By: William West - 12/22/2009
Why are we the target of your hate, what have we done to you?
Why don't you target the meth or coke it kills more than a few?
Pick on the sick, so easy to find the addressess are written down.
Disguising the truth of your personal views is the crime I found.
When in fact Dumanis its you thats really corrupt, I'm... sick of your lies.
We aren't the threat, we ask for control and to work with us we've tried.
For thriteen years we stood here begging with tears of pain in our eyes.
Our rights to compassion you've taken away, Bonnie this you can't hide.
Where is the honor of duty, or fear of harm arresting the sick and weak?
It must feel great to throw a wheelchair bound man to the back of a squad car seat?
Showing posts with label san diego. Show all posts
Showing posts with label san diego. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Obama Entrapped Me
Medical-pot provider mounts a novel criminal defense in federal court
By Dave Maass, San Diego CityBeat
More than most citizens, James Dean Stacy feels betrayed by the candidate for whom he voted for president.
Up and down the campaign trail, from Los Angeles to Medford, Ore., then-Sen. Barack Obama and his spokespeople pledged that he would end the aggressive raids by the U.S. Department of Justice of medical-marijuana dispensaries operating legally under state law. The candidate said it was a waste of resources that would be better dedicated to fighting terrorism and prosecuting violent crime. Obama said he didn’t see any meaningful difference between marijuana and prescriptions such as morphine and that providers should be protected, excepting those who blatantly use medical-cannabis laws as a shield for otherwise dubious drug trafficking.
When he assumed office, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder echoed the sentiments during several meet-the-new-DOJ appearances in California and New Mexico—“You will be surprised to know that the Justice Department will be acting in a manner consistent with what [the president] said during the campaign”—and, in October, Holder formalized the policy in a set of guidelines distributed to U.S. Attorney offices.
By then, Stacy had been running a medical-marijuana collective, Movement in Action, for five months in the space adjacent to his martial-arts dojo in Vista.
“I’m the most follow-the-rules kind of guy around, so I thought I was the perfect guy to do it,” Stacy tells CityBeat. “When the collective was open, I’d have days where we’d turn away as many as 10 people who didn’t have the proper paperwork.”
In a Dec. 10 court motion, Stacy says he did the due diligence: He researched the prosecutorial policies articulated by Holder, hired a lawyer to walk him through the process and corresponded with the California Secretary of State’s (SOS) office on how to file for “public benefit” status, the technical term for a California nonprofit. The SOS even provided him with a copy of the state Attorney General’s guidelines for running a collective. Unlike many of the other collectives where the San Diego Regional Narcotics Task Force ran stings, Stacy opted for a low-profile model because, he says, “I didn’t want people who didn’t need to know to have it in their face.”
Stacy told undercover officers that they could provide labor to the collective in exchange for medicine and invited them to a “farmers market,” where patients could buy directly from growers—practices he felt were in keeping with the spirit of the California AG’s guidelines. Nevertheless, on Sept. 9, he was arrested after his collective and 13 others were raided.
Now, Stacy is one of only two collective operators who have been charged in federal court as a result of the raids. He faces one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana, one count of manufacturing marijuana and one count of possession of a firearm while committing the other crimes—a handgun was found in the locker where he kept the collective’s supply.
The other federal defendant, Joseph Nunes of Green Kross Collective, pleaded guilty to his charges earlier this month. Stacy, however, says he’s not giving in to the prosecution.
“I quote my wife: ‘I’m not going to let you plead guilty to something you didn’t do,’” says Stacy, who uses marijuana to treat pain from martial-arts injuries and to relieve the nausea he’s suffered since losing his gall bladder. “They threatened life-imprisonment at both of my bail hearings.... This is nothing but a terrorist attack against the medical-marijuana community.”
Instead, Stacy is mounting a novel defense: The statements by Obama and Holder constitute entrapment by estoppel, defined as when an official tells someone that something is legal, then busts them for it. Put plainly, Stacy would not have formed the collective if the government hadn’t assured legal collectives that they wouldn’t be prosecuted.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office does not comment on pending cases, and Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman whose pro-medical-marijuana statements were directly cited in the court filing, did not respond to inquiries.
The entrapment defense draws from a “fundamental notion of fairness: The individual must have fair warning of what conduct the government intends to punish,” Stacy’s attorney, Kasha Castillo of Federal Defenders of San Diego, writes in the recent motion. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz has agreed to hear the motion—which includes a request that the case be dismissed or, alternately, Stacy be allowed to present the entrapment defense in court—on Feb. 3.
When CityBeat first posted a summary of the motion on its blog, Lastblogonearth.com, and linked it from the Huffington Post, some commentators wrote it off as a gratuitous and foolish attempt to claim that a candidate’s campaign promises are as good as laws passed by Congress. However, defense attorneys say it isn’t just a novel approach; rather, it’s a potential groundbreaking solution to a longstanding paradox in federal medical-marijuana cases.
San Diego County Deputy Public Defender Juliana Humphrey explains that, historically, medical-marijuana patients and caregivers have been barred from saying they were acting in good-faith under California law because it has not been considered a legitimate defense under federal law.
“Most of the time, the common thought is that trial defendants are getting some kind of advantage because everything is sterilized for the defendant’s benefit,” says Humphrey, who chaired the city of San Diego’s Medical Cannabis Task Force in 2002. “But in this case, it completely keeps from the jury the truth of the motivation of the person that possesses or provides the marijuana for the benefit of the government.”
Last month, a San Diego jury in state Superior Court acquitted Jovan Jackson, the coordinator of Answerdam Alternative Care, of all marijuana-related charges; the foreman told the press following the verdict that California’s laws are too vague to determine whether Jackson’s collective wasn’t in compliance.
Jackson’s trial lawyer, K. Lance Rogers of Turner Law Group, cautions that each case’s circumstance are different—not to mention each jury—and that Jackson’s verdict doesn’t indicate how the federal court will rule on Stacy’s motion. Plus, unlike in Jackson’s case, when the prosecution had to prove he committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden will be on the defense during the hearing to show that Stacy was within the law.
“The issues and the challenges that will ultimately come up with Mr. Stacy’s hearing are all of the same issues that came up in Jovan’s case,” Rogers says. “It’s not enough to say, ‘I knew about this information before I set up my collective.’ In my opinion, he needs to show some evidence that he knew the government’s public advisory.”
Stacy’s testimony may be enough, Rogers says, but his communication with the Secretary of State’s Corporations Division and the fact he hired a lawyer to advise him may prove the most compelling.
More than the entrapment defense, Rogers is interested in another argument Stacy’s attorney makes: The federal government violated the 10th Amendment protection of states’ rights by enlisting San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies to enforce a federal law that contradicts state law.
