Feature: More Cops Died Directing Traffic Than Waging the Drug War Last Year

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #468)
Consequences of Prohibition

Last Saturday night, Tennessee Highway Patrol Trooper Calvin Jenks, part of the self-described "wolf pack" of troopers who prowl the highways looking for drug traffickers, found what he was looking for. But when he pulled over a vehicle with Texas plates late that night, its occupants shot him dead. When they were arrested soon after, police indeed described them as drug runners. Trooper Jencks thus became yet another law enforcement casualty of the drug war.

[inline:texasraid_3.jpg align=left caption="less dangerous for cops than inhabitants, apparently"]That is not a surprise, right? Waging the war on drugs is dangerous and requires heroic sacrifices as police routinely go up against deadly drug dealers and deranged drug users. At least that's the official line, routinely promulgated by law enforcement officials who speak of lethal cartels and dealers using high-powered weapons. It is a notion reinforced by countless TV programs that glorify police as "the thin blue line" that, at great personal risk, protects us from those druggies. Indeed, the brave officer fighting the drug war is an essential part of the worshipful mystique that surrounds the men and women in blue.

It turns out that while enforcing drug laws is not exactly safe, statistically it's not especially dangerous either. According to Drug War Chronicle research based on reports at Officer.Com, which compiles a list of all line of duty police deaths nationwide based on press reports and reports from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), despite making nearly two million drug arrests last year, only four American police officers were killed enforcing the drug laws, and in only two of those cases was drug law enforcement the direct cause of death. One undercover officer was killed making a drug buy, one officer was killed serving a drug arrest warrant, one highway patrolman died in a crash on the way to a drug bust, and one officer was killed when he intervened in a clash between rival drug gangs.

Here's the complete list:

  • In March, Sgt. Jeremy Newchurch of Louisiana's Assumption Parish Sheriff's Office was shot and killed in a struggle with a suspect while serving felony drug warrants.
  • In May, Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Eduardo Chavez was killed in a single-vehicle traffic accident while racing to the scene of a drug bust west of Sullivan City.
  • In August, Beckley, West Virginia, Police Detective Cpl. Charles Smith, 29, was shot and killed while making an undercover drug buy.
  • In December, Puerto Rico Police Department Agent Juan Jose Burgo-Velez, 36, was shot and killed when he and other officers intervened in a shoot-out between rival drug gangs.

The number of officers killed in the drug war last year, is similar to, although slightly lower, than in recent years. While the NLEOMF has not yet released official figures on drug enforcement-related officer deaths for last year, it has for previous years. Seven officers were killed in drug-related incidents in 2000, 13 in 2001, 2 in 2002, 13 in 2003, 14 in 2004, and 10 in 2005.

According to the NLEOMF, 151 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty last year, but more than half of them died from vehicle accidents (61) or job-related medical events such as heart attacks (18). One officer was stabbed to death, one was beaten to death and 54 were killed by gunfire. According to the Officer.Com compilation, more law enforcement officers were killed directing traffic than enforcing the drug laws.

Given that there are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in the US, that's not a high mortality rate for policing as a profession. In fact, being a police officer doesn't even make the US Department of Labor's top-10 list of the most dangerous jobs. (For the curious, the most dangerous occupation is logger, followed in order by aircraft pilot, fisherman, steel worker, garbage man and recycler, farmer, roofer, power line worker, truck driver, and taxi driver.)

Given the low mortality rate for police in the drug war -- 4 deaths in 1.8 million arrests -- critics of heavy-handed drug law enforcement tactics, such as the reliance on paramilitarized SWAT-style teams serving drug search and arrest warrants, have even more reason to wonder if they're really necessary. According to some estimates cited in civil liberties policy analyst Radley Balko's Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America, as many as 40,000 SWAT raids, most of them for drugs, take place each year now.

"This suggests that drug offenders aren't the violent criminals police often make them out to be, particularly the low-level people these SWAT tactics are so often directed against," Balko told the Chronicle. "It also backs up studies that say weapons are rarely found, and when they are, they're not the sort of high-power, high-caliber weaponry the SWAT advocates always say they will find."

Ronald Sloan, director of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations Coalition, seemed bemused by the low police drug war fatalities numbers, but still defended aggressive police tactics. "My partner was killed in a drug raid," he told the Chronicle. "I was a narcotics officer for 20 years. It's the most dangerous work there is." As for the SWAT raids, said Sloan, "Those guys are trained for those situations. They're less likely to get shot than a bunch of narcs kicking in the door."

Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has long experience as a narc, too. "I worked 14 years undercover in narcotics," the former New Jersey narc told the Chronicle. "I wasn't worried much about somebody trying to kill me. Not the drug dealers; they're business people, they'd rather get away from the cop than shoot him, because they know then there would be a thousand more cops coming after him."

But it was another prohibition-engendered predator that gave Cole the willies doing undercover work. "The one group we were worried about was not the drug dealers, but the rip off artists who think they're stealing money from just a drug dealer, they shoot the guy and take the money. They don't even know you're a cop."

For Cole, the heavy reliance on SWAT-style raids is unnecessary and dangerous, at least for the civilians involved. "When you factor in the number of people killed in SWAT raids, they are way over the top," he said. "Like that 92-year-old lady in Atlanta, Kathryn Johnston. SWAT creates that sort of situation."

While there are no firm numbers on the number of people killed in police drug raids, Balko's "Overkill" lists dozens of incidents where civilians, some innocent, some guilty of a drug offense, were killed or wounded, and more where police shot the dog. The same report also lists incidents where police officers died in drug raids. While, as we have seen, the number of police killed in the drug war is low, the raids do kill them sometimes, too.

It seems that in the drug war at least, the police are pretty good at protecting themselves. Now the question is who will protect us from them?

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


Anonymous (not verified)

Great article--I almost didn't believe it at first, that number is so low. But it doesn't seem to take into account federal law enforcement (or does it?).

Fri, 01/12/2007 - 11:57am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

those filthy animals deseve what they get those cops should burn in hell

Fri, 01/12/2007 - 1:25pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Comments like "those filthy animals deseve what they get those cops should burn in hell" are really unecessary. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect the citizens of this fine country. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a comment.

Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:55am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Wasn't this article about how they AREN'T putting their lives on the line? You're attempting to agree while stating the opposite of the article you're agreeing with.

Officers don't put their lives in danger every day. Plain and simple. Some of them do put their own lives in danger, but, according to this article, it isn't all that often.

I don't agree with the comment you disagreed with, though. I don't normally have a problem with police. I don't like the fact that most of them enforce marijuana laws, even though some of them don't agree with them. It's more than just a job, it's a duty. They should do what they think is right, not just what they're told.

Mon, 11/23/2009 - 4:37pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

To me you would have to be ON DRUGS to be a cop trying to stop drugs. How else could you honestly think your doing anything to stop the unstopable. To even think your life is at risk for your job of trying to stop something that will never be stopped seems like you would have to be on drugs to me.

I still say we need to call in tips to politicians families homes and when a few of them are killed it will be all the rage and something will finally be done to end this. Until then it doesn't directly affect the cops or pols so what do they care. If their mother was shot in a bad raid froma bad tip I bet they might look into these things a little closer.

Fri, 01/12/2007 - 3:27pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

The first comment which I wonder about is why should those cops burn in hell? They get in pretty deep and some of them even have the possibility of becoming addicted to bad drugs as opposed to the lesser ones like Marijuana and even cocaine. They have the possibilities to become junkies, to lose money and time and even get shot, maybe it's not the highest probability but like the article says, they can be shot by those criminals who seek to kill a drug dealer and take all his money. I think cops get a poor end of the deal and that's why they're trying to fight back.

As far as killing politicians mother's goes. Man! Your heart is in the right place but that's messed up. If you want to get at the heart of the problem you got to learn their rules, and fight them with their rules and if you can't or you're too lazy to become a lawyer or a politician yourself, become a rapper or a writer and speak truthfully and develop a following. It's not hard but you have to fight back in constructive ways. Other wise, they win and you're just as bad as they are.

If the CIA or the FBI kill people to bring about the government achieving their initial incentives, then why would you want to do the same thing? Dare to be different and dare to show how we as a people and as a greater nation, DO NOT AGGREE with them. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?"

