Feds reply to Cali Prop 19

[mean mr.mustard]

Titanic, World War II, Vietnam, civil rights, gun laws, genocide, women voting, prohibition, repealment, abolition, and taxes were all "fear mongering".

 

[Mr Celsius]

.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

What if one man wanted to take control of a country in an attempt to take over the world?

Fearsome or fear mongering?

 

[Mr Celsius]

.

 

[Lazyman]

I remember reading a couople years ago that California only gets back about $.60 on the dollar for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, the lowest in the nation. In other words, California taxes subsidize flyover states with their taxes. If California were to secede from the Union, there would be all sorts of repercussions. New York would be the next most wealthy state, and would probably be taxed to death to compensate, lol.

 

[BigBudBill]

Pigs still raid dispensaries.

Fact #1.

The system works.

Opinion #0

Fact #2

Pigs don't raid all dispensaries

Opinion #1: There always seem to be guns or other illegal substances besides mmj at these dispensaries being raided.

Opinion #2: There is no perfect system in place by which we can measure if "The system works." Is this a black or white issue?

I have 10 dispensaries close to me. One got raided. Money laundering. I don't feel for them. The other 9 were left alone. Why? In compliance(at least as far as Santa Clara Co. LEO is concerned). I am not so sure the system doesnt work. I understand that those people who are in charge of raids down south are ELECTED officials. Time to make a change.

 

[SCF]

Pigs still raid dispensaries.

Fact #1.

The system works.

Opinion #0

Fact 1 Charles Lynch was found guilty of which was a MINIMUM of 100 years in Prison. Where the Judge ruled a "light" Sentencing. FEDERAL JUDGE. of 1 year, as he saw it injustice. And had no other way, as law is law is law.

We are working on changing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Laws, one state at a time.

How many states now have medical marijuana? And how many other states get raided? Mainly, and mostly only California. Why? Because they are proving a point. How many clubs do we have in California. Over 500 plus. So whos really winning the fight?

Face 2: Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft The system does work, but there will always be mistakes and bad apples in the system

. Follow it and don't get greedy. Karma... love her.

Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft
http://www.santacruzvsashcroft.com/WAMM-motion-for-reconsideration.html

12 - top

the present legal and factual context, a preliminary injunction thus is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. 3. Conclusion Absent intervention by the Supreme Court, the change in the law of this circuit requires this Court to reconsider its decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury and a likelihood of success with respect to their argument that, on the facts of this case and the controlling case law in this circuit, the CSA as applied to Plaintiffs is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ complaint (for injunctive and declaratory relief for deprivation of fundamental rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments), Claim 3 (for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon unlawful exercise of Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause), Claim 4 (for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon violation of the Tenth Amendment), and Claim 5 (for declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Plaintiffs’ actions are protected from civil or criminal liability under the CSA by 21 U.S.C. § 885(d)). For the reasons discussed above, the Court must reconsider its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 3 will be denied. For the reasons previously stated by the Court, Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 will be dismissed with leave to amend. // // // // // // // )







Here is a story of how the CITY actually Joined this Marijuana HOSPICE to sue.WA/AM is now exempt from any federal prosecution!


http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/marijuana/santacruz/


County of Santa Cruz et. al. v. Ashcroft et. al.

The Drug Policy Alliance, together with the prestigious law firm Bingham McCutchen, criminal defense attorney Gerald Uelmen, and Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice, is representing the city and county of Santa Cruz, seven terminally and chronically ill patients and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in an unprecedented lawsuit against the federal government. The suit, Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft, aims to halt the Bush Administration’s ongoing interference with state medical marijuana laws.

The suit was prompted by a raid that received national attention September 2002, in which armed agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) stormed WAMM, terrorizing residents and patients. WAMM, which provides medical marijuana under California’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215), was shut down and several members were detained.

This case is the first in which a public entity sued the federal government on behalf of patients who need medical marijuana. The case also focuses on the constitutional right of chronically and terminally ill patients to control the circumstances of their own pain relief and ultimately their deaths - a right recognized by the Supreme Court. WAMM itself is also unique. Unlike other medical marijuana cooperatives, it doubles as a hospice and does not charge money for its services.