“The federal government can’t commandeer state law enforcement to implement federal policies, and the keyword is ‘commandeering,’” Rogers says. “This is a fundamental principle of federalism and American jurisprudence. That’s a fascinating argument that has not been decided to my knowledge.”
Until it is decided, Stacy is keeping his nose (and his pipe) clean. He believes he has the right to continue using marijuana for medical purposes but has switched to Marinol, a synthetic THC pill, until the court gives him explicit permission at his next bail hearing.
“I did not, I do not and I will not break the law,” Stacy says.
Write to davem@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com .
Read More at San Diego City Beat!
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/obama_entrapped_me/8819/
By Dave Maass, San Diego CityBeat
More than most citizens, James Dean Stacy feels betrayed by the candidate for whom he voted for president.
Up and down the campaign trail, from Los Angeles to Medford, Ore., then-Sen. Barack Obama and his spokespeople pledged that he would end the aggressive raids by the U.S. Department of Justice of medical-marijuana dispensaries operating legally under state law. The candidate said it was a waste of resources that would be better dedicated to fighting terrorism and prosecuting violent crime. Obama said he didn’t see any meaningful difference between marijuana and prescriptions such as morphine and that providers should be protected, excepting those who blatantly use medical-cannabis laws as a shield for otherwise dubious drug trafficking.
When he assumed office, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder echoed the sentiments during several meet-the-new-DOJ appearances in California and New Mexico—“You will be surprised to know that the Justice Department will be acting in a manner consistent with what [the president] said during the campaign”—and, in October, Holder formalized the policy in a set of guidelines distributed to U.S. Attorney offices.
By then, Stacy had been running a medical-marijuana collective, Movement in Action, for five months in the space adjacent to his martial-arts dojo in Vista.
“I’m the most follow-the-rules kind of guy around, so I thought I was the perfect guy to do it,” Stacy tells CityBeat. “When the collective was open, I’d have days where we’d turn away as many as 10 people who didn’t have the proper paperwork.”
In a Dec. 10 court motion, Stacy says he did the due diligence: He researched the prosecutorial policies articulated by Holder, hired a lawyer to walk him through the process and corresponded with the California Secretary of State’s (SOS) office on how to file for “public benefit” status, the technical term for a California nonprofit. The SOS even provided him with a copy of the state Attorney General’s guidelines for running a collective. Unlike many of the other collectives where the San Diego Regional Narcotics Task Force ran stings, Stacy opted for a low-profile model because, he says, “I didn’t want people who didn’t need to know to have it in their face.”
Stacy told undercover officers that they could provide labor to the collective in exchange for medicine and invited them to a “farmers market,” where patients could buy directly from growers—practices he felt were in keeping with the spirit of the California AG’s guidelines. Nevertheless, on Sept. 9, he was arrested after his collective and 13 others were raided.
Now, Stacy is one of only two collective operators who have been charged in federal court as a result of the raids. He faces one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana, one count of manufacturing marijuana and one count of possession of a firearm while committing the other crimes—a handgun was found in the locker where he kept the collective’s supply.
The other federal defendant, Joseph Nunes of Green Kross Collective, pleaded guilty to his charges earlier this month. Stacy, however, says he’s not giving in to the prosecution.
“I quote my wife: ‘I’m not going to let you plead guilty to something you didn’t do,’” says Stacy, who uses marijuana to treat pain from martial-arts injuries and to relieve the nausea he’s suffered since losing his gall bladder. “They threatened life-imprisonment at both of my bail hearings.... This is nothing but a terrorist attack against the medical-marijuana community.”
Instead, Stacy is mounting a novel defense: The statements by Obama and Holder constitute entrapment by estoppel, defined as when an official tells someone that something is legal, then busts them for it. Put plainly, Stacy would not have formed the collective if the government hadn’t assured legal collectives that they wouldn’t be prosecuted.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office does not comment on pending cases, and Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman whose pro-medical-marijuana statements were directly cited in the court filing, did not respond to inquiries.
The entrapment defense draws from a “fundamental notion of fairness: The individual must have fair warning of what conduct the government intends to punish,” Stacy’s attorney, Kasha Castillo of Federal Defenders of San Diego, writes in the recent motion. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz has agreed to hear the motion—which includes a request that the case be dismissed or, alternately, Stacy be allowed to present the entrapment defense in court—on Feb. 3.
When CityBeat first posted a summary of the motion on its blog, Lastblogonearth.com, and linked it from the Huffington Post, some commentators wrote it off as a gratuitous and foolish attempt to claim that a candidate’s campaign promises are as good as laws passed by Congress. However, defense attorneys say it isn’t just a novel approach; rather, it’s a potential groundbreaking solution to a longstanding paradox in federal medical-marijuana cases.
San Diego County Deputy Public Defender Juliana Humphrey explains that, historically, medical-marijuana patients and caregivers have been barred from saying they were acting in good-faith under California law because it has not been considered a legitimate defense under federal law.
“Most of the time, the common thought is that trial defendants are getting some kind of advantage because everything is sterilized for the defendant’s benefit,” says Humphrey, who chaired the city of San Diego’s Medical Cannabis Task Force in 2002. “But in this case, it completely keeps from the jury the truth of the motivation of the person that possesses or provides the marijuana for the benefit of the government.”
Last month, a San Diego jury in state Superior Court acquitted Jovan Jackson, the coordinator of Answerdam Alternative Care, of all marijuana-related charges; the foreman told the press following the verdict that California’s laws are too vague to determine whether Jackson’s collective wasn’t in compliance.
Jackson’s trial lawyer, K. Lance Rogers of Turner Law Group, cautions that each case’s circumstance are different—not to mention each jury—and that Jackson’s verdict doesn’t indicate how the federal court will rule on Stacy’s motion. Plus, unlike in Jackson’s case, when the prosecution had to prove he committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden will be on the defense during the hearing to show that Stacy was within the law.
“The issues and the challenges that will ultimately come up with Mr. Stacy’s hearing are all of the same issues that came up in Jovan’s case,” Rogers says. “It’s not enough to say, ‘I knew about this information before I set up my collective.’ In my opinion, he needs to show some evidence that he knew the government’s public advisory.”
Stacy’s testimony may be enough, Rogers says, but his communication with the Secretary of State’s Corporations Division and the fact he hired a lawyer to advise him may prove the most compelling.
More than the entrapment defense, Rogers is interested in another argument Stacy’s attorney makes: The federal government violated the 10th Amendment protection of states’ rights by enlisting San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies to enforce a federal law that contradicts state law.