Fri, 01/12/2007 - 4:59pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

All of the organizations who want to quash the war on drugs ask for donations. This organization is powerful enough to stop this drug war and ask that it become a social health issue for drug users/dealers take rehab rather than filling our prisons with free labor for our government. If the Drug War Chronicle really wants to "Stop the Drug War" they could do it with no more donations from us. You've been at it for too many years and dragging your feet does not cut it!

Fri, 01/12/2007 - 5:26pm Permalink
borden (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Sorry, that's ridiculous, we can't possibly accomplish a job like this without donations. If you don't want to give donations, maybe you don't really want that much to end the war on drugs! I'm not saying donating is the only thing that needs to happen by any means, but it just won't happen without it.


David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC

Fri, 01/12/2007 - 5:48pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Lets see I think their "rules," include kicking in doors without any solid evidence or on the word of someone not so trustworthy. To me kicking in their mothers door is using their rules thats the whole point. They can't see their rules are wrong and will not until their rules affect them directly. Do you really think any politician cares about you or your family as much as their own regardless of what they claim? This is just how it is with politicians sad but true.

Like emminant domain where they are going after the one SCOTUS's house after he agreed that the government should be allowed to take someones property to give to someone else for profit. To me that is a thing of beauty to use the very law they embrace when it comes to taking everyone elses property on they themselves. A little serving of justice to the Justice for what he considers to be just is just fine with me.

We have to many lawyers as it is I don't think we need more less would do just fine, they are the reason we have a lot of the problems we do now to begin with. Besides I already went to school for Engineering if we all became lawyers this country would be in gridlock with lawsuits and nothing would be produced. See lawyers don't actually make a product to sell they sell their abilities to navagate the laws they themselves have made so unnavigable to begin with, quite the little scam as I see it. So why should I have to become a lawyer when I am already an Engineer just so I may be free in this FREE country to do as I please in my own bedroom?

As for donations everytime I am drug tested I donate to a cause. There is no way you will win without money because money is the main thng keeping the status quo as it is now in DC. You have to fight fire with fire!

Sat, 01/13/2007 - 5:18pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Well did you ever stop to think the reason so few of them are killed is because of their approach? if, instead of using a rambo approach during these raids, they showed up in casul clothes holding candy for everyone in the house, how many do you think would be killed? it seems to me what they are doing is working. Why should it be changed? Why should someone who has a clean record, going to work and doing his job not do everything imaginable to protect himself?

Fri, 01/18/2008 - 6:06pm Permalink
Ken (not verified)

Ken Driessen [email protected]

Following this short message is my brief and the summary decision of the criminal prohibitionist bad spawn who worship MAMMON. After been beaten severely by police in California even before they searched me and found marijuana in 2000 and now after paying $250 for an appeal to the US Nazi party, $100 in fines and 32 days in jail, over possession of point .291 grams of Marijuana, I have no money. After loosing everything and no body with any legal experience or cash to help me petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court for all the good that would do, death now seems like a real option. Well here are some of the documents:



Appeal No. 2007AP001940 CR
Vs. Circuit Court Case No. 06 CM 300






Date:___________ ________________________________
Ken Driessen Pro Se
12022 N. Co. Rd. T
Hayward WI 54843
[email protected]


Legal Authorities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3
State of Wisconsin Constitution - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3
United States Constitution - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
Statement of the Issues - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5
Statement Concerning Oral Argument and Publication - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5
Statement of the Case - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5
Argument - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
Warrant Arrest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
Wisconsin State Constitution Applies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10
United States Constitution Applies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11
Claim of Unconstitutionality of Marijuana Possession Laws - - - - - - - 12
Ancient History of Mankind's Use of Marijuana - - - - - - - - - - - - 13
A Short History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States - - -14
Marijuana Prohibition Conclusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -17
Medicinal Nature of Cannabis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -18
Medicinal Nature of Cannabis conclusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -21
Government's Compelling Interest Claim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22
Conclusions concerning Government's Compelling interest claim -24
Religious Freedom - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -25
Equal Rights - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29 Conclusion and relief sought - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -31
Relief Sought - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -33


Wisconsin State Constitution

Article I, §1
Equality; inherent rights. Section 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]... and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

Article I, §2
Slavery prohibited.

Article I, §3
Free Speech and Libel ... In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

Article I, §4
Right to assemble and petition.

Article I, §6
Excessive bail; cruel punishments.

Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
Exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is a basis for a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment. Risk from environmental tobacco smoke was a basis for a cause of action. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993).

Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
In addressing whether a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was excessive, a court looks to whether the sentence was so excessive and unusual, and so disproportionate to the offense committed, as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances. State v. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 698 N.W.2d 823, 281 Wis. 2d 118, 04-1163.

Article I, §7
Rights of accused. Section 7... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.

Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
When a state agency seeks to enforce its orders through the coercion of imprisonment for contempt, the full constitutional right to counsel arises. Ferris v. State ex rel. Maass, 75 Wis. 2d 542, 249 N.W.2d 789.

Article I, §9m
Victims of crime. Section 9m. [As created April 1993] This state shall treat crime victims, as defined by law, with fairness, dignity and respect for their privacy... reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process... restitution; compensation; ...The legislature shall provide remedies for the violation of this section. [1993 J.R. 2, vote April 1993]

Article I, §10
Treason. Section 10. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the same, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort....

Article I, §11
Searches and seizures.

Article I, §12
Attainder; ex post facto;

Article I, §12 - ANNOT.
When a probation statute was amended after a crime was committed but before the accused pled guilty and was placed on probation, application of the amended statute to probation revocation proceedings offended the ex post facto clause. State v. White, 97 Wis. 2d 517, 294 N.W.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1979).

Article I, §18
Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience;

Article I, §19
Religious tests prohibited.

United States Constitution

Article 1 Section. 9.…The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article 3, Section 2 [3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

Article 4, Section [2] State Citizens, Extradition :The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article. 5. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...

Article 6, [2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...

Bill of Rights

Amendment 1 _ Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 _ Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 _ Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 _ Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 _ Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 _ Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 _ Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 _ Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 _ Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 _ Powers of the States and People
Amendment 13 _ Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 _ Citizenship Rights
Amendment 18 _ Liquor Abolished
Amendment 21 _ Amendment 18 Repealed


1.) Dismissed Warrant as Probable Cause for Arrest, Search, Seizure.

2.) Circuit Judge Order of April 17, 2007, violates due process etc.

3.) Claim of Unconstitutionality of Marijuana laws


If these judges can’t read the truth within this Brief and make a decision that upholds the constitution as required by oath, I can’t believe talking to them is going to change their minds any? I feel the Brief word limits did impede citation of nearly unlimited instances where marijuana prohibition would be considered unconstitutional by anyone who is not profiting from such prohibition. If the judges want to here an oral argument, so be it. I have no opinion, concern nor do I know of any right that I have as an appellant that would affect the issue of whether the opinion in this matter is published or not.


