🚀 go-pugleaf

amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302130153.1c6c2b82@posting.google.com>...
> justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302120944.2016bff1@posting.google.com>...
> > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302120117.69ba7d77@posting.google.com>...
> > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302111025.2038ecc8@posting.google.com>...
> > > > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302110257.39ccd558@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302100916.f79321b@posting.google.com>...
> > 

snip

> > nor had
> > they tried to prosecute him and more importantly, none were publicly
> > disputing his claims or the claims of the jurors who heard his case.
> 
> None are publically supporting his claims that I can see - but what is
> even more critical is that the City of Oakland did NOT, at least to
> the best of my knowledge, act on his behalf with the appelate court. 
> That, to me, is a question that needs to be addressed.
> 
Okay, lets clear something up. None of the links you provided me
indicated that any of the judge's decisions were "appealed" prior to
the trial.  There was a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed. Mandamus
is a remedy the petitioner is generally seeking to halt an abuse of
power by a lower court.  It's an extreme remedy that is rarely ever
granted. What they were trying to do was halt the prosecution
altogether.

The city did not file a brief in support of the petition, but it
appears that they did submit a statement to be attached to the
Petition.  On page three (3) of the brief you will note that the
petitioner cites a "declaration" made by a city official, Joe DeVries,
which apparently confirmed that Rosenthal was deputized and considered
a city official.  It is cited as Exhibit 3, but such exhibit is not
included on the page you linked me to.  Exhibit 2, which purports to
be a letter from Jeffrey Jones to Ed Rosenthal confirming that he was
being made a city official for the purpose of growing marijuana
pursuant to their program.  Mr. Jones was with the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Cooperative, hereinafter referred to as "OCBC," which had been
designated as a Medical Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and as such Mr.
Jones, or the Cooperative was a city official and had apparent
authority to deputize Mr. Rosenthal pursuant to Oakland's Medical
Cannabis Distribution Program in effect at the time, Ordinance No.
12076. http://www.drugsense.org/CCUA/oakord12076.pdf

According to the brief, other Oakland officials, including a city
attorney, also assured Mr. Rosenthal he had been duly appointed to
grow marijuana. This was all apparently set out in Exhibit 3, the
letter fro Joe DeVries, which unfortunately was not published along
with the main body of the brief.  The brief also states that Assistant
City Attorney Barbara Parker had testified on behalf of Mr. Rosenthal
his attempt to establish an entrapment by estoppel defense.  The
substance of her testimony was not spelled out in the brief but it is
my understanding that the basis for denying this defense was because
the California law and Oakland ordinances were irrelevant given that
the applicable Federal laws trumped the conflicting state and local
laws.

So, it's not at all accurate to say that the City of Oakland failed to
act on Rosenthal's behalf.  They may not have done enough, but I doubt
they felt a need to.
 
> > You, on the other hand, insist that he must have been breaking state
> > law even though you have absolutely no proof of this.  
> 
> There is NO state law that I have posted that allows cultivation for
> distribution of marijuana in California.  There is a proposition voted
> on by Californians that supports the medical use and the state has
> abdicated its responsibilities to the local governments regarding how
> this is to be implemented.  I never said he was breaking state law - I
> pointed out that his federal charges support the facxt that he may
> have been exceeding the limits of the City of Oakland ordinance.  I
> provided a description of the City's ordinance (and its revision in
> 2001) and I provided the specifications of his indictment.

The law does provide that "primary caregivers" can grow and supply
marijuana to patients. A "'primary caregiver' means the individual
designated by the person exempted under this section who has
consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety
of that person."  As I covered in my other post, "individual" is not
necessarily confined being just one person and not an entity or
cooperative, or at least it wasn't at the time Ed was busted. 
Additionally, the case law at the time suggested that there was
nothing to prohibit "primary caregivers" from providing marijuana to
more than wone patient.

If you'll really read Oakland's 2001 Medical Cannabis Policy, you'll
see that they weren't telling coperatives they could only grow "X"
number of plants.  They were limiting the amount they could grow and
keep on hand relative to the number of patients they were providing
for on a regular basis.  I don't see anything in that document
prohibiting Ed Rosenthal from doing what he was doing. He had been
given the go ahead by the OCBC in their capacity as officers of the
city and his authority to proceed had apparently been confirmed by
city officials, including a city attorney.

> > You insist that
> > he broke local marijuana ordininces even though you don't know what
> > they were at the time, 
> 
> The link to the ordinance revision provides for that - you should have
> bothered to read it.

I think I did a more thorough job of reading it than you did. 

> > and even though no one ever complained that he
> > did. 
> 
> The City obviously didn't care.  

No, in fact it appears they wanted him to grow it.
 
> > You seem to think that your sources, whatever they may be are so
> > much more credible than mine. 
> 
> Actual charges with statute numbers and an actual document from the
> City of Oakland PLUS court briefs filed with the appelate court - I
> think that beats your National Enquirer snippets - don't you?

Dude, it is apparent that you did not actually read these documents
yourself.  If you had read and understood them, you wouldn't be making
the argument you are making.

> > It's okay for you to argue about this
> > even though you lack a factual basis for you arguments, 
> 
> Hey - the charges levied and the ordinance appear to be inconsistent.

