🚀 go-pugleaf

justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302091841.1c5b555b@posting.google.com>...
> 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.  

No you plead ignorance of the facts as a defense.  The defense asked
that certain evidence be admitted, the trial judge ruled that it was
inadmissable, the defense appealed and the appelate court upheld the
lower court ruling.

> But if so, what are we arguing about. 
> Isn't it obvious that the court is excluding evidence that he was
> growing medical marijuana?

He was growing marijuana - he says it was for medical use - that was
entered into evidence.  What was not allowed into evidence was that
this activity was proported to be sanctioned by the local authorities.

> > > 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. 

You bet - crazy, these rules of evidence.

> That's all that really matters, what makes it to the jury.  They are
> the ones who aquit or convict.

And your problem with this is???
   
> > > > > 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.  

Which I have actually read (not all, some) as well as a website or
two.

> 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.  

I am well familiar that the term deputized has been used in the lay
press and every time it is, either it is put into quotes or it is said
to originate from his supporters.  I have not seen any statement
corroborating that in fact the city acknowledges having deputized him
and authorized him to do what he was doing.  In fact, I have never
seen any evidence that what he was doing actually was in compliance
with the local ordinances or state law.  I do know that he proposes
that the referendum on medical marijuana use supports him, but a
referendum is NOT statute.

> 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.  

Show me this link.

> 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.  

Perhaps because the appelate court had already ruled that this was
inadmissable?

> Then the judge
> took over questioning and quickly got rid of the witness before he
> could mention anything of use to Mr. Rosenthal.

And without any evidence - this is your synthesis.  In consideration
of your already admitted lack of understanding of the case....

> 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.

This is one of the general statements consistently made in the press.

"Mr. Rosenthal, who lives in Oakland, was acting in his official
capacity as "an officer of the city" under Oakland's medical marijuana
ordinance, Oakland officials said."

Now, show me the ordinance.

I have seen various forms of medical marijauna legislation - each is
specific that cultivation and possession are not criminal offenses if
the individual who possesses or cultivates has a physician
certification that said use is necessary as part of their medical
treatment.  Mr. Rosenthal did not and does not meet the medical
criterion.  Is the Oakland ordinance any different?

> 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?  

It isn't hard for me - how come you are having such a problem?  I
simply 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."

> 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.  

Of course it matters.  I would imagine that it is part of the
rationale in the appellate courts rejection of the request to admit.

> 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.

He violated Federal law.  The case was tried in Federal court. 
California law, apparently, doesn't matter - at least not according to
the appellate court.
 
> > > > >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.

I asked the question - was Mr. Rosenthal in compliance with state law?
 Was he acting on behalf of the City of Oakland and was his activity
consistent with the City's local ordinance.  If the answer is yes and
you can document it, I'd be the first to support Mr. Rosenthal.  If in
fact it is no, I'd be the first to say throw him in jail.

I am still curious why the City of Oakland left him out to dry -
obviously, if Mr. Rosenthals assertion is correct, that the city was
promoting this, wouldn't is seem reasonable to expect them to support
him?

Since you can't provide ecidence of the former, I'm not convinced that
what Judge Breyer or the appelate court did was wrong.

Here is one report of the San Diego "ordinance":

"Under the San Diego guidelines, the city will permit patients and
caregivers to grow marijuana plants or possess up to a pound of
marijuana if authorized by physicians to use the substance for medical
purposes."

Here is a link to an interesting article.  The crux of it is, this
supposed legalization in reality is just a moratorium on enforcement
based on the political will of the governor.

http://www.marijuana.org/WashingtonTimes1-19-99.html

Here's the DEA experience:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/calimarijuana.html

Here's an Oakland City document as to the limits placed on people like
Mr. Rosenthal.

http://www.rxcbc.org/2001-07-24_Oakland_Revises_Cannabis_Guidelines_72_Plants.pdf

Here's a description of how the Oakland Cannibis Club and the City of
Oakland tried to get around BOTH state and federal law.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_medical_media7.shtml

Here is what Ed Rosenthal was convicted of:

21 U.S.C. � 846
Conspiracy to Manufacture Marijuana - more than 100 plants; 
21 U.S.C. � 841(a)(1)
Manufacture Marijuana - more than 100 plants;
21 U.S.C. � 856(a)(1)
Maintaining a Place for Manufacturing Marijuana

Now, go back to the ordinance - was he in compliance with Oaklands
most recent limits on cultivation?

Was he in compliance with the Caregiver provision of the state's
interpretation?

Here is Rosenthal's perspective (at least his attorneys) and the
briefs filed on his behalf:

http://www.green-aid.com/press.htm

Here is the petition to the appelate vourt - the one the appelate
court denied.

http://www.green-aid.com/mandamuswrit.pdf

Read about it before you post nonsense and insult my (and everyone
elses)intelligence.