On May 26, 2006 I was riding my bicycle through the alleyway of downtown Hayward, one block off of Hwy 63 between Main Street and Dakota Ave. A lady friend of mine motioned to me to come over and indulge in a private activity. Although in a public parking lot, it was dark and we had a reasonable expectation of being secure in our persons at the time. At approximately 11:38 pm I saw the hood of a gold colored car I knew to be an unmarked police car. I immediately ceased and hid the private activity and turned and hugged the lady friend and whispered to her that the cops were behind us.
The officer, Mark Kelsey jumps out of his car and starts ordering us both around telling us where to stand and what to do and I asked him if I was under arrest (23:38 hours). He said no but he wanted to see IDs. I said I did not have an ID, because all I had was an expired Michigan driver's license. I was prevented from using this ID to cash a check on a previous occasion. I gave him my name and eventually the expired Michigan driver's license. I did say that I would eventually have a warrant out for my arrest in Sawyer County for an unpaid fine. He then made us wait for several, about 5 to 7 minutes while he questioned my lady friend and tried to get her to say I was accosting her. I eventually convinced him to let her go.
Then it seemed like another 5 minutes had passed and a whole battalion of little young men in blue suits and badges appeared totaling at least 7 encircled the area. In two or three more minutes, I asked if I was under arrest and Kelsey said to the affect, no but stay where you are. After what seemed to be 5 or more minutes, Kelsey then said I had a warrant out on me from Montana (23:55 hours) and arrested me and searched my pockets finding my friend's pipe in my pocket. I was then put in a squad car and taken to the Sawyer County Jail where I was booked in.
While in jail, I was given copies of a complaint against me, being number #2006CF120 (Appendix 2) a complaint pursuant to Wisconsin § 976.03(14) accusing me of felony bail jumping. On May 30th, 2006 Judge Norm Yackel followed the recommendation of Thomas Van Roy and set my bail at $250,000 (Appendix 3); despite my telling them to look at the computer criminal system and they will see that the original charges pertaining to the felony fleeing charges had been dismissed.
On the following day May 31, 2006, I was handed another complaint and released on a signature bond. The police and District Attorney wrote up the following criminal complaint #2006CM300, count one, possession of THC §961.41(3g)(e) and Count two, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia §916.573(1). I can only assume the fleeing complaint was dismissed. Many papers were filed by myself choosing to appear pro se, including a demand for a jury trial, a claim of constitutionality and an untimely motion asking the judge to recuse himself due to the fact that he set may bail at $250,000 and he has set a suspected murderer's bails at $100,000; among other reasons. The judge wrote an order prohibiting among other things: I, Ken Driessen's legal defenses of presenting evidence to the jury concerning the validity of the warrant I was arrested under and the constitutionality of the State of Wisconsin marijuana possession and paraphernalia statutes. Mr. Thomas Van Roy did approach me off the record prior to an April 11, 2006 hearing of this matter and he offered me a deal where I could plead guilty to a "County Ordinance Violation". I said I would not take the deal because I had already spent 5 days in jail since I was arrested and I wanted monetary credit for time served or would proceed with the jury trial.
A jury trial tainted by the illegal limiting of my, Ken Driessen's defense did take place on August 9, 2007. Although due to monetary limitations brought on partially because of the sanctions imposed on the defendant due to this case, I could not afford the official transcripts, a CD recording of the jury trial is attached. Most of these papers might be in the record although I have not been allowed to view copies of the record. One of the Sawyer County Clerk officials said they sent it all off to Madison and did not have a copy I could see. This explanation of fact is no less accurate than that of the arresting officers.
If you refer to the second document in the Record, the Complaint and incident report, Kelsey writes in hindsight as if he saw me put the pipe in my pocket before he started hassling me. He also makes it sound like I was attacking and attempting the rape of my lady friend. He twists around my wording to quote me as saying "I thought I had the matter taken care of because I had fled to Canada to avoid being prosecuted in Montana." Kelsey's police babble does not even sound like something anybody would say. He later told Corrine Paape and myself that he hassled (investigated) me because I had long hair and therefore looked suspicious.
If a valid warrant had to come over the computer data base, Kelsey could have arrested me without waiting to communicate directly with the Toole County Montana Sheriff's office on a weekend evening when no body in Shelby Montana was at that office at 23:55 to prevent Deputy Pat Kellegher from reissuing a warrant had not been active (see Appendix 1) . If the Sawyer County District Attorney was not involved in this conspiracy, he would have released radio dispatch records and other evidence that would prove that Kelsey convinced a deputy in Montana to reissue a warrant without a judges order that had obviously been shown as not active in the criminal records computer system. In the Sawyer County court system Mark Kelsey is a hero, dozens of state and federal law enforcement agents throughout the US are incompetent, and the jury is not allowed to hear facts.


Warrant Arrest

To be legally presume a person to be felony fugitive and find a person guilty of such a charge; it requires the accused to be currently charged with a felonious crime and failed to appear or escaped remand incarceration fleeing the accusing authorities; or to have been found guilty of a felony crime and escaped prison during the time their sentence was to be served. Although I was arrested on a questionable warrant from Montana, which is the basis of a State of Wisconsin Complaint No. 2006CF120, which in turn is the authority the officer used to arrest and search my person, that complaint, which I assume to be dismissed, is not contained in the Record of this Appeal. During several motion hearings and included in correspondence letters to the Prosecutor, the following true copies of papers were submitted and entered into the Circuit Court Record.

Attached to Driessen's Motion to Dismiss (item 7 of the Record) is:

An Order of Dismissal of the fugitive warrant from Montana from the Idaho district court of the county of Boundary, finding that the state of Montana had failed to meet its burden on February 18, 2004.

A Superior Court of California Case History transcript showing the dismissal of the felony charges; which were the charges that the Montana fugitive charges stemmed from on April 6,2004.

True copies of the April 6, 2004 Superior Court of California hearing pages 1,4 and 8 which explains that the resisting arrest, marijuana felony and felony fugitive charges had been dismissed and Driessen plead guilty to misdemeanor failure to appear and misdemeanor marijuana charges on that date.

Attached to a letter to the Prosecutor (item 19 of the record) are:

Exhibit A: On the ‘MOTION TO RELEASE BOND’ from Montana, it clearly states the case was dismissed.

Exhibit B: I was arrested on a drunk driving charge in Sawyer County on 10/24/05 and I was released on a signature bond, there was no warrant for my arrest from Montana at that time.

Exhibit C: I lived in Montana in the fall of 2005 when I was stopped and issued a citation on 10/12/05 for no proof of insurance, the officer ran my name and there was no warrant for my arrest. I later provided proof of insurance and the charge was dismissed.

Exhibit D: On the 13th of October 2005 at 2:08 pm I crossed into Canada from Montana to speak with Immigration officials there and then returned to Montana. How could it be that neither the US or Canadian border agents found a valid active warrant for my arrest on that day? Because on my return my name was ran as it is with everyone who crosses into the United States and low and behold! There was no warrant for my arrest.

Furthermore Norman Yackel, the presiding Sawyer County Judge in this matter and Thomas Van Roy the Sawyer County District Attorney did error by not admitting that because the felony allegations that the felony fugitive charges had been dependant on were dismissed on April 6, 2004 and therefore the Montana warrant was not valid on May 26, 2006. Moreover the Sawyer County Court and the Sawyer County District Attorney seem to errantly believe that the validity of a warrant is not a subject to be considered by a jury. The District Attorney did record his malicious manner of prosecution in his MOTION IN LIMINE and his RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. The Circuit Court Judge, Norman Yackel did ignore the facts presented and recorded his willful and knowing miscarriage of justice in the ORDER of April 17, 2007 violating his oath of office requiring him to uphold the Wisconsin and US Constitutions.

Wisconsin State Constitution applies:

Article 1 §3 applies to this case because the police, prosecutor and judge are spreading libel and defaming my character by saying I had a valid warrant for my arrest when I did not because the charges that the fleeing warrant were based on were dismissed over two years prior to the May 26, 2006 arrest search and seizure. Therefore Judge Yackel's Order of April 17, 2007, preventing the jury from their right to determine the LAW and the FACT is a violation of Driessen's Wis. Article 1 §3 rights.

Article 1 §7 was violated because the impartiality of the jury was adversely affected by the judge ordering the Defendant not to communicate facts and evidence concerning the validity of the warrant Driessen was arrested was arrested under. Also Driessen was prevented from defending himself through presenting facts, which would present questions of law and constitutionality as pertaining to this case, to the jurors as a right under Article 1 §3.

Article 1 §9 Victims of Crime: If a legal professional would consider the facts of this case as an independent rational unbiased individual citizen; they would have to consider that it is probable that a crime was committed against me, Ken Driessen when I was physically handcuffed and effectively held captive on May 26, 2006 at about 11:55. It does not matter how many states or how many government agents it takes to make a mistake and deprive and individual of their rights under the color of the law, it remains that an individual person was unfairly damaged by being robbed of possessions and freedom without probable cause. Not investigating this crime, which Federal and State law codify as a crime, is a violation of article 1 §9. Also in his motion to dismiss Driessen wrote: False information was given (§942.03), my character was defamed (§942.01), my private property was entered (§942.08(2)(d)) and I was falsely imprisoned (§940.30).