The lawsuit was filed against Attorney General John Ashcroft, DEA Acting Administrator John Brown, and Drug Czar John Walters. The seven patient-plaintiffs in the lawsuit (one of whom passed away earlier this year) represent the interests of approximately 200 other patients, and their caregivers that make up the WAMM collective. They suffer from HIV/AIDS, cancer, post-polio syndrome, epilepsy, and chronic pain. These patients use medical marijuana to relieve such symptoms as: nausea and vomiting, wasting syndrome, neuropathy, and severe and chronic pain.

In August 2003, San Jose federal district court judge Jeremy Fogel, citing federal law, dismissed the lawsuit but allowed WAMM the opportunity to amend their claims. In December 2003 and again in February 2004, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers in Raich v. Ashcroft, a case funded in part by the Drug Policy Alliance. Per the court’s decision in Raich patients and their caregivers can, with a physician's recommendation, continue to legally cultivate and use the drug without federal interference, as long as they do so without engaging in any "commerce" and within state borders.

During the Raich case, the Ninth Circuit questioned Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel’s decision to dismiss the County and City of Santa Cruz et.al. v. Ashcroft case. In March 2004 the Alliance and our co-counsel for the WAMM plaintiffs requested that the judge reconsider its ruling and re-hear the case.

Judge Fogel reconsidered the case based on the December 2003 decision in Raich v. Ashcroft and on April 21, 2004 granted a preliminary injunction denying the government's motion to dismiss the WAMM members' complaint. Judge Fogel’s decision protects the more than 200 seriously ill WAMM members while their lawsuit is pending, and allows the collective to resume cultivation.

On April 20, 2004 Attorney General John Ashcroft filed a Petition for Certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit Court's decision on Raich. The attorneys representing the defendants in the Raich case asked the Supreme Court to not grant certiorari. On June 28 of 2004 the United States Supreme Court announced that they would consider the case in the upcoming fall term.

In a matter related to Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft on September 24, 2002, WAMM and Valerie and Michael Corral, who head the collective, filed a motion asking the court to order the federal government to return more than 160 marijuana plants and other property seized by federal agents in the September 5, 2002 raid. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel denied the motion to return the property December 3, 2002, and the decision was appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This action is separate from their civil rights lawsuit against the government, under which the federal government was recently prohibited from raiding WAMM or its members.

On June 18, 2004, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the motion for return of property back to Judge Fogel asking his court to reconsider the case in light of the Raich decision. The 9th Circuit Court asked Judge Fogel’s District Court to reconsider the case after the Supreme Court “has completed its action in Raich.”

More Information

 

[BigBudBill]

Titanic, World War II, Vietnam, civil rights, gun laws, genocide, women voting, prohibition, repealment, abolition, and taxes were all "fear mongering".

So was Reefer Madness. I got my tin foil hat. You have convinced me I should be scarT. Phillip Morris, Obama, Holder OH MY!

 

[SCF]

Something to consider:

The people who have actually objectively looked at this measure and come to a conclusion that they do not agree with its policies, wording or effects, without the motivation of money, seem to have a good grasp of what is on both sides.

Now I'm sure there are people like that on the side of pro-Prop 19, but I see a lot of people banning together, repeating the same things and throwing out token responses to intellectually phrased concerns.

"Fear mongering"
"all they care about is money"
"not factual"

ect

What are the anti-Prop 19 people saying about the pro-Prop people?

"Ignorant to what will happen"
"Making concessions to just get it legal"

These statements reflect thought about the subject, the other statements reflect rejections on a total scale.

Now opionion time.

I feel... The NO side has shown very little FACTS, no links, no court cases, no ripping apart the props verbiage, and proving beyond a persons doubt their point without opinion based evaluation.

We have a Yes side, a no Side, and a dont know side. The no side sticks together and attacks anyone who may have actual points and real facts with proof to show time and time again. Where the Yes group has a tendency to be more polite about it, repeating the same FACTS over and over again, as the NO side wants to continue to bring up the same stuff over and over and over again, without accepting what was presented to them, or challenging it.

