For Immediate Release: December 7th, 2010
Medical Marijuana Patient Advocates Fight for New Trial in San Diego Dispensary Case
District attorney & court use double jeopardy, deny defense to unfairly convict dispensary operator
San Diego, CA -- Medical marijuana patient advocates filed a motion for a new trial today in the case of Jovan Jackson, who was convicted on September 28th after he was tried for the second time in less than a year on the same charges of marijuana possession and sales. After District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis failed to convict Jackson the first time, she was able to block his use of a medical marijuana defense at the second trial, virtually guaranteeing his conviction. Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group, argues in its motion that double jeopardy and the denial of a defense was used to unfairly convict Jackson. The motion for a new trial will be heard at Jackson's sentencing hearing, currently scheduled for December 15th at 9am before Judge Howard H. Shore.
"Embarrassed by her earlier loss and desperate for a conviction, District Attorney Dumanis manipulated the criminal justice system to unfairly try Jackson a second time," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel, and the attorney who filed Jackson's motion for a new trial. "To make matters worse, the court deprived Jackson of the defense that was used to gain an acquittal in his first trial, and a defense to which he's entitled." In December of 2009, Jackson was acquitted by a jury of marijuana possession and sales charges stemming from a 2008 arrest. By denying Jackson a medical marijuana collective defense at his second trial, the court virtually assured his conviction.
For years Jackson had operated his San Diego medical marijuana dispensary, Answerdam Alternative Care Collective, before being raided in September 2009 by a multi-agency task force dubbed "Operation Green Rx." Although more than 60 people were arrested in several raids coordinated by Dumanis in collaboration with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Jackson was one of only two defendants Dumanis chose to prosecute in state court. The case against the other defendant, Eugene Davidovich, resulted in a jury acquittal of similar charges earlier this year.
Much of the opposition to local distribution from Dumanis and other detractors like Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, who recently lost his bid for Attorney General, is based on an interpretation which holds that patients cannot use money to obtain their medical marijuana, or that "sales" are somehow illegal under state law. This interpretation that patients must take part in the cultivation, must "till the soil," is strenuously held by a few rogue officials despite guidelines issued in 2008 by the California Attorney General's office and legal case law to the contrary. In Jackson's case, the court held that the dispensary operator must cultivate the marijuana sold by the dispensary.
"Jackson should not have been denied a defense and should not be used as a scapegoat for the District Attorney's misguided position that medical marijuana sales are illegal," said Eugene Davidovich, who also heads the San Diego chapter of ASA. In an effort to keep medical marijuana out of Jackson's second trial, Judge Shore ordered people in the audience to remove articles of clothing that displayed an Americans for Safe Access logo, including tote bags carried into the courtroom.
Notably, the San Diego City Council has been working for more than a year on a local medical marijuana distribution law, which would regulate the same activity for which Jackson was convicted. A San Diego grand jury issued recommendations in June calling on city and county governments to implement the state's medical marijuana law. In particular, the grand jury urged development of a "program for the licensing, regulation and periodic inspection of authorized collectives and cooperatives distributing medical marijuana."
Further information:
Jackson's motion for a new trial filed by ASA: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Jackson_New_Trial_Motion.pdf
San Diego grand jury recommendations on medical marijuana: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/grandjury/reports/2009-2010/MedicalMarijuanaReport.pdf
Showing posts with label Medical Cannabis. medical marijuana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medical Cannabis. medical marijuana. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Judge Grants Emergency Injunction against St. Bernard’s Provisions San Marcos Medical Marijuana Collective
By: Eugene Davidovich
SAN MARCOS – On Friday of this week, San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert Dahlquist granted an emergency injunction against St. Bernard’s Provisions medical marijuana collective located in the City of San Marcos in San Diego County forcing the collective to close its doors.
Despite numerous demands by patients, advocates, and concerned citizens, the City of San Marcos has refused to accept Proposition 215 as law and is engaged in a medical marijuana eradication campaign.
In 2006 the San Marcos City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones within the city’s jurisdictional limits and specifically instructed the city’s business tax office not issue permits conditional or otherwise for such use.
Advocates, patients, and concerned citizens alike have called the San Marcos Ban unconstitutional and a slap in the face of California voters who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215 in 1996. Since 1996 support for medical marijuana across California has continued to grow with the most recent polls showing over 70% of Californian’s in support of medical use.
To date this patient eradication campaign has cost the city millions of dollars and has included criminal and civil action against legitimate patients. The latest example in the city’s spending furry is the filing of this restraining order and demand for an “Emergency Injunction” against St. Bernard’s Provisions.
Just in the last couple months the City of San Marcos has spent several hundred thousand dollars on this effort with the cases against MMSC, Inc., and now St. Bernard’s Provisions.
On Friday December 3, members of St. Bernard’s collective were in court for a hearing on the City’s emergency injunction. The courtroom was full with over a dozen supporters, patients, and members of Americans for Safe Access, who took time on a weekday afternoon to show up in support of St. Bernards and against the injunction and illegal ban.
The hearing was scheduled to begin at 2:30 but got underway an hour late. Jeffery Lake of Lake APC, a local medical marijuana law firm which specializes in assisting patients in navigating the state’s medical marijuana laws represented St. Bernard’s Provisions that day.
The hearing began with the Judge going over the city’s complaint. The city was claiming that because St. Bernard’s business license application stated the collective provided “medical provision” rather than “medical marijuana” it was violation of the city’s code. The Judge failed to recognize or even discuss the fact that the city specifically instructed its business license office to deny all applications for medical marijuana dispensaries.
Mr. Lake explained to the Judge that the collective was truthful in their application and in fact was providing medical provisions including medical cannabis to patients and that there was already a hearing set for December 9 with the city to determine if medical provisions could include medical marijuana according to the city’s definition.
Lake also argued that the city had failed to prove that this was an emergency. There had not been a single complaint about the facility, there was no detriment or harm caused to anyone from the collective’s existence, and in fact the city’s action in itself was a detriment. Lake argued the injunction would cause harm to patients, the landlord, and others in the community who directly benefit from safe and reliable access that St. Bernard’s Provisions brought to San Marcos.
The City Attorney hardly spoke at all as she could tell that Judge Dahlquist had made up his mind about the hearing long before it began.
Judge Dahlquist concluded that the collective should have applied for the license as a medical marijuana dispensary and after being denied, should have sued the city for denying it the license intern challenging the city’s ban, rather than “not being truthful in the application”.
In the end after Lake presented countless arguments, facts, and evidence clearly proving there was no justification for the emergency injunction, and that the collective was in fact truthful, Judge Dahlquist still sided with the bias and granted the city’s request forcing the collective to close.
Patients, concerned citizens, and members of the collective alike were disappointed at the decision and vowed to continue the fight for safe access and a reasonable ordinance regulating dispensaries in San Marcos rather than a ban.
SAN MARCOS – On Friday of this week, San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert Dahlquist granted an emergency injunction against St. Bernard’s Provisions medical marijuana collective located in the City of San Marcos in San Diego County forcing the collective to close its doors.
Despite numerous demands by patients, advocates, and concerned citizens, the City of San Marcos has refused to accept Proposition 215 as law and is engaged in a medical marijuana eradication campaign.
In 2006 the San Marcos City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones within the city’s jurisdictional limits and specifically instructed the city’s business tax office not issue permits conditional or otherwise for such use.
Advocates, patients, and concerned citizens alike have called the San Marcos Ban unconstitutional and a slap in the face of California voters who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215 in 1996. Since 1996 support for medical marijuana across California has continued to grow with the most recent polls showing over 70% of Californian’s in support of medical use.
To date this patient eradication campaign has cost the city millions of dollars and has included criminal and civil action against legitimate patients. The latest example in the city’s spending furry is the filing of this restraining order and demand for an “Emergency Injunction” against St. Bernard’s Provisions.
Just in the last couple months the City of San Marcos has spent several hundred thousand dollars on this effort with the cases against MMSC, Inc., and now St. Bernard’s Provisions.
On Friday December 3, members of St. Bernard’s collective were in court for a hearing on the City’s emergency injunction. The courtroom was full with over a dozen supporters, patients, and members of Americans for Safe Access, who took time on a weekday afternoon to show up in support of St. Bernards and against the injunction and illegal ban.
The hearing was scheduled to begin at 2:30 but got underway an hour late. Jeffery Lake of Lake APC, a local medical marijuana law firm which specializes in assisting patients in navigating the state’s medical marijuana laws represented St. Bernard’s Provisions that day.
The hearing began with the Judge going over the city’s complaint. The city was claiming that because St. Bernard’s business license application stated the collective provided “medical provision” rather than “medical marijuana” it was violation of the city’s code. The Judge failed to recognize or even discuss the fact that the city specifically instructed its business license office to deny all applications for medical marijuana dispensaries.
Mr. Lake explained to the Judge that the collective was truthful in their application and in fact was providing medical provisions including medical cannabis to patients and that there was already a hearing set for December 9 with the city to determine if medical provisions could include medical marijuana according to the city’s definition.