United States Constitution applies:

Article 6 (Fourth Amendment) rights were violated: The Montana warrant had no probable cause on May 26, 2006 because he was no longer a fugitive from justice because he had returned and did his time and was released, time served, on April 6, 2004. The marijuana pipe with 0.291th of a gram of marijuana in it was not described as something that was to be seized in the warrant that was determined not to be valid because the Wisconsin bail jumping and the Montana felony fugitive charges were dismissed prior to the jury trial.
Article 7 (Fifth Amendment): Driessen's rights were violated because he was held in Idaho on the Montana warrant and on February 18, 2004, a judge in Idaho dismissed that Montana warrant because the state had failed to meet it's burden; so when Driessen was arrested in Wisconsin on May 26, 2006 he was twice put in jeopardy for the same alleged offense. The charges originating the Montana felony fugitive warrant were dismissed on April 6, 2004. The Sawyer County judicial and enforcement agents ignored fact and railroaded Driessen contrary to protection granted him from such personal intrusion by the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Article 16 (14th Amendment): Furthermore, Judge Yackel's Order limiting Driessen's defense in a manner which denies him of the ability to present facts concerning the circumstances under which he was arrested and searched and the jury the right to review and consider those facts is a travesty of justice and a violation of Driessen's 14th Amendment right to due process.

Claim of Unconstitutionality of Marijuana Possession Laws

Note: the 5th Item in the index of the Record is a claim of Unconstitutionality.

Marijuana laws, from the beginning of their enactment and to this very day, are an unconstitutional grab of money and power by a group of legislative, judicial, and law enforcement agents who have and continue use such laws to their personal benefit and the benefit of fellow members of their professions by demonizing, disenfranchising, imprisoning and outright stealing from individuals exercising there unalienable right to the control of their individual minds and bodies. There is no constitutionally acceptable moral basis for laws prohibiting the possession and personal use of "marijuana" by individual citizens. The crimes of persons responsible for upholding such illegitimate laws are a greater damage to society as a whole than by the act a person using and possessing marijuana; an act that a reasonable person can believe gives the user relief from physical and psychological pain and protection from infection of certain diseases. Unless prohibitionists acquiesce, admit the errors of a 70 year old rule of law they are enforcing; although not personally responsible for enacting; and devise an equitable plan to fairly repeal and abolish marijuana prohibition; they are actively taking part in a conspiracy of treason against the Constitution. By continuing to criminalize over 94 million Americans who have tried marijuana (NSDUH), voiding the constitution as it applies to a record 829,625 persons arrested for marijuana violations in 2006 (FBI), law enforcement and judicial agents are hereby recognized as criminal, such acts defined here consist of crimes against humanity, nature and valid US code.

Ancient History of Mankind's Use of Marijuana

The first evidence of the medicinal use of cannabis is found in the book Pên-ts’ao Ching, attributed to the Emperor Shen-nung of about 2000 B.C. Since Chinese medicine has its origins in magic, this book provides records of the Chinese using marijuana both in their medicinal and ritual practices. It was used in cases involving menstrual fatigue, gout, rheumatism, malaria, constipation, and absentmindedness, and to anaesthetize patients during surgical operations.([13]) ...in Thailand, “cannabis is frequently used to stimulate the appetite of sick people and make them sleep… its use to counteract diarrhoea and dysentery is equally common.”([14])

In Chris Bennett’s book Green Gold: Marijuana in Magic and Religion he says, “there is some very good physical evidence that indicates cannabis played a part in some of the native cultures prior to the arrival of Columbus.”([104]) In 1985, Bill Fitzgerald discovered resin scrapings of 500-year-old pipes in Morriston, Ontario containing “traces of hemp and tobacco that is five times stronger than the cigarettes smoked today.”([105]) Other archaeological evidence includes stone and wooden pipes and hemp fibre pouches that were found in the Ohio Valley from about 800 A.D.([106]) HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL USES OF CANNABIS AND THE CANADIAN "MARIJUANA CLASH"Prepared For The Canadian Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs
Leah Spicer,Law and Government Division,12 April 2002, http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/library-e/Spicer-e.htm

A Short History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States


Domestic production of hemp encouraged

American production of hemp was encouraged by the government in the 17th century for the production of rope, sails, and clothing. (Marijuana is the mixture of dried, shredded flowers and leaves that comes from the hemp plant.)

In 1619 the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp. Hemp was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.

1700 - 1900

Washington's diary reports that he separated males from females in his hemp garden, "rather too late." Much speculation has ensued about whether or not Washington's reason for sexing his plants was to make a more smokable product...Thomas Jefferson also grew hemp on his plantation and went to great lengths to smuggle hemp seeds out of China. Jared Eliot wrote, "I am informed by my worthy friend Benjamin Franklin, Esq., of Philadelphia, that they raise hemp upon their drained lands. SOURCE: C. Conrad, Hemp: Lifeline to the Future, p. 25.

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes." Abraham Lincoln

"A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln

1906 - Pure Food and Drug Act:Required labeling of any cannabis contained in over-the-counter remedies.

1900 - 20s - Mexican immigrants introduce recreational use of marijuana leaf :
The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching "Marijuana Menace," and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.

1930s - propaganda induces fear of marijuana: During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana. This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by "racially inferior" or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.

Creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and Harry J. Anslinger was the first Commissioner of the FBN and remained in that post until 1962.
"Mellon, in his role as Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to be head of the newly reorganized Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD), a post he held for the next 31 years." (Herer 1998: pg. 29).

Harry J. Anslinger Quotes:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations
with Negroes, entertainers and any others." -Harry J. Anslinger, testimony to Congress, 1937

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is taken by .....musicians. And I'm not speaking
about good musicians, but the jazz type..."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"It is commonly used as an aphrodisiac, and its continued use leads to impotency. This has been observed among the natives of India."

Anslinger then changes his story during the Communist Witchhunt:
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

Anslinger Denies Gateway Theory:

MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing" Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1948

1932 - Uniform State Narcotic Act.

1936 - "Reefer Madness" : Propaganda film "Reefer Madness" was produced by the French director, Louis Gasnier. The Motion Pictures Association of America, composed of the major Hollywood studios, banned the showing of any narcotics in films.

1937 - Marijuana Tax Act : After a lurid national propaganda campaign against the "evil weed," Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. This turns out to be one of the most significant actions to illegalize industrial hemp. The same year, DuPont patented nylon and the polluting wood-pulp paper sulfide process (Herer 1998: pg. 27).(Herer 1998: pg. 33).

"In early 1937, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Walter Treadway told the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that, 'It may be taken for a relatively long time without social or emotional breakdown. Marijuana is habit-forming… in the same sense as… sugar or coffee." (Herer 1998: pg. 29-31).

1940s: During World War II, imports of hemp and other materials crucial for producing marine cordage, parachutes, and other military necessities became scarce…the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched its "Hemp for Victory" program..

1944 - La Guardia Report finds marijuana less dangerous : New York Academy of Medicine issued an extensively researched report declaring that, contrary to earlier research and popular belief, use of marijuana did not induce violence, insanity or sex crimes, or lead to addiction or other drug use.

1951-56 - Stricter Sentencing Laws : Enactment of federal laws (Boggs Act, 1952; Narcotics Control Act, 1956) which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana. A first-offense marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000.

1960s - Marijuana use popular in counterculture : A changing political and cultural climate was reflected in more lenient attitudes towards marijuana. Use of the drug became widespread in the white upper middle class. Reports commissioned by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson found that marijuana use did not induce violence nor lead to use of heavier drugs.

1968 - Creation of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs : This was a merger of FBN and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs of the Food and Drug Administration.

1969 -
LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) 395 U.S. 6
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 65. Argued December 11-12, 1968. Decided May 19, 1969.
The US Supreme Court found that the tax stamp scheme, which was the legal basis on which all marijuana laws were founded, was unconstitutional. The first time I smoked marijuana; it was in the summer of 1970 and therefore legal because the laws were unconstitutional until October 27, 1970.

1970- Repeal of most mandatory minimum sentences : Congress repealed most of the mandatory penalties for drug-related offenses. Marijuana differentiated from other drugs. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act categorized marijuana separately from other narcotics and eliminated mandatory federal sentences for possession of small amounts.

1972- Shafer Commission : The bipartisan Shafer Commission, appointed by President Nixon at the direction of Congress, considered laws regarding marijuana and determined that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalized. Nixon rejected the recommendation…

1973 - Creation of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) : Merger of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNND) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE).

1976 - Beginning of parents' movement against marijuana: A nationwide movement emerged of conservative parents' groups lobbying for stricter regulation of marijuana…with the support of the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), were instrumental in affecting public attitudes, which led to the 1980s War on Drugs.

