🚀 go-pugleaf

justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302100916.f79321b@posting.google.com>...

> > > > 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.
> > > > 

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

> > > > 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.

snip 

> > "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.

snip

> > 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.
> 
> This is truly a pointless exercise for me.  

Because I brought data to the table that suggests that maybe Rosenthal
was doing something even the Oakland ordinance may have prohibited?

If you'd spend less time contradicting yourself and more time looking
at the information I readily was able to find and link, maybe you'd
get the point.
You don't know what happened except for what you have read in a
potentially biased lay press.

> All I have to go on is
> what I have read in the "lay press."  I have no inside information. 

You could have read the legal briefs.

> Furthermore we are arguing over something that just doesn't matter. 

Of course it matters - You want to suggest that Rosenthal was doing
something legal in the state, something sanctioned by the City of
Oakland and thus should excape prosecution.  OK - so, you need to
document that in fact he was in compliance with state and local law.

> Whether Rosenthal violated California law is not really relevant
> because the courts have refused to allow this argument to play out. 

The courts have rejected admission of it as a defense.

> He wasn't even allowed to argue he was incompliance with the law,
> right or wrong.  I can only assume he was in compliance with
> California law because every article I read seemed to say he was.  I

Had you bothered with the links, you would have seen an interesting
discrepancy - the Federal charge was cultivation of over 100 plants,
the local ordinance allows cultivation but not to exceed 100 plants. 
Is this relevant?  I think so.

> can't prove it.  If that makes you feel like you've won some argument
> here, more power to you. Do a little victory dance, you prick.

Once again - gotta go for the personal insult.  I have no problem with
medical marijuana use, by the way.  Like I said previously, back in
the unenlightened years of medical research, I actually did medical
marijuana woirk - granted it was primarily bench top not clinical.