2. Federal Court Rules that DEA's Actions in California May be Unconstitutional

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the DEA crackdown on medical cannabis in California may not be allowed under the 10th Amendment, saying that enforcement of U.S. drug laws can go too far if it seeks to interfere with state authority.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose denied a Bush administration request to dismiss the lawsuit by the ACLU, Santa Cruz city and county officials, and members of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a patient collective whose medical cannabis was seized by federal agents in a 2002 raid.

Since 1996, the DEA's aggression in California has included raids of locally regulated dispensaries and collectives, property seizure threats to landlords, attempts to intimidate and punish doctors, and prosecutions of patient caregivers. These tactics have come under fire for years by ASA and others as an attempt to undermine California's constitutional right to enact health care policies that protect patients within our state. This ruling in the United States District Court says that we may have been right all along.

The suit claims federal prosecutors have tried to disrupt the California law by targeting critical participants in the state system - doctors who approved their patients' cannabis use, local officials who issued state-approved identification cards to patients, local governments whose zoning allowed dispensaries, and medical cannabis dispensing collectives who cooperated with local governments. Federal authorities' goal, the plaintiffs alleged, is to make it impossible for the state to distinguish between medical and recreational use of cannabis and render the state law unenforceable, interfering with California's constitutional power to enact its own laws.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal actions in the past (except for the government's attempt to strip licenses from doctors simply for talking about medical cannabis), Fogel said the plaintiffs in this case may be able to show that the federal government exceeded its constitutional authority by trying to force California to repeal its medical cannabis law. This case addresses the fundamental underlying problem with California's ability to perfect its law: federal interference and undermining of that law. It could be an exciting end to the DEA's attacks on medical cannabis patients in California and across the country!

wrap your lips around THAT and smoke it!!!!
whiskeytango

__________________
Your style will eventually match your grow area and the amount of time and money you like to put into initial setup vs. long term maintenance.-stinkyattic

LED growing- An instructional grow log
Episode 3...Revenge of the LED
Episode 4: The Clone Colonies

I am going to go out and look for more info on this now! Holy shit shit shit! I have so many questions, I will wait until I get more info but all I can say is HOLY SHIT SHIT ON SHIT STICK!
I am calling Ronnie right now.

info from safeaccessnow. Sorry I forgot to put that in there...
Its about time huh?
whiskeytango

__________________
Your style will eventually match your grow area and the amount of time and money you like to put into initial setup vs. long term maintenance.-stinkyattic

LED growing- An instructional grow log
Episode 3...Revenge of the LED
Episode 4: The Clone Colonies

Ok I am there, having a hard time finding it though? Was this a federal court decision? Please link! PLease!

ASA's Online Discussion Forums / ASA CA Weekly Alert 8-22--08

__________________
Your style will eventually match your grow area and the amount of time and money you like to put into initial setup vs. long term maintenance.-stinkyattic

LED growing- An instructional grow log
Episode 3...Revenge of the LED
Episode 4: The Clone Colonies

OK, I found the post on their forum.
What the hell does "may be unconstitutional" mean? Did the federal court come down with a ruling or is it that they are just letting the case go to trial? Anyone have more info or links to more info on this?

In the first decision of its kind, a federal judge has ruled that California's medical marijuana advocates may go forward with a claim that the federal government has a pattern of drug law enforcement intended to subvert California law in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, in San Jose, Calif., said he will allow Santa Cruz County to go forward with its claim that federal authorities deliberately are seeking to frustrate the state's ability to determine whether an individual's use of marijuana is permitted medical use, or illegal recreational use.

Medical marijuana advocates contend the federal government has engaged in a calculated campaign to force states to repeal medical marijuana use laws, in violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves states' powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the federal government maintains the power to enforce federal marijuana laws, even in the dozen states that have made medical marijuana legal.

But the Court's Gonzales v. Raich ruling left individual state laws untouched.

Santa Cruz passed an ordinance that creates a government office responsible for providing medical marijuana directly to patients, in part to test the reach of the Raich decision.

The lawsuit, County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales, C03-1802JF, by Santa Cruz County against the U.S. attorney general alleges the federal government has targeted enforcement to make it impossible for California to implement and enforce its law and force the state to recriminalize medical marijuana use.

The suit alleges federal prosecutors threatened to punish California doctors who recommend marijuana, threatened officials who issued medical pot identification cards, interfered with zoning plans to allow pot dispensaries and targeted for arrest those providers who cooperate closely with municipalities.

The suit alleges the actions make it impossible for the state to distinguish between authorized use and unauthorized recreational users in the state.