No one is banning together. We just have a lot more Facts and Proof on the Yes side, which obviously is going to bring more Yes people into this thread, which will prompt for more yes post.

80 percent of it has been out of fear. Maybe in there own hearts. I hope that fear doesn't spread, as our government is doing a fine job of doing that already...

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Fact #2

Pigs don't raid all dispensaries

Opinion #1: There always seem to be guns or other illegal substances besides mmj at these dispensaries being raided.

Opinion #2: There is no perfect system in place by which we can measure if "The system works." Is this a black or white issue?

I have 10 dispensaries close to me. One got raided. Money laundering. I don't feel for them. The other 9 were left alone. Why? In compliance(at least as far as Santa Clara Co. LEO is concerned). I am not so sure the system doesnt work. I understand that those people who are in charge of raids down south are ELECTED officials. Time to make a change.

How many states now have medical marijuana? And how many other states get raided? Mainly, and mostly only California. Why? Because they are proving a point.

The system does work, but there will always be mistakes and bad apples in the system

Quoted for poignancy.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

So was Reefer Madness. I got my tin foil hat. You have convinced me I should be scarT. Phillip Morris, Obama, Holder OH MY!

Don't sweat it... they aren't real.

 

[SCF]

Quoted for poignancy.

what cant stand when someone proves you otherwise? Come on. Bring on the facts NO side! I WANT TO BE CONVINCED TO VOTE NO TO LEGAL MARIJUANA :shrugs and looks confused::

But I highly doubt that will happen


SCF

Edit, and instead of quoting 1 line out of 100, why dont you quote my WHOLE post....

Fact 1 Charles Lynch was found guilty of which was a MINIMUM of 100 years in Prison. Where the Judge ruled a "light" Sentencing. FEDERAL JUDGE. of 1 year, as he saw it injustice. And had no other way, as law is law is law.

We are working on changing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Laws, one state at a time.

How many states now have medical marijuana? And how many other states get raided? Mainly, and mostly only California. Why? Because they are proving a point. How many clubs do we have in California. Over 500 plus. So whos really winning the fight?

Face 2: Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft The system does work, but there will always be mistakes and bad apples in the system

. Follow it and don't get greedy. Karma... love her.

Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft
http://www.santacruzvsashcroft.com/WAMM-motion-for-reconsideration.html

12 - top

the present legal and factual context, a preliminary injunction thus is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. 3. Conclusion Absent intervention by the Supreme Court, the change in the law of this circuit requires this Court to reconsider its decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury and a likelihood of success with respect to their argument that, on the facts of this case and the controlling case law in this circuit, the CSA as applied to Plaintiffs is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ complaint (for injunctive and declaratory relief for deprivation of fundamental rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments), Claim 3 (for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon unlawful exercise of Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause), Claim 4 (for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon violation of the Tenth Amendment), and Claim 5 (for declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Plaintiffs’ actions are protected from civil or criminal liability under the CSA by 21 U.S.C. § 885(d)). For the reasons discussed above, the Court must reconsider its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 3 will be denied. For the reasons previously stated by the Court, Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 will be dismissed with leave to amend. // // // // // // // )







Here is a story of how the CITY actually Joined this Marijuana HOSPICE to sue.WA/AM is now exempt from any federal prosecution!


http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/marijuana/santacruz/


County of Santa Cruz et. al. v. Ashcroft et. al.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

One got raided. Money laundering. I don't feel for them.

Quoted for ultimate poignancy.

 

[BigBudBill]

Quoted for poignancy.

Typical. Chop up my paragraph to take it out of context. NICE. Here is the whole paragraph:
I have 10 dispensaries close to me. One got raided. Money laundering. I don't feel for them. The other 9 were left alone. Why? In compliance(at least as far as Santa Clara Co. LEO is concerned). I am not so sure the system doesnt work. I understand that those people who are in charge of raids down south are ELECTED officials. Time to make a change.