Lake also argued that the city had failed to prove that this was an emergency. There had not been a single complaint about the facility, there was no detriment or harm caused to anyone from the collective’s existence, and in fact the city’s action in itself was a detriment. Lake argued the injunction would cause harm to patients, the landlord, and others in the community who directly benefit from safe and reliable access that St. Bernard’s Provisions brought to San Marcos.
The City Attorney hardly spoke at all as she could tell that Judge Dahlquist had made up his mind about the hearing long before it began.
Judge Dahlquist concluded that the collective should have applied for the license as a medical marijuana dispensary and after being denied, should have sued the city for denying it the license intern challenging the city’s ban, rather than “not being truthful in the application”.
In the end after Lake presented countless arguments, facts, and evidence clearly proving there was no justification for the emergency injunction, and that the collective was in fact truthful, Judge Dahlquist still sided with the bias and granted the city’s request forcing the collective to close.
Patients, concerned citizens, and members of the collective alike were disappointed at the decision and vowed to continue the fight for safe access and a reasonable ordinance regulating dispensaries in San Marcos rather than a ban.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
SD County attempts to pass De Facto Ban on Medical Marijuana Facilities
SAN DIEGO - Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 9am the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will meet to discuss and vote on a proposed ordinance regulating medical marijuana facilities in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County.
The proposed ordinance severely limits patients’ access to medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Certain provisions in the proposed regulatory ordinance would not only seriously violate patient confidentiality in these facilities, but also would effectively ban all dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county.
The proposed ordinance severely limits patients’ access to medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Certain provisions in the proposed regulatory ordinance would not only seriously violate patient confidentiality in these facilities, but also would effectively ban all dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county.
Monday, June 14, 2010
COURT SUPPORT TODAY FOR JAMES STACY
Join Steph Sherer, Executive Director and Don Duncan the California Director of Americans for Safe Access in Federal Court today to support James Stacy in his federal Medical Marijuana Trial.
What: Federal hearing on whether dispensary operator James Stacy can use medical marijuana and state law as a defense at trial
When: MONDAY, June 14, 2010 at 2:00pm
Where: Courtroom 15, U.S. District Court, 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA
James Stacy will be in court today for a final hearing to determine what type of defense he will be allowed to present in Federal Court. Stacy’s dispensary was raided on September 9, 2009, by a multi-agency narcotics task force, and will be the first such case to go to trial after the Justice Department issued its enforcement policy in October 2009, a month after the raid. Stacy's trial date will be scheduled Monday June 14th during a hearing at which Stacy will argue he's entitled to admit evidence of state law compliance, something routinely denied federal defendants.
Stacy's dispensary, Movement in Action, was raided along with more than a dozen other San Diego County dispensaries as part of local-federal enforcement actions called, "Operation Green Rx," which resulted in more than 30 arrests. Only Stacy, and one other medical marijuana dispensary operator Joseph Nunes, were charged federally as a result of the raids. Nunes has since pleaded guilty and was recently sentenced to a year in prison.
Because of the government's continued efforts to prosecute medical marijuana patients despite a new Justice department enforcement policy, advocates are urging Members of Congress to pass HR 3939, the Truth in Trials Act, which would allow defendants to use a medical or state law defense in federal court. The Truth in Trials Act currently has more than 30 Congressional cosponsors.
Further Information:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's recent statements before Congress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMCHmU-nFAM
Truth in Trials Act: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/TruthinTrials.pdf
Join ASA – www.safeaccessnow.org
Visit San Diego Chapter of ASA – www.safeaccesssd.org
What: Federal hearing on whether dispensary operator James Stacy can use medical marijuana and state law as a defense at trial
When: MONDAY, June 14, 2010 at 2:00pm
Where: Courtroom 15, U.S. District Court, 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA
James Stacy will be in court today for a final hearing to determine what type of defense he will be allowed to present in Federal Court. Stacy’s dispensary was raided on September 9, 2009, by a multi-agency narcotics task force, and will be the first such case to go to trial after the Justice Department issued its enforcement policy in October 2009, a month after the raid. Stacy's trial date will be scheduled Monday June 14th during a hearing at which Stacy will argue he's entitled to admit evidence of state law compliance, something routinely denied federal defendants.
Stacy's dispensary, Movement in Action, was raided along with more than a dozen other San Diego County dispensaries as part of local-federal enforcement actions called, "Operation Green Rx," which resulted in more than 30 arrests. Only Stacy, and one other medical marijuana dispensary operator Joseph Nunes, were charged federally as a result of the raids. Nunes has since pleaded guilty and was recently sentenced to a year in prison.
Because of the government's continued efforts to prosecute medical marijuana patients despite a new Justice department enforcement policy, advocates are urging Members of Congress to pass HR 3939, the Truth in Trials Act, which would allow defendants to use a medical or state law defense in federal court. The Truth in Trials Act currently has more than 30 Congressional cosponsors.
Further Information:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's recent statements before Congress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMCHmU-nFAM
Truth in Trials Act: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/TruthinTrials.pdf
Join ASA – www.safeaccessnow.org
Visit San Diego Chapter of ASA – www.safeaccesssd.org
Monday, June 7, 2010
Grand Jury Medical Marijuana Report - 2010 - San Diego
After months of investigation and inquiry, the San Diego Grand Jury has finally issues their report on the Medical Marijuana Issue in San Diego. The Grand Jury has made a number of recommendations to the San Diego District Attorney, The Sheriff, and the County Board of Supervisors.
The Grand Jury’s recommendations:
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego District Attorney:
• 10-107: In consultation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and officials of the Police Departments of the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside and San Diego, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-108: In cooperation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Sheriff:
• 10-109: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney and in consultation with officials of the nine municipal police departments in the County, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-110: Adopt clear guidelines for law enforcement personnel so that the rights of legitimate medical marijuana patients will be respected.
• 10-111: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors:
• 10-112: Adopt a cost neutral County program for the licensing, regulation and periodic inspection of authorized collectives and cooperatives distributing medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-113: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries” in the unincorporated areas.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor of the City of San Diego and the City Council of the City of San Diego:
• 10-114: Enact an ordinance creating an immediate moratorium on the opening of additional medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of San Diego, pending the adoption by the Council of guidelines regulating such establishments, as recommended by the Medical Marijuana Task Force with appropriate public input.
• 10-115: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-116: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-117: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-118: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-119: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current ban on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside and Santee:
• 10-120: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-121: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-122: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current moratorium on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Carlsbad, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway and Solana Beach:
• 10-123: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-124: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
The Grand Jury’s recommendations:
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego District Attorney:
• 10-107: In consultation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and officials of the Police Departments of the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside and San Diego, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-108: In cooperation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Sheriff:
• 10-109: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney and in consultation with officials of the nine municipal police departments in the County, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-110: Adopt clear guidelines for law enforcement personnel so that the rights of legitimate medical marijuana patients will be respected.
• 10-111: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors:
• 10-112: Adopt a cost neutral County program for the licensing, regulation and periodic inspection of authorized collectives and cooperatives distributing medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-113: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries” in the unincorporated areas.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor of the City of San Diego and the City Council of the City of San Diego:
• 10-114: Enact an ordinance creating an immediate moratorium on the opening of additional medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of San Diego, pending the adoption by the Council of guidelines regulating such establishments, as recommended by the Medical Marijuana Task Force with appropriate public input.
• 10-115: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-116: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-117: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-118: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-119: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current ban on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside and Santee:
• 10-120: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-121: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-122: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current moratorium on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.
The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Carlsbad, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway and Solana Beach:
• 10-123: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-124: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Presenting Medical MJ Truth in a San Diego - James Stacy Federal Court
SAN DIEGO – Medical marijuana patient, collective director, James Dean Stacy, on May 19th, 2010 at 10:30am will be appearing in San Diego Federal Court. His collective, Movement In Action (www.movementinaction.org) was raided on September 9, 2010, in District Attorney (DA) Bonnie Dumanis’ raids on medical marijuana collectives and Mr. Stacy was arrested, charged in Federal Court, and is now facing a Federal Jury Trial and the possibility of life in prison.
Since the latest round of Operation Green Rx raids began in August of 2008, San Diego DA Dumanis, has lost both cases that went to trial in State Court. Realizing that she stands no chance in state court it seems that she has redirected her efforts and taken a new approach.
Dumanis has enlisted the efforts of US Attorney Karen P. Hewitt, and has filed charges on legitimate patients and collectives in Federal court, going against the standing orders from President Obama not to target legitimate medical marijuana collectives in states where they are legal.
On Wednesday May 19, 2010, history will be made in San Diego, in Courtroom 15, at the Federal Courthouse at 940 Front St. in downtown San Diego, where U.S. Federal Judge Moskowitz will decide if medical marijuana patient James Dean Stacy will be allowed to tell the Truth in his trial.
Mr. Stacy is arguing entrapment by estoppel based on statements made by President Obama during his presidential campaign and then his first year in office, as well as the U. S. Attorney General Holders statements, both of which in summary say that the Federal government would stop prosecutions, investigations, and arrests of legal medical marijuana collective members and patients.
Ignoring this order, and the will of the California voters, Dumanis and Hewitt in partnership with the local Narcotics Task Force arrested 31 collective members in a swat style raid last September, and rumors have it, are planning more ways to harass collectives and patients.