“The federal government can’t commandeer state law enforcement to implement federal policies, and the keyword is ‘commandeering,’” Rogers says. “This is a fundamental principle of federalism and American jurisprudence. That’s a fascinating argument that has not been decided to my knowledge.”
Until it is decided, Stacy is keeping his nose (and his pipe) clean. He believes he has the right to continue using marijuana for medical purposes but has switched to Marinol, a synthetic THC pill, until the court gives him explicit permission at his next bail hearing.
“I did not, I do not and I will not break the law,” Stacy says.
Write to davem@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com .
Read More at San Diego City Beat!
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/obama_entrapped_me/8819/
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Medical Marijuana Victory in San Diego - Stop Operation Green Rx
Another victory for patients in San Diego. The campaign to Stop Operation Green Rx, in collaboration with San Diego ASA was able to provide help for a patient being unjustly prosecuted by Bonnie Dumanis. Charges Dropped., Case Dismissed, Medical Marijuana is law.
Friday, December 18, 2009
James Stacy Hearing Today at 1:30
James Stacy Federal hearing is scheduled for today at 1:30 pm in the Federal Courthouse at 940 Front Street San Diego, CA 92101-8900
Please come out and support James in court. He is a victim of Dumanis’ efforts to overturn state law and the will of the voters with regards to proposition 215. James was a founding member of a legal collective in San Diego which was raided on September 9th and now is facing Federal charges for legally cultivating and distributing medication in his closed circuit collective.
James doesn’t know what courtroom he is in yet, but we will put the information out as soon as we know. At 1pm we plan on meeting in front of the courthouse.
For more information on James Stacy’s federal case visit www.movementinaction.org
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.safeaccesssd.org
Please come out and support James in court. He is a victim of Dumanis’ efforts to overturn state law and the will of the voters with regards to proposition 215. James was a founding member of a legal collective in San Diego which was raided on September 9th and now is facing Federal charges for legally cultivating and distributing medication in his closed circuit collective.
James doesn’t know what courtroom he is in yet, but we will put the information out as soon as we know. At 1pm we plan on meeting in front of the courthouse.
For more information on James Stacy’s federal case visit www.movementinaction.org
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.safeaccesssd.org
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
James Stacy - Federal MMJ Trial
Support James Stacy as he stands up against the charges in Federal Court!
James was raided on 9/9/9 as part of Bonnie Dumanis' effort to overturn the will of the people.
Please visit his website and donate to his legal defense: http://movementinaction.org/donte/
L. A. City Council ducks medical pot vote at wild meeting; harsh land-use limits anger crowd
By Christine Pelisek in City News
Wed., Dec. 16 2009 @ 3:49PM
No surprise: At a raucous meeting today, the Los Angeles City Council decided to hold off on voting on a controversial medical marijuana ordinance that would severely reduce the 545 pot shops in Los Angeles.
marijuana-leaf.jpg
The postponement came after the city's Planning Department presented hurriedly created maps showing that only five of 137 pot shops envisioned under a City Council cap could remain at their current locations if the city adopts a buffer zone to keep them at least 500 feet from schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties. The remaining 118 would most likely have to relocate, many to industrial zones.
The findings caused a stir among council members and pro-medical marijuana advocates who booed many of the details presented by city planner Alan Bell. Here's the amazing part:
This was the first time, five years after the council decided it needed to adopt local regulations for selling medical weed, that the City Council has ever seen a zoning map showing where pot shops would be located or be banned under a typical "buffer zone" approach used in many California cities.
Unlike San Diego, where a respected polling group conducted a detailed survey of city residents to learn what residents wanted to do about medical pot (San Diego residents strongly back medical weed, but only 23 percent want a pot dispensary within a mile of their homes), Los Angeles just recently began debating land-use and neighborhood impact.
San Francisco acted about one year ago, adopting a 1,000-foot buffer around its schools and has shut down roughly half of its 50 pot shops.
The hot-button issue, which has been bogged down in a gridlocked Los Angeles City Council committee for many years, gained steam in the last few weeks after the council voted on December 8 to limit the number of pot shops to 137 -- those shops that opened up before the council rushed to adopt a 2007 pot outlet moratorium.
The council asked the Planning Department to draw up detailed maps that would show how close the pot shops would be to schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties if buffer zones are adopted.
The Planning Department found that if pot shops were limited to a 500-foot buffer zone around sensitive uses, they could open in 31 percent of the city's commercial and industrial areas -- but only five percent of those areas would be commercial spots such as business districts. The rest would be industrially zoned.
If the city decides on a 1,000-foot buffer from sensitive uses, no pot shops would be able to open, said Bell.
If nothing else, the meeting showed which council members were in favor of pot shops and which members were not. Rosendahl, whose lover died of AIDS, said that if it wasn't for medical marijuana his lover would not have been able to eat. "We are treating this like a pariah. There are liquor stores all over the place. It should be legal...Putting it in back alleys and industrial areas is wrong."
Garcetti argued that he wanted to give "special consideration" for those pot shops who opened before the moratorium. "I don't want to have secondary effects where there are no clinics," he said.
But referring to the pro-marijuana advocates dominating the audience, Alarcon said the city had already "gone a long way to give [the medical marijuana advocates] what they want."
Alarcon was resoundingly booed by the crowd, but continued: "We don't have to do this...I don't want it 1,000 feet from my kid. Period."
Councilman Smith noted that pot shops have become crime magnets yet the City Council is being shown zoning maps instead of maps from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the crime hot spots. "My district won't stand for it," Smith said.
His comments caused a furor again among the rowdy pro-marijuana crowd, and security guards threatened to throw people out. "All your boos prove to me that you aren't good citizens," lamented Smith.
The next City Council hearing on the issue is set for January 13.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/medical-marijuana-los-angeles/
Wed., Dec. 16 2009 @ 3:49PM
No surprise: At a raucous meeting today, the Los Angeles City Council decided to hold off on voting on a controversial medical marijuana ordinance that would severely reduce the 545 pot shops in Los Angeles.
marijuana-leaf.jpg
The postponement came after the city's Planning Department presented hurriedly created maps showing that only five of 137 pot shops envisioned under a City Council cap could remain at their current locations if the city adopts a buffer zone to keep them at least 500 feet from schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties. The remaining 118 would most likely have to relocate, many to industrial zones.
The findings caused a stir among council members and pro-medical marijuana advocates who booed many of the details presented by city planner Alan Bell. Here's the amazing part:
This was the first time, five years after the council decided it needed to adopt local regulations for selling medical weed, that the City Council has ever seen a zoning map showing where pot shops would be located or be banned under a typical "buffer zone" approach used in many California cities.
