🚀 go-pugleaf

amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302090302.795f6f48@posting.google.com>...
> justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302082327.28a9e0d2@posting.google.com>...
> > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302080208.8613230@posting.google.com>...
> > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302070700.134561de@posting.google.com>...
> > > > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302070235.7623545d@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302062111.54aff87b@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302060506.17155754@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > "Joe Winett" <joe@vigoris.net> wrote in message news:<3e414659$1@news.vigoris.net>...
> >  
> 
> You are a classic.
> 
> I asked -
> 
> > > > > I have yet to see any evidence of this other than some quotes from his
> > > > > supporters.  I simply raised the question - was he in compliance with
> > > > > the legislation (not the proposition) in force in California at that
> > > > > time.
> 
> Ande then asked
>  
> > > If the city had such a strong position, would not you have expected
> > > that they could have/wpould have done something.  I know the court
> > > disallowed the defense to present the evidence but I didn't see an
> > > amicus curie (I think that's what they are called) brief from the city
> > > on his behalf.
> 
> And what is your answer?
> 
> 
> > While you have a large vocabulary I wouldn't go so far as saying you
> > are tangentially familiar with law.  
> 
> Make it personal - typically what happens when you can't argue the
> point, you attack the poster.

Okay, I'm sorry about that. I didn't actually mean for this to post. 
I fired this off and decided not to post it and then I posted the
other reponse.  This one wasn't supposed to be posted.

> > Amicus curie briefs are not
> > submetted at thial level.  
> 
> No?  Since when? Considering that the ruling disallowing the
> introduction of the mitigating evidence was challenged twice at the
> appelate level, they had their chance.  So - get in touch with the
> facts.
> 
> > No evidence regarding medical marijuana or
> > Mr. Rosenthal's relationship with the city was allowed in the trial. 
> 
> Because the appelate court upheld the trial judge's ruling - twice if
> I remember right.

I was not aware that any issues in this particular trial had already
made it to a higher court.  But if so, what are we arguing about. 
Isn't it obvious that the court is excluding evidence that he was
growing medical marijuana?

> > The city may have wanted to be a "friend of the court" but court
> > didn't want to be friends.
> 
> They don't need the courts permission.

They do need the court's permission to submit evidence to the jury. 
That's all that really matters, what makes it to the jury.  They are
the ones who aquit or convict.
  
> > > > and no state officials appear to have complained.  Don't forget,
> > > > Rosenthal was actually "deputized" by the city of Oakland for the
> > > > purpose of doing what he was doing and was doing all of this
> > > > completely out in the open. He was a city official.
> > > 
> > > That is a statement that I have only seen made by his defenders -
> > > never from a city or state official.
> > 
> > You obviously haven't been pay attention.  I'm not going to dig it up
> > for you.  If you want to learn more about this topic try searching
> > with Google's news searching function.
> 
> When you can't find the evidence yourself, you challenge me to find it
> for you?  You said he was deputized - now prove it.  Oh, you can't?

Look, all I have to from are newspaper articles.  I'll link you to
Google with the search terms already in the link and it will bring up
twenty some odd stories that mention the fact that Rosenthal was
deputized by the city.  If you dig a little more you'll see that there
were several witnesses the judge instructed the defendant not to even
bother calling because their testimony wouldn't be allowed.  These
were people like the city attorney and narcotics officers.  One
fellow, Nate Miley, a former Oakland city councilman who helped set up
the cities program and was aware of the extent of Rosenthal's
involvement in the program was allowed to testify.  But, He was cut
off quickly when he mentioned Prop 215 and medical marijuana and the
jury was admonished to disregard these references.  Then the judge
took over questioning and quickly got rid of the witness before he
could mention anything of use to Mr. Rosenthal.

See articles:  http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&scoring=d&q=ed+rosenthal+deputized&btnG=Search+News

and

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&scoring=d&q=ed+rosenthal+miley&btnG=Search+News

> > > > This is just my guess.  I've never even been to California and only
> > > > have cursory knowledge of their medical marijuana laws.
> 
> Oh, so you don't know the law?  But you are telling me that the law
> allows him to do what the court said he did and the jury found him
> guilty of doing?
>  
This is really stupid to argue over.  All I can do is dig up dozens of
articles that say that he was not violating California state law and
then you will say that the articles prove nothing to you.  It's really
a pointless exercise for me.

Ed Rosenthal was not charged with violating state law.  Since
apparently everything he was doing was completely out in the open and
apparently in compliance with local guidelines, it is unlikely he
would have ever been charged under state law. The feds charged him for
violating federal law, which conflicts with state law, and convicted
him in spite of his apparent complaiance with state law.  Why is this
so hard to understand?  Why is it so important that I can't point you
to some solid proof that everything he was doing was completely in
line with California state law?  It doesn't really matter.  California
laws were ignored.  If he violated California laws, and there is no
indication he did, it really doesn't matter.  That's California's
problem, not the fed's.
 
> > > >I like the idea of having a strong
> > > > federal government, but not one that oversteps it's bounds as
> > > > contemplated by the framers of our Constitution.
> > > 
> > > Which is your interpretation.  With 260 plus million US residents, one
> > > could suggest that there would be about that many opinions on the
> > > isue.  Currently, the only opinion that matters is the one rendered by
> > > the US SC.
> > 
> > Your an idiot.
> 
> Because you argued yourself into an untenable position and can't find
> any support, I'm the idiot.
> 
> Good.  The classic.  Congratulations.
> 
> and good bye

Well, you do seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Like I
said, I didn't actually mean for this to be posted, but I'm not
exactly sorry it was.