The federal government responded in papers that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held the plain terms of the Controlled Substances Act do not violate the 10th Amendment by directing actions of the state. Based on that ruling, federal officials argued the Santa Cruz case had to be dismissed, saying the case is nothing more than a claim of selective enforcement.

Fogel disagreed and allowed the case to proceed.

Federal Judge Backs Medical Pot Activists' Suit Against Government, Feds to be sued // Current

__________________
Your style will eventually match your grow area and the amount of time and money you like to put into initial setup vs. long term maintenance.-stinkyattic

LED growing- An instructional grow log
Episode 3...Revenge of the LED
Episode 4: The Clone Colonies

wow, a federal judge standing up! thats crazy. I agree that this is a giant small step. all that was said is that he wouldnt throw the case out because they MAY be on to something! now if this judge has the testicular fortitude to rule in their favor is the real question!

LOL, $20 bucks this guy smokes!

Jeremy Fogel | Stanford Law School

__________________
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -- Abraham Lincoln December, 1840

"I'm not not licking toads" -Homer Simpson

"Focus on what I invest in, got married to marijuana, yeah, and the connect is my best man" -Jadakiss

Thanks WT!

Now that they have seized so much from so many. It is about time!! I am happy to hear this, yet remain reserved!

Like all legal things, may take too much time!

Ole' Arnie has a 'cigar' smoke shack he put at the Capitol office's. Bet he tokes out there, too! If he spent more time doing what he is there for! Not our first Actor Governor though! pr

__________________
The time you give is the most precious gift of all-to all!
If a person is hungry, teach um to fish!
HATE DESTROYS-SO LEAVE HATE TO THOSE TOO WEAK TO LOVE!
Imagine WORLD PEACE!

Wow,
THis really is a big deal and could have huge implications for anyone (Ronnie) that is currently serving time, or going to trial (In Oct). I think this is worthy of being followed all the way to the end and receiving constant updates of this case here! Mods, is there any way we can have a thread started and stuck just for the purposes of following this case? Please pretty please with keef on top!
SnS you have struck gold here. This is the case will hopefully if won, set a new precedent!

Im not at all opposed to a Mod renaming this thread for sticky purposes...I feel this is a great idea, and needs to be followed throughout...I couldn't find another appropriate link, since the original text was from my weekly update email from ASA...
Feel free to do this Mods if ya wish..I will update as I get info from my newsletters, and would love others to update with CREDIBLE info...I hope mine is...lol
whiskeytango

__________________
Your style will eventually match your grow area and the amount of time and money you like to put into initial setup vs. long term maintenance.-stinkyattic

LED growing- An instructional grow log
Episode 3...Revenge of the LED
Episode 4: The Clone Colonies

Hey I love the title! Very appropriate. Of course they could lose the case, but something in my gut says that they won't!
I attached the actual court document on the decision for all to read.

Attached Files

santacruzvgonzalesfogelrulingagainstgovmotiontodismiss.pdf (79.0 KB, 6 views)

Link to the actual complaint filed as well for your reading pleasure.
http://www.santacruzvsashcroft.com/S...v_Ashcroft.pdf

News like this instills hope in my heart.

Well I have my google alert set! Just go to google, type in Santa Cruz vs Ashcroft, then do a "news" search. It should give the results and the option to set an automatic email alert for that item! You will recieve a conformation if done right! I am still looking for more specific info on the where's and when, of the case. As in when the next day they will be going into court ect....I realize that this will probably take a little while, but shit man I can hardly wait to see what happens!

Just a correction, in all my haste I incorrectly posted Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft, it's actually
Santa Cruz v. Gonzales.
Sorry bout that!

Just couldn't help myself, here is the ver batum order from the judge!

ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED;
(3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Plaintiffs’
first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ third
cause of action;
(4) Any amended complaint shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the date of this
Order; and
(5) Counsel for Plaintiffs are directed to prepare a proposed form of order granting the

motion for preliminary injunction; no bond shall be required.

To me this makes it sound like they can continue operating for now. Wow! Could this have any impact on other cases currently in the system? Anyone?

I'm no legal-eagle but I'd imagine the precedent set by the outcome will make a huge difference for pending and future cases.

+rep to Judge Fogel

More like Judge McLovin.