Unlike San Diego, where a respected polling group conducted a detailed survey of city residents to learn what residents wanted to do about medical pot (San Diego residents strongly back medical weed, but only 23 percent want a pot dispensary within a mile of their homes), Los Angeles just recently began debating land-use and neighborhood impact.
San Francisco acted about one year ago, adopting a 1,000-foot buffer around its schools and has shut down roughly half of its 50 pot shops.
The hot-button issue, which has been bogged down in a gridlocked Los Angeles City Council committee for many years, gained steam in the last few weeks after the council voted on December 8 to limit the number of pot shops to 137 -- those shops that opened up before the council rushed to adopt a 2007 pot outlet moratorium.
The council asked the Planning Department to draw up detailed maps that would show how close the pot shops would be to schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties if buffer zones are adopted.
The Planning Department found that if pot shops were limited to a 500-foot buffer zone around sensitive uses, they could open in 31 percent of the city's commercial and industrial areas -- but only five percent of those areas would be commercial spots such as business districts. The rest would be industrially zoned.
If the city decides on a 1,000-foot buffer from sensitive uses, no pot shops would be able to open, said Bell.
If nothing else, the meeting showed which council members were in favor of pot shops and which members were not. Rosendahl, whose lover died of AIDS, said that if it wasn't for medical marijuana his lover would not have been able to eat. "We are treating this like a pariah. There are liquor stores all over the place. It should be legal...Putting it in back alleys and industrial areas is wrong."
Garcetti argued that he wanted to give "special consideration" for those pot shops who opened before the moratorium. "I don't want to have secondary effects where there are no clinics," he said.
But referring to the pro-marijuana advocates dominating the audience, Alarcon said the city had already "gone a long way to give [the medical marijuana advocates] what they want."
Alarcon was resoundingly booed by the crowd, but continued: "We don't have to do this...I don't want it 1,000 feet from my kid. Period."
Councilman Smith noted that pot shops have become crime magnets yet the City Council is being shown zoning maps instead of maps from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the crime hot spots. "My district won't stand for it," Smith said.
His comments caused a furor again among the rowdy pro-marijuana crowd, and security guards threatened to throw people out. "All your boos prove to me that you aren't good citizens," lamented Smith.
The next City Council hearing on the issue is set for January 13.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/medical-marijuana-los-angeles/
Nathan Archer Walks Away From Court Again
By: Nathan Archer
I am not a drug offender or Narcotics offender. I have no drug related History. I am allowed by San Diego Court to be able to continue with medical marijuana but must register as a narcotics offender. Which I am not!!!
1 2/15 /2009
Today was a difficult day as at the last minute the judge was replaced by Judge Gale E. Kaneshiro and though my case was number 4 on the docket I was almost the last person in the court room before they called my case.
The Judge would not let allow me to request new council; as she stated that I was not represented as pro per but, I had been appointed a Public Defender through the whole proceedings. She stated that, "Though Mr. Archers Public Defender retired," (after my second trial case), " the Public Defenders Office has not".
San Diego NORML Vice President: Mara Felsen, Esq. requested that the judge allow a continuance as they were willing to take the case. The Judge informed me that I was still considered by the court as being represented by the Public Defenders Office.blic Defenders Office and file to be represented Pro Per and we would have to have a ruling on that.
The Bailiff offered that if I use the Public Defender to state that I want to seek new council it would expedite things and we would end up with the same resolve.S.D. NORML V.P. Mara Felsen, Esq. and I concurred it seemed less court time so I consented.
An available Public Defender was spoken to by Ms. Felsen, Esq. and he agreed. I was called before the Court and the Public Defender did as I asked, He requested that I be allowed a continuance as I wish to appoint new council.
The Judge Agreed, then stated that my probation was revoked and that I was to return to court in 14 days with proof of my "Registration as a Narcotics Offender".
I spoke up, " Your Honor, did you receive My Statement?".
The Judge replied, "Yes."
I then stated, " The whole context of my statement is that I have no Narcotics or Drug abuse History. I am allowed by the court to continue with my Medical Marijuana and am appealing my case at the Supreme Court Level......"
The Judge commented "yes.."
I continued, " The Kentucky and Indiana courts recognize that it Registering is only punitive in Nature and Unconstitutional.
I am appealing my case at the Supreme Court Level."
" I see," said the Judge thoughtfully.
"Okay, Mr Archer is to remain at liberty on probation. The Public Defender is relieved, Retained counsel Marar Felsen, Esq. is appearing in behalf of defendant. Court stays condition to register HS11590 pending appeal."
I walked out of the Court room feeling much better, joined by my new found friends; Euguene, Mara, Craig, Bill, others including Waldon. A great friend who has seen my case through the end and harder times. Thank you all for supporting me and everyone else who cared.
After my case it was Eugene Davidovich's turn. He was attempting to have his case dismissed. His is another battle in San Diego. He was stung by an undercover who lied extensively and; was a validated Medical Marijuana Patient, confirmed by a Doctors office. All that so he could become a patient of Euguene's collective service.
Things did not go so well for him, but it is still the early stages and things are getting better.
In my trip to San Diego I was most upset to learn that Bonnie Dumanis is attempting to have California Prop 215 re- evaluated and rewritten "Because it is too vague".
I Stood with Eugene, Bill and many others outside while Bonnie Dumanis had a meeting inside. I spoke to several T.V. Stations, KUSI 6, 7, 8, 9, 10..
San Diego is going too far!!!
We need to come down on them for attacking people who don't even live there, especially after they have refused to obey the law. They have opposed the State in court now 6 times and each time were shut down and ordered to follow the law. Yet San Diego responds with "Operation Endless Summer" they continue to refuse to allow patient rights and are seriously hurting people and their lives regardless, systematically and mercilessly.
Please support the efforts of the various Chapters in San Diego ( NORML, ASA...) see how you can help.
I will be back in court for my continuance on January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am Dept. 12. You are welcome to join me; but please be respectful of the Law as we are trying to help make it.
Peace,
N8
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/16/18632759.php
I am not a drug offender or Narcotics offender. I have no drug related History. I am allowed by San Diego Court to be able to continue with medical marijuana but must register as a narcotics offender. Which I am not!!!
1 2/15 /2009
Today was a difficult day as at the last minute the judge was replaced by Judge Gale E. Kaneshiro and though my case was number 4 on the docket I was almost the last person in the court room before they called my case.
The Judge would not let allow me to request new council; as she stated that I was not represented as pro per but, I had been appointed a Public Defender through the whole proceedings. She stated that, "Though Mr. Archers Public Defender retired," (after my second trial case), " the Public Defenders Office has not".
