If you do not see anything or are having problems using this page click here.

July 20, 2012 – Digest for s..[email protected] – 14 Messages in 9 Topics

    Mickey Martin <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 11:57AM -0700  

    The QUIT TAKING PEOPLE TO JAIL FOR WEED Rally on Monday in Oakland
    Posted by Mickey Martin on July 20th, 2012
     
    On Monday at 3:00 pm activists groups from all over will converge on downtown Oakland to protest during President Obama’s 4:30 pm fundraiser. Groups from #Occupy to Tea Partiers are sure to show out to attempt to deliver their message to the President on his visit to the Fox Theater.
    My message is simple…QUIT TAKING PEOPLE TO JAIL FOR WEED.
    Some are organizing under different banners for the event, including the “Rally to Save Harborside” and “Former Obama Supporters Rally” (thank you Tom Angell of LEAP). We strand in solidarity with any and all messages to President Obama that reflect the values of fairness, equality, and social justice. We understand that our message is crafted from many voices and viewpoints and we embrace all groups working for a better world.
    But I will be there with one clear message…QUIT TAKING PEOPLE TO JAIL FOR WEED. I think that cuts right to the point. It might just be me, a cool sign, and probably a bullhorn….but believe the message will be clear before the day is done. We can no longer keep taking (mostly poor) people to jail for weed. It is not working.
    WHAT: THE QUIT TAKING PEOPLE TO JAIL RALLY
    WHEN: MONDAY, JULY 23RD AT 3:00 PMish….
    WHERE: Near 19TH STREET AND TELEGRAPH/BROADWAY IN OAKLAND, CA
    WHY: TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT WE DEMAND AN ENED TO OUR NATION’S POLICY OF PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR WEED
    I hope people can make it out and join in the festivities. It is sure to be a great time and a wonderful opportunity for real activism in the streets of Oakland….one of my favorite activities. Bring a sign, some comfortable shoes, some water, and the willingness to create real social change through direct action.
    #SummerOfBuds
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..[email protected]
    (phone#-removed)
    http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
    http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
     
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***

     

 

    PeaceLove <s..[email protected]> Jul 19 11:38PM -0700  

    Dave Hodges:
     
    As I understand it, in not paying taxes you are not "flaunting" the law at
    all. You are following it. Isn't that correct?
     
    Jonathan
     
     
     
     
    > Harborside makes a mockery of the California laws, and the proof of it.
     
    > U.S. Attorney out of Line about Marijuana Posted by Rich Robinson<s..[email protected]> on
    > Thursday, July 19, 2012 Comments (2)<http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/7_19_12_attorney_melinda_haag_medical_marijuana_collectives_harborisde/#comments>
     
    [snip]
     

     

    Jonathan Lustig <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 10:23AM -0700  

    Id like to know what other entities, which exist, survive and expand by accepting donations, are taxed on their goods.
     
    If a citys constituency voted to tax Goodwill, while being deplorable, would it though be legal?
     
    There are some things in life which are blatently wrong to me, taxing a suffering individuals medication to maintain city sidewalks is as disgusting as supporting sweatshops and torture.
     
    Jonathan Lustig
    Social Crusader
     
    Sent from Earth using Android technology

     

    Thc <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 11:31AM -0700  

    Dave,
    We need to get together about SJ Politics Very Soon on this subject. Much has happened since we last talked…..
     
    Much love,
    Momma D
    (408) 410-4564
     
    Sent from my iPhone
     

     

    Dave Hodges <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 06:30PM -0700  

    http://bit.ly/A2C2-vs-HS <goog_346069817> U.S. Attorney May Not be Out of
    Line <http://bit.ly/A2C2-vs-HS> Posted by Guest Columnist on Friday, July
    20, 2012 Comments (1)
     
    *Dave Hodges operates A2C2 medical marijuana collective in San Jose. He
    wrote this column for San Jose Inside.—Editor*
     
    Harborside collectives in San Jose and Oakland were recently ordered to
    shut down by U.S. Attorney Melinda
    Haag<http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/7_19_12_attorney_melinda_haag_medical_marijuana_collectives_harborisde/>.
    Many have called Harborside a model for other medical marijuana collectives.
     
    To help everyone better understand what the complex California law states,
    I want to provide some direct quotes and key information:
     
    Let’s start with what defines a “collective” under California law? The only
    definition comes from Health and Safety Code 11362.775, where it states:
    “[California Medical Cannabis patients are allowed] Collectively or
    Cooperatively to Cultivate Marijuana for Medical Purposes.” In simple
    terms, the entire definition of what a collective is and how it operates is
    defined only by the word “collectively.”
     
