Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Sunday, July 12, 2020
This is fantastic
Federal prosecutors cannot punish two Northern California marijuana growers for violating U.S. drug laws because Congress has protected pot suppliers who follow the state’s medical marijuana law, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s decision that two men whose property in Humboldt County was raided by federal drug agents in 2012 had complied with California’s medical marijuana law and could not be sentenced as drug dealers under federal law.
Both men had pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2014, a year before Congress barred the Justice Department from spending money to interfere with a state’s medical marijuana law. California voters approved the nation’s first such law in 1996, and 20 years later approved another law legalizing possession, use and cultivation for personal use of marijuana by adults over 21.
The appeals court had ruled in a separate case in 2016 that the budget restriction prohibited federal prosecution of growers who could prove they were following the state’s medical marijuana law. A year later, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg cited that ruling to bar federal sentencing of the two marijuana growers, the first such decision in the nation. Their lawyer, Ronald Richards, said Friday’s decision was the first by a U.S. appeals court to prohibit federal marijuana prosecution under the congressional restrictions.
“People are still going to prison for marijuana offenses, notwithstanding the fact that most states have medical marijuana laws and many states have legalized marijuana,” Richards said. “This ruling paves the way for others to challenge these prosecutions and not have the decision upset by an appellate court reweighing the evidence.”
He said his clients, Anthony Pisarski and Sonny Moore, would ask Seeborg to withdraw their guilty pleas.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Federal policy on the issue has varied under both the Obama and the Trump administrations. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in January 2018 that his office would resume federal marijuana prosecutions nationwide regardless of state laws, but his successor, William Barr, promised at his Senate confirmation hearing in January 2019 that he would not prosecute growers who complied with state marijuana laws.
Pisarski and Moore were arrested in July 2012 by officers who said they found 327 marijuana plants, along with two loaded guns and $416,000 in cash on their property in a remote area of central Humboldt County. Searches over the next year uncovered more firearms, cash, and gold and silver bars.
The two men presented evidence that they grew the marijuana for nearby nonprofit collectives, which reimbursed them for their costs, and that they were abiding by the state law’s ban on growing marijuana for profit. Federal prosecutors argued that the cash, gold and silver were evidence of a profit-making business, but Seeborg disagreed, noting that such transactions were often made in cash because banks refused to serve marijuana businesses.
Upholding his ruling, the appeals court said prosecutors had not presented any evidence of past or future marijuana sales by the growers, other than the legal transactions with the collectives.
“The presence of weapons and excessive amounts of cash on the Humboldt property was equally consistent with the operation of a rural, cash-intensive enterprise as it was with an unlawful marijuana operation,” said Judge M. Margaret McKeown in the majority opinion. She was joined by Judge Eugene Siler of the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, temporarily assigned to the Ninth Circuit.
Dissenting Judge J. Clifford Wallace said the cash, guns and ammunition were evidence of a for-profit operation that would have violated California law.
Source
This is awesome. This is a huge win. Thank you 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals for seeing reason. They don't often do that.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s decision that two men whose property in Humboldt County was raided by federal drug agents in 2012 had complied with California’s medical marijuana law and could not be sentenced as drug dealers under federal law.
Both men had pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2014, a year before Congress barred the Justice Department from spending money to interfere with a state’s medical marijuana law. California voters approved the nation’s first such law in 1996, and 20 years later approved another law legalizing possession, use and cultivation for personal use of marijuana by adults over 21.
The appeals court had ruled in a separate case in 2016 that the budget restriction prohibited federal prosecution of growers who could prove they were following the state’s medical marijuana law. A year later, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg cited that ruling to bar federal sentencing of the two marijuana growers, the first such decision in the nation. Their lawyer, Ronald Richards, said Friday’s decision was the first by a U.S. appeals court to prohibit federal marijuana prosecution under the congressional restrictions.
“People are still going to prison for marijuana offenses, notwithstanding the fact that most states have medical marijuana laws and many states have legalized marijuana,” Richards said. “This ruling paves the way for others to challenge these prosecutions and not have the decision upset by an appellate court reweighing the evidence.”
He said his clients, Anthony Pisarski and Sonny Moore, would ask Seeborg to withdraw their guilty pleas.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Federal policy on the issue has varied under both the Obama and the Trump administrations. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in January 2018 that his office would resume federal marijuana prosecutions nationwide regardless of state laws, but his successor, William Barr, promised at his Senate confirmation hearing in January 2019 that he would not prosecute growers who complied with state marijuana laws.