Mr. Stacy, one of those charged federally, refused to be bullied by the prosecutor into a plea deal, and is fighting the charges. His case has the potential to set precedent throughout the state with his defense. Mr. Stacy is asking to simply tell the whole truth to the jury in during his trial.
The Federal government currently does not allow defendants to tell the jury that they are a legitimate medical marijuana patient in compliance with California State law. The mention of this fact is vigorously fought by the prosecutor.
On May 19th we will find out if the jury will be allowed to hear the Whole Truth.
Come out and support Mr. Stacy as he stands up for our rights against the misguided policies of the Federal Government and our bias driven local DA and US Attorney.
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Bonnie’s Raids and Persecutions on Medical Marijuana in San Diego Continue
By: Dan Murphy, San Diego ASA
Many in the community thought that since losing twice at a Jury trial, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ office would reconsider further prosecuting and arresting legitimate medical marijuana patients. Unfortunately this is far from the case.
Laura Reindel of Encinitas is being charged in state court for cultivation and possession of Cannabis, despite her status as a medical marijuana patient. Although raided almost two months ago, Laura has lived with the dread of not knowing if she will be charged until just a couple days ago when she received the letter on District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' letterhead, charging her with two counts.
Laura was raided by the multijurisdictional narcotics task force headed by the DA's office to eradicate medical marijuana from San Diego. She was detained and questioned for many hours as well as having all her medical cannabis and related property seized.
While Laura was alone and confused, being questioned by detectives, several local activists were trying diligently to find her, to voice our discontent. She did not know this at the time but her spirits lightened to see so much Facebook activity after her ordeal was over. People trying to find her to help however they can. She has since become more active in the community by providing court support for several San Diegans persecuted for medical cannabis.
Laura is a spiritual person and is thankful for the support she has received from the community. She looks for the good in people and situations and is currently seeking the silver lining of her current situation. Laura and a co-defendant are scheduled to be arraigned on the 10th of May in San Diego superior Court Department 12. This is another citizen that needs our help. 1:30 to 3:30 please come out and show your support.
This is one of North County's own, so I want to start hearing chatter of carpools to get as many of her neighbors in the court room as necessary.
Laura is now seeking the guidance of council and will be represented in court on the 10th.
A valuable asset that Laura has is her son, who is a documentary film producer and she plans to document her entire process through court.
San Diego elected officials continue to persecute the sick and the kind hearted. Unwilling to respect or observer state laws they target care providers following state laws and guidelines and deprive the patients of their medicine. This is cruel and unusual.
Laura admits that she has considerable anxiety over the outcome of the case even though she was in compliance with state law. She was startled by the police announcing their presence that fateful morning. The police separated Tim and Laura and questioned them both before their eventual release. There were many clones there as there was a cloning class the day previous. There were multiple recommendations on site to justify the number of plants, complying with current guidelines and precedent.
COURT SUPPORT – MAY 10, 2010 – 1:30pm – 3:30pm San Diego Superior Court Department 12, 220 W Broadway, San Diego CA 92101
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Many in the community thought that since losing twice at a Jury trial, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ office would reconsider further prosecuting and arresting legitimate medical marijuana patients. Unfortunately this is far from the case.
Laura Reindel of Encinitas is being charged in state court for cultivation and possession of Cannabis, despite her status as a medical marijuana patient. Although raided almost two months ago, Laura has lived with the dread of not knowing if she will be charged until just a couple days ago when she received the letter on District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' letterhead, charging her with two counts.
Laura was raided by the multijurisdictional narcotics task force headed by the DA's office to eradicate medical marijuana from San Diego. She was detained and questioned for many hours as well as having all her medical cannabis and related property seized.
While Laura was alone and confused, being questioned by detectives, several local activists were trying diligently to find her, to voice our discontent. She did not know this at the time but her spirits lightened to see so much Facebook activity after her ordeal was over. People trying to find her to help however they can. She has since become more active in the community by providing court support for several San Diegans persecuted for medical cannabis.
Laura is a spiritual person and is thankful for the support she has received from the community. She looks for the good in people and situations and is currently seeking the silver lining of her current situation. Laura and a co-defendant are scheduled to be arraigned on the 10th of May in San Diego superior Court Department 12. This is another citizen that needs our help. 1:30 to 3:30 please come out and show your support.
This is one of North County's own, so I want to start hearing chatter of carpools to get as many of her neighbors in the court room as necessary.
Laura is now seeking the guidance of council and will be represented in court on the 10th.
A valuable asset that Laura has is her son, who is a documentary film producer and she plans to document her entire process through court.
San Diego elected officials continue to persecute the sick and the kind hearted. Unwilling to respect or observer state laws they target care providers following state laws and guidelines and deprive the patients of their medicine. This is cruel and unusual.
Laura admits that she has considerable anxiety over the outcome of the case even though she was in compliance with state law. She was startled by the police announcing their presence that fateful morning. The police separated Tim and Laura and questioned them both before their eventual release. There were many clones there as there was a cloning class the day previous. There were multiple recommendations on site to justify the number of plants, complying with current guidelines and precedent.
COURT SUPPORT – MAY 10, 2010 – 1:30pm – 3:30pm San Diego Superior Court Department 12, 220 W Broadway, San Diego CA 92101
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
San Diego ASA Meeting TONIGHT - 4/13 - 6pm Pt. Loma Library
Our monthly meeting will be held TODAY from 6:00PM-7:30pm - 4/13/2010 at the Pt. Loma Public Library located on 3701 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92107
WHAT: Monthly San Diego ASA Meeting
WHEN: April 13, 2010 – 6pm – 7:30pm
WHERE: Pt. Loma Public Library - 3701 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92107
What to expect:
See you there!
Eugene Davidovich
T: 619-621-8446
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
WHAT: Monthly San Diego ASA Meeting
WHEN: April 13, 2010 – 6pm – 7:30pm
WHERE: Pt. Loma Public Library - 3701 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92107
What to expect:
- Latest National News on Medical Marijuana
- San Diego County Ordinance Update
- San Diego City Ordinance / Medical Marijuana Task Force Update
- Attorney Lance Rogers discusses “Code Compliance Visits”
- Attorney Bahar Ansari Discusses People V. Davidovich Trial
- Opportunity to get involved!
- Special Guests
See you there!
Eugene Davidovich
T: 619-621-8446
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Oppose AB 2650 – Protect patients’ access statewide!
April 10th, 2010, Posted by Don Duncan
On Tuesday (April 13, 2010) , the California Assembly Committee on Public Health will discuss AB 2650, bill that would require that medical cannabis collectives, cooperatives, and growers be located at least 1,000 feet away from a laundry list of “sensitive uses” everywhere in the state. The bill was introduced unexpectedly this week by Assembly Member Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo). AB 2650 is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORCA), a law enforcement lobby organization that opposes medical cannabis, and mirrors a controversial ordinance recently adopted in the City of Los Angeles.
ASA opposes AB 2650, and we are calling on our members in California to tell their Assembly representatives on the committee to vote no. Find out if your Assembly representative is on the Public Health Committee, and tell him or her to oppose AB 2650!
AB 2650 requires legal collectives and cooperatives to be located more than 1,000 feet from schools, parks, libraries, places of worship, child care facilities, youth centers, drug treatment centers, and other collectives or cooperatives. This is unnecessary to protect public welfare, and will make finding a location for a legal collective or cooperative unduly burdensome in most jurisdictions. It also serves to usurp the authority of city and county government to make ordinary land use decisions based on the local circumstances.
ASA is the nation’s largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research. We work in partnership with state, local and national legislators to overcome barriers and create policies that improve access to cannabis for patients and researchers. Crime statistics and the accounts of local officials surveyed by ASA indicate that crime is actually reduced by the presence of a collective; and complaints from citizens and surrounding businesses are either negligible or are significantly reduced with the implementation of local regulations.
In Oakland, where collectives have been licensed since 2004, City Administrator Barbara Killey, notes that “The areas around the dispensaries may be some of the safest areas of Oakland now because of the level of security, surveillance, etc…since the ordinance passed.” In the City of Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck told reporters and the City Council that the claim that patients’ associations attract crime “doesn’t really bear out.” In fact, the overall crime rate in Los Angeles dropped during the proliferation of collectives and cooperatives in that city. Given that effective local regulations address public safety concerns, there is no public safety rationale for a statewide policy keeping collectives and cooperatives away from sensitive uses.
This is not just an issue of public safety. Most of California’s legal medical cannabis patients rely on dispensing collectives or cooperatives to obtain the doctor-recommended medicine they need to treat the symptoms of HIV/AIDS, cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, chronic pain, and other serious illnesses. These patients’ associations are legal under California law, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown published guidelines in August 2008 that state “a properly organized and operated collective of cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law,” provided the facility substantially complies with the guidelines. It is already hard enough to find a location for a legally organized and operated medical cannabis association. AB 2650 will make this task even more difficult – thus diminishing safe and legal access to medicine in communities statewide.
A restriction like that imposed by AB 2650 may be motivated by a misunderstanding about the state law concerning patients’ associations or by ambivalence about medical cannabis use in general. ASA calls on members of the Public Safety Committee to look past the stigma that sometimes underlies the debate about medical cannabis regulations, and to vote no on AB 2650 – a bill that is unnecessary for public welfare, interferes in local regulation, and is harmful to legal medical cannabis patients.