    The “guidelines” most collectives operate under are the 2008 Attorney
    General (AG) “Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana
    Grown for Medical Use.” One thing that must be understood is that the AG
    Guidelines are NOT the law. They are AG Jerry Brown’s legal opinion of the
    law. Although they are not the law, they do reference it. In the AG
    Guidelines Section IV. A. 2.“Collectives:” it states “California law does
    not define collectives… As such, a collective is not a statutory entity.”
     
    So what is a “non-statutory entity”? It is any “entity” not defined under
    statutory law. A “non-statutory entity” is governed by “non-statutory law,”
    and includes structures such as churches, private associations, book clubs,
    etc. In the case of a “Collective”, the “non-statutory law” is defined in
    the “collective agreement” or “membership contract”. Thus a collective is a
    “non-statutory entity” who in effect defines it’s own “non-statutory law”
    in its “collective agreement.”
     
    Next, let’s discuss what defines a “Sale.” California’s Sales And Use Tax
    Law RTC section 6006, defines a “Sale” to mean and include: “Any transfer
    of Title or Possession”. Also known as a change in ownership. If a
    collective is structured properly, every member “collectively” owns the
    “collective.” As such, no change of ownership takes place when a member of
    the collective contributes to and receives cannabis produced “collectively”.
     
    The Board of Equalization’s legal opinion of a true collective is that
    within the collective no ownership changes and as such no “sale” of
    cannabis takes place, thus no sales tax liability is incurred. Thus a true
    collective does not pay “sales” tax. Over the past year, I have been
    undergoing an audit process with the BOE. The determination of the BOE
    auditor is that A2C2 is NOT a collective and, as such, I owe them $130k.
    The catch is, once the administrative remedies are exhausted, the court of
    appeals will have to decide if the Collective Agreement created by my
    attorney J David Nick defines a true collective. If it does, the BOE will
    owe me $12k for the sales tax I mistakenly paid them.
     
    When it comes to the city of San Jose’s tax, Measure U, the fact that the
    city attorney is aware of Measure U’s violations of law is evidenced by the
    drafted Title 6 Ordinance, Section 6.88.440. “Collective Operations”,
    subsections C & D:
     
    “C) No sale of any products, including medical marijuana… D) In-kind
    contributions, monetary contributions and property contributions provided
    by members towards the collective’s overhead expenses shall be in strict
    compliance with State law…” and is further supported by Measure U: 4.66.220
    “Payment of tax does not authorize unlawful business.”
     
    Although a “sale” inside a “collective” is protected in the state of
    California, Federally “sales” of cannabis are clearly illegal. In the case
    of Harborside, operators clearly state they “sell” marijuana and pay “sales
    tax” on it. Combine this with the fact that Harborside accepts medical
    cannabis patients who live outside the state of California, one might
    understand how a charge such as Federal Drug Sales/Trafficking might be
    filed.
     
    There is no one in the medical cannabis industry who is “safe” from federal
    enforcement. All one can do is limit one’s exposure to activities that are
    clearly illegal and work within the exact letter of the law. I do not agree
    with the apparently indiscriminate crackdown on cannabis clubs, but in my
    opinion, “the worlds largest seller of marijuana” has made a mockery of the
    “collective” model. And based on the interstate “drug sales,” Harborside
    may have clearly overstepped California’s Medical Cannabis laws.
     
    *Dave Hodges is the operator of A2C2 collective in San Jose.*
    TAGGED: politics <http://www.sanjoseinside.com/categories/politics>,
    business <http://www.sanjoseinside.com/categories/business>,
    culture<http://www.sanjoseinside.com/categories/culture>
    , a2c2 <http://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/A2C2/>, dave
    hodges<http://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/Dave+Hodges/>
    , harborside health center of san
    jose<http://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/Harborside+Health+Center+of+San+Jose/>
    , jerry brown <http://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/Jerry+Brown/>, medical
    marijuana <http://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/medical+marijuana/>, melinda
    haag <http://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/Melinda+Haag/>

     

 

 

    "Dr. Brazil" <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 10:19AM -0700  

    theQueen of Dragons  non-profit Collective & Club
    5044 Shasta Dam Blvd, Shasta Lake City, CA. 96019        [530] 276-9771
     From the Congressman
     
    Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:41 AM

    Mail

    July 20, 2012
     
     
     
    Dear Dr Tammy,
     
     Thank
    you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 2306, the  Ending
    Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 . I value your point of view
    and appreciate the opportunity to respond.
     