Santa Cruz group wins court OK to grow pot

Ruling allows medical marijuana distribution

Maria Alicia Gaura, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 22, 2004

A Santa Cruz medical marijuana collective shut down by federal agents two years ago can grow and distribute marijuana for its patients while its civil lawsuit against the federal government is decided by the courts, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose marks the first time a court has granted a medical marijuana organization the right to grow the federally outlawed herb without interference from federal drug agents.
The ruling clears the way for the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz to challenge the federal government's authority to raid medical marijuana gardens operating within the boundaries of California law.
"This is an incredible victory for us, though we do realize that everything is temporary," said Valerie Corral, the founder and director of the collective. "We are so pleased to be able to begin our garden again."
Federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the collective's marijuana farm on Sept. 5, 2002, seizing 167 plants and detaining several of the group's members.
At the time of the raid, the collective had been operating openly for several years with the explicit support of Santa Cruz city and county officials, including local law enforcement. The group's approximately 250 members, suffering from a variety of serious illnesses, collectively grew marijuana and distributed it to members free of charge.
The federal raid was denounced by Santa Cruz officials, who responded by allowing the group to distribute marijuana from the steps of City Hall -- as an unmarked helicopter repeatedly circled overhead.
Even Attorney General Bill Lockyer protested the raid, firing off a letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in which he called the DEA's actions in Santa Cruz a "provocative and intrusive incident of harassment."
The collective's first foray into court was a civil suit demanding the return of items seized in the raid, but it was dismissed by Judge Fogel in December 2002. The case has since been appealed.
In April 2002, the collective and Santa Cruz city and county officials filed suit again, challenging the federal government's authority to interfere with medical marijuana activities that are legal under California law.
Federal authorities claim authority to pre-empt state law under provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that marijuana use of any kind constitutes interstate commerce.
But a December 2003 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a separate medical marijuana case was cited by Judge Fogel as critical in leading to Wednesday's decision.
In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit found that medical marijuana grown and used by Angel Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from a brain tumor, does not constitute interstate commerce. The appeals court ruled that Raich could use marijuana free from federal prosecution.
The collective will be allowed to grow marijuana at least until the balance of its case challenging the applicability of the commerce clause is decided in Fogel's courtroom.
Fogel dismissed four additional claims against the federal government, narrowing the case to the single issue.
This week, the Justice Department appealed the Raich case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fogel's decision was hailed as a victory for patients' rights and states' rights by the collective's jubilant legal team.
"This is wonderful news for the patients who have really endured a good deal of suffering since the raid," said collective attorney and Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen. "Since the raid we have lost more than 20 patients, and there is no question but that their deaths were more painful than they needed to be.
"The Raich decision was really the breakthrough, but this (decision) takes it a step further," Uelmen said. "It says there is no difference between a single patient growing their own medicine and a collective group assisting each other to achieve exactly the same purpose." Officials from the Justice Department and the DEA declined to comment on the decision.

So these people were operating a "collective", hmm. I especially love the part where "helos were circling over head"! Fucking A man!

Also noticed this is a "civil" lawsuit. I have searched and searched but have yet to find info on trial dates ect.... any help anyone would be greatly appreciated!

This is a beacon of hope for sure. Honestly this comes as a complete surprise to me. I would not be surprised if this judge went missing...
I love the enthusiasm from you all and definitely will be following this.
Woo Hoo! Patients Rights! Woo Hoo!...

__________________
"If we want a beautiful garden, we must first have a blueprint in the imagination, a vision" - His Holiness the Dalai Lama

THIS IS in fact the main point in such a case if succeeded

if 1 case can be proven, it will become the model case and will be used a million times after for similar rulings and/or situations

i cross my fingers on this one!

__________________
Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship, the people can always B brought 2 the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All U have 2 do is tell them they R being attacked & denounce the pacifists 4 lack of patriotism & exposing the country 2 danger. It works the same way in any country.

-Göring, 2nd in command of Hitler

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy".

As I get more updates from ASA, i will post em...thanks for reading guys!! The fight gets closer!!
whiskeytango

__________________
Your style will eventually match your grow area and the amount of time and money you like to put into initial setup vs. long term maintenance.-stinkyattic

LED growing- An instructional grow log
Episode 3...Revenge of the LED
Episode 4: The Clone Colonies

And is upheld, and Arnie signs that MMJ employee protection bill, Granny's going to have to be VERY CAREFUL!







Turning cartwheels at my age can be dangerous! lol - Granny

__________________
"If the truth won't do, then something is wrong!"
Granny's Grandpa- Rev. J. C. Schwabenland

Need MMJ medical studies? Look here!
http://boards.cannabis.com/medicinal...09-update.html

Granny's Master list- New format- http://cannalink.org/granny/
Want your own free copy of the list? email us-
i.wantgrannyslist(at)greenpassion.org