Find out if your Assembly representative is on the Public Safety Committee and what you can do to help.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Davidovich: My Medical Marijuana Case Continues Post-Trial
Davidovich: My Medical Marijuana Case Continues Post-Trial
SDNN - 4/9/2010
In a resounding defeat of San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a jury of 12 on March 25 found me not guilty on all counts, after less than four hours of deliberation. The jurors unanimously determined that I acted lawfully and in accordance with state law when it came to all the charges against me; sales, possession, transportation and possession of concentrated cannabis.
They also had a thing or two to say about the D.A.’s investigation and prosecution in this case.
After the verdict was read, two jurors met me outside the courtroom and said, “Eugene, we all believed in you, you are a good man.” Days after the trial, I received an e-mail from another juror in my case, a part of which reads, “This was the most ridiculous thing that I have ever seen! Shame on the SDPD! The reason that we decided in your favor was because the prosecutor just didn’t prove her case (she was so annoying), and the police work on your case was nothing but shoddy. I just want to let you know that I am so sorry that you had to go through this nightmare.”
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-04-09/blog/a-more-perfect-union/davidovich-my-medical-marijuana-case-continues-post-trial#ixzz0ke50VHi1
SDNN - 4/9/2010
In a resounding defeat of San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a jury of 12 on March 25 found me not guilty on all counts, after less than four hours of deliberation. The jurors unanimously determined that I acted lawfully and in accordance with state law when it came to all the charges against me; sales, possession, transportation and possession of concentrated cannabis.
They also had a thing or two to say about the D.A.’s investigation and prosecution in this case.
After the verdict was read, two jurors met me outside the courtroom and said, “Eugene, we all believed in you, you are a good man.” Days after the trial, I received an e-mail from another juror in my case, a part of which reads, “This was the most ridiculous thing that I have ever seen! Shame on the SDPD! The reason that we decided in your favor was because the prosecutor just didn’t prove her case (she was so annoying), and the police work on your case was nothing but shoddy. I just want to let you know that I am so sorry that you had to go through this nightmare.”
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-04-09/blog/a-more-perfect-union/davidovich-my-medical-marijuana-case-continues-post-trial#ixzz0ke50VHi1
Tiffani Kjeldergaard’s “RETURN OF PROPERTY MOTION”
By: Tiffani Kjeldergaard
Medical Marijuana patient and “Pot Farmer” (as the San Diego sheriffs office stated in their press release June 20, 2009), Potrero resident Tiffani Kjeldergaard went to court, April 2, 2010 to request her medical marijuana medicine be returned from San Diego’s District Attorney.
Kjeldergaard was arrested on June 20, 2009 for growing and using her medical marijuana while on probation. During a probation check at her residence, Kjeldergaard was awakened from her Saturday afternoon nap by 7 sheriff officers and 2 probation officers entering the bedroom. She was instantly handcuffed and the home was searched. Officers saw Kjeldergaard’s smoking utensils and some marijuana and a small garden of 7 plants under 2 inches tall. Several clone cuttings were also present but law enforcement does not consider them plants unless they have a root ball.
Kjeldergaard has had her physician Dr. Sterner’s and his verbal and written recommendations dating back to 2005. She has been a patient of his since then and her disease would never decrease in the painful stages, it is aprogressive disease resulting in physical disabilities.
Kjeldergaard was taken to Las Colinas women’s facility in Santee where she remained on a “No Bail Hold” which means her duration was unknown. After several court appearances, a lockdown of Swine Flu that cancelled court dates 30 days, represented by a public defender named Michael Berberich, Kjeldergaard was coerced to plead guilty by her attorney.
San Diego East County court has a strange way of doing things, you are to plead guilty first and they will tell you your consequence after. No knowledge of your fate is given prior to your plea. That seems wrong and illegal.
Mr. Berberich convinced Kjeldergaard to comply. She pled guilty. She was then disclosed that the San Diego probation department was recommending 3 years in a state correctional facility…that meant prison!
Kjeldergaard suffers from several injuries that are horse related, she has an auto immune disease called Rheumatoid arthritis and she has a shoulder replacement that troubles her daily. Kjeldergaard is also on Methotrexate (a chemotherapy drug for the disease) and suffers digestion and appetite issues.
Kjeldergaard suffered in the jail for 132 days. She was not given her Marinol, vicodin and trazadone as prescribed by her physician Dr. Peter Hein of Kaiser- Bostonia, nor was she given her Methotrexate or Plaquenil as prescribed by her physician Dr. Motomedi of Kaiser- Baker Hill. Her health deteriorated in the cold and damp cells and she had pain every minute of every day.
After several weeks of court dates and continuances Kjeldergaard had been spending her time in the law library at the jail. She discovered enough legal support of innocence to provide her attorney Michael Berberich, at that time she requested to withdraw her plea of guilty and requested that the judge be able to review her new findings, and possibly release her dropping all charges. Berberich refused.
Kjeldergaard fired Mr. Michael Berberich and retained James Pasto Esq. He presented the information to the judge yet, the judge ordered Kjeldergaard’s release date is October 29, 2009 as a sentence.
Upon release Kjeldergaard went to all her doctors for continued pain she started having in the jail. Excruciating body aches like she is bruised all over and she loses the use of her arms for periods of time because the pain to lift them is excruciating. Kjeldergaard’s physician Dr. Motomedi is a rheumatologist for Kaiser and she diagnosed Kjeldergaard with Fibromyalgia which is a terribly painful chronic problem that will never go away. Kjeldergaard requested a motion to the San Diego Superior Court for a probation modification that would allow her the use and possession of medical marijuana, pursuant to the People v Tilehkooh case. Kjeldergaard was granted the right to have medical marijuana with the condition that San Diego probation department finds the recommendation valid.
Upon meeting with probation immediately after court, Kjeldergaard was told by her probation officer Jo Lane that the recommendation was not considered valid. Lane explained that if Kjeldergaard has any prescription medication without a prescription, it is illegal. Lane stated that the recommendation was only considered valid if Kjeldergaard had a county MMJ card. Although the card is a voluntary program, Kjeldergaard was forced to have to retain one in order to be able to use her healthiest pain medicine.
Kjeldergaard was suffering and continuously getting sick from only having opiates as a pain relief. She does not like the effects that the opiates have on her thoughts and concentration, her concern that the drugs are causing damage to her kidneys, stomach and liver or enlarging her heart are all valid. Her worries about an increasing need for more and more pills to help her pain and how it would become too much on her low immune system and she’d become very ill and die. Medical Marijuana did for her what all the vicodin could do and without the damage to organs in her body or risks to her life.
Kjeldergaard received her county card and brought it to San Diego probation department and was instructed by Jo Lane the she was now allowed to have her medical marijuana possession and medicate once again. Yet she was legal and within her rights on the day of her arrest. Kjeldergaard requested her bongs, pipes, and marijuana be returned at which point the probation department scheduled a day and handed over her bongs and pipes. Probation said the marijuana was not available to hand over and I would need a court order to get it back from the DEA.
Kjeldergaard has enjoyed her victory of getting her bongs and pipes back. She is still terrified to own or grow any medical marijuana for fear of another arrest. Kjeldergaard stated, “People tell me, Tiff you should grow a big garden and smoke all you want you are legal now you got your card!” I tell them, “Hell I was legal the day they took me away for 4 months! I don’t fricken believe them”
Kjeldergaard’s home and ranch have been raided 3 times since her release and she has not been taken into custody. Kjeldergaard believes, “It is a violation of our 8th Amendment Bill of Rights that myself and other patients are being subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” in that we are forced to suffer without our medical marijuana. Forced to take opiates, use alcohol, maybe other drugs, that in a not so far off future will kill us or destroy our lives.”
On April 2, 2010, Kjeldergaard return of property motion was granted for all items with the exception of the marijuana. Kjeldergaard received her grow equip, books, medical recommendation, and other Proposition 215 and SB420 papers and guidelines all of which were seized. No plants or dried product was returned. Kjeldergaard’s attorney Mike Dealy is filing a writ, to appeal the return of cannabis plants and dried cannabis.
On another note, Judge Deddeh did not feel comfortable determining if it was a violation of Kjeldergaard’s civil rights when probation added the "Not to use marijuana with or without a recommendation". The Judge supported that it was not lawful just in the fact he would not rule that it was legal.
Kjeldergaard’s attorney was pleased and felt there is enough on the record to be reviewed.
Visit http://www.flyingpaintranch.com/FREE_2_FARM_420_Medical_Marijuana.htm for more information about Tiffany’s case!
Medical Marijuana patient and “Pot Farmer” (as the San Diego sheriffs office stated in their press release June 20, 2009), Potrero resident Tiffani Kjeldergaard went to court, April 2, 2010 to request her medical marijuana medicine be returned from San Diego’s District Attorney.
Kjeldergaard was arrested on June 20, 2009 for growing and using her medical marijuana while on probation. During a probation check at her residence, Kjeldergaard was awakened from her Saturday afternoon nap by 7 sheriff officers and 2 probation officers entering the bedroom. She was instantly handcuffed and the home was searched. Officers saw Kjeldergaard’s smoking utensils and some marijuana and a small garden of 7 plants under 2 inches tall. Several clone cuttings were also present but law enforcement does not consider them plants unless they have a root ball.