Pisarski and Moore were arrested in July 2012 by officers who said they found 327 marijuana plants, along with two loaded guns and $416,000 in cash on their property in a remote area of central Humboldt County. Searches over the next year uncovered more firearms, cash, and gold and silver bars.
The two men presented evidence that they grew the marijuana for nearby nonprofit collectives, which reimbursed them for their costs, and that they were abiding by the state law’s ban on growing marijuana for profit. Federal prosecutors argued that the cash, gold and silver were evidence of a profit-making business, but Seeborg disagreed, noting that such transactions were often made in cash because banks refused to serve marijuana businesses.
Upholding his ruling, the appeals court said prosecutors had not presented any evidence of past or future marijuana sales by the growers, other than the legal transactions with the collectives.
“The presence of weapons and excessive amounts of cash on the Humboldt property was equally consistent with the operation of a rural, cash-intensive enterprise as it was with an unlawful marijuana operation,” said Judge M. Margaret McKeown in the majority opinion. She was joined by Judge Eugene Siler of the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, temporarily assigned to the Ninth Circuit.
Dissenting Judge J. Clifford Wallace said the cash, guns and ammunition were evidence of a for-profit operation that would have violated California law.
Source
This is awesome. This is a huge win. Thank you 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals for seeing reason. They don't often do that.
Sunday, July 5, 2020
Happy birthday, America and a word from the losers
Yesterday was July Fourth. America's birthday. A revolution we had a won. We achieved independence from a very powerful global empire that was oppressing us. We cheered in the streets while we said:
Of course, there are two sides to every story. What is the British viewpoint of the American Revolution? I was reading this article on George Takei's website. Yes, Mr. Sulu George Takei. There is a lot of silence in Great Britain concerning this subject. However, there are Brits that did speak up about it. Some I found interesting and I wanted to respond to them.
To Americans the War of Independence was obviously a huge conflict that lead to the founding of a nation. To British - we have so much other military history (mainly Roman invasion, Norman conquest, 100 year war, War of the Roses, Spanish Armada, English Civil War, Battle of Trafalgar/Waterloo, WW1, WW2 to name a few) that it barely gets a mention.
To Britons, We have a rich military history too. The War of 1812-USA versus Great Britain, American Civil War, WW1.WW2-to save Britain's ass,Vietnam-Americans discuss Vietnam and we move beyond it. Too bad you cannot do the same. There is also the Korean War, The Persian Gulf War, The Iraqi War, The Spanish American War and a possible second Civil War.
We also cover non-military history (e.g. Kings/Queens of England, life during medieval period, Henry VIII founding the Church of England, Slavery, British Empire, Industrial Revolution) and learn a little about Ancient History (Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts)
We discuss Presidents: past, present and future. We also discuss members of Congress and the Senate. We've read about your lives in medieval times. The Founding Fathers drafting the Declaration Of Independence and Constitution. Slavery too. American sovereignty and sustainability. Yes on the Industrial Revolution and ancient history too.
There's a lot to squeeze in that is arguably more relevant to UK's development as a nation so we don't really cover it.
Not to mention it is a bigtime embarrassment.
Of course, there are two sides to every story. What is the British viewpoint of the American Revolution? I was reading this article on George Takei's website. Yes, Mr. Sulu George Takei. There is a lot of silence in Great Britain concerning this subject. However, there are Brits that did speak up about it. Some I found interesting and I wanted to respond to them.
To Americans the War of Independence was obviously a huge conflict that lead to the founding of a nation. To British - we have so much other military history (mainly Roman invasion, Norman conquest, 100 year war, War of the Roses, Spanish Armada, English Civil War, Battle of Trafalgar/Waterloo, WW1, WW2 to name a few) that it barely gets a mention.
To Britons, We have a rich military history too. The War of 1812-USA versus Great Britain, American Civil War, WW1.WW2-to save Britain's ass,Vietnam-Americans discuss Vietnam and we move beyond it. Too bad you cannot do the same. There is also the Korean War, The Persian Gulf War, The Iraqi War, The Spanish American War and a possible second Civil War.
We also cover non-military history (e.g. Kings/Queens of England, life during medieval period, Henry VIII founding the Church of England, Slavery, British Empire, Industrial Revolution) and learn a little about Ancient History (Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts)
We discuss Presidents: past, present and future. We also discuss members of Congress and the Senate. We've read about your lives in medieval times. The Founding Fathers drafting the Declaration Of Independence and Constitution. Slavery too. American sovereignty and sustainability. Yes on the Industrial Revolution and ancient history too.
There's a lot to squeeze in that is arguably more relevant to UK's development as a nation so we don't really cover it.
Not to mention it is a bigtime embarrassment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
