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.***

Hi all,
 
Just thought I would pass this along. I hope to see many activist friends there to remind our President that we are patients not criminals.  Harborside is a model for high quality medical cannabis distribution, not the only model, but a good one, that has acted in good faith with respect to taxes, hiring, testing, and quality assurance. If they can single out one facility….they can single out anyone and no provider is safe.  We may not agree with Harborside, some actions they have taken in the past with regard to limiting permitting and establishing standards, testing, for medicine, They deserve our community's support, they have supported us by sponsoring events, educating the public on our issues, and other worthy causes they have funded. They provide employment for over 100 people. How does closing 2 model facilities and forcing over 100,000 patients back into doing business with cocaine, crack and heroine dealers going to help public safety? I
guess I am missing it.
 
See you there,
 
Richard
 
— On Fri, 7/20/12, NORML <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
To unsubscribe, follow the instructions at the bottom.
 
 
 
 
 
07/20/2012
 
 
 
 
 
Home
About NORML
About Marijuana
State Info
Legal Issues
Library
News Releases
Blog
Audio/Video
Support
 
 
 
 
From NORML.org:
 
July 23rd Oakland Rally To Protest Federal Medical Cannabis Raids Recent Action Alerts:
 
Support the Truth in Trials Act
Support the States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act
Support Federal Legislation To End Marijuana Prohibition
 
 
July 23rd Oakland Rally To Protest Federal Medical Cannabis Raids
 
 
Tell The President: Fight Crime, Not Medical Cannabis
NORML invites you to join us in a peaceful protest demonstrating your support for California's medical marijuana laws when President Obama comes to visit Oakland this Monday, July 23rd.
 
Where: Oakland City Hall Plaza, Broadway & 14th St.
When: July 23rd, Noon – 5 PM
 
12 – 1 PM Street Theater
(1:45 PM – Press Conference at Oaksterdam University, 1600 Broadway)
3 PM – Gather for President's Visit
4:30 PM – Obama visits Fox Theater (in the heart of Oaksterdam, target of recent federal actions against medical marijuana)
Bring sunscreen and water, weather forecast is in the 80s
*** Join us in a peaceful protest of the federal government's assault on state-approved medical cannabis providers in California and elsewhere. In violation of Attorney General Holder's sworn policy to respect state medical marijuana laws, N. Cal. U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has threatened local officials and landlords for allowing medical cannabis distribution, invented arbitrary and capricious new rules contrary to established local policy, and targeted many of the Bay Area's leading dispensaries for closure despite their adherence to state and local laws. Most recently, Haag has moved to close the Bay Area's largest dispensary, Harborside, on the grounds that it is too big (and successful) by filing to forfeit its landlord's property.
The DOJ's assault on medical cannabis has cost California hundreds of tax-paying businesses, thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars in tax revenues, to the sole benefit of black-market criminals. In other federal actions, the Department of Treasury has blocked banks and credit-card companies from doing business with medical cannabis providers; NIDA has blocked medical marijuana research; the BATF has denied medical marijuana patients the right to buy firearms, even while funneling weapons to Mexican narco-trafficantes; and the DEA has declared that marijuana has no medical use despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
Remind the President of his campaign pledge on medical marijuana: "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue"
For more information see: http://canorml.org/obama
Contact: D. Gieringer, Cal NORML (510) 540-1066 – www.canorml.org— You are currently subscribed to norml_news as: s..[email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to s..[email protected].
 
 
 
NORML and the NORML Foundation: 1600 K Street NW, Mezzanine Level, Washington DC, 20006-2832
Tel: (202) 483-5500 • Fax: (202) 483-0057 • Email: s..[email protected]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41st Annual Conference: Oct. 3-6
 
 
 
 
 
Congressional Lawmakers Reintroduce Truth In Trials Act Details
07/19/12 12:18pm EDT
NORML Women Spring Wrap-Up Details
07/16/12 10:47am EDT
And Then There Were Three: Oregon to Vote on Marijuana Legalization in November Details
07/13/12 10:48pm EDT
What the End of Prohibition May Look Like: Preemption and the Legalization of Marijuana Details
07/13/12 1:07pm EDT
Feds Target Harborside Health Center — California’s Largest, Most Prominent Medical Cannabis Dispensary Details
07/12/12 1:03pm EDT
 
 
 
Support Marijuana Law Reform
 
 
 
Write to Congress
 
 
 
Recent Research on Medical Marijuana
 
 
 
NORML Women's Alliance
 
 
 
NORML TV
 
 
Other Ways to Help
Join NORML
Tell Congress
Cafe Press Gear
NORML Shop
 
 
 
Networking
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Tumblr
— You are currently subscribed to norml_news as: s..[email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to s..[email protected].

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]
 

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

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
 

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/>

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  

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:
 

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.
 

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./