🚀 go-pugleaf

justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302131006.2b5b222@posting.google.com>...
> 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.  

First - the writ filing was made prior to the trial phase.  Read it
yourself if you don't belie me.

Putting it into quotes doesn't change the fact that the defendant's
attorneys filed with the appelate court.  In the most lay of all
languages, these filings appealed the lower courts decisions regarding
admissability of evidence or the properness of the charges - all based
on the premise that Mr. Rosenthal is immune from prosecution because
he was "deputized"..

> 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.  

And the judges ruling that Mr Rosenthal's city authorization to grow
marijuana is not a defense has been argued as an abuse of power - if
you are arguing that it isn't an abuse of power then why are you so
adamant that the lower court is wrong?

> It's an extreme remedy that is rarely ever
> granted. 

Lower courts rarely make errors and it is rarely required that an
extreme remedy be allowed.  It is not unheard of and not impossible -
so your point is?

> What they were trying to do was halt the prosecution
> altogether.

Which is the ideal remedy, no?

> 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.  

Evidence that in fact the relationship between Mr Rosenthal and the
city existed.

> 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, 

And as such not a City official.

BUt still - you make several valid points.  I agree, the
"deputization" existed and the City acknowledged that it indeed
existed.

 
> 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.

If you were Rosenthal - how pissed off would you be at the City of
Oakland?
  
> > > 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.

Rosenthal was providing plants for others to cultivate - at least that
was my understanding.

> 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.

The ordinance limits the amount.  
 
> > > 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. 

The ordinance limits the amount. 

> > > 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.

They didn't hang their butts out on the media clothesline in his
support.

> > > 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.

I agreed - I never argued the merits of Rosenthals case - I just
thought it would have been nice to have someone actually go through
the fact pattern.

I'm glad I was able to drag you (kicking and screaming) through the
process.  You are now more informed than anyone in the media reporting
on this, and certainly much more informed than anyone of the jurors
looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

> > > 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, 

I did - and there is an inconsistency.

> 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.

So the City Attorney is infallible? 

> > > 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.

Do you know why the call them "legal opinions"?

> 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.

And you would never have learned anything beyond what is spoon fed the
US public in 15 second sound bites.

> > > 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. 

This is how I got into the thread:

"I'm not sure that what he was doing was in compliance with California
law.  The evidence the defense wanted to present was that what he was
doing was concistent with the intent of the passed proposition.  The
same thing is happening in Nevada - there is no prohibition against
cultivation and possession but there is a prohibition against
distribution.  The California case was not a possession case, it was
the intent to distribute that was at issue.

As far as the federal law is concerned, its legality was upheld by the
Supreme Court which is substantive evidence that it is a "good" law. 
The US SC is the final say so on those issues - that's their job and
whether you agree or disagree with their rulings, only Congress can
overturn by writing new legislation. 

> > > > 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.

No - you are overwhelmed by the implications and missed the little
picture - the part of process that ensures that indeed the legal
system exacts equity.  If judges ruled on emotion instead of legal
precedent, and if process is subverted by public opinion of what is
"good" but illegal...what kind of crap system would that be?
  
> > > *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.

Today you are depressed.  Bipolar but probably harmless to others.
  
> > > 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.  

Yes - I beleive the City did a media duck and cover.  Once the writ
was denied, that was it.  I'll be interested to see who from the City
of Oakland takes the heat for screwing Rosenthal.

> 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.  

Bingo!  Now you're catching on.  The City never got in the business of
cultivation - they outsourced it - and Rosenthal et al with all good
intentions got the dirty end of the stick.  Bottom line, the City
washed its hands of him.

> If you've been listening,
> you've heard some of the voices from the city.  

Other than the attachments to the writ which of course neither you nor
I can actually read, has the City Attorney, the city manager, or
anyone else in an official capcity stoiod up and committed to
Rosenthals support?  I get CNN and cNBC and the BBC in the UK - I
don't get the local Oakland news.  I don't see any City official
making any official statements arguing what Rosenthals attorneys seem
to be arguing.

> 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.

Great - when you hear about it, post the link.
>  
> > > 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.

And from what I hear, it actually went through the drug approval
process.
 
> 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.

I'm not going to argue that the DEA has failed to stop the drug
problem - but I am curious to know if you actually believe that DEA
enforcement is totally inneffectual?  In the absence of DEA
activities, would there be a smaller or bigger "drug problem" in the
US?
 
> > > 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.

So the answer is - the filings included documentation that the
ordinance existed, that the city endorsed Mr Rosenthals activities,
and that they provided Mr Rosenthal with assurances that he was immune
from prosecution.

Why didn't you link this originally?  Why did I have to show you where
the data are? I asked the question - and you spout off about his
defense and how the law is wrong and.....stuff like this:

"Honestly, the best answer I can give you here is that I have seen
nothing to indicate that he was in violation of state law.  As I
understand it the law is particularly vague and no guidelines exist
for setting up growing cooperatives or distributing the product."  

"This is just my guess.  I've never even been to California and only
have cursory knowledge of their medical marijuana laws."

"I'd also say that just because
the feds have a law does not necessarily always mean it applies in
states or "trumps" state law as you will so often hear.  This is not
exactly what the Constitution says."

Any more wild assed proposals?  If you are going to quote scripture,
you probably shouldn't rely on biblical Cliff notes.

Done?  I am.