San Diego NORML Vice President: Mara Felsen, Esq. requested that the judge allow a continuance as they were willing to take the case. The Judge informed me that I was still considered by the court as being represented by the Public Defenders Office.blic Defenders Office and file to be represented Pro Per and we would have to have a ruling on that.
The Bailiff offered that if I use the Public Defender to state that I want to seek new council it would expedite things and we would end up with the same resolve.S.D. NORML V.P. Mara Felsen, Esq. and I concurred it seemed less court time so I consented.
An available Public Defender was spoken to by Ms. Felsen, Esq. and he agreed. I was called before the Court and the Public Defender did as I asked, He requested that I be allowed a continuance as I wish to appoint new council.
The Judge Agreed, then stated that my probation was revoked and that I was to return to court in 14 days with proof of my "Registration as a Narcotics Offender".
I spoke up, " Your Honor, did you receive My Statement?".
The Judge replied, "Yes."
I then stated, " The whole context of my statement is that I have no Narcotics or Drug abuse History. I am allowed by the court to continue with my Medical Marijuana and am appealing my case at the Supreme Court Level......"
The Judge commented "yes.."
I continued, " The Kentucky and Indiana courts recognize that it Registering is only punitive in Nature and Unconstitutional.
I am appealing my case at the Supreme Court Level."
" I see," said the Judge thoughtfully.
"Okay, Mr Archer is to remain at liberty on probation. The Public Defender is relieved, Retained counsel Marar Felsen, Esq. is appearing in behalf of defendant. Court stays condition to register HS11590 pending appeal."
I walked out of the Court room feeling much better, joined by my new found friends; Euguene, Mara, Craig, Bill, others including Waldon. A great friend who has seen my case through the end and harder times. Thank you all for supporting me and everyone else who cared.
After my case it was Eugene Davidovich's turn. He was attempting to have his case dismissed. His is another battle in San Diego. He was stung by an undercover who lied extensively and; was a validated Medical Marijuana Patient, confirmed by a Doctors office. All that so he could become a patient of Euguene's collective service.
Things did not go so well for him, but it is still the early stages and things are getting better.
In my trip to San Diego I was most upset to learn that Bonnie Dumanis is attempting to have California Prop 215 re- evaluated and rewritten "Because it is too vague".
I Stood with Eugene, Bill and many others outside while Bonnie Dumanis had a meeting inside. I spoke to several T.V. Stations, KUSI 6, 7, 8, 9, 10..
San Diego is going too far!!!
We need to come down on them for attacking people who don't even live there, especially after they have refused to obey the law. They have opposed the State in court now 6 times and each time were shut down and ordered to follow the law. Yet San Diego responds with "Operation Endless Summer" they continue to refuse to allow patient rights and are seriously hurting people and their lives regardless, systematically and mercilessly.
Please support the efforts of the various Chapters in San Diego ( NORML, ASA...) see how you can help.
I will be back in court for my continuance on January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am Dept. 12. You are welcome to join me; but please be respectful of the Law as we are trying to help make it.
Peace,
N8
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/16/18632759.php
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Update on Nathan Archer Bail Hearing
Thank you to all who came out to support Nathan Archer this morning for his Bail Hearing in San Diego Court. He was NOT required to register as a Drug Offender and this is another win for the MMJ Community! Thanks Nathan for Fighting!!
Nathan personally addressed Judge Kineshiro and asked for a continuance in having to register while his case is on appeal. His request was approved!
Nathan is looking for representation and can be contacted at the following email address: ndasummer@hotmail.com
Lets support Nathan in his Appeal and in his fight for our rights.
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
Nathan personally addressed Judge Kineshiro and asked for a continuance in having to register while his case is on appeal. His request was approved!
Nathan is looking for representation and can be contacted at the following email address: ndasummer@hotmail.com
Lets support Nathan in his Appeal and in his fight for our rights.
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
Monday, December 14, 2009
Nation's Capitol Becomes 14th Medical Marijuana State
U.S. House & Senate lift 11-year ban against Washington, D.C. law
Washington, DC -- Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives has voted to lift the ban against a medical marijuana initiative passed by the voters of Washington, D.C. in 1998. The Senate voted today on the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision to lift the "Barr amendment," an effort by then-Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) to block implementation of Initiative 59, the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998." Barr not only blocked implementation of the law after it was clear the initiative had passed, he also sealed the vote count. It was revealed months later that 69% of the voters had approved the initiative.
"By restoring Washington, D.C.'s medical marijuana law," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs Director with Americans for Safe Access (ASA). "Congress has recognized the importance of medical marijuana as a public health issue," continued Woodson. "Washington, D.C. is not just the 14th medical marijuana state, this issue is now in the backyard of federal legislators and far more difficult to ignore." The appropriations bill now goes to the President's desk for his expected signature sometime this week.
As a formality, before the law can go into effect, the Council of the District of Columbia will need to transmit the original 1998 initiative to Congress for a 30-day review period. The law will take effect at the conclusion of this review, and the local government will then be charged with creating regulations to govern the implementation of the initiative. Washington, D.C. will be the smallest medical marijuana state both by population at nearly 600,000 and by geography at just under 70 square miles.
Advocates are pointing ever-increasing scientific data confirming marijuana's medical efficacy, heightened grassroots pressure, and a greater willingness by Congress to address the issue, as some of the reasons why the ban was lifted. Recent milestones, such as the Justice Department directive to U.S. Attorneys in medical marijuana states and the call by the American Medical Association to review marijuana status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, have also contributed to more tolerant environment. ASA plans to work with local advocates to make certain that patients have a voice in the implementation of D.C.'s restored medical marijuana law.
Underscoring the public health aspect of today's Senate vote, the appropriations bill also lifted a ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs. As catalysts for adoption of both medical marijuana and syringe exchange programs, people living with HIV/AIDS possibly stand the most to gain by the lifting of these bans. Studies have shown that as many as 1/3 of people living with HIV/AIDS use medical marijuana to treat both the symptoms of the disease and the side-effects from the drugs. Studies have also shown that syringe exchange programs can reduce HIV transmission by at least 1/3 and reduce risk behavior by as much as 80%.
Further Information:
Text of 1998 D.C. I-59: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dcelections/races/dcq59.htm#text
Washington, DC -- Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives has voted to lift the ban against a medical marijuana initiative passed by the voters of Washington, D.C. in 1998. The Senate voted today on the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision to lift the "Barr amendment," an effort by then-Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) to block implementation of Initiative 59, the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998." Barr not only blocked implementation of the law after it was clear the initiative had passed, he also sealed the vote count. It was revealed months later that 69% of the voters had approved the initiative.
