Some of the legal documents are here! link to docs
Scroll down for more...
From Jeffrey:
I wanted to make it a point to say, that the example they've made of me, is exactly what you would expect it to be, but, it's
ironicaly an example of them, not me! I've said from the onset of my lifestyle store, that: "It is my mission here at Hip Hop
Hippies, to point a generation of young minds in the direction of the "TRUTH," and encourage them to believe that our creator
didn't make mistakes." Thomas Jefferson Said "it is error alone, that needs the support of the government," and then added, that
"Truth" could stand by itself! I am the Way and the "TRUTH" and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. is what
Jesus said in John 14:6 "TRUTH!" being the key word! As you watch my video documentries, remember that Ours is not "SUPPOSED" to
be a system designed to unleash the power of the government. It's "SUPPOSED" to be a system designed to control it, and the "WE
THE PEOPLE" have an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform or change our government, whenever it be found
adverse or inadequate to the purposes of it's institution.............
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of
God, I will do."...............................
"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about the power? The court decisions that
have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resove this paradox! "More than logic has suffered. As orignally
conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by
introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to funciton effectively as the 'conscience of the community,' jurors
must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors
off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions.".............................................
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. " Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them
quot; Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the
name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional
law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section
256........................
....... "GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR THE COMMON GOOD"? Where the people fear the government you have Tyranny; where the government fears
the people, you have liberty. Polliticians, bureacrats, and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will
result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people
acting in the name of government, say more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws---even if we have to give up some RIGHTS
in the process. They believe the more laws we have the more control, thus a better socioty. This theory may sound good on paper,
and apparently many of our leaders think this way, as evidenved by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each
year in this country. But, no matter how clearly this marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a
RIGHT you lose a "FREE CHOICE"! This adds another control. Control's real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclution would be, if
giving up some RIGHTS produces a better socioty, then by giving up all Rights we could produce the perfect socioty. We could
chain everybody to a tree for lack of TRUST. This may prevent crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, whick is the heartbeat of
FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation of DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS we should be giving up
wrongs! The opposite of control. is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs not rights for a
better socioty! William Pitt of the British House of Commons once claimed. "necessity is the plea for every infringement of
human liberty; it is the argument of trrants; it is the creed of slaves."
VICTIM'S MOTHER SPEAKS OUT:
Dole's conviction violates his right against double jeopardy Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:31 PM
Mountain
TO THE EDITOR:
In accordance with the Gillette News Record and Douglas Budget, Jeffrey Wayne Doles, 37, was convicted June
12 in
federal District Court on three counts of selling drug paraphernalia. Doles could be sentenced up to nine years in federal
prison and may be fined as much as $750,000. A sentencing date hasn't been set yet. What the article neglects to adequately
convey is that Jeffrey Wayne Doles was previously found not guilty of the same offense when the case was originally tried before
a Circuit Court jury in Gillette back in January 2006. The article additionally neglects to warn you of how alarming the
contradicting verdicts truly are. The logical consequences of trying an individual twice for the same offense are that it
literally requires the new jury, to try the old jury's verdict, thereby subjecting the unanimous meditations of their hearts to
the scrutiny of a jury of their own piers, and that's an extraordinarily disrespectful way to treat "the people" who diligently
answered their call to perform their civic duty! It has continuously been impressed upon us throughout the course of our own
lives that government was instituted to work for the benefit of its people. As its people, we should be shocked to discover it
utilizing the awesome power vested in it, as a tool to un-constitutionally re-try cases in federal court jurisdictions that have
previously seen successful conclusions at state court levels. Authentically speaking, we know that the law is in place to uphold
the constitution and, that in every instance, the constitution should always surpass the law, and we know that it should not
ever be the other way around. Naturally, it becomes especially disturbing to discover a public policy, calculated with the
deliberate intent of empowering federal government to blatantly disregard your unequivocally guaranteed constitutional right to
not "
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." (Bill of Rights, Amendment V, Double
Jeopardy) Ours is not a system designed to unleash the power of the government. It's a system designed to control it, and the
people have an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found
adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. Even though, losing the double jeopardy clause of the constitution may
not affect you, as a law abiding citizen, it should concern you. What if this was happening to someone you know, and up to nine
years of your right to have them in your life was hanging in the balance of this terrible miscarriage of justice? If you feel
as
though government is acting adversely or inadequately toward the purposes of its institution, and you realize that sacrificing
our constitutional rights in furtherance of its own contradicting purposes is in no way beneficial to its people, we would
greatly appreciate you aligning yourself with our mission of pointing a generation of young minds in the direction of the truth,
by joining our friends list at:
myspace/unfairtrial Virginia G. Peterson, Gillette, WY.