Kjeldergaard has had her physician Dr. Sterner’s and his verbal and written recommendations dating back to 2005. She has been a patient of his since then and her disease would never decrease in the painful stages, it is a
Kjeldergaard was taken to Las Colinas women’s facility in Santee where she remained on a “No Bail Hold” which means her duration was unknown. After several court appearances, a lockdown of Swine Flu that cancelled court dates 30 days, represented by a public defender named Michael Berberich, Kjeldergaard was coerced to plead guilty by her attorney.
San Diego East County court has a strange way of doing things, you are to plead guilty first and they will tell you your consequence after. No knowledge of your fate is given prior to your plea. That seems wrong and illegal.
Mr. Berberich convinced Kjeldergaard to comply. She pled guilty. She was then disclosed that the San Diego probation department was recommending 3 years in a state correctional facility…that meant prison!
Kjeldergaard suffers from several injuries that are horse related, she has an auto immune disease called Rheumatoid arthritis and she has a shoulder replacement that troubles her daily. Kjeldergaard is also on Methotrexate (a chemotherapy drug for the disease) and suffers digestion and appetite issues.
Kjeldergaard suffered in the jail for 132 days. She was not given her Marinol, vicodin and trazadone as prescribed by her physician Dr. Peter Hein of Kaiser- Bostonia, nor was she given her Methotrexate or Plaquenil as prescribed by her physician Dr. Motomedi of Kaiser- Baker Hill. Her health deteriorated in the cold and damp cells and she had pain every minute of every day.
After several weeks of court dates and continuances Kjeldergaard had been spending her time in the law library at the jail. She discovered enough legal support of innocence to provide her attorney Michael Berberich, at that time she requested to withdraw her plea of guilty and requested that the judge be able to review her new findings, and possibly release her dropping all charges. Berberich refused.
Kjeldergaard fired Mr. Michael Berberich and retained James Pasto Esq. He presented the information to the judge yet, the judge ordered Kjeldergaard’s release date is October 29, 2009 as a sentence.
Upon release Kjeldergaard went to all her doctors for continued pain she started having in the jail. Excruciating body aches like she is bruised all over and she loses the use of her arms for periods of time because the pain to lift them is excruciating. Kjeldergaard’s physician Dr. Motomedi is a rheumatologist for Kaiser and she diagnosed Kjeldergaard with Fibromyalgia which is a terribly painful chronic problem that will never go away. Kjeldergaard requested a motion to the San Diego Superior Court for a probation modification that would allow her the use and possession of medical marijuana, pursuant to the People v Tilehkooh case. Kjeldergaard was granted the right to have medical marijuana with the condition that San Diego probation department finds the recommendation valid.
Upon meeting with probation immediately after court, Kjeldergaard was told by her probation officer Jo Lane that the recommendation was not considered valid. Lane explained that if Kjeldergaard has any prescription medication without a prescription, it is illegal. Lane stated that the recommendation was only considered valid if Kjeldergaard had a county MMJ card. Although the card is a voluntary program, Kjeldergaard was forced to have to retain one in order to be able to use her healthiest pain medicine.
Kjeldergaard was suffering and continuously getting sick from only having opiates as a pain relief. She does not like the effects that the opiates have on her thoughts and concentration, her concern that the drugs are causing damage to her kidneys, stomach and liver or enlarging her heart are all valid. Her worries about an increasing need for more and more pills to help her pain and how it would become too much on her low immune system and she’d become very ill and die. Medical Marijuana did for her what all the vicodin could do and without the damage to organs in her body or risks to her life.
Kjeldergaard received her county card and brought it to San Diego probation department and was instructed by Jo Lane the she was now allowed to have her medical marijuana possession and medicate once again. Yet she was legal and within her rights on the day of her arrest. Kjeldergaard requested her bongs, pipes, and marijuana be returned at which point the probation department scheduled a day and handed over her bongs and pipes. Probation said the marijuana was not available to hand over and I would need a court order to get it back from the DEA.
Kjeldergaard has enjoyed her victory of getting her bongs and pipes back. She is still terrified to own or grow any medical marijuana for fear of another arrest. Kjeldergaard stated, “People tell me, Tiff you should grow a big garden and smoke all you want you are legal now you got your card!” I tell them, “Hell I was legal the day they took me away for 4 months! I don’t fricken believe them”
Kjeldergaard’s home and ranch have been raided 3 times since her release and she has not been taken into custody. Kjeldergaard believes, “It is a violation of our 8th Amendment Bill of Rights that myself and other patients are being subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” in that we are forced to suffer without our medical marijuana. Forced to take opiates, use alcohol, maybe other drugs, that in a not so far off future will kill us or destroy our lives.”
On April 2, 2010, Kjeldergaard return of property motion was granted for all items with the exception of the marijuana. Kjeldergaard received her grow equip, books, medical recommendation, and other Proposition 215 and SB420 papers and guidelines all of which were seized. No plants or dried product was returned. Kjeldergaard’s attorney Mike Dealy is filing a writ, to appeal the return of cannabis plants and dried cannabis.
On another note, Judge Deddeh did not feel comfortable determining if it was a violation of Kjeldergaard’s civil rights when probation added the "Not to use marijuana with or without a recommendation". The Judge supported that it was not lawful just in the fact he would not rule that it was legal.
Kjeldergaard’s attorney was pleased and felt there is enough on the record to be reviewed.
Visit http://www.flyingpaintranch.com/FREE_2_FARM_420_Medical_Marijuana.htm for more information about Tiffany’s case!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Take Action Today! Send San Diego County a Letter RE Proposed MMJ Ordinance
TODAY, we need everyone to email the below letter to all of the following email addresses:
joseph.farace@sdcounty.ca.gov
dplu@sdcounty.ca.gov
Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
Although the official Public Input deadline has passed, we still have time to let the Supervisors and those responsible for developing medical marijuana regulations in the county know that the community wants to see a legal, constitutional ordinance, that keeps patients interest at forefront, not local law enforcement.
Write your own letter, use the letter below as a template, or ask a friend to help you write one, but don’t just idly sit by while the County of San Diego attempts to subvert the will of the people. The City of San Diego is on the right track to sensible regulations as they have created a Task Force that has patients and members of the community on it, all of whom have weighed and came up with recommendations for the San Diego City Council.
Why has the County of San Diego refused to adopt their own task force or to follow the recommendations of the San Diego City task force? I believe the answer is, they want to quickly adopt an ordinance which will influence all the other small cities in the county to follow suit which intern may weigh heavily on the Ordinance the City of San Diego is developing. The official excuse is they are trying to hurry in time for the moratorium currently enacted in the unincorporated areas of the county to expire.
We need to stay involved and on top of both the San Diego County regulation development process, as well as the development of such ordinances in every city within the county. Take 10 minutes today to send the below letter to the supervisors. If you have already sent them a letter, send them a follow up to see what they are doing to change the proposed ordinance.
Thanks,
Eugene Davidovich
www.safeaccesssd.org
_______________________________________
April 5, 2010
Eric Gibson
Director, Department of Planning and Land Use
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Diego, CA 92101
dplu@sdcounty.ca.gov
RE: MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES COUNTY CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE (POD 09-007), REQUEST TO EXTEND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO APRIL 30, 2010
To Mr. Gibson:
As a resident of San Diego County, I am writing to request an extension of the 30-day public comment period regarding the Department of Planning and Land Use’s Medical Marijuana Collectives County Code and Zoning Ordinance (POD 09-007) until April 30, 2010.
Although the plan may have technically been available to the public on March 3, 2010 – the date of the memo – medical marijuana patients and advocates only became aware of it upon being contacted by a North County Times reporter Monday, March 29, 2010.
It is hard to imagine that this very limited level of exposure to the public would satisfy the Department that it had allowed for 30 days of public comment.
Moreover, the Department’s draft ordinance clearly suffers from a lack of input. The excessively strict nature of the ordinance suggests that the county failed to consult with any patients or caregivers at all. Patients would most certainly have pointed out the following concerns:
The ordinance is a de facto ban. A rule that would restrict dispensaries from existing within 1,000 feet from a laundry list of so-called “sensitive uses,” including any residence, makes this ordinance a de facto ban. This would relegate facilities to remote, outlying areas, making it difficult for patients to access their medicine, especially those with mobility issues.
The ordinance puts the wrong agency in charge. The licensing authority should not be the Sheriff's Department, but the County Department of Health or other more appropriate agency.
The ordinance fails to protect patient privacy. Draft provisions would allow the Sheriff’s Department unfettered access (without subpoena) to private patient records, financial transaction records, and records indicating the source of supply of medical marijuana. Such provisions place both patients and providers at risk of unnecessary local and, more significantly, federal interference.
The ordinance unnecessarily restricts patient choice. Many patients have trouble smoking marijuana or simply prefer not to smoke it. The restriction against edible forms of marijuana is unnecessary. It directly conflicts with patient needs without any demonstrable benefit to the community.