1986 - Anti-Drug Abuse Act - Mandatory Sentences : President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, instituting mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes. In conjunction with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984...

\1988 -
Drug Enforcement Administration
Matter Of
Docket No. 86-22
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

1989 - Bush's War on Drugs :President George Bush declares a new War on Drugs in a nationally televised speech.

1996- Medical Use Legalized in California : California voters passed Proposition 215 allowing for the sale and medical use of marijuana for patients with AIDS, cancer, and other serious and painful diseases.

Marijuana prohibition conclusions:

The state and federal laws prohibiting marijuana were based on false moral grounds designed to keep the police forces of the alcohol prohibition employed after that unconstitutional, hideous, police state, gangster, black market enticing 18th Amendment was repealed. Harry Anslinger was a self-serving racially prejudice bigot. Anslinger, William Randolph Hurst among others, spread unconstitutional prohibitionist propoganda to suit their self-serving political and monetary gain.

It is not within the framework of the US Constitution for those in positions of power to determine that the use of certain plants and their substances to relieve physical or psychological pain and stress is a criminal act. Supporters and operators of the laws prohibiting marijuana possession and ingestion have infringed upon Driessen's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The war on drugs is a war against his person and almost half the adults of this nation. In short, considering the lack of foresight of persons who have instigated and defended marijuana prohibition; Driessen here claims that such a prohibition does violate every Constitutional Amendment forming the part of the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.

Medicinal Nature of Cannabis

Note: marijuana was known as cannabis before prohibitionists renamed it marijuana.

Medical Marijuana – The FDA Loses More Credibility
The FDA is getting the reputation of letting drug company representatives make decisions for the country (see Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee meetings²), approving dangerous drugs (see Frontline interview with Sidney Wolfe, MD), and not performing follow-up on approved drugs (see ³FDA says firms still lagging on follow-up drug studies²). Now, add to this list the fact that the FDA throws science out the window and makes decisions that have no basis in reality. This bureaucracy recently stated that ³smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States...² This statement was made apparently without any research and demonstrates that the needs of cancer patients play little if any role in the decisions of this disgraceful organization.

Beyond ameliorating the side-effects of chemotherapy, research also suggests that marijuana may play a role in killing cancer cells. Recent journal articles have discussed how the chemicals in marijuana (i.e. delta9-THC) suppress or inhibit the growth of a variety of cancer cells invitro including breast cancers cells, brain cancer (glioblastoma cells), and leukemia cells. See for example:

Brain ­ Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells.

Leukemia ­ Targeting cannabinoid receptors to treat leukemia: role of cross-talk between extrinsic and intrinsic pathways in Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-induced apoptosis of Jurkat cells.

In fact, the knowledge that cannabinoids suppress Lewis lung carcinoma cell growth has been known for30 years.

The FDA¹s illogical position not only ignores peer reviewed medical research, but also disregards nearly 5,000 years of history. Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for over 4,800 years. (2005 In fact, cannabis was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1850 until 1942. (For more background seeMedical cannabis.) Cancer Monthly, 2006-05 http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3463

Quotes from:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Matter Of
Docket No. 86-22
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce
death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied
marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would
theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within
about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis
marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.

30. Norman E, Zinberg, M.D., one of Dr. Weil's colleagues in
the 1968 study mentioned in finding 2, above, accepts marijuana as being
safe for use under medical supervision. If it were available by
prescription he would use it for appropriate patients.

31. Lester Grinspoon, M.D., practicing psychiatrist researcher
and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, accepts
marijuana as safe for use under medical supervision. He believes its
safety is its greatest advantage as a medicine in appropriate cases.

32. Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D., a psychiatrist practicing in
Berkley, California who treats substance abusers as inpatients and
outpatients, accepts marijuana as safe for use under medical supervision.

33. Richard D. North, M.D., who has treated Robert Randall for
glaucoma with marijuana for nine years, accepts marijuana as safe for use
by his patient under medical supervision. Mr. Randall has smoked ten marijuana
cigarettes a day during that period without any evidence of adverse
mental or physical effects from it.

The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been
accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very
ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would
be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand
between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of
the evidence in this record.

The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator
conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no
lack of accepted safety for use of it... The judge recommends that the
Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II.

FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

Marijuana Compound May Fight Lung Cancer Apr 17, 2007:

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer’s ability to spread.

The compound “seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells,” explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. “It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth,” said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were to be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Los Angeles.

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in the world. Lung tumors that over-produce the EGF receptor tend to be extra-aggressive and don’t respond well to chemotherapy.

In the new study, the researchers first showed that two different lung cancer lines, as well as samples from patient lung tumors, produced the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2.
Endocannabinoids — cannabinoids produced naturally in the body — are thought to have an effect on pain, anxiety and inflammation when they bind to cannabinoid receptors.

Next, the researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice implanted with human lung cancer cells. After three weeks of treatment, tumors shrank by about 50 percent in animals treated with THC, compared to those in an untreated control group, the researchers reported…“I find it fascinating, wondering if the reasons we’re not seeing this spike is that THC inhibits lung cancer cells,” he said. “It would be very ironic, although you certainly wouldn’t tell somebody who smoked cigarettes to add marijuana.”
From: http://www.meta-religion.com/Health/Cancer/marijuana_lung_cancer.htm

HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES? Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders) 150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose) 180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) 1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol 14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs.3,800 to 5,200
(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole. Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded ($6 million), First & Second Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al. LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).

Medicinal Nature of Cannabis conclusion:

The prohibitionist law-writers, judges and police have no right to tell any citizen or me which doctor or scientists research I should entrust my life and health to. It is absolutely within my Constitutionally guaranteed right to believe that marijuana is beneficial to my over all health and well-being, and to ingest marijuana by inhalation and ingestion being free from persecution. It is the DEA and ONDCP that are selling their self serving snake oil in the form of police state, police brutality and the largest per capita prison population on the planet to benefit their profession and themselves at the expense of the majority. Until the errors of Constitutional violation written into laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana are repealed, those government agents who enforce criminal sanctions including fines, imprisonment and supervision are themselves part of a criminal conspiracy.

Driessen here states that he has worked in mechanical, industrial, and mining settings and has been exposed to asbestos, arsenic, diesel smoke particulates and many other known cancer causing carcinogens and self medicating with marijuana has been shown to reduce the chances of becoming diagnosed with cancer. Beside the fact that he and many other of the 94 million persons who tried marijuana (NSDUH), can deduce that marijuana prohibition violated every amendment to the bill of rights. In the cause of health and well-being, such prohibition is cruel and unusual within Article1 §6 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, see:

Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
Exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is a basis for a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment. Risk from environmental tobacco smoke was a basis for a cause of action. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993).

Government's Compelling Interest Claim

The war on people who use marijuana only benefits the private prison industry and in place of justice, what has become the legal industry. Marijuana prohibition is about as constitutionally legal and humane as the SS and Hitler's Gulag. Criminal prohibition has proven to be less effective in restraining marijuana use by minors than regulation and taxation.

Marijuana is the Nation's most commonly used illicit drug. More than 94 million Americans (40 percent) age 12 and older have tried marijuana at least once, according to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)

Washington, DC: Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation…released September 18, 2006, "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself," former President Jimmy Carter has said. "Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

In 1987, Al Gore admitted to his use of marijuana while an under grad at Harvard,
Source: Newsweek, 11/16/87

November 5, 2003 - Boston, MA, USA Boston, MA: Presidential candidates John Edwards (D-NC), John Kerry (D-MA) and former Vermont governor Howard Dean each admitted that they had previously smoked marijuana...last night's "America Rocks the Vote" debate, which aired live on CNN. Their responses drew a rousing ovation from the audience.

"George W. Bush certainly did drugs until 1974." Source: Nicholas Kristoff, NY Times reporter who profiled Bush in a series of articles for the paper, 8/1/00 on NPR's Fresh Air

Updated: 1:00 p.m. CT Feb 23, 2005. NEW YORK - “I don’t want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago,” Bush said in recordings made when he was governor of Texas and aired Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.;And I mean that. It doesn’t matter if it’s LSD, cocaine, pot, any of those things, because if I answer one, then there will be another one. And I just am not going to answer those questions…” The recordings were made by Doug Wead, a former aide to George W. Bush’s father, in 2000.