Hmmm. Now WHY oh WHY would you do that Mustard?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

instead of quoting 1 line out of 100, why dont you quote my WHOLE post....

Because I like to get to the meat of the issue.

Facts show that dispensaries are still suffering losses.

If that fact doesn't show you anything, I'm done here.

 

[SCF]

Quoted for ultimate poignancy.

you are bringing no facts, and wasting this threads time. I will refrain from conter posting you, as im finding it more and more useless, and making me post off topic....

Facts, and proof of prop 19 regarding the Federal Governments reply to it.


Lets all keep it on topic so JJ dont have to lock this thread and clean it. AGAIN...


SCF

Because I like to get to the meat of the issue.

Facts show that dispensaries are still suffering losses.

If that fact doesn't show you anything, I'm done here.

once again, opinion, no fact....... And i HIGHLY disagree with you. Major Majority of Cannabis Clubs are making Hand over Fist.

 

[BigBudBill]

erased post as it was off topic.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Typical. Chop up my paragraph to take it out of context. NICE. Here is the whole paragraph:
I have 10 dispensaries close to me. One got raided. Money laundering. I don't feel for them. The other 9 were left alone. Why? In compliance(at least as far as Santa Clara Co. LEO is concerned). I am not so sure the system doesnt work. I understand that those people who are in charge of raids down south are ELECTED officials. Time to make a change.


Hmmm. Now WHY oh WHY would you do that Mustard?

If you don't edit your post it still reads the same.

Why is everyone so hurt that I edited your posts to just include the part I'm referring to?

I do it because I hate seeing a good discussion blanded with reposted posts that I don't see a need for in mine?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I was about to reply BBB but I guess I'll respect your edit.

Go ahead SCF, call JJ and erase whatever post you don't like.

Ban me for speaking my mind, I'll leave quietly.

What I have the most distaste for is false fact.

Knock yourselves out.

I don't tolerate misinformation.

Not in the growers' forums, not here.

Sorry.... Homey don't play that.

Ask dag about my "morals".

I kept quiet for a while, I know Cali wants to see this through.

I won't let someone lie.

My bad I guess.

 

[SCF]

Originally Posted by SCF
Fact 1 Charles Lynch was found guilty of which was a MINIMUM of 100 years in Prison. Where the Judge ruled a "light" Sentencing. FEDERAL JUDGE. of 1 year, as he saw it injustice. And had no other way, as law is law is law.

We are working on changing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Laws, one state at a time.

How many states now have medical marijuana? And how many other states get raided? Mainly, and mostly only California. Why? Because they are proving a point. How many clubs do we have in California. Over 500 plus. So whos really winning the fight?

Face 2: Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft The system does work, but there will always be mistakes and bad apples in the system

. Follow it and don't get greedy. Karma... love her.

Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft
http://www.santacruzvsashcroft.com/W...ideration.html

12 - top

the present legal and factual context, a preliminary injunction thus is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. 3. Conclusion Absent intervention by the Supreme Court, the change in the law of this circuit requires this Court to reconsider its decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury and a likelihood of success with respect to their argument that, on the facts of this case and the controlling case law in this circuit, the CSA as applied to Plaintiffs is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ complaint (for injunctive and declaratory relief for deprivation of fundamental rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments), Claim 3 (for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon unlawful exercise of Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause), Claim 4 (for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon violation of the Tenth Amendment), and Claim 5 (for declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Plaintiffs’ actions are protected from civil or criminal liability under the CSA by 21 U.S.C. § 885(d)). For the reasons discussed above, the Court must reconsider its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 3 will be denied. For the reasons previously stated by the Court, Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 will be dismissed with leave to amend. // // // // // // // )







Here is a story of how the CITY actually Joined this Marijuana HOSPICE to sue.WA/AM is now exempt from any federal prosecution!


http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/marijuana/santacruz/


County of Santa Cruz et. al. v. Ashcroft et. al.

repeated as you still have yet to rebuttal this? or are you just going to ignore it, as you normally do, and keep to your 1 liners?