The ordinance discriminates against people with a prior conviction. A past felony conviction does not prevent illness, nor should it be a barrier to medical care – or be used to restrict a person’s lawful, collective participation with other medical marijuana patients. This is not least because many patients have a past conviction for activity that has been deemed lawful since 1996 under the Compassionate Use Act.
Only clear regulations developed with the input of all concerned parties can balance the needs of the whole community – to both ensure safe access to medical marijuana and address public order concerns.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Department of Planning and Land Use to extend the public comment period on the Medical Marijuana Collectives County Code and Zoning Ordinance (POD 09-007) until April 30, 2010.
Respectfully,
[YOUR NAME
AND ADDRESS]
Cc: Supervisors, San Diego County Board
Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
Jonathan Farace
joseph.farace@sdcounty.ca.gov
joseph.farace@sdcounty.ca.gov
dplu@sdcounty.ca.gov
Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
Although the official Public Input deadline has passed, we still have time to let the Supervisors and those responsible for developing medical marijuana regulations in the county know that the community wants to see a legal, constitutional ordinance, that keeps patients interest at forefront, not local law enforcement.
Write your own letter, use the letter below as a template, or ask a friend to help you write one, but don’t just idly sit by while the County of San Diego attempts to subvert the will of the people. The City of San Diego is on the right track to sensible regulations as they have created a Task Force that has patients and members of the community on it, all of whom have weighed and came up with recommendations for the San Diego City Council.
Why has the County of San Diego refused to adopt their own task force or to follow the recommendations of the San Diego City task force? I believe the answer is, they want to quickly adopt an ordinance which will influence all the other small cities in the county to follow suit which intern may weigh heavily on the Ordinance the City of San Diego is developing. The official excuse is they are trying to hurry in time for the moratorium currently enacted in the unincorporated areas of the county to expire.
We need to stay involved and on top of both the San Diego County regulation development process, as well as the development of such ordinances in every city within the county. Take 10 minutes today to send the below letter to the supervisors. If you have already sent them a letter, send them a follow up to see what they are doing to change the proposed ordinance.
Thanks,
Eugene Davidovich
www.safeaccesssd.org
_______________________________________
April 5, 2010
Eric Gibson
Director, Department of Planning and Land Use
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Diego, CA 92101
dplu@sdcounty.ca.gov
RE: MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES COUNTY CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE (POD 09-007), REQUEST TO EXTEND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO APRIL 30, 2010
To Mr. Gibson:
As a resident of San Diego County, I am writing to request an extension of the 30-day public comment period regarding the Department of Planning and Land Use’s Medical Marijuana Collectives County Code and Zoning Ordinance (POD 09-007) until April 30, 2010.
Although the plan may have technically been available to the public on March 3, 2010 – the date of the memo – medical marijuana patients and advocates only became aware of it upon being contacted by a North County Times reporter Monday, March 29, 2010.
It is hard to imagine that this very limited level of exposure to the public would satisfy the Department that it had allowed for 30 days of public comment.
Moreover, the Department’s draft ordinance clearly suffers from a lack of input. The excessively strict nature of the ordinance suggests that the county failed to consult with any patients or caregivers at all. Patients would most certainly have pointed out the following concerns:
The ordinance is a de facto ban. A rule that would restrict dispensaries from existing within 1,000 feet from a laundry list of so-called “sensitive uses,” including any residence, makes this ordinance a de facto ban. This would relegate facilities to remote, outlying areas, making it difficult for patients to access their medicine, especially those with mobility issues.
The ordinance puts the wrong agency in charge. The licensing authority should not be the Sheriff's Department, but the County Department of Health or other more appropriate agency.
The ordinance fails to protect patient privacy. Draft provisions would allow the Sheriff’s Department unfettered access (without subpoena) to private patient records, financial transaction records, and records indicating the source of supply of medical marijuana. Such provisions place both patients and providers at risk of unnecessary local and, more significantly, federal interference.
The ordinance unnecessarily restricts patient choice. Many patients have trouble smoking marijuana or simply prefer not to smoke it. The restriction against edible forms of marijuana is unnecessary. It directly conflicts with patient needs without any demonstrable benefit to the community.
The ordinance discriminates against people with a prior conviction. A past felony conviction does not prevent illness, nor should it be a barrier to medical care – or be used to restrict a person’s lawful, collective participation with other medical marijuana patients. This is not least because many patients have a past conviction for activity that has been deemed lawful since 1996 under the Compassionate Use Act.
Only clear regulations developed with the input of all concerned parties can balance the needs of the whole community – to both ensure safe access to medical marijuana and address public order concerns.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Department of Planning and Land Use to extend the public comment period on the Medical Marijuana Collectives County Code and Zoning Ordinance (POD 09-007) until April 30, 2010.
Respectfully,
[YOUR NAME
AND ADDRESS]
Cc: Supervisors, San Diego County Board
Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
Jonathan Farace
joseph.farace@sdcounty.ca.gov
Monday, March 29, 2010
Americans for Safe Access reaction to SD County Proposed Ordinance
By: Kris Hermes (ASA), Eugene Davidovich (SD ASA)
San Diego County Board of Supervisors issued a proposed ordinance that they would like to see adopted in the County of San Diego. The ordinance is supposed to provide guidelines, regulations, and zoning for medical marijuana dispensing collectives and cooperatives.
This proposed ordinance instead of helping regulate medical marijuana in the county, would work to restrict and eliminate safe reliable access for patients most in need of the medicine their physicians have recommended they use.
Americans for Safe Access has several specific concerns with the proposed ordinance:
1. Most of the recent ordinances adopted in California employ departments of health or other non-law enforcement agencies to administer their local medical marijuana dispensary laws. This is not the case with this ordinance. The licensing authority should not be the Sheriff's Department, and should be replaced by the County Department of Health or other more appropriate agency.
2. One of the main reasons for authorizing departments of health to administer such programs is that it's important to have patient needs respected and to have local laws implemented and enforced with patients needs at the heart of such laws. A perfect example of this is the provisions that allow the sheriff unfettered access (without subpoena) to: private patient records, financial transaction records, and records indicating the source of supply of medical marijuana. Such provisions place both patients and providers at risk of unnecessary local and, more importantly, federal interference. If the feds can subpoena this information (or if it's willingly delivered by local law enforcement), there is risk of arrest and prosecution. Given the track record of the sheriff and other law enforcement agencies in San Diego regarding enforcement of state law, there is every reason to believe that this authority and access to private information will be abused.
3. Another provision in this ordinance would ban edible medical marijuana. Why would the county prohibit the ingestion of medical marijuana edible products for those patients that have trouble smoking it or simply choose to eat their medicine? This is an unnecessary restriction that would otherwise provide patients with alternative methods of ingestion. Edibles are currently permitted and provided to patients at hundreds of dispensaries across the state.
4. Another provision that is unnecessarily problematic is the prohibition on anyone operating a dispensary who has been convicted of a felony. While some localities include provisions prohibiting violent felons from operating a dispensary, there is no need to exclude all persons with felony convictions, especially since many patients have criminal records based on activity that is now lawful, but was deemed illegal prior to the passage of the Compassionate Use Act.
5. Finally and most importantly, is the provision restricting dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet from a laundry list of so-called "sensitive uses," such as schools, churches, parks, etc. While this seems to be a trend among localities that have adopted dispensary ordinances, it is a very onerous requirement that would relegate facilities to remote, outlying areas, making it difficult for patients to access their medicine, especially those with mobility issues. The restriction on locating within 1,000 feet of a residence is perhaps the most onerous provision of the ordinance, making it a de facto ban. The only other ordinance in the state that restrict the proximity to residences is that of the City of Los Angeles, and it remains to be seen whether ANY dispensaries will be able to relocate in accordance with that ordinance, leading many to call it a de facto ban.
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) as well as the San Diego Chapter of ASA are greatly concerned about this restrictive ordinance. We urge the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to develop a policy which takes into consideration patients’ needs, rather than the desires, fears, and bias of law enforcement.
Please email the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and ask that they revise the ordinance.
KEY DATES:
- Public Review of Proposed Ordinance: March 3, 2010 - April 2, 2010
- San Diego County Planning Commission Vote on Proposed Ordinance: May 14, 2010
- Board of Supervisors vote on Proposed Ordinance: June 23, 2010
--------------------------------------------
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
ATTEMPT BY SD COUNTY TO ERADICATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA
San Diego County has been at the forefront of overturning proposition 215 and SB420. This fight has included a case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court in a resounding defeat for the county. Still, the San Diego County board refuses to respect state law. In an attempt to effectively zone out and ban access to medicine for patients in San Diego, the county has issued a proposed ordinance:
READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE HERE:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/POD_09-007_Medical_Marijuana.pdf
This proposed County ordinance would require that ALL transaction between patients be recorded onto video and turned over to the Sheriff. The ordinance also requires that patients names, birth dates, and other private information be turned over to the Sheriff upon request.
Please read this document carefully and write to the board with your concerns. San Diego ASA believes that if this ordinance were to pass, it would be unconstitutional and an anlawfull modification to Proposition 215 as well as Senate Bill 420.
We only have a couple days left for input as the public input ends in April on this ordinance.
The county did a good job hiding this from the public and we need to let them know, we will not stand for a defacto ban. We want safe, regulated access.