Former NJ Senator Bill Bradley (D) states, "Several times in the early 1970s I had taken a few puffs of marijuana." Source: Associated Press

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Justice Thomas, nominated by President Bush in 1991 to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, admitted to smoking, "at least part of a marijuana cigarette in college and possibly one in law school as well."
Source: The Tennessean; 7/15/91

Representative James P. Moran (D-VA) Representative Moran admitted to his experimentation with marijuana in 1992 shortly after attacking his Republican challenger for using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager. Source: Peter Baker, Washington Post; 10/20/92

Susan Molinari (R-NY): Former US Representative Susan Molinari, keynote speaker at the 1996 Republican National Convention, claimed to have "experimented" with marijuana during her college years at a State University of New York in the 1980s.
Source: Associated Press and San Francisco Chronicle, 8/9/96

Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Former US Representative Newt Gingrich has admitted that he smoked marijuana…"That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era." Source: Hilary Stout, Wall Street Journal; 8/8/96

Senator Connie Mack (R-FL): Mack, admitted that he, "smoked pot once but not often", when he was in his thirties. Mack denied use of marijuana in 1982 when he ran for the House and then admitted to it in his 1987 race for the Senate. Source: Hilary Stout, Wall Street Journal; 8/8/96

Lincoln Chafee (R): Chafee, US Senate candidate from Rhode Island and son of Senator John Chafee admitted to using drugs several times while a student at Brown University.
Source: Julie Goodman, Associated Press

Governor Gary Johnson (R) on 60 Minutes he said: I used marijuana. I smoked from my senior year in high school through college--and then basically quit after college... in the context of what you hear [about marijuana]. That, 'You're going to lose your mind. You're going to go crazy. You're going to die if you smoke marijuana.' And you know what? I smoked marijuana, and when I smoked it, none of these things happened. In fact, it was kind of cool. Source: Sixty Minutes, 4/23/00

Governor George Pataki (R), New York's Governor George Pataki admitted that he tried marijuana. Source: Associated Press, 1994

New York's Lt. Gov.(R) Mary Donohue has admitted to experimenting with marijuana when she was a college student. Source: Associated Press 8/26/98

Governor Dr. Howard Dean (D): In 1996, the MD of Vermont admitted to his use of marijuana as a youth. Source: www.DRCNet.org

Dick Lamm (D): former Colorado governor and one-time presidential candidate for the Reform Party, said he had tried marijuana during kayaking trips to Colorado
Source: Peter Boyles; Denver Post, 8/21/96

Bruce Babbitt (D): Babbitt, former governor of Arizona, admitted that he had smoked pot when he was in college. Source: Newsweek, 11/16/87

Mike McCurry (D), Clinton's press secretary, has stated that "of course" he smoked marijuana as a college student. "I was a kid of the 1970s. Did I smoke a joint from time to time? Of course I did," stated McCurry in 1996. Source: Associated Press, 12/96

Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) "the Governor" is shown smoking a marijuana cigarette after winning Mr. Olympia in the 1975 documentary film Pumping Iron. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger

Mike Bloomberg, Mayor NYC: According to the 4/16/01 issue of New York magazine, “Ask him if he ever smoked a joint in the past, and he replies, ‘You bet I did, and I enjoyed it.’”

Norm Coleman (R) US Senator from Minnesota: Truly, nothing could better refute Norm Coleman's attacks against marijuana than the life of Norm Coleman. He smoked marijuana in college – like so, so, so many others – and now he is a U.S. Senator. He does not have lung cancer or schizophrenia. Source: Norm Kent, NORML board member.

Conclusions concerning Government's Compelling interest claim:

People who have admitted to smoking marijuana are occupying some of the highest offices of our land, no pun intended. When I was arrested for marijuana who is the injured party, where is the victim that I caused injury to?
Habeas Corpus is translated: you have the body. I, Ken Driessen, have been in jail for possession of marijuana., The penalty for this marijuana conviction is $854 dollars of fines and costs including $60 victim surcharge and my driver's license suspended which affects greatly my ability to obtain work and travel to work. The government is attempting to enforce laws to have my body whether or not I am incarcerated; US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 paragraph 2 concerning habeas corpus protects me against government control of my body, certainly a fundamental right.

Furthermore in the LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) 395 U.S. 6 decision, the US Supreme Court found the marijuana laws at that time to be unconstitutional. The first time I smoked marijuana; it was in the summer of 1970 and therefore legal because the laws were unconstitutional until October 27, 1970 when the Controlled Substance Act was made law. If the drug warrior's fallacy synopsis were accurate and marijuana was dangerously addictive and I tried it when it was legal, ex post facto considerations would prevent me from being prosecuted for marijuana because the government failed to protect me from the scourge they claim it to be. Therefore I am not a criminally liable and only fell sick to addiction and it is the government's responsibility to help me and cure me from being exposed to marijuana when it was legal.

The Appeals Court Judges know that it is a crime to make war against the American people, the "drug war", is a war against a very significant portion of the population and is therefore treason. These acts are crimes of depravation of rights under the color of the law, conspiracy to defraud and treason defined in United States Criminal Code. The government has failed to show a compelling interest in protecting themselves from the marijuana they have smoked through a scheme of criminal sanction.

Religious freedom.

Note: In the 8th paragraph of my Notice of claim of unconstitutionality, item 5, paragraph 3 of the second page religious freedom is mentioned.

With his Order of April 17th, 2007, Mr. Yackel made an error of judgment by limiting my legal defense in a way that directly violates my First Amendment right to be reasonably free from religious persecution, relating to the use of psychoactive herbs for spiritual healing, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration ACT adopted November 16, 1993. Judge Yackel has overridden the jury process violating my Wis. Article 1 §1, §3, §7 and US 5th, 6th, 14th Amendment rights to due process. The following four paragraphs contain recent case law, which I was not allowed to present in my defense to the Wisconsin jury which are to hear both law and fact (Article 1 §3):

We think that a substantial number of people using marijuana for medical purposes also use it for spiritual healing. We wish to inform you that in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the United States Supreme Court recognized the drug laws must provide exceptions for religious use under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.

In United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1559 (9th Cir. 1996), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under the RFRA the marijuana laws must give way to religious freedom. This was confirmed again in 2002 in the case of Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).

42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A) states, "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to the RFRA in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005), to mean the standard in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) ("courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible.' Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.")

Several United States District Court rulings have recognized a fundamental right to use marijuana under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: United States v. Valrey, No. CR96-549Z (W.D. Wash. February 22, 2000), finding a fundamental right of a criminal defendant to use marijuana while on supervised release; United States v. Forchion, No. 04-949-ALL (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2005), finding the defendant's rights under the RFRA had been violated because the magistrate did not consider the impact of six of the conditions of release on the defendant's right to use marijuana; Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari v. Gonzales, No. C-06-4264 (N.D. Cal. February 2, 2007), recognizing the plaintiffs could make out a prima facie case under the RFRA for the religious use of marijuana.

I have called myself a Spiritual Evolutionist for over 12 years now. This is a belief similar to Pantheism and ancient Pagan religious beliefs and practices. I have also explored shamanism and feel that I may someday learn to become a shaman which I define to be a medicine man knowledgeable of herbalism more so than what some would define as a witch doctor. I completed a Native American college level herbal studies class in the early '80s. Recently I've used the term Scientific Naturalism as nearly synonymous with Spiritual Evolution when describing my protected religious beliefs.

When one considers that women are the fairer of the sexes, they give birth and have the ability to give nourishment to infants and the association of Mother Nature has been made; one may ask, why do we call it a God and Not a Goddess? Although many of Jesus' parables and moral teachings ring true, I accept it that man invented God and this mythical being is on the same level of reality as Santa Claus.

Recently, with tools such as the Hubble telescope, scientists have figured the Universe is about 13.7 years old. I prefer to believe as science tells me, that the Sun is about 4.5 billion years old and the Earth formed a very short time after; rather than a gray bearded omnipotent male created it all in 7 days about 6000 years ago. Life may have started from the natural forces of molecular energies, lightening and waves beating on the rocks; or it may have came from outer space to evolve from single cells into dinosaurs, primates, bipedal mammals and eventually humans started to look about like we do 2 million years ago.