Judith B wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:07 PM:
I am a criminal justice student. I have read and am familiar with this case. I have been
in school 4 years to be a police and private Investigator. After analyzing this and many other cases- I have decided to change
occupations. The innocent get locked up, pay fines, endure the emotional anguish etc. The guilty are still on the street. This
is what is wrong with our judicial system! I QUIT... take that job and shove it. They don't play by the rules... let alone
listen to the constitution. This has DOUBLE JEOPARDY written all over it. Time for someone to pay him restitution, give his
inventory back, and leave this man alone. I have wasted 4 years and a lot of money on college to try to be a part of the biggest
scam... Our law system... I will take my knowledge elsewhere and put it to good use where people will appreciate my efforts! "
HMC wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:33 AM:
And so what is the Constitution if the state of Wyoming is not going to abide by it??? I am
sure this is the question that by now everyone should be asking. We were driving down Richards street here in Douglas and my 16
year son says to me "See that shop right there by the old Taco John's bldg Mom she sells pipes and lots of other things too."
Well I have never been in there but I will take his word for it. So what does that say about our criminal justice system? Not
much if you ask me. And you can go into just about any gas station and get rolling papers--suppose to be used for rolling your
own cigs but how many people that buy them actually use them for that? I think what is going on with Jeffrey is wrong in so many
ways...and will have to agree that it is very much UN-CONSTITUTIOINAL AND UN-AMERICAN!!! "
Jacob wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:47 PM:
According to one of the earlier articles, from the associated press, "On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer cited a
recent ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The ruling said federal and state charges based on the same facts
are not double jeopardy." (Article located in the blog section of www.myspace.com/unfairtrial) A law that empowers an entity as
large as federal government to violate the same constitution it is sworn to uphold, is deceitful, and hypocritical to say the
very least! There are no exceptions to the Amendments of our constitution, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is dead wrong!
Embracing such a notion contradicts us as the people who enjoy our constitutionally protected rights. The baffling
technicalities of this case, are a perfect illustration of how false hearted our criminal justice system has become. Trying
someone twice, based on the same facts, in any instance, is exactly double jeopardy, no matter what jurisdiction it's in, and
no
matter how you try to justify it! " If you feel as though your civil rights are hanging in the ballance with Jeffrey's, then
please make a contribution to our mission of pointing a generation of young minds in the direction of the truth, by forwarding
our information on to everyone you know, and clicking here! Thank you!
Bradley Snodgrass wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:38 PM: " It's
unconstitutional, and un-American to re-try people in any jurisdiction, even if it is for selling pipes, that may or may not be
used in conjunction with illegal or legal substances. It does not give government the right to violate an individual's
constitutional right to not be put twice in jeopardy for the same offence. If the jury said he wasn't guilty of possession of
drug paraphernalia, and that he wasn't guilty of two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to deliver, the
federal government had no right to re-charge him in a different jurisdiction for knowingly selling drug paraphernalia. It isn't
even in the realm of constitutionality, how many times do you need to be found not guilty, before you're actually considered not
guilty... sounds like a Pollock joke for God sake? We just celebrated our independawhat day? "
Freedom Yeah Right wrote on Jul 7, 2008 3:31 AM:
You can smoke illicit substances out of just about ANYTHING...
including many household items and even FRUIT.