               While
    I agree that efforts to limit illicit drug use have not been fully successful, I believe that the negatives
    of drug legalization, including marijuana, would be much worse. Studies indicate that the marijuana used
    today is more potent than ever, causes serious mental health problems, can cause structure abnormalities
    in the brain, contains significantly greater cancer-causing properties than tobacco, is addictive and
    creates harmful dependencies, is a frequent precursor to the use of more dangerous drugs such as cocaine
    and heroin, and can lead users to commit violent or otherwise irresponsible actions that harm innocent
    people. 
     
    Additionally,
    decriminalizing or legalizing drugs may lead to the creation of a permanent class of drug users who will
    find it increasingly impossible to support themselves, and thus will rely on the state for welfare, disability
    payments, or unemployment insurance. Their medical problems will increase, draining our already strained
    county hospitals and the health care programs. Thus, innocent taxpayers will be forced to subsidize the
    dazed and lethargic lifestyle of substance abusers. Preventing drug users from operating motor vehicles
    will also become an increasing problem as drug use becomes more tolerated and acceptable.
     
    For
    these and other reasons, I oppose decriminalizing or legalizing the use of marijuana.  I believe the
    better approach is discouraging its use through a clear and honest discussion of the damage that the
    drug can cause.  I believe parents, schools, churches, and community organizations are best positioned
    to encourage personal responsibility and convince younger Americans especially that marijuana use contributes
    to an unhealthy lifestyle.  Additionally, I believe existing drug laws should be enforced to further
    discourage illicit drug use.
     
     
    Although we may not
    see eye-to-eye, I will be sure to keep your perspective in mind should Congress consider H.R. 2306 or
    other legislation that would change laws governing marijuana use. 
     
    As always, please do not hesitate
    to contact me in the future regarding this or any other federal issue important to you. In addition,
    I would like to invite you to visit my website at herger.house.gov where you can find additional information on my position on a variety of issues and sign up for occasional
    e-mail updates on them.
     
     
                                                                 Sincerely,
                                                                
                                                                
    WALLY HERGER
                                                                
    Member of Congress  

     

    "Martin A. Lee" <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 10:40AM +0200  

    Hi Don,
     
    That's a very cool bit if info. If you come up with more on this, please
    let me know. See you in Freiburg.
     
    Best, Martin
     
    On Thursday, July 19, 2012, Don E Wirtshafter wrote:
     

     

    Michael Backes <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 04:00PM  

    Love to see this documentation.
     
    Ohio University wasn't founded until the early 1800's, though.
     
    Of course that doesn't mean they didn't accept hemp for tuition at that
    time, though.
     

     

    David Jack <s..[email protected]> Jul 20 08:11AM -0700  

    http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/06/federal_ruling_may_change_probable_cause_in_mariju.php#more
     
    *Federal Ruling May Change Probable Cause In Marijuana Cases
    <http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/06/federal_ruling_may_change_probable_cause_in_mariju.php>*
     
    By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~
     
    Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 12:20 pm
     
    */Federal Court Judge Acknowledges Authority of a State Medical
    Marijuana Law/*
     
    *By Philip Dawdy*
     
    /Cannabis Activist/
     
    *A recent federal district court ruling in Spokane, Washington is
    something of which every medical cannabis attorney, patient, provider
    and advocate needs to be aware — not only in Washington State but
    throughout the entire Ninth Circuit.*
     
    The ruling is also something of a victory for Washington's recently
    changed medical cannabis law, because for the first time a judge has
    ruled in a way that gives quasi /arrest protection/ under the state
    medical cannabis law and has likely set an interesting precedent on
    probable cause and cannabis. And the ruling came from a /federal/ court
    judge. It was also a bit of a slap to the U.S. Attorney's Office in
    Eastern Washington.
     
    Last November, Spokane County Sheriff's deputies thought they had
    sniffed out a large cannabis grow in Spokane based upon a deputy's
    observation of odor of growing cannabis and so they did what narcotics
    cops often do: They ran the plates on a car at the home and determined
    that it was someone who'd been convicted of growing in the past. They
    examined power bills. They visited the home, smelled cannabis odors and
    made entry and busted several people and, eventually, seized evidence
    from both that home and a separate storage facility.
     