Look again, and while you are at it consider that those whose
ordinance it was told him he was acting within the law.  If an agent
of the city acting in their official capacity advises someone as to
the legality of his actions based on their interpretation of their own
laws and he bases his actions on these representations, I would think
he could avoid prosecution for his actions provided he only did what
the city told him he could do. I am of course not talking about
federal law here.

> > yet I'm wrong
> > for trusting what so many separate and distinct media outlets have
> > reported.
> 
> Brainwashing by the media is your defense?  

I'm not looking at opinions of some idiot journalsts, I'm looking at
who they are interviewing and what they are reporting that this person
has said.  When I read the same reports by a wide variety of media
outlets without hearing a single instance of one of these interview
subjects publicly denying statements attributed to them, I feel fairly
compfortable accepting that these subject did in fact say what they
are reported to have said. I am also listening to what I hear experts
like Alan Dershowitz say as I am fairly confident in has knowledge of
the law.

This is just an intersting topic to me, a diversion.  It is not my
life's work.  I am not getting paid to do research on it, and time is
money to me.  I suppose if it was more important to me I'd do tons of
research and unlike you, when I do reasearch something, I spend a good
deal of time on it and do it right. I have felt no need to do that in
this instance and now that you've ticked me off enough to waste a
little more time looking into this, I realize that I was right in my
initial decision not to waste time on this and should have stuck to my
guns.

> > Take the log out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in
> > mine.
> 
> Huh?

It's a biblical reference.  I'm calling you a hypocrite. 
 
> > > I really don't care what happens to Rosenthal - personally, I think he
> > > got exactly what he was hoping for - a national platform.  
> > 
> > Good. Maybe the spirit of fairness, tolerance, freedom and reason will
> > eventually prevail.
> 
> Since when is the judicial system in the US anyone of those? The
> Scales of Justice wear's blinders - once you let the "spirit" drive
> the decision you risk perceptual bias.  That would really suck.
> 
> The man violated federal law and was found guilty.  


You are missing the big picture.
 
> > *I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore on this, but screw it. 
> > You make me so mad.  
> 
> You may want to have the doctor increase your lithium - if your posts
> are any indication, I'd say today is a manic day.

I'd have to agree that I am nuts for going on with this complete and
utter waste of time.
 
> > What's really bothering me about this is that I'm
> > a big enough sucker to get dragged into a stupid argument like this. 
> > The whole point for me here is that I believe California should be
> > able to make and enforce their own medical marijuana laws.  
> 
> OK - so I think that the Federal government of the US is right in
> enforcing its laws and the tradition is Federal beats state.
> 
> > Whether
> > Rosenthal was in compliance with California's vague laws is really
> > between California and Rosenthal.  
> 
> I think it maqy be one explanantion why the City of Oakland is keeping
> out of the argument.
> 
> > The question of whether he may have
> > been violating California's law would have been relevant had this been
> > allowed as a defense in the federal trial, but it was not.  
> 
> Like I said - why is the City keeping its official mouth shut?

It's not.  You are just keeping your eyes and ears shut.  And there is
something else you should think about.  Not everyone is so hip on
medical marijuana.  It's a subject most in politics avoid like the
plague. The city leaders as a whole may not feel compelled to get too
involved with all of this because many of those in powerful positions
may not want to get their hands dirty.  If you've been listening,
you've heard some of the voices from the city.  As the case enters the
appeals stage, I strongly suspect you will see a Friend of the Court
brief submitted to the appeals courts by the city and maybe even the
state.  The issue has just become to big and popular for the
politicians to leave alone.
 
> > If it had
> > been allowed as a defense, the court would have had to interpret the
> > law pursuant to California's interpretation of it, which was
> > apparently very broad, allowing much wiggle room for defining
> > "caregivers" and so on.  No matter how you look at it, if California
> > had have been worried about Rosenthal's activities, they could have
> > shut them down.  It was their business and the feds didn't have to get
> > involved.
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> > The feds could very easily resolve this and diffuse this situation by
> > rescheduling marijuana and allowing states to have their own laws on
> > it subject to some federal guidelines designed to minimize problems
> > with abuse of the system. 
> 
> The US DEA has never been very good at this, now have they.  The FDA
> has a THC approved product - why is that not being used?

It is being used but apparently it is not as effective for many
people.  Also, it's expensive.  Some apparently claim it makes them
feel uncomfortable whereas regular pot does not. From what I hear, it
gets people way higher than smoking a little pot anyway and it's
harder for people to regulate dosage such that they get just enough to
do the trick but not so much that they feel uncomfortable.

As for the DEA, they are only good at heavy handed police tactics. 
Unfortunately, no matter how good the DEA does, these tactics do very
little to solve our nation's drug problem.  But it sure makes DEA guys
feel good to make big busts and lock lots of people up.

> > They could allow widespread clinical trial
> > experimentation with medical marijuana which would inevitably lead to
> > a better understanding of its benefits and its dangers.  Instead they
> > attempt to surpress anything which may seem remotely "pro marijuana"
> > because they have a great fear that they will somehow lose control.
> > All they have done here is make a martyr out of Ed Rosenthal and
> > further damage any credibility they may have had when it comes to
> > their "message" on drugs.
> 
> Yeh - well that still doesn't address the question - where was the
> City of Oakland during the appelate process?


Unless the exhibits allegedly attached to the Petition for Writ of
Mandamus were falsified and/or did not exist, and unless the attorney
was lying to the higher court about the Assistant City Attorney's
testimony, I'd say the city has been involved. I think you are just to
stubborn to let yourself see this.