"By restoring Washington, D.C.'s medical marijuana law," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs Director with Americans for Safe Access (ASA). "Congress has recognized the importance of medical marijuana as a public health issue," continued Woodson. "Washington, D.C. is not just the 14th medical marijuana state, this issue is now in the backyard of federal legislators and far more difficult to ignore." The appropriations bill now goes to the President's desk for his expected signature sometime this week.
As a formality, before the law can go into effect, the Council of the District of Columbia will need to transmit the original 1998 initiative to Congress for a 30-day review period. The law will take effect at the conclusion of this review, and the local government will then be charged with creating regulations to govern the implementation of the initiative. Washington, D.C. will be the smallest medical marijuana state both by population at nearly 600,000 and by geography at just under 70 square miles.
Advocates are pointing ever-increasing scientific data confirming marijuana's medical efficacy, heightened grassroots pressure, and a greater willingness by Congress to address the issue, as some of the reasons why the ban was lifted. Recent milestones, such as the Justice Department directive to U.S. Attorneys in medical marijuana states and the call by the American Medical Association to review marijuana status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, have also contributed to more tolerant environment. ASA plans to work with local advocates to make certain that patients have a voice in the implementation of D.C.'s restored medical marijuana law.
Underscoring the public health aspect of today's Senate vote, the appropriations bill also lifted a ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs. As catalysts for adoption of both medical marijuana and syringe exchange programs, people living with HIV/AIDS possibly stand the most to gain by the lifting of these bans. Studies have shown that as many as 1/3 of people living with HIV/AIDS use medical marijuana to treat both the symptoms of the disease and the side-effects from the drugs. Studies have also shown that syringe exchange programs can reduce HIV transmission by at least 1/3 and reduce risk behavior by as much as 80%.
Further Information:
Text of 1998 D.C. I-59: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dcelections/races/dcq59.htm#text
Sunday, December 13, 2009
CANDIDATE WANTED: Replacing the San Diego DA, Bonnie Dumanis
As you know Bonnie Dumanis is the current San Diego County District Attorney who is spreading her misguided anti-medical marijuana campaign throughout California. Unfortunately, Dumanis is running unopposed in the 2010 General Election for San Diego County District Attorney.
In a genuine effort to replace Dumanis, a Candidate Wanted Job Posting is being circulated through the web using internet job posting sites, pay-per-clicks, blogs and emails. 'Any' eligible candidate must be found by the January 4, 2010 filing deadline.
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/candidate-wanted-district-attorney-for-the-county-of-san-diego/
You can support this effort today in three ways;
- Forward this email to everyone you can, then speak with them to be sure they received your email and did the same. (Deadline is Jan 4, 2010)
- Click the share button on BOTH campaign pages to share them on your Bolg, Facebook, MySpace, iGoogle and/or other social networking site(s).
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/candidate-wanted-district-attorney-for-the-county-of-san-diego/
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/financialpledge-for-district-attorney-of-san-diego/
- Pledge your financial support and encourage others to do the same. This is an effort to convince any eligible candidate to run against Bonnie Dumanis for San Diego County District Attorney. Your pledge will be added to the Supporter Pledged Amount total listed on the Candidate Wanted Job Posting. You will not be requested to provide financial support until an eligible and committed candidate has filed for the position. Dig deep and be honest, this is important and it's worth the effort!
Make your pledge today for the total amount you will be able to donate between now and the June 8, 2010 election.
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/financialpledge-for-district-attorney-of-san-diego/
If you have suggestions or comments you are able to contact us by leaving a comment on one of the campaign pages or by calling 619 . 550 . 2552.
Marcus Boyd
Replace Dumanis in 2010 Coordinator
Requesting Court Support
Tuesday, December 15th at 1:30 pm
DPT. 53 - 220 W BROADWAY, SD CA 92111
www.EugeneDavidovich.com
My name is Eugene Davidovich, I’m a twenty year resident of San Diego, a medical cannabis patient, and a victim of Operation Green Rx and San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ brutal ambition to overturn California’s Compassionate Use Act.
After having served four years in the Navy, including two deployments to the Gulf, medals, commendations and an honorable discharge I began to experience serious medical symptoms. With the use of medical cannabis I found relief from the symptoms without the debilitating side-effects I’d experienced with prescription drugs. During my treatment I was able to complete a Bachelors Degree then a Masters in Business Administration, all while building a successful career as a project manager in software development field.
Then, as a result of law enforcement’s lack of training in California law or its unwillingness to follow that law, all collectives dispensing medical cannabis in San Diego were targeted and systematically closed, effectively eliminating safe access to medicine in San Diego.
After reading the newly provided State Attorney General’s (AG) guidelines for cannabis collectives I formed my own collective and began to lawfully cultivate, and collectively distribute medical cannabis to other members of this collective on a non-profit basis according to the state law of Proposition 215, SB420 and the help of the AG guidelines.
Last year I received a call from a man calling himself Jamie Conlan and asking to join the collective. After a rigorous qualification process where Mr. Conlan presented both a driver’s license and a medical recommendation which he lied to a doctor to obtain, I allowed to him to join and obtain medication from the collective.
Some months later, my Mission Valley apartment was raided by an armed narcotics team and I was taken to the police station where I met Conrado DeCastro who revealed Operation Green Rx. I was to discover later through the prosecutor’s discovery that the officers of the operation were targeting collectives from Cal NORML’S web site and posing as legitimate patients to obtain cannabis recommendations from doctors and then entrap collectives. I was shown two large binders with names and told “we are gonna’ bring all you medical pot people down.” Charged with four felonies, I was taken to jail, for legally providing a patient $120.00 worth of medical cannabis. I didn’t think things could get much worse.
Imagine my shock to find that the DA held a news conference of manufactured lies, touting the success of what they now referred to as Operation Endless Summer, depicting me as a dangerous dealer of large amounts of heroin, meth, marijuana, as well as trotting out the “don’t mess with the military” and the “streets of navy housing” mantra that the San Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis has been maintaining ever since. The evening news quickly picked up the story showing video footage of me at the arraignment hearing, and again listing drugs which did not exist nor with which I had any involvement, let alone charged with selling.
As a result of the false press conference, the police refusal to follow the law and the prosecutor attempting to deny the court evidence that I am a patient protected by medical cannabis laws, I am in the fight of my life.
Please help stop this illegal operation, senseless waste, abuse, harassment of legitimate patients, and the bias of a select few by supporting me in court on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 1:30pm in Department 53.
Please visit my website to see the actual video of the delivery of medicine to the undercover, as well as some of the work I have done to raise awareness to the issue since my arrest.