Write the Supervisors and let them know how you feel about this ordinance:
Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
San Diego Americans for Safe AccessT: 619-621-8446
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE HERE:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/POD_09-007_Medical_Marijuana.pdf
This proposed County ordinance would require that ALL transaction between patients be recorded onto video and turned over to the Sheriff. The ordinance also requires that patients names, birth dates, and other private information be turned over to the Sheriff upon request.
Please read this document carefully and write to the board with your concerns. San Diego ASA believes that if this ordinance were to pass, it would be unconstitutional and an anlawfull modification to Proposition 215 as well as Senate Bill 420.
We only have a couple days left for input as the public input ends in April on this ordinance.
The county did a good job hiding this from the public and we need to let them know, we will not stand for a defacto ban. We want safe, regulated access.
Write the Supervisors and let them know how you feel about this ordinance:
Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
San Diego Americans for Safe AccessT: 619-621-8446
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Saturday, March 20, 2010
JOSEPH NUNES SENTENCING - April 19th - 9:30am – 940 Front St. San Diego CA 92101
Joseph Nunes sentencing has been postponed to April 19th at 9:30 am. Mr. Nunes is a victim of the continued eradication efforts of the San Diego District Attorney and the DEA. He has been charged in Federal court and forced to agree to a plea bargain to avoid years of incarceration for something that is legal under state law. He is one of the founding members of the Kush Lounge and Green Cross collective that was raided during the September 9th 2009 Narcotics Task Force round of raids.
San Diego ASA recently spoke to Mr. Nunes to find out what the current status of his case is, and when the new sentencing date will be. Mr Nunes told us that he has requested some more time to get his personal affairs in order. Mr Nunes is asking the judge for probation and his attorney Mr. Jim Warner is confident that the judge will see through the bias driven persecution and reduce the sentencing guideline of 27-33 months to probation.
The sentencing has been continued to 4/19 at 9:30am in front of Judge Burns. (940 Front St. San Diego CA)
Please mark your calendars and show Joseph your support by coming to court and packing the courtroom and sending a strong message with our presence that we do not support ANY jail time for Joseph.
T: 619-621-8446
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
San Diego ASA recently spoke to Mr. Nunes to find out what the current status of his case is, and when the new sentencing date will be. Mr Nunes told us that he has requested some more time to get his personal affairs in order. Mr Nunes is asking the judge for probation and his attorney Mr. Jim Warner is confident that the judge will see through the bias driven persecution and reduce the sentencing guideline of 27-33 months to probation.
The sentencing has been continued to 4/19 at 9:30am in front of Judge Burns. (940 Front St. San Diego CA)
Please mark your calendars and show Joseph your support by coming to court and packing the courtroom and sending a strong message with our presence that we do not support ANY jail time for Joseph.
T: 619-621-8446
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Friday, March 19, 2010
March 26th National day of protest
WHEN: 12noon – 2pm March, 26 2010
WHERE: 940 Front Street San Diego CA
WHAT: National Day of Protest against NTF and DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and collectives.
In one week we will have the opportunity to tell those who seek to rule over us that we are not happy with the way they are treating us. The raids by the DEA and NTF of San Diego are not acceptable and we want them to stop! There is no reason for the NTF to be cross sworn except to violate state law. We voted to legalize medical marijuana 14 years ago. The DEA refuses to go by science and what the medical profession has said. Here in San Diego we have a Narcotics Task Force that has been cross sworn so they can violate state law as well as give any confiscated medicine to the DEA so they do not have to return it when the victim is found not guilty or not charged.
On March 26th from 12 noon to 2:00pm we will be meeting at 940 Front st to protest the illegal raids by the DEA on medical marijuana as well as the refusal of San Diego to recognise Prop 215 and SB420.
Please send this call to action to everyone in your contact list.
It is time for everyone to come out of the Cannabis Closet
Thank You
James Dean Stacy
movementinaction@gmail.com
www.movementinaction.org
WHERE: 940 Front Street San Diego CA
WHAT: National Day of Protest against NTF and DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and collectives.
In one week we will have the opportunity to tell those who seek to rule over us that we are not happy with the way they are treating us. The raids by the DEA and NTF of San Diego are not acceptable and we want them to stop! There is no reason for the NTF to be cross sworn except to violate state law. We voted to legalize medical marijuana 14 years ago. The DEA refuses to go by science and what the medical profession has said. Here in San Diego we have a Narcotics Task Force that has been cross sworn so they can violate state law as well as give any confiscated medicine to the DEA so they do not have to return it when the victim is found not guilty or not charged.
On March 26th from 12 noon to 2:00pm we will be meeting at 940 Front st to protest the illegal raids by the DEA on medical marijuana as well as the refusal of San Diego to recognise Prop 215 and SB420.
Please send this call to action to everyone in your contact list.
It is time for everyone to come out of the Cannabis Closet
Thank You
James Dean Stacy
movementinaction@gmail.com
www.movementinaction.org
Thursday, March 18, 2010
San Diego MMTF Meeting Friday 3/19 at 9am
The San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force meets again this Friday 9am -11am
202 C St. San Diego A 92101 (map)
City Council Committee Room, 12th floor of the City Administration Building.
The task force is working on recommendations to the San Diego City Council with regards to medical marijuana regulations and zoning ordinances. This Friday it is critical that we get the community out to the meeting.
Friday 3/19/2010 MMTF Agenda:
Your input is needed and encouraged. Come to the meeting, fill out a public comment sheet, and let your voice be heard!
San Diego Americans for Safe Accesswww.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
202 C St. San Diego A 92101 (map)
City Council Committee Room, 12th floor of the City Administration Building.
The task force is working on recommendations to the San Diego City Council with regards to medical marijuana regulations and zoning ordinances. This Friday it is critical that we get the community out to the meeting.
Friday 3/19/2010 MMTF Agenda:
- ITEM 1 – Proposed recommendations regarding packaging, labeling and transport of medical marijuana
- ITEM 2 – Adoption of a statement of concern to forward to City and County officials
- ITEM 3 – Adoption of a statement regarding medical marijuana use by juveniles
- ITEM 4 – Agenda items for next meeting (if time permits)
Your input is needed and encouraged. Come to the meeting, fill out a public comment sheet, and let your voice be heard!
San Diego Americans for Safe Accesswww.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Judge won't dismiss medical marijuana case under Obama made me do it defense.
Greg Moran, San Diego Union Tribune
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
James Stacy, the Vista medical marijuana dispensary owner facing federal drug charges, has lost an intriguing bid to have the charges against him thrown out.
Stacy had argued that President Obama, when he was Candidate Obama, had basically said he wouldn't prosecute medical marijuana providers who were complying with state law, and that Stacy had relied on that -- and later statements by Attorney General Eric Holder -- to launch his business.
He also said the prosecution violated the Tenth Amendment because it "commandeered" local law enforcement to enforce federal policy. The intriguing arguments received some attention after first being reported by San Diego CityBeat in December.
In an 11-page ruling Moskowitz said, essentially, nice try.
Comments made by Obama and one of his campaign flaks cited by Stacy "cannot be deemed representations of the federal government regarding drug-prosecution policy." There's no evidence Stacy even heard those statements or that any government official told him selling medical marijuana was OK under federal policy. Holder's statements were "vague," "loose" and did not rule out that the feds could still prosecute medical marijuana cases.
As for the Tenth Amendment argument, the judge said there was no evidence that the San Diego Sheriff's Office was forced to participate in the investigation and raids of dispensaries in the county. "Voluntary cooperation by the Sheriff's Department or other state agencies does not give rise to a Tenth Amendment claim," he wrote.
So now it looks like it is on to trial for Stacy. The judge did leave the door open a bit. He said he would decide later whether Stacy and his lawyer, Kasha Kastillo, could use the Obama-told-me-I-could argument, known as entrapment by estoppel, as a defense at trial.
Federal prosecutors are moving to head that off, filing a motion last Friday asking Moskowitz to ban that defense, as well as several others. Trial is set for April 26.
Stacy was one of two people charged federally in a sweep of dispensaries launched in the fall. He opened the Movement in Action dispensary four months or so before the raids occurred. One of the reasons he may have ended up in federal court is that investigators found a gun in the dispensary and, even under Obama guidelines relaxing prosecutions of dispensaries that comply with state law, that can lead to a federal charges being filed.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/minute-orders-courts/2010/mar/16/judge-wont-dismiss-medical-marijuana-case-under-ob/
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
James Stacy, the Vista medical marijuana dispensary owner facing federal drug charges, has lost an intriguing bid to have the charges against him thrown out.
Stacy had argued that President Obama, when he was Candidate Obama, had basically said he wouldn't prosecute medical marijuana providers who were complying with state law, and that Stacy had relied on that -- and later statements by Attorney General Eric Holder -- to launch his business.
He also said the prosecution violated the Tenth Amendment because it "commandeered" local law enforcement to enforce federal policy. The intriguing arguments received some attention after first being reported by San Diego CityBeat in December.
In an 11-page ruling Moskowitz said, essentially, nice try.
