Peter, I don’t know you, but I am so proud of you. Not only for having the sense of responsibilty to the public enough to do this, but for so elequintly explaining with reason and evidence our case. The will be a day eventually when we can have true personal freedom but until then I am honoured that we have someone like you fighting for us on the front lines.

For a start, in court i wouldn’t give him Jurisdiction. He’d have to fight me for that one.
Then i would put to him that the ‘Misuse of drugs act’ is an ACT of parliament. Which under common law needs consent of the governed to be enforced.
I would then put him on his Oath of office. If he couldn’t or wouldn’t present it to the court, i would make a Civil arrest on the man. (Same as the judge that was arrested in a Merseyside court).
Also, if i was told cannabis is dangerous, i would question how he knew this. Which would be from him believing what he reads in the Daily Mail. So for him to pass judgement based on media propaganda and not facts, means he needs removing from his position, is he not committing treason with his abuse of power? Civil arrest him.
Thats what i’d do. But im crazy enough to do it. I’d be famous twice in one court appearance.
Time to medicate.

Well done Peter, keep up all the good work and hopefully it will all become CLEAR one day for that judge…. Would love to see his reply.

I’ve just became a clear member and I am so happy I did. Great letter Peter, and keep spreading the message. Eventually they will have to acknowledge us. 

Well put Peter.  I had started to draught a letter of my own to this judicial joke of a man, but yours eclipses mine.  I have always believed that those charged with administering the justice of this country were bound by two basic tenets i.e. the facts and the truth.  ”the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.  Surely this chap is acting in complete contravention of those tenets by relying on a wholly personal and non-factual opinion (I’m sure he’s not the only one).  I’m no legal expert but I like the drift of Martialant’s contribution to this thread – is it legally possible to do those things he has mentioned?   If so, there must be some references on the web which may be of assistance to those who are unlucky enough to encounter this bewigged, self-opinionated magistrate or one of his gin swilling buddies. It seems to me that the higher the mountain of evidence against prohibition gets, the further from the real world people in positions of power entrench themselves.   At some point something has to snap.

thank you  peter,this man has lost it…. where’s the instant prison for rapists ?? your honour get off your ‘high’ horse and get a grip on reality you cant jail,policemen,doctors,nurses,teachers,buildes,accountants,and i expect judges,just for growing a plant in their own home for themselves ot eat,drink,spray,or indeed smoke, i mean wheres the sense in that ,with such a biast and predetermined mindset,surely the judge in question is not fit to judge these cases ,as he has already made up his mind, THIS JUDGE SHOULD NEVER BE ALOUD TO JUDGE A CANNABIS CASE OF ANY SORT ,as already it will not be a fair trial.typical British justice

Excellent letter peter.

His job is exactly that – to judge – to ensure impartiality during a hearing, to judge each and every case individually on its merits based on facts.

Do they not teach that at judge school?

He does not deserve to hold his position for his impartiality….

It’s great that you’re doing all you can to point out the scientific facts on cannabis, Peter.  One thing that raised concern with me though was that your quoted therapeutic doses, between letters, are inconsistent:

http://clear-uk.org/judge-vows-to-put-anyone-growing-cannabis-immediately-behind-bars/#.Tn4j1zb4nX0.twitter
“The therapeutic ratio of cannabis (the ratio of effective dose to
lethal dose) is 1:20000.  In comparison, alcohol is 1:20, paracetamol
1:35, many prescription medicines are less than 1:5.”

http://clear-uk.org/pcc-complaint-the-evening-standard-26th-january-2011/
“In alcohol the ratio is 1:50, in paracetamol 1:30, in cannabis 1:10000.”

Which is it?  It may seem like I’m splitting hairs but we need to get our facts straight otherwise we’re no more credible than those we’re arguing against.

That’s a fair point Frederick.  I think 1:10000 is a mistake.  In fact, the best reference for it is DEA Judge Francis Young who says that the TR of cannabis is “somewhere between 1:20000 and 1:40000.  It’s generally thought to be so high as to be difficult to be certain.

http://legalizemarijuana.tumblr.com/post/501368686/this-is-a-graph-on-a-logarithmic-scale-cannabis

As always Peter, your literary skills are first class! I just hope this buffoon reads it and digests it properly, but somehow I doubt it.

I posted my ‘complaint’ to QC Goldsack today 

28-09-2011

Dear Judge
Goldsack

Before
you dismiss me as a crank I would like you to know that I am a
law-abiding, well educated, 59 year old father of six. I have spent
the last thirty years working for the MoD. I am generally a quite
placid person but I am so angered and outraged by your reported
comments and subsequent actions (which of course may be mis-reported)
that, as a fully paid up member of UK Plc, I felt obliged to write
and question your comments and actions.

I
would like to question comments you allegedly made in a Sheffield
court of law earlier this month. Your words were reported in the
Sheffield Star and have been widely published on-line.

I
will be referring to the Coronation Oath, the Oath of Allegiance and
the Judicial Oath which are listed at the end of this letter.

You
are reported as saying: “Cannabis
is a dangerous drug and those who bring it into existence must be
punished.”