Eugene Davidovich
www.eugenedavidovich.com
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Congressional Medical Marijuana Bill Lifts Ban on Evidence in Federal Court
For Immediate Release: October 27th, 2009
"Truth in Trials" Act corrects unfair trials, complements recent DOJ guidelines
Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) and more than twenty original bipartisan co-sponsors introduced legislation today that would allow defendants in medical marijuana cases the ability to use medical evidence at trial, a right not currently afforded them. Because of a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the government has the discretion to enforce federal marijuana laws even in medical marijuana states. The Raich ruling also allows federal prosecutors to exclude evidence of medical use or state law compliance in federal trials, all but guaranteeing convictions of medical marijuana patients and providers.
Last week, the U.S. Attorney General issued guidelines to federal prosecutors discouraging them from prosecuting cases in which patients and providers are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws." Unfortunately, the guidelines neither direct U.S. Attorneys to abandon the more than two-dozen pending federal medical marijuana cases, nor allow defendants the ability to use medical evidence to exonerate themselves. "This is a common sense bill that will help stop the waste of law enforcement and judicial resources that have been spent prosecuting individuals who are following state law," Rep. Farr said on Tuesday. "We need strict drug laws, but we also need to apply a little common sense to how they’re enforced. This legislation is about treating defendants in cases involving medical marijuana fairly, plain and simple."
For further information:
"Truth in Trials" legislation introduced today: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Truth_in_Trials_Act.pdf
Congressional cosponsors of "Truth in Trials" Act: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=5825
More information on the "Truth in Trials" Act: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/section.php?id=354
"Truth in Trials" Act corrects unfair trials, complements recent DOJ guidelines
Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) and more than twenty original bipartisan co-sponsors introduced legislation today that would allow defendants in medical marijuana cases the ability to use medical evidence at trial, a right not currently afforded them. Because of a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the government has the discretion to enforce federal marijuana laws even in medical marijuana states. The Raich ruling also allows federal prosecutors to exclude evidence of medical use or state law compliance in federal trials, all but guaranteeing convictions of medical marijuana patients and providers.
Last week, the U.S. Attorney General issued guidelines to federal prosecutors discouraging them from prosecuting cases in which patients and providers are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws." Unfortunately, the guidelines neither direct U.S. Attorneys to abandon the more than two-dozen pending federal medical marijuana cases, nor allow defendants the ability to use medical evidence to exonerate themselves. "This is a common sense bill that will help stop the waste of law enforcement and judicial resources that have been spent prosecuting individuals who are following state law," Rep. Farr said on Tuesday. "We need strict drug laws, but we also need to apply a little common sense to how they’re enforced. This legislation is about treating defendants in cases involving medical marijuana fairly, plain and simple."
During the Bush Administration, more than a hundred federal cases were prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys against medical marijuana patients and providers who were prevented from using medical evidence at trial. Because of an inability to properly defend themselves, scores of people have been convicted and have received sentences of up to 20 years in federal prison. While the Justice Department guidelines may result in fewer federal prosecutions, they are unlikely to assist defendants currently being prosecuted. Underscoring the need for the "Truth in Trials" Act, San Diego U.S. Attorney Karen Hewitt, a Bush appointee, recently responded to the guidelines by claiming she still does not have to prove a violation of state law before prosecuting someone under federal law.
"The 'Truth in Trials' Act will restore the balance of justice and bring fundamental fairness to federal medical marijuana trials," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs Director with Americans for Safe Access, the legislation's endorser. "This legislation complements the recent Justice Department guidelines for federal prosecutors and is now more necessary than ever."
Routinely, federal prosecutors seek long prison sentences in medical marijuana cases. Charles C. Lynch, a locally licensed medical marijuana dispensary operator from Morro Bay, California who had the support of his City Council and local Chamber of Commerce, was prosecuted and convicted under the Bush Administration. Although Lynch was accused by the federal government of violating state law, he could not use evidence of his compliance with state law at trial. "I was denied an affirmative defense despite my strict adherence to local and state medical marijuana laws," said Lynch. "Passage of this bill will allow jurors to hear the entire story." Lynch is currently released on bail pending his appeal.
The "Truth in Trials" bill has been introduced by Congress in past sessions, but is especially relevant now that the Obama Administration has changed federal policy on medical marijuana. At the time of introduction, the "Truth in Trials" bill had been endorsed by a diverse group of more than three-dozen advocacy, health, and legal organizations, including Americans for Safe Access (ASA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Association of People With AIDS (NAPWA), National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC), and AIDS Action Council. The "Truth in Trials" bill is likely to be referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. A companion bill has yet to be introduced in the U.S. Senate.
Contact ASA at 510-681-6361 to coordinate interviews with current federal defendants and those convicted without a defense
For further information:
"Truth in Trials" legislation introduced today: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Truth_in_Trials_Act.pdf
Congressional cosponsors of "Truth in Trials" Act: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=5825
More information on the "Truth in Trials" Act: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/section.php?id=354
San Diego Americans for Safe Access Meeting Tonight at 7pm
Come out to learn whats going on in the community, the state, and the nation.
The San Diego ASA meeting starts tonight at 7 pm at:
6070 Mt. Alifan Dr. Ste 202
San Diego, CA 92111
visit www.SafeAccessSD.org
The San Diego ASA meeting starts tonight at 7 pm at:
6070 Mt. Alifan Dr. Ste 202
San Diego, CA 92111
visit www.SafeAccessSD.org
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Peaceful Protest / Rally Against CNOA -Thursday - October 22 – 5:30pm Doubletree Hotel
Peaceful Protest / Rally
CNOA 2009 Awards Ceremony
Thursday - October 22 – 5:30pm Doubletree Hotel
7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
The California Narcotics Officers Association is holding their annual awards ceremony in San Diego this year. Some of the officers receiving awards are being recognized for their efforts in eradicating medical marijuana as a part of Operation Endless Summer / Green Rx earlier this year.
We as a community must tell the CNOA how we feel about their ignorance of medical cannabis laws, and their refusal to acknowledge cannabis as a legitimate medication. This organization is responsible for training all the San Diego Narcotics officers in how to eradicate medical marijuana.
As inexcusable as this award is, we are holding a Peaceful rally the night of the award dinner in front of the host hotel.
Rally starts at 5:30PM
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Doubletree Hotel
7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
CNOA 2009 Awards Ceremony
Thursday - October 22 – 5:30pm Doubletree Hotel
7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
The California Narcotics Officers Association is holding their annual awards ceremony in San Diego this year. Some of the officers receiving awards are being recognized for their efforts in eradicating medical marijuana as a part of Operation Endless Summer / Green Rx earlier this year.
We as a community must tell the CNOA how we feel about their ignorance of medical cannabis laws, and their refusal to acknowledge cannabis as a legitimate medication. This organization is responsible for training all the San Diego Narcotics officers in how to eradicate medical marijuana.