    Then they turned the case over to federal officials in Spokane who
    indicted the alleged cannabis growers for manufacturing more than 100
    plants. If convicted, the alleged growers would each be staring at /five
    years minimum/ in federal prison.
     
    But, in a filing in May
    <https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_yJ1GjtR3BjdDljR2dHcVhPM0k>, their
    attorney Richard Wall argued that all of the evidence seized were the
    fruits of an illegal search and seizure, a violation of the 4th
    Amendment. He argued this based upon the fact that, in his view, that
    Washington's medical cannabis law had changed in 2011 from affirmative
    defense-only to something more akin to complete decriminalization of
    medical cannabis, even for growing, provided that people stayed within
    certain limits of possession.
     
    Here's the relevant language at RCW 69.51A.040
    <http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.040>:
     
    The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions
    of this chapter does not constitute a crime and a qualifying patient or
    designated provider in compliance with the terms and conditions of this
    chapter may not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal
    sanctions or civil consequences, for possession, manufacture, or
    delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver,
    cannabis under state law, or have real or personal property seized or
    forfeited for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession
    with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law.
     
    In his filing, Wall argued that since there was no evidence in the
    search warrant affidavit that the deputies had attempted to determine
    how many plants were present at the location and had made no attempt to
    determine if anyone at the residence was actually in compliance with the
    state medical cannabis law, then there was no legitimate probable cause
    for the search and that any evidence seized should be quashed.
     
    What's more, since these were local police and they had not been
    operating as federal officers or claiming violations of federal law in
    their search warrant affidavit, then again the evidence seized needed to
    be tossed out of court.
     
    Wall argued:
     
    In order to establish probable cause to believe that a person has
    committed or is committing the crime of unlawful use, possession, or
    manufacturing of marijuana under Washington law, it is not enough to
    merely show that the person used, possessed, or manufactured marijuana.
    Instead, probable cause can be established only by showing that such
    use, possession or manufacturing failed to comply with the terms and
    conditions of RCW 69.51A.
     
    On May 31, a Senior US District Judge named William Nielsen issued an
    order <https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_yJ1GjtR3BjYUVQWk5zU2hSTlU>
    accepting Wall's argument and quashing the evidence in the case. Judge
    Nielsen wrote:
     
    Contrary to the Government's assertion, a state crime has not been
    committed simply by possessing or manufacturing marijuana in Washington.
    If the person complies with the medical marijuana statute, they have not
    committed a state crime….The Court find that the statute is clear on
    its face and that the medical marijuana exception and the general
    controlled substance statute must be read together in a manner that
    gives both effect….It is uncontested that while the affidavit
    supporting the warrant included evidence of a marijuana grow, there was
    no mention of them edical marijuana statute or an assertion that the
    grow violated the medical marijuana statute. This omission is fatal to
    the warrant as the warrant then does not show probable cause of a crime.
     
    The judge invited the feds to file a reconsideration of its evidence,
    which the US Attorneys Office for Eastern Washington did, but without
    success.
     
    *Judge Nielsen's ruling is remarkable on a number of fronts.*
     
    It's literally *the first time I've ever seen a federal court judge
    allow and acknowledge the authority of a state medical cannabis
    statute*, especially in pre-trial maneuvers; it's the first time I can
    remember a federal court judge saying he was bound to give a state
    medical cannabis law "effect;" it would appear that the common use of
    odor of cannabis as probable cause is now out the window in states with
    medical cannabis law, at least up until an officer has determined if
    someone is a medical cannabis patient in compliance with their state's
    medical cannabis law. Power bills, another common probable cause tool,
    would be similarly effected.
     
    In late June, the U.S. Attorney's Office for Eastern Washington filed an
    appeal of Judge Nielsen's order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    and asked for that a stay be placed on the order. While the Court of
    Appeals has not ruled yet on the case or the stay, the judge's order is
    on hold. It is quite likely that whatever appeal the feds file will be
    met with several opposing amicus briefs.
     
    Unless Judge Nielsen's order is overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of
    Appeals, *it is a ruling that can be employed by medical cannabis
    patients and defense attorneys most especially in Washington State, but
    also in other Ninth Circuit states with medical cannabis laws
    (California, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, Michigan, Montana and
    Arizona).*
     
    /Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Seattle-based
    attorney Kurt E. Boehl's blog
    <http://seattle-criminaldefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/federal-court-ruling-may-change.html>,
    and was written by activist Philip Dawdy. The Law Office of Kurt E.
    Boehl, PLLC, can be reached at (206) 728-0200./