WAL MART sells pipes, rolling papers, aluminum cans, apples, tin foil, plastic pens, and MANY, MANY other items that are used to
abuse and even MANUFACTURE drugs. It seems to me that WAL MART is therefore likely the LARGEST supplier of "Drug Paraphernalia"
IN THE COUNTRY!!! Why don't these idiot prosecutors do their job and go after Wal-Mart then instead of picking on an individual
who has truly done nothing to harm anyone? It's clear that this case should have NEVER gone to trial in the first place, LET
ALONE TWICE!!! This is ridiculous, people. If they can do this to Jeffrey Doles, then you better believe that they can (and WILL
if they get an opportunity) DO IT TO YOU!!! "
cc wrote on Jul 6, 2008 11:20 PM:
There are pipe shops everywhere in the US,
they're all legal! I don't even understand these BOGUS charges they're trying to bring against Doles?
CM Jr. wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:15 AM:
" Bullcrap... Glass pipes? There is a knick-knack shop in Douglas that has the
same things for "Smoking
Accessories". Located next to the old Taco John's on Richards street, again that is in DOUGLAS... The man's not guilty! "
Katherine wrote on Jul 4, 2008 4:43 AM:
Understand first that Jeff's case is a case I'm not familiar with,
including all the
details. Now that being said, about the issue of double jeopardy and constitutional rights, I feel that even though it is a
federal law, states have taken it up to interpret it, as they have done with many laws... Which raises another question which I
will not talk about... It makes me wonder about the effectiveness of the juridical system in Wyoming, and truly about the issue
of his rights being impeded on as a citizen when states and the federal system interpret things differently. As you know, I'm
sure; the federal courts can tend to be strange. I feel that the federal government should not impede upon which that has
already been judged on in the states, because then they are impeding on a state's rights as well as a citizen rights. "
Robert Schirmer wrote on Jul 4, 2008 1:59 AM:
" As far as state and federal charges for whatever reason double
jeopardy seems not to
apply, jet according to the law it does, well I guess it depends on who is paying off the judges and the criminal justice
system, that is just politics! We all know this by now people. Pay attention to whom you vote into office! This case however
lacks the cause for federal charges based on the simple fact that there is no proof that the defendant (Jeffery) was selling
DRUG paraphernalia! Many head shops sell the same piped that are used to smoke herbal tobacco, and the fact that there is
nothing to prove that is not his intent for selling the same pipes many head shops do jus goes to show how corrupt the state of
Wyoming is in it's judicial practices! If you doubt what I am saying go to school and then sit in on a court session or two and
you tell me that I am wrong! I suggest you contact the ACLU who is already investigating Wyoming's judicial system! Trust me on
that. In Wyo. people have no rights!!!! "
Jeffrey wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:15 PM:
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Clarence
Brimmer cited a recent ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in the killing of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol
trooper during a drug raid. The ruling said federal and state charges based on the same facts are not double jeopardy. (It
becomes especially disturbing to discover a public policy, calculated with the deliberate intent of empowering Federal
Government to blatantly disregard your constitutionally guaranteed constitutional right to not "be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." (Bill of Rights, Amendment V, Double Jeopardy) and (double jeopardy is legal, but
unconstitutional!!! representing the U.S. constitution! -Says ACLU of Colorado) "
Jeffrey wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:18 PM: "
'Paraphernalia' was not meant for drugs, jury says Published: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:02 PM MST A store owner arrested on
charges of selling drug paraphernalia has been acquitted of charges that his products were drug related. On Aug. 10, police
confiscated brightly colored pipes, bongs and about 130 similar items from Hip Hop Hippie, a Butler Spaeth store that advertised
"smoking accessories." Officers arrested store owner Jeffrey Doles, 35, when he re-opened the store with an even larger
inventory two days later. They said Doles' products were obvious examples of drug paraphernalia and charged him with delivery of
drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession with intent to deliver drug paraphernalia. But jury members disagreed. When it
came time to reach a verdict Wednesday, they acquitted him in just 30 minutes on all charges. "I wasn't surprised at all,"
Doles
said. "I wasn't doing anything illegal. I was never, not once, doing anything outside the color of the law, never." Doles said
he never advocated smoking marijuana and points out that the products have many legitimate uses. "Just because they're wearing
a
uniform, just because they say it's the law, does not mean it's the law?" he said. But Police Chief Rich Adriaens worries that
