Inside Manumit Me’s Fight Against Mass Incarceration and Drug Conspiracy Convictions

Manumit Me is an organization founded with a singular mission: to confront and dismantle oppression in all its forms. Today, its work is centered on what it describes as one of the most pervasive and underexamined injustices in the American legal system—the illegal incarceration of individuals under the banner of drug law enforcement.

At the center of Manumit Me’s current advocacy is the case of Gezo Edwards. But according to the organization, this is not a story about one man alone.

“This is bigger than Gezo,” representatives from Manumit Me emphasize. “It’s about a system that has quietly and deliberately imprisoned countless Americans—disproportionately Black and Brown—without proper constitutional grounding.”

A Case That Raises Larger Questions

Manumit Me argues that what happened to Gezo Edwards mirrors the experiences of many people convicted under federal drug conspiracy laws. The organization alleges that individuals are routinely sentenced to extreme prison terms without ever being charged with—or proven to have committed—an actual drug crime.

In Edwards’ case, Manumit Me claims that public court records show he was never charged with knowingly committing a drug offense, a fundamental requirement under federal law. According to the organization, this lack of due process amounts to unlawful imprisonment—comparable, in their words, to kidnapping or enslavement—masked by the rhetoric of drug enforcement.

Not a Loophole—A Constitutional Failure

Manumit Me stresses that the issue at hand is not a legal technicality or loophole. Instead, they argue it is a failure to meet the constitutional elements required to charge and convict someone of a crime.

Edwards was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison based on a single sentence in a federal indictment. That indictment alleged that he:

“Did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree… to unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally distribute and possess with intent to distribute… cocaine.”

The charge cited conspiracy under federal law, which requires proof that all elements of the underlying crime were knowingly agreed upon.

The Knowledge Requirement at the Center of the Dispute

Under U.S. drug laws, prosecutors must establish that a defendant knew the substance involved was illegal. Manumit Me argues that this requirement applies equally to conspiracy charges—meaning that each element of the crime must be clearly alleged within the context of an agreement.

According to the organization, the indictment against Edwards failed to explicitly allege that he knew the substance involved was illegal. While many assume the wording implies such knowledge, Manumit Me contends that this assumption does not hold up under scrutiny.

To support this claim, the organization consulted an English language expert. The conclusion: a conspiracy is, by definition, an agreement to do something in the future. Knowledge, however, cannot be projected into the future. A person cannot agree in advance to “know” that a substance is illegal.

In simple terms, Manumit Me argues that the indictment’s language was grammatically and logically incapable of establishing one of the most essential elements of a drug crime.

A Systemic Pattern, Not an Isolated Case

Manumit Me believes Edwards’ case highlights a broader, systemic issue within federal drug prosecutions—one that has fueled mass incarceration while enriching institutions and corporations tied to the prison system.

“This is not accidental,” the organization asserts. “It is a deliberate scheme that has devastated families and communities for decades.”

As Manumit Me continues its advocacy, the group is calling for public awareness, legal accountability, and a deeper examination of how drug conspiracy laws are applied—and who they most impact.

For updates on this case follow this social media profile – https://www.instagram.com/manumit_me?igsh=bWo2MjduMjVtaTc1