”

No – that's the established way to keep things as they have been. If voting could change the system it would be illegal.

“Living in a community comes with its own sets of rules, some of which are helpful, and some which are self-serving for a select few.”

In a constitutional republic self-serving statutes, programs, and policies are illegal and should not be tolerated or permitted to continue unchallenged by all law-abiding citizens and civil servants.

“You want something changed, do it the right way.”

Einstein is reported to have defined insanity as doing the same thing the same way and expecting different results. Those who believe voting can change the system are insane by this very practical definition.

Civil disobedience and pleading the law are the right way to effect change.
http://WeAreTheFounders.com Kawlinz

Voting is like praying, it makes you feel like you're doing something, but it actually accomplishes nothing. I voted for the first time about a year and a half ago, it was my first and only time. Where's the vote for "leave me alone and don't bother me"? There isn't one. If there was, I'd vote for that all the time