As inexcusable as this award is, we are holding a Peaceful rally the night of the award dinner in front of the host hotel.
Rally starts at 5:30PM
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Doubletree Hotel
7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
Monday, October 19, 2009
According to new gallup pole: Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches All-Time High
October 19, 2009
http://www.gallup.com/video/123734/Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-Time-High.aspx
Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches All-Time High
Forty-four percent of Americans think the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from the 36% who said the same at this time last year, and the highest in Gallup's history of asking this question.
http://www.gallup.com/video/123734/Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-Time-High.aspx
Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which was sent to United States Attorneys this morning.
The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also download a PDF version of the memo by clicking, here.
———————————————————————————————-
October 19,2009
MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.
The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.
The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.
Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:
unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
violence;
sales to minors;
financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
ties to other criminal enterprises.
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.
Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.
Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.
cc: All United States Attorneys
Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which was sent to United States Attorneys this morning.
The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also download a PDF version of the memo by clicking, here.
———————————————————————————————-
October 19,2009
MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana
This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.
The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.
The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.
Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:
unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
violence;
sales to minors;
financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
ties to other criminal enterprises.
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.
Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.
Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.
cc: All United States Attorneys
AP Newsbreak: New medical marijuana policy issued
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.
A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.
"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."
At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.
And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.
Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.
Shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9mnrkJu2S7Mly9xuWs4p9_TRkdwD9BDU8CG2
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Weekly party for Change in Vista Today
10/17/09 - TODAY
Raising Funds and Awareness
4:20pm - 8pm
1050 S. Sante Fe Ave. Vista, CA 92084
FREE ADMISSION! Everyone is welcome and needed!
Come join the movement for changing the status quo of our government which is fighting the will of the people.
Party for reform! Open-Mic night at MIA!!
Bring your songs, guitars, poems, & acts!
Get yourself recorded or just be a part of the crowd!!
Have fun & make a difference!
Sign-ups start at 4:20, & the mic goes on at 6!
At 5 pm we will give a formal presentation on the vision for this Cannabis Center.
Everyone is welcome and needed!
Come join the movement for changing the status quo of our government which is fighting the will of the people.
The focus of this institution will be:
-To bring justice to government violators of the law and victims of San Diego’s District Attorney Bonnie Dumunis’ reign of terror
-Focus on the upcoming June and November 2010 elections – working to pass cannabis friendly initiatives and politicians who will fight for our community
-Education – about cannabis and all its many uses
-Strengthen the community through social gatherings and actions
Movement In Action 1050 S. Sante Fe Ave. Vista, CA 92084
www.movementinaction.org movementinaction@gmail.com
(760) 500-8868
On 09/09/09 the Movement In Action Collective was raided by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department and the DEA, but despite this, they have presented our community with an opportunity to make this a place to organize and focus our fight against those who persecute cannabis.
Raising Funds and Awareness
4:20pm - 8pm
1050 S. Sante Fe Ave. Vista, CA 92084
FREE ADMISSION! Everyone is welcome and needed!
Come join the movement for changing the status quo of our government which is fighting the will of the people.
Party for reform! Open-Mic night at MIA!!
Bring your songs, guitars, poems, & acts!
Get yourself recorded or just be a part of the crowd!!
Have fun & make a difference!
Sign-ups start at 4:20, & the mic goes on at 6!
At 5 pm we will give a formal presentation on the vision for this Cannabis Center.
Everyone is welcome and needed!
Come join the movement for changing the status quo of our government which is fighting the will of the people.
The focus of this institution will be:
-To bring justice to government violators of the law and victims of San Diego’s District Attorney Bonnie Dumunis’ reign of terror
-Focus on the upcoming June and November 2010 elections – working to pass cannabis friendly initiatives and politicians who will fight for our community
-Education – about cannabis and all its many uses
-Strengthen the community through social gatherings and actions
Movement In Action 1050 S. Sante Fe Ave. Vista, CA 92084
www.movementinaction.org movementinaction@gmail.com
(760) 500-8868
On 09/09/09 the Movement In Action Collective was raided by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department and the DEA, but despite this, they have presented our community with an opportunity to make this a place to organize and focus our fight against those who persecute cannabis.
Case Law Interpreting Health & Safety Code 11362.775
Case law interpreting California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, which provides specific
legal protections for the association of qualified persons within the State in order to collectively
or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes:
(1) People v. Hochanadel, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (filed 8/18/2009) – Court concluded that “the
MMPA’s authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a
distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified
medical marijuana patients under the CUA….” The court also concluded “that storefront
dispensaries that qualify as ‘cooperatives’ or ‘collectives’ under the CUA and MMPA, and
otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at
trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA.”
(2) County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 (filed 7/1/2009) –
County of Butte was sued by a member of a medical marijuana collective after being ordered by
a sheriff to destroy some of the marijuana plants in accordance with the County’s underlying
policy to allow qualified patients to grow marijuana collectively only if each member actively
participates in the actual cultivation of the marijuana by planting, watering, pruning, or
harvesting the marijuana. Trial court sustained the civil lawsuit for money damages against the
County and concluded that contrary to the policy of the County, “the [State] legislature intended
collective cultivation of medical marijuana would not require physical participation in the
gardening process by all members of the collective, but rather would permit that some patients
would be able to contribute financially, while others performed the labor and contributed the
skills and ‘know-how.’” Court of Appeal upheld the trial court ruling.
(3) People v. Newcomb et al., 2009 WL 1589574 (filed 6/9/2009) (Not Officially Published) –
Defendants appealed their convictions based upon the collective/cooperative defense under
California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Appellate court upheld the convictions, but
elaborated that “other than merely purchasing marijuana, not every member must contribute to
some aspect of the collective or cooperative; … Because some patients may be too ill to
contribute to the collective or cooperative, requiring them to do so, in order to be part of the
collective or cooperative, would be impractical.”
(4) People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (filed 9/12/2005) – Appellate court reversed
and remanded a trial court’s determination that a defendant was precluded from raising a
“collective, cooperative defense” under Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. The appellate court
found that the defendant had presented the trial court with sufficient evidence that: the defendant
was a qualified patient; the co-defendants were qualified patients; the procedures of the
collective, in question, verified the prescriptions and identities of the various members, making
them qualified patients, as well; members paid membership fees and reimbursed the defendant
for cost incurred in the cultivation through donations; and members volunteered and participated
at the collective, by helping with cultivation, delivery, processing of new applications, etc. The
court elaborated that Health & Safety Code § 11362.775’s “specific itemization of the marijuana
sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana
cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in
conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”
Provided by: Marcus Boyd, San Diego ASA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)