Not believing in a male God has nothing to do with my being a loving, religious and spiritual person. Every second of every day and every human, every living thing is important to me because substantially more chance than not, we will become extinct. It is possible that we may avoid extinction if every human joins a spiritual unison similar to the way each individual cell acts within one human body. Einstein has given us a powerful clue when he calculated the theory of relativity, which brought us past the physics of Isaac Newton from 1987, when he published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Now we know black holes really do exist in the universe, which pull matter and light around at light speed or beyond. This means we need to develop a theory beyond Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity because the theory of relativity states that as matter approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite, i.e. black holes and their properties exist in the universe and therefore approaching light speed does not require approaching infinite mass. I figure, as a species we are going to discover or evolve into a state that is beyond time where one second and eternity are equal. Spirit may be an echo or reflection from the future the only realm where our possible connection to infinite being may exist.

The Swaggarts, Bakers, Grahams, and Robertsons rake in millions representing themselves as persons who have a schizophrenic relationship with God as they carry on their own lusty agenda worshiping the paper which states "In God We trust" in scripted on it. To achieve there kingdom on Earth, they need more babies, cars, houses, roads, planes and skyscrapers to be produced so they can ride the top of the economic wave until my lovely planet if destroyed with a final Armageddon apocalypse and judgment day of extinction.

When I walked into the Sawyer County Court House on August 9, 2007, to appear in front of a jury trial, I saw a plaque on the wall that stated that our national motto is "In God We Trust". To be a witness on my own behalf, I first had to take an oath: "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God." Ordering me to appear in a courthouse with God on the wall and God in an oath is forcing a religion upon me. Taking marijuana from me, sanctioning me with an order to pay pieces of paper with “In God We Trust” on them I have to obtain through physical labor is a form of slavery.

While some persons hold abstinence from mind-altering substances as morally, religiously correct, such precept is not based on Constitutional principles and is therefore not valid law. My US Constitutional 1st Amendment right to religious freedom and my Wisconsin Constitutional Article 1, § 18 and § 19 to the same have been violated by marijuana prohibition.


The US government Compassionate Use Program violates my right to equal protection of the laws.

Medical Marijuana: 220 Pounds and Still Smoking

On November 20, 2005 Irv Rosenfeld, a Ft. Lauderdale stockbroker, will have smoked 220 pounds of US government marijuana/cannabis over a 23-year period. The longest using patient in the federal governments Compassionate Use Program, with only 7 US citizens being shown such compassion, Irv has benefited from this medicine without negative side effects of any type.

“The US government has never had a moment’s hesitation about providing him
and the other six US citizens this medicine. The researchers at NIDA knew
from the outset of this program that cannabis was non-toxic to humans
and of significant benefit for the health of some individuals”, said Al Byrne, co-founder of the national educational charity called Patients Out of Time...“Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis” by E. Russo, MD and M.L. Mathre, RN, confirmed that for four of the federal patients studied including Irv (the others wished to remain anonymous) the government was right.

Al Byrne
Patients Out of Time
1472 Fish Pond Rd.
Howardsville, VA 24562
(434) 263-4484 (434) 263-6753 fax
Irv Rosenfeld
877-447-9625 x 120
954-536-9011 cell

I deserve equal protection of the law. Although I am not asking the government to give me my 220 pound of pot, I am asking that the Appeals Court reverse the conviction which is the subject of this appeal, and declare the marijuana laws unconstitutional, forbidding authorities from putting me in jail, fining me and confiscate my cannabis/marijuana. The disparity between the treatment of a government compassionate use patient and myself concerning our use of marijuana illustrates an obvious violation of my 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

County Ordinance Violation to some and Criminal sanction to me violates the 14th Amendment:

As mentioned in the STATEMENT OF THE CASE section, District Attorney Van Roy offered me an option of pleading guilty to a County Ordinance Violation, which I refused to plead guilty to because they would not give me credit for time served. Below is the state statute, which gave Van Roy the authority to offer me such a plea:

Date of enactment: January 4, 2006
2005 Senate Bill 21 Date of publication*: January 19, 2006


AN ACT to amend 59.54 (25), 59.54 (25m) and 961.577 of the statutes; relating to: county ordinances regarding drug paraphernalia or the possession of marijuana.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented insenate and assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. 59.54 (25) of the statutes is amended to read:
59.54 (25) POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. The board may enact and enforce an ordinance to prohibit the possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana, as defined in s.
961.01 (14), subject to the exceptions in s. 961.41 (3g) (intro.), and provide a forfeiture for a violation of the ordinance...

The existence of the US Government Compassionate Use Program and the existence of a marijuana ordinance law that effectively decriminalizes marijuana in Wisconsin are undeniable proof that the marijuana laws, prohibiting marijuana through criminal sanction are fraudulent. The validity of the entire Wisconsin State and United States federal constitution is in question here. Article 14, section 1, commonly known as the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution grants each person equal protection of the laws.

a. "An ordinance is unconstitutionally vague if it either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Connally v. General Constr. Co.,269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Such an ordinance is 'void for vagueness' and inconsistent with due process of law. Additionally, an ordinance may be void for vagueness if its imprecision is likely to encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, ..... U.S. ....., ....., 112 S.Ct. 2395, 2403 (1992) (stating that the First Amendment prohibits the vesting of unbridled discretion in government officials); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 (1972); Eaves v. Board of Clark County Comm'rs, 96 Nev. 921, 924, 620 P.2d 1248, 1250 (1980)." City of Las Vegas v. 1017 S. Main Corp., 110 Nev. 1227, 1231, 885 P.2d 552 (1994). No. 42.


Through reference to the facts of this case, historically documented facts and law, this appellate has proven that state statutes and federal codes enforcing criminal sanctions, resulting from the action of a person possessing and/or ingesting marijuana, are unconstitutional. Whatever perceived hazard an individual's use of marijuana may be, such hazards are minimal and counteracted by scientific studies suggesting medicinal benefits associated with use. The spiritual, religious use of marijuana cannot constitutionally be forbidden or prohibited by criminal sanction. Marijuana has and been consumed by a large enough proportion of the US population to deem it safe and acceptable to the general public and therefore criminality of use is unconstitutionally vague.

I won no matter what the Appeals Court decides, because after reading this brief, if they continue to uphold the laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana they now have to remain in obvious noncompliance with their oath(s) of office to defend the constitution. Interpreting the marijuana laws and stating case precedence to obscure the facts presented to uphold an unconstitutional law does not withstand Article 6 Section 2 of the US Constitution.

There are already in place, laws pertaining to operating motor vehicles, heavy equipment and airplanes while under the influence of any drug to protect the people; even if they are to be protected only from themselves in such instances as combining marijuana use with such dangerous human activities. Laws prohibiting simply possessing and using marijuana are redundant and unnecessary to the state's compelling interest. Taxation and regulation schemes similar to those used for alcohol and tobacco are readily adaptable to marijuana production and sales. Such regulations are proven more effective in deterring use of alcohol and tobacco by minors then criminal sanctions. Marijuana is the 4th largest US cash crop (USDA 1997). Although it may be tempting for those in high office to flaunt the law, there are laws against the act of unconstitutionally criminally sanctioning adults for the use of an herb as now being conducted by Governmental officials:

18 USC §242: Deprivation of rights under color of law; 18 USC §2383: Rebellion or insurrection...against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof...; 18 USC §2381: Treason : Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them ... is guilty of treason...; 18 USC §371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Quotes from an October 2005 meeting held in the Oval Office attest to the disdain an elitist, admitted marijuana smoker, power broker George W. Bush has for the Constitution. “Mr. President, There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” one aide in the meeting said, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back, “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_article_7779.shtml). It may be tempting for the Judge/s to ignore the constitution and follow rank and file in a socio-economic survival of the fittest, food chain of command, designed to bring profit to a few elitists on the top of the plutocratic corporatocracy food chain. With Bush as President or not, it is not within an Appeals Court Judges authority to concur with a lower court order that so obviously violated Driessen's Wisconsin and United States Constitutional rights.