Comments made by Obama and one of his campaign flaks cited by Stacy "cannot be deemed representations of the federal government regarding drug-prosecution policy." There's no evidence Stacy even heard those statements or that any government official told him selling medical marijuana was OK under federal policy. Holder's statements were "vague," "loose" and did not rule out that the feds could still prosecute medical marijuana cases.
As for the Tenth Amendment argument, the judge said there was no evidence that the San Diego Sheriff's Office was forced to participate in the investigation and raids of dispensaries in the county. "Voluntary cooperation by the Sheriff's Department or other state agencies does not give rise to a Tenth Amendment claim," he wrote.
So now it looks like it is on to trial for Stacy. The judge did leave the door open a bit. He said he would decide later whether Stacy and his lawyer, Kasha Kastillo, could use the Obama-told-me-I-could argument, known as entrapment by estoppel, as a defense at trial.
Federal prosecutors are moving to head that off, filing a motion last Friday asking Moskowitz to ban that defense, as well as several others. Trial is set for April 26.
Stacy was one of two people charged federally in a sweep of dispensaries launched in the fall. He opened the Movement in Action dispensary four months or so before the raids occurred. One of the reasons he may have ended up in federal court is that investigators found a gun in the dispensary and, even under Obama guidelines relaxing prosecutions of dispensaries that comply with state law, that can lead to a federal charges being filed.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/minute-orders-courts/2010/mar/16/judge-wont-dismiss-medical-marijuana-case-under-ob/
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
San Diego Medical Marijuana 'Raid Rumors' Update
Today we have received confirmation that California's Finest Meds Collective located at 1133 Broadway in San Diego was in fact closed down. According to eyewitness testimony, several unmarked vehicles pulled up to the collective yesterday, March 16, 2010 and proceeded to confiscate paperwork, medicine, as well as a number of other items inside the facility.
It was reported that the San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force (NTF) is responsible for this raid. Detective Decastro, the mastermind of Operation Green Rx, is reportedly in charge of this investigation as well.
Mr. Decasstro is also the chief investigating officer in my case, and although he has been present for every minute of every day of my trial, on Tuesday, March 16, he was noticeably absent from the courtroom in the morning. However he did return in the afternoon for the remainder of the proceedings.
This morning, we have received reports that a home was also raided in Encinitas, CA a suburb of San Diego County. This raid was also executed by the NTF and spearheaded by the DEA as part of the ongoing Operation Green Rx investigations and medical marijuana eradication efforts. It is reported that the individual who resides at the home in Encinitas was not arrested but all his property was seized.
We have NOT received any more reports of raids, or arrests. Currently and based on the information available today, it seems that the NTF is ramping up for more raids. It would also seem that this time, unlike in the last round of raids of 9.9.9, the NTF is doing them one at a time rather than a sweep.
This is the time when everyone in San Diego needs to read up on the laws, and ensure that you are doing everything possible to stay in full compliance with the law. Remember, Proposition 215 is the law, Senate Bill 420 is the law, medical cannabis is here to stay, and your efforts of continuing to provide safe access to the San Diego Community are critically important to many thousands here in San Diego.
Here are a few suggestions for staying safe:
Three Police Interaction Levels and Three Safe Ways To handle Them (courtesy of Marcus Boyd)
BE PREPARED:
Visit the Raid Preparedness section of the San Diego ASA website for a comprehensive raid preparation guideline:
http://www.safeaccesssd.org/p/raid-preparedness.html
San Diego Americans for Safe Access - www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
It was reported that the San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force (NTF) is responsible for this raid. Detective Decastro, the mastermind of Operation Green Rx, is reportedly in charge of this investigation as well.
Mr. Decasstro is also the chief investigating officer in my case, and although he has been present for every minute of every day of my trial, on Tuesday, March 16, he was noticeably absent from the courtroom in the morning. However he did return in the afternoon for the remainder of the proceedings.
This morning, we have received reports that a home was also raided in Encinitas, CA a suburb of San Diego County. This raid was also executed by the NTF and spearheaded by the DEA as part of the ongoing Operation Green Rx investigations and medical marijuana eradication efforts. It is reported that the individual who resides at the home in Encinitas was not arrested but all his property was seized.
We have NOT received any more reports of raids, or arrests. Currently and based on the information available today, it seems that the NTF is ramping up for more raids. It would also seem that this time, unlike in the last round of raids of 9.9.9, the NTF is doing them one at a time rather than a sweep.
This is the time when everyone in San Diego needs to read up on the laws, and ensure that you are doing everything possible to stay in full compliance with the law. Remember, Proposition 215 is the law, Senate Bill 420 is the law, medical cannabis is here to stay, and your efforts of continuing to provide safe access to the San Diego Community are critically important to many thousands here in San Diego.
Here are a few suggestions for staying safe:
- Keep Medicine Inventory Levels low.
- Patient Records should be kept offsite as to protect the patient's confidentiality from the NTF and DEA. All bank statements, as well as accounting paperwork should also be kept offsite at a secure location, so that it can later be used by you rather then the NTF to prove the not for profit operation.
- Watch out for fake recommendations, ensure that there is both an expiration date, as well as all the other required information. Ensure that EVERY recommendation is verified with the phycisian prior to allowing the member to join the collective.
- NO GUNS. Do not keep any firearms inside your home or the facility.
- Be Prepared and know your rights. Without a search or arrest warrant, you do not have to let the NTF or any other officials into your facility. If they do come, be polite, respectful, and quiet. You do not have to speak with anyone, it is your right to remain silent and to seek the advice of an attorney during ALL questioning.
Three Police Interaction Levels and Three Safe Ways To handle Them (courtesy of Marcus Boyd)
- Casual Conversation: Ask if youre being detained. If not, walk away!
- Detention: If you are detained, ask why! Be sure to remember what they say to you.
- Arrest: Say "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer". Remain Silent. Dont answer any questions, just politely repeat your assertion and rmember you have now envoked your right to remain silent. Exercise it.
BE PREPARED:
Visit the Raid Preparedness section of the San Diego ASA website for a comprehensive raid preparation guideline:
http://www.safeaccesssd.org/p/raid-preparedness.html
San Diego Americans for Safe Access - www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org
Friday, March 12, 2010
Are you Cannabis Deficient?
by The Medicine Hunter
If the idea of having a marijuana deficiency sounds laughable to you, a growing body of science points at exactly such a possibility. Scientists have known that the active psychoactive compound in marijuana is THC, which is short for tetrahydrocannabinol.
If the idea of having a marijuana deficiency sounds laughable to you, a growing body of science points at exactly such a possibility. Scientists have known that the active psychoactive compound in marijuana is THC, which is short for tetrahydrocannabinol.
In August 1990, researchers reported in the journal Nature the discovery of receptors in the brain that specifically accommodate the cannabinoids in pot. Cannabinoids bind to particular neurological sites in the brain, as though the brain was specifically designed to utilize this plant. Did nature toss cannabinoid receptors into the brain by random chance? Are cannabinoid receptors part of an intelligent design for deriving maximum benefit from cannabis? Is cannabis a divine elixir of sacred communion for which we are ideally suited? Actually, a more sober answer seems likely. When there are receptors in the brain for a particular type of compound, that compound is made in the brain. This is true of many important agents that work to transmit brain messages of all types. So a hunt began to find such a compound.
In that vein, in 1992 researchers in Israel isolated the cannabinoid anandamide in the human brain. Unlike THC, anandamide is manufactured in the brain, and is therefore an endogenous cannabinoid. This agent, anandamide, is the compound that attaches to the built-in cannabinoid receptors in our brains. The name anandamide is based on the Sanskrit word ananda, which means bliss. Anandamide is a bliss molcule, enhancing greater well being and emotional satisfaction.
Ever since the pioneering work of Dr. William O’Shaughnessy on cannabis and pain compiled in the 1840’s a growing body of science has shown that cannabis offers relief for various types of pain. In the brain, the endogenous agent anandamide also plays a role in mitigating inflammation and pain. So both cannabinoids from inside and outside the body play a role in pain reduction. More recent studies show pain relief among sufferers of multiple sclerosis when cannabis is consumed.
Anandamide also plays a role in proper appetite, feelings of pleasure and well-being, and memory. Interestingly, cannabis also affects these same functions. Cannabis has been used successfully to treat migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and glaucoma. So here is the seventy-four thousand dollar question. Does cannabis simply relieve these diseases to varying degrees, or is cannabis actually a medical replacement in cases of deficient anandamide?
At least one author, medical doctor Ethan Russo, believes in the possibility of endocanabinoid deficiency, and suggests that such a deficiency might actually be a significant cause of the types of health problems listed above. His paper “Clinical Cannabinoid Deficiency,” published in Neuroendocrinology Letters in 2004, delved deeply into the various ways that cannabinoids function in the body, and how a deficiency in cannabinoids can lead to a broad range of diseases. Since the publication of that paper, a number of studies have further confirmed the effectiveness of cannabis for many health disorders.
The idea of clinical cannabinoid deficiency opens the door to cannabis consumption as an effective medical approach to relief of various types of pain, restoration of appetite in cases in which appetite is compromised, improved visual health in cases of glaucoma, and improved sense of well being among patients suffering from a broad variety of mood disorders. As state and local laws mutate and change in favor of greater tolerance, perhaps cannabis will find it’s proper place in the home medicine chest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)