Firstly
I would like to challenge the first part of that statement. Could I
please ask how you know that “Cannabis
is a dangerous drug…..”
and how you quantify this danger compared to other substances both
legal and non-legal under current law. My belief is that the
foundation of the judiciary in this country is based on the
establishment of the truth based on facts (…the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth) when applying justice. What
established scientific facts do you have to support your assertion
that cannabis is dangerous in the light of the massive, growing body
of accredited scientific evidence to the contrary?

Could you also explain to me how
your sources sway your judgment as the mass of published evidence
falls on the ‘not dangerous’ side of the fence. Nothing we
consume can be regarded as totally safe – bread is dangerous to
some – peanuts are dangerous to some. There is some evidence that
cannabis ‘MAY’ be dangerous for a small proportion of young
people (I think the statistic is .003% of users) but this is
infinitesimal percentage compared to, for instance, alcohol which is
a very dangerous drug, the victims of which you must see every day in
your court room.

If
the ‘danger’ of cannabis is reason enough to impose instant
incarceration of victimless (other than the tax payer) cannabis users
then it is only logical that the same should happen to abusers of
alcohol who have probably already ruined their own life, lost their
job and impacted (or destroyed) their family (DS Fewkes cynical
interpretation of success). But those consequences occur as a direct
result of abuse of the drug itself. In the case of cannabis these
consequences are a direct result of the law and can be avoided by the
simple application of the ‘mercy’ promised by our Sovereign
Lady Queen Elizabeth who you swore on oath to ‘well and truly serve’.
You are obliged to show mercy but you don’t appear to pay any regard
to this obligation. I can only interpret this as dereliction of duty
on your part.

Secondly
I wish to challenge the second part of your statement “…..those
who bring cannabis into existence must be punished.”
I am, at best, an agnostic but I was brought up a Christian and in
Genesis it states quite clearly.

“And
God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit
tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is
in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”

According
to Christian tradition, god, the Almighty God in whose name you swore
a judicial oath (although I accept you may have chosen the
alternative judicial affirmation), created the herb yielding seed
i.e. your god created cannabis sativa and is wholly responsible for
‘bringing it into existence’. If your assertion is to be believed
and you wish to “…punish those who bring
it into existence” you are setting yourself
an extremely high judicial platform indeed.

Detective
Superintendent Richard Fewkes
(presumably your expert witness) stated “A
criminal conviction and jail is potentially going to ruin your life.
It will potentially mean you lose your job and, if you are the
breadwinner that will impact on your family. You will find it
difficult in future when you come out of prison to find a job because
you have got a criminal record, particularly in the current economic
climate, and there is a stigma that will remain with you for the rest
of your life.”

So,
in his words, it is not the cannabis plant that is dangerous it is
the law that is dangerous. It is the law that destroys (otherwise
law abiding) people’s lives. DS
Fewkes also stated
that “production
could be linked to the downgrading of cannabis from a Class B to a
Class C drug five years ago.“
which demonstrates a worrying lack of knowledge on his part. When
Cannabis was downgraded to Class C usage actually decreased. When it
was re-classified, by Brown and Smith (wholly against scientific
advice), to Class B usage increased.

It
seems you are basing your judgement on ‘facts’ which are, at the
very best, highly disproportionate to the body of scientific evidence
and, in the case of your expert witness, actually inaccurate. This
makes your judgements neither ‘impartial’ nor, in my humble
opinion, in compliance with the judicial oath “….I
will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of
this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
I’m sorry but I find it hard to interpret your stance
as anything other than ‘ill will’ and not without a high degree
of ‘affection’ (defined as prejudice in this context I believe).

In
addition to this, when you took up your role, you swore an Oath of
Allegiance to the Queen. At her coronation she pledged to ensure
‘mercy’ in all her
judgements. You have a vicarious duty, as the queen’s agent,
underpinned by to your judicial oath, to ensure the application of
that pledge. But the application of your personal opinion, in the
case of cannabis charges, cannot, in any way, be interpreted as
merciful. Your comments and actions are plainly ‘merciless’
and totally
contrary to the queen’s sworn obligation. As a consequence you are
failing in your vicarious duty to apply mercy in your judgements on
the citizens of this country.

Where
is the justice in this? Where are the victims of this ‘crime’
that requires such punitive and destructive punishment? How do you
justify your stance with regard to your sworn obligations?

I
enclose a copy of an informative report on the relative ‘harms’ of
various commonly used drugs recently published in the Lancet, which
may be of interest to you, especially figure 3.

I
look forward to hearing from you.

Yours
sincerely

References:

Coronation
oath

Archbishop:
“Will
you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in
all your judgements?”
Queen:
“I
will.”

Oath
of allegiance

“I,
_________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs
and successors, according to law.”

Judicial
oath

“I,
_________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve
our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of
________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws
and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill
will.”

Fantastic work.  I think you should press for a reply.

… get a SWAT team

And if he’s a christian, he must believe in Jesus, whose healing ointment contained Kaneh Bosem, acknowledged by biblical scholars to be cannabis.

Here is a web-site which offers YOU a way to defend yourself against their unlawful court system!!! Please dowload the defense document and start defending yourselves.
http://jforjustice.co.uk/