Legislature Should Support Release Of Roger Christie
People in our state are concerned with the Federal handling of their case against Roger Christie. The misgivings are deep enough that several State Senators have signed on to SR12 that aims to have our senate call the whole matter to the attention of President Obama and ask for an investigation of what appears to be misconduct, and the immediate release of Christie.
I am not a lawyer and don鈥檛 pretend expertise on the various legal rationales presented by the prosecution in defense of the denial of bail and two and a half years of incarceration without trial of an American citizen. I have prepared the points that rebut them, based on a fundamental understanding of how our system is supposed to work.
I hope that hearings will be scheduled to discuss SR12.
Arguments In Support Of Senate Resolution 12
Roger Christie is the minister of the Hilo based THC Ministry that claims marijuana as a sacrament. Federal law enforcement arrested him along with a group of associates in July of 2010 on marijuana charges. The Rev. Christie has been held without bail since then and is still awaiting trial.
A review of court documents indicates the reasons the government has denied bail to Reverend Christie. Their assertion is that his ministry is simply a front for a large scale marijuana distribution organization. The government provides information obtained through wire taps to support this assertion. To beef up their case they add information publicly available through the church website and other sources. The problem with all of this is that these issues should be argued before a jury in an open and public trial. The assertion that one may be guilty of a crime is not a rationale for the denial of bail and two years detention without trial.
The government argues that the Rev Christie should be denied bail as he represents a danger to the community. To support this claim they argue that there exists likelihood that he would commit additional crimes if released on bail. A major argument presented by the prosecutors is that subsequent to finding marijuana at his home in a March 2010 raid they found it again in the July 2010 raid that led to his arrest. This, they claim, indicates he will continue to engage in the activities of the church while on bail.
Rev Christie鈥檚 attorney鈥檚 countered with the logical point that this does not show a danger, unless the prosecution can demonstrate the activities, illegal or not, are in fact dangerous. The court allowed the prosecution’s circular argument that the alleged marijuana distribution by Rev Christie鈥檚 church is dangerous because it is illegal. This illogic is far more dangerous to the health of our judicial system and the community it is designed to protect than anything alleged against Rev Christie.
In 2008 voters of Hawaii County, where the THC Ministry operates, spoke clearly to this very issue. They passed a county resolution making marijuana the lowest priority of law enforcement. Clearly the 鈥渃ommunity鈥 does not agree that Rev Christie poses any danger. If the people of the community do not consider the activity to be dangerous and the prosecution offers no evidence whatsoever as to its danger other than to say 鈥渋t is illegal,鈥 no one is safe.
Comments made by Senior Judge Alan Kay in regards to his rejection of this appeal show the bias of the court. The quote attributed to him in the Star-Advertiser of February 24 is 鈥淵ou would think the light would come on when the first search of his residence was made.鈥 In other words the judge is oblivious to the fact that Rev Christie maintains that his ministry is protected by the US Constitution and he is not in fact committing crimes at all. Instead Judge Kay has used his power to deny bail to punish the defendant for continuing to assert his constitutional rights. Since Rev Christie continued with his marijuana activities after the March raid he must now in the unstated, but obvious conclusion of the judge, be punished by denial of his Constitutional right to bail.
The prosecution further exposes the political nature of the case against Rev Christie in their July 15 and 30, 2010 motions to deny bail. In both of these motions they allude to the defendant鈥檚 political advocacy in support of the 2008 vote by Hawaii County voters to restrict its law enforcement officers from investigating marijuana related offences. The apparent blindness to their own political agenda cannot be better stated than by quoting from these motions. 鈥淲hile arguably Christie鈥檚 support and advocacy of the marijuana ordinance was an exercise of freedom of speech, this observation was not accurate, because as indicated during the Title III investigation, Christie鈥檚 hidden agenda in supporting the ordinance was to enhance his marijuana sources of supply.鈥 Apparently the right to free speech does not apply to advocating for changes in law that might benefit you or annoy Federal law enforcement.
The defense have offered that the Reverend will not engage in marijuana use, distribution, or other related activities that are violations of current federal law if released on bail. Unfortunately, the court has taken the point of view that evidence must be presented by the defense to show how Roger will be prevented from so doing. Not only has the burden of proof been shifted to the defense in this bail hearing, they must now prove a negative, something contrary to logic.
