STATE of NEW JERSEY EDWARD FORCHION. Indictment ## I. RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAWAL GUILTY PLEA per COURT RULE R. 3:21-1

Transcription

1 JUDGE DELEHEY BURLINGTON COUNTY SUPERIEROR COURT 49 Rancocas Road, Mt Holly, NJ XXXXXX Drive, Sicklerville NJ STATE of NEW JERSEY Vs Indictment ## I RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAWAL GUILTY PLEA per COURT RULE R. 3:21-1 On this Oct 17 th, 2013 I Edward Forchion motion this court Pro Se to withdraw GUILTY PLEA entered on March 12 th, 2013 in the interest of JUSTICE by way of this simple informal letter brief. I am innocent of this probation violation allegation. I m not a lawyer and this was a simple miscommunication, on my part and over kill on the courts. The STATE and the COURT has used this TRIVAL ALLEDGED VIOLATION to unjustly punish me with POLITICAL VENGENCE. As clearly evidenced: for my open avocation of marijuana legalization and my victory in possession to distribution charge. JUDGE DELEHEY confirms this with this comment Your not in jail because of possession of marijuana he says -.. It was a thumb-your-nose attitude at the court. The judge said it was that total disregard and Forchion s nuts-to-the-court-system-i m-out-of-here attitude, not the simple drug possession, that warranted the jail sentence.

2 STATEMENT OF FACT The ONLY REASON I plead guilty to this BOGUS CHARGE was I was deliberately being denied my healthcare treatment with this unjust jailing and ONLY PLEAD GUILTY when offered the BRIBERY of release for treatment. My healthcare was held for RANSOME. Judge Delehey said on THE RECORD that I was playing my health like STRADAVARIOUS. Which showed his bias and complicity in this scheme. My healthcare was withheld until I recited a GUILTY PLEA. That RANSOME was paid on March 12 th, 2013, now I motion to withdraw. ARGUMENT FOR WITDRAW The courts have been aware of my medical conditions from the start of this trial. The very reason this case occurred is because of my medical condition and my belief on April 1 st, 2010 that the Compassionate Use Act of 2010 recognized marijuana as a medicine, and the stated purpose of the act was to: C.24:6I-1(e) - the purpose of this act is to protect from arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties, those patients who use marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians, primary caregivers, and those who are authorized to produce marijuana for medical purposes. I believe JUDGE DELEHEY ruled in ERROR when he denied my use of the Compassionate Use Act and I m still very confident that ultimately the higher courts will recognize that ERROR soon. BUT That bribery, RANSOME although illegal under 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(2), a criminal statute barring the giving of things of value...for or because of [a witness's] testimony," was fulfilled on March

3 12 th two days on March 15 th I was released like a common hostage. I was forced to testify on myself in exchange for release. I ve previously stated to this court in 2011, 2012 and others I d never accept a plea bargain ever again based on my experience in Camden County in 2000 and held to that through two TRIAL in this case. AGAIN the only reason I PLEAD GUILTY was the bribery offered, and ransome paid with false admission of GUILT in exchange: for release to continue with HEALTH CARE. It was the ONLY REASON because of Healthcare Deprivation. JUDGE DELEHEY s on record statement that I was playing my healthcare like a STRADAVARIOUS was insulting to me. And ironic because in my opinion JUDGE DELEHEY clearly made a ERRGERIOUS LEGAL ERROR in ruling the COMPASSIONATE USE ACT of 2010 (C.24:6I-1) didn t apply to me. And my valid medical marijuana card from the State of California didn t count, and the Medical Necessity Defense per State vs Tate didn t apply. That s why this case is still on going in my opinion, not me playing my HEALTHCARE I m powerless to rid myself of my affliction or to dismiss these charges. He could have dismissed these charges at August 14 th, 2012 EX PARTE hearing as well. THE MAIN REASON we were at that point of his statement (I was in a orange jumpsuit, legs and hands shackled like a SLAVE, conditions muzzling my response at the time) that I was playing my HEALTHCARE wasn t because I was playing my health but because of his 9/2011 denial ruling. Which will be reviewed by the HIGHER COURTS. It wasn t my HEALTHCARE s fault. Again Instead I place the blame at JUDGE DELEHEYs pre-trial rulings. It wasn t a egregious request for granting a STAY after conviction to have the New Jersey Appeals court straighten these legal issues out but he refused. Instead Disenfranchising

4 me for two years with probation when it s plainly obvious to everyone including himself I m a legitimate medical marijuana patient. Its all based around new law and new reality, the courts rulings in this case are expected to create new law. I am a legal medical marijuana patient and the New Jersey Compassionate Use Act of 2010 specifically was enacted to protect people like me: C.24:6I-1(e) - Compassion dictates that a distinction be made between medical and non-medical uses of marijuana. Hence, the purpose of this act is to protect from arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties, those patients who use marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians, primary caregivers, and those who are authorized to produce marijuana for medical purposes. The fact that this new state law C.24:6I-1 failed to specifically protect travelers in JUDGE DELEHEYS opinion is clearly a huge legal issue the Appeals court likely will correct. My punishment can t be returned. Asking for a STAY wasn t over reaching nor was it playing to my healthcare. Depriving one from his health unless he enters a PLEA OF GUILT is unlawful, unconstitutional and won t stand up to the rigors of a constitutional examination..

5 IN CONCLUSION My GUILTY PLEA was made under extreme duress and after two months of healthcare deprivation, and was presented as a way to again receive HEALTHCARE. Some individuals and some nations would describe that HEALTHCARE DEPRIVATION induced GUILTY PLEA as criminal, inhumane and internationally illegal itself. This is my plausible basis for withdrawing my forced PLEA BARGAIN. If the motion is made at any point after sentencing, however, the court must consider the four factors under the higher manifest injustice standard under R. 3:21-1. Id. Regardless of which standard applies, the burden rests on the defendant to present some plausible basis for his request, and his good faith in asserting a defense on the merits. Id. (quoting State v. Smullen, 118 N.J. 408 (1990)). A whimsical change of mind by the defendant or prosecutor is not an adequate basis for setting aside a plea. Slater, 198 N.J. at 157. In the interest of MANIFEST INJUSTICE and per R. 3:21-1 and any other rule not listed by this Pro Se, untrained victim of the State of New Jersey failed efforts to keep marijuana illegal. You must allow this defendant to withdraw his GUILTY PLEA as not presented freely. Oct 17 th, 2013