To continue marijuana, Cannabis/ marijuana/THC/cannabinoid(s)/hemp prohibition against Driessen through criminal sanctions within the legal limits of the constitution, would require constitutional convention to take place in accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution and two thirds of them would have to vote to take way my right to control to, to have my body, under Article 1 section 9 of the Constitution of the United States as explained by the right to life, liberty and property within the Bill of Rights as those additional parts of that Constitution are commonly know.

Relief Sought

(1.) A State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals Order: Overturning, reversing or overruling of the conviction of the verdicts of August 9, 2007, finding Kenneth L. Driessen guilty of possessing marijuana (THC) and drug paraphernalia respectively; and the resulting Judgment of Conviction and Sentence filed August 20, 2007.

(2.) An Order from the State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals declaring findings of fact that state and federal laws criminally prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana are unconstitutional.

(3.) Reimbursement of Appeal filing fee, Circuit court fees, fine payments, and what ever additional reimbursements the court sees fit to cover the costs of preparing the Appeal, and whatever additional monetary relief the court sees fit.

__________________________________ Dated ____________________
Kenneth Leroy Driessen (pro se)
12022 N. Co. Rd. T
Hayward WI 54843
[email protected]

I certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in Wis. Stat. §
(Rule) 809.19(8)(b) and (c) for a brief produced using the following font:

_ Proportional serif font: Minimum printing resolution of 200 dots per
inch, 13 point body text, 11 point for quotes and footnotes, leading of a
minimum 2 points, maximum of 60 characters per full line of body text.
The length of this brief is 10,155 words per §809.19(8)(c).

Date: ___________


(I feel it is necessary to include a statement as to the authenticity of appendices documents because, in the Circuit Court, Judge Yackel refused to believe the authenticity of those papers and accused me of lying on the witness stand and I told him if he thought I was lying he should arrest me for perjury, which he did not do. If there is any question as to the authenticity of any attachments or exhibits relating to this case, please contact me so I can make arrangements to verify such documents as true copies.)


I certify, to the best of my knowledge and understanding that the documents submitted to the Sawyer County Circuit Court, and to this Wisconsin Appeals Court, contained in the Record and the Brief Appendix concerning attachments/exhibits, being copies of papers from various Government agencies such as the Toole County Montana Court, Columbia Falls Montana Police Department, the Superior Court of California Tehama County, State of Idaho district Court for Boundary County, Canadian Border Services Agency, a law enforcement printout received from the Sawyer County District Attorney, Sawyer County Court Documents, etc.; those attachments are true copies and represent those original documents.

Date: ___________

Kenneth Leroy Driessen (pro se)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

110 East Main STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688
Telephone (608)266-1880
Facsimile (608)267-0640

February 19,2008


Hon. Norman L. Yackel
Circuit Court Judge
Sawyer County Courthouse
406 Main Street, PO Box 508
Hayward, W154843-0508

Gregory M. Weber
Assislant Attomey General
P.O. Box 7S57
Madison, Wl 53707-7857

Ricki Briggs
Clerk of Circuit Court
Sawyer County Courthouse
406 Main Street. PO Box 508
Hayward, WI 54843-0508

Kenneth L. Driessen
12022 N. Co. Rd. I
Hayward, WI 54843

Thomas E. Van Roy
District Attorney
Sawyer County Courthouse
Hayward, WI54843

You ere hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:

2007AP1940-CR State of Wisconsin v. Kenneth L. Driessen (L.C. #2006CM300)

Before Brenner, J.

Kenneth Driessen, pro se, appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of THC, contrary to Ws. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(e), and possession of drug paraphernalia, contrary to Wm. Stat. § 961.573(l). Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude that this case

is appropriate for summary disposition and summarily afform the judgement and order. See Wis. Stat, Rule 809.21.

On May 26, 2006, officers Mark Kelsey and Wollwert observed a male and a female standing in an alley. Kelsey observed the man turn sideways as if to conceal his actions and place an object in his pocket. The officers approached the man, Driessen, and Kelsey asked him for identification. Driessen stated that he did not have any identification and said there might be a warrant for him. Wollwert called the dispatch center and requested a warrant check. Dispatch advised the officers that there was a warrant for Driessen's arrest from Toole County, Montana. The officers then handcuffed Driessen and searched him. Officers found a marijuana pipe in Driessen's pocket; the bowl of the pipe contained marijuana.

Driessen was charged with possession of THC and drug paraphernalia. He filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the Montana arrest warrant was invalid. Driessen also filed a notice of demand of a jury trial, wherein he requested permission to argue at trial that marijuana laws are unconstitutional. The State filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit Driessen from making arguments of constitutionality before the jury. The trial court issued an order stating Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(e) prohibited Driessen from making any argument to the jury that either § 961.41(3g)(e) or Wis. Stat. § 961.573(1) were unconstitutional. The court denied also Driessen's motion to dismiss because the Montana warrant was valid at the time of Driessen's

Arrest, and prohibited Driessen from arguing otherwise to the jury. On August 9, 2007, a jury found Driessen guilty on both counts.

Driessen's briefs do not conform to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19. Pro se litigants are "bound by the same rules that apply to attorneys on appeal." Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N. W.2d 16 (1992). Driessen's brief is devoid of any citation to the record, includes references to matters not within the record, and lacks citation to appropriate legal authorities. " An appellate court is improperly burderned where briefs fail to properly and accurately cite to the record…. Accordingly, we may choose not to consider arguments unsupported by references to legal authority, arguments that do not reflect any legal reasoning, and arguments that lack proper citations to the record." State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, 30, 742 N. W. 2d 322.

Even the most liberal interpretation of Driessen's Brief, Driessen's arguments lack merit. Driessen's first argument appears to challenge the trial court's order which denied his motion to dismiss, concluded that the Montana warrant was valid, and prohibited him from arguing other wise.

Driessen was arrested pursuant to an out-of state warrant. Wis. Stat. § 968.07(1)© allows a law enforcement officer to arrest a person if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a warrant for the person's arrest has been issued by another state. In this case, Driessen admitted that he may have been wanted on a warrant, which the officers confirmed.

Therefore, because the officers had a reasonable suspicion that a warrant for Driessen's Arrest had been issued in Montana, the arrest was lawful. Because the arrest was lawful, the search of Driessen's jacket was lawful as a search incident to arrest. See Wis. Stat. § 968.10(1). We see nothing improper in the court's denial of driessen's motion to dismiss. Even if tha warrant were invalid, that would have no bearing on his case for possession because the officers had reasonable suspicion to arrest him.

Driessen also appears to challenge the constitutionality of the trial court's order prohibiting him from arguing that Wisconsin's marijuana laws were unconstitutional. The constitutionality of Wisconsisn's marijuana laws are questions of law, See State v. Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, 30, 266 Wis. 2d 719, 668 N. W.2d 760. The jury does not decide questions of law. Avery v. Diedrich, 2006 WI App 144, 16, 294 Wis. 2d 769, 720 N.W.2d 103, aff'd 2007 WI 8o, 301 Wis. 2d 693, 734 N. W.2d 159. There fore, the trial court's order prohibiting Driessen from raising these issues before the jury was constitutional.

Finally, Driessen renews his argument thsat "Marijuana laws" are unconstitutional. Driessen makes numerous arguments to support his proposition that are neither intelligible, nore supported by proper citation to authority. All statutes are presumed constitutional; Driessen bears the burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the statutes beyond a reasonable doubt.

See State ex rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, 58 Wis. 2d 32, 46, 205 N.W.2d 784 (1973). Driessen's arguments are not developed enough to meet this burdern and we will not develop his arguments for him. See State v. Gulrud, 140 Wis. 2d 721, 730, 412 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1987).


IT IS ORDERED that the order is summarily affirmed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.

David R. Schanker
Clerk of Court of Appeals

Sat, 03/01/2008 - 9:46am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Hi, i work as a webmaster. if you want to continue this business i would recommend you to use https://valary.com/

they provide high bids, don't shave, pay at the time (by the way they have a PPC and PPA- where you may earn from 0.1 cent to 8$)
it is very useful to advertise pills- my friend gets 40% from the sales(he is also a webmaster)
well, it is up to you to decide, but i can tell you that it is a very good conditions- and the detailed report help you to monitor all your actions and money!

Mon, 04/21/2008 - 4:48pm Permalink

Add new comment

Source URL: https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2007/jan/11/feature_more_cops_died_directing