jury members looked more at technicalities than the reasonableness of the charges. Adriaens said there's enough leeway in the
law that Gillette residents serving on the jury could have made an important stand against drugs, but they chose to act
differently. (There's enough leeway in the law to charge a man twice for the same crime too. The problem with the system of
things today is leeway in the law, there shouldn't be any! Without leeway in the law you would have lost your job for
publically
chastising the residents serving on the jury for rendering an incorrect or untrue verdict.) Despite the verdict, he said it's
disingenuous to claim that Doles' products don't promote marijuana. He pointed out that bongs and hookahs aren't seen in local
restaurants. "Out of a million instances, if one of those pipes is used for tobacco, does that mean those products are meant
for
tobacco use or for marijuana use?" he asked. "Just because six people found someone not guilty doesn't mean the crime didn't
occur." Nick Carter, Doles' lawyer, said it's important to have checks on what officials deem illegal and the law recognizes
that. Although he said there's always some uncertainty about how a case will pan out, he said he was comfortable with the legal
arguments in this case. "It's kind of a dangerous path when we just start believing whatever law enforcement says is drug
related," Carter said. Doles is already looking forward to setting up shop again. He said he'll start pressing to get his
inventory back in the next week and hopes to open his doors to customers the following week. "I think it's actually going to be
a little easier," he said about starting up the business after five months of lost profits. "Now everyone in Wyoming is going
to
know Hip Hop Hippie is on 610 Butler Spaeth." By JAMES WARDEN Edited by jwd News-Record Writer Live For Today Dream For
Tomorrow! Marshall 6-15-92 to 5-12-07
nighthorse2e wrote on Aug 29, 2008 4:39 PM: I thought this was a joke and something to be
laughed at when I first seen it. I shrugged it off and said to myself so Gillette law enforcement pulled another situation of
trumping up charges. What else is new? Now that I see this little blunder is going federal, I am getting concerned. Tin foil is
used by some to smoke meth. Is it considered paraphernalia? Am I breaking the law for possessing it in my home? What of the
other businesses here in Gillette? If I choose to once again carry another Native American tribal pipe am I going to be a target
of law enforcement? I am getting concerned about my rights here. If we allow this to go through then where does it stop? When
are we going to stand up to the law enforcement and say? That badge does not give you the right to judge and violate our rights
and harbor tools against our freedoms. I remember a day when it was still protect and serve. Not an arena to play politician.
Just like every citizen that I heard speak of this case. What started out as a joke in our eyes is now become a very serious
matter that we can't stop. Lawyers get rich and we the tax payer pay the price. "
READERS COMMENTS: unfairtrial wrote on Sep 2,
2008 7:38 AM:
Doles was found not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, and the case should have ended there, but he
re-opened his store after the trial, and that ticked law enforcement off. Doles petitioned the court to return his pipes after
the jury said that they were not drug paraphernalia, and Campbell County filed a law suit against him, and won the right to
destroy 330 of his pipes, because they were drug paraphernalia... even though the Gillette jury said they were not! Prosecutors
said that the jury found him not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, that they did not say the items themselves were not
drug paraphernalia, they just said he wasn't guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. If he was in possession of those pipes and
the jury said he wasn't guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, wouldn't you assume that they meant those pipes are not drug
paraphernalia? 30 minutes after the law suit was decided in a kangaroo court proceeding, police went back to Hip Hop Hippies
Inc. with the Feds, and confiscated 2500 more pipes, and filed the original charge, along with two other charges in federal
court. Doles is found guilty in federal court according to this article, of three counts of knowingly selling drug
paraphernalia, and one of those counts is the same one he was found not guilty of in state court, but that's not double
jeopardy, because state and feds are separate entities... The 5th amendment of the constitutional bill of rights says you can't
put someone twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and this little separation between state and feds does nothing but open up
the constitution to interpretation, and invites opportunities for selective prosecution just like this. Who are we fooling with
this propaganda about freedom? This country is going to hell, and we're just sitting back letting it happen! Does the
constitution say that you can't put someone twice in jeopardy for the same offense in state court, or does it simply say you
can't put someone twice in jeopardy for the same offense period? Google it! "