🚀 go-pugleaf

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>...
 
> > > > 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?
> > > > 
snip

> > > > 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.
> 
> I'm through with this argument.  But I will say that you might want to
> check the date the local 100 plant rule cam into effect.  I am certain
> it was well after Rosenthal was arrested.

What was the rule BEFORE it was changed?  San Diego had a 6 plant
rule.  You really ought to be careful making these types of statements
without first checking.  My understanding is that Oakland liberalized
certain aspects of the rule and reduced other aspects in the June 2001
realignment.
 
> You're a bright guy.  I don't know that you are a prick.  I've had a
> lot on my plate the last few days and really probably should not be
> getting into heated arguments with folks over nonsense like this
> because I'm just don't have the patience to go through with it and am
> just too likely at present to say things I wouldn't normally say.

Stick to verifiable facts.
 
> I'm not going to post anymore on this but I would ask that you
> consider the fact that the state of California made no attempts to
> bust Ed Rosenthal or the distributors he was working with.  Ask
> yourself why no one from the city of Oakland is standing up to say
> that all of these reports about their dealings with Ed Rosenthal are
> false.  

I ask myself why no one from the City of Oakland is on record with the
appelate court.

> They didn't deputize him for the purpose of growing medical
> marijuana and they didn't know about the hundreds of plants growing in
> the warehouse.  

If in fact he was growing hundreds of plants in a warehouse, he would
have been in violation of the local ordinance and his activities would
have been in direct conflict with what Prop 215 sets out.

> The story about city officials inspecting the building
> while pot was growing in it was a fabrication.  All of these things
> the press across America have printed about this case are the product
> of sloppy journalism and failure to verify information.

The trial was held in a courtroom, not in the popular press.  OJ is
not guilty regardless of what you might think - not because he didn't
kill his wife, but because a jury said he didn't kill his wife.

> I wish I had time to dig into this and research it so that I could
> share my findings with you, but I'm an extremely busy person. 

That is the lamest excuse available to you.

> And, I
> must admit that I am satisfied with the news reports.  I don't believe
> everything the media puts out, but I think it very unlikely that all
> of this would be published in all of these newspapers across the
> country, put on CNN and so on if it was patently false without us then
> hearing from the State of California and the City of Oakland that
> Rosenthal and his supporters are grossly distorting the truth to
> support their cause.  Surely we'd be seeing this in the media.  Surely
> the powers that be would try to diffuse this situation by showing that
> Rosenthal and his supporters are lying.

I never argued that what the lay media said was incorrect - I simply
said that what the lay media was reporting was Rosenthals attorneys
perspective.  Was he "deputized"?  The media has used the term, but it
has no legal meaning.  He argues that the City said he would be
protected under 21 U.S.C Section 885(d) - obviously the city was
wrong.

Rosenthal should sue the City of Oakland.


> I've got work to do, so I'm going to close.  I apologize for my tone
> with you in this thread.  You didn't deserve it and that's not the way
> I want to go about these discussions. I should have just noted that I
> don't have time to spend half a day researching this and backed on out
> of the argument.

It took me ten minutes to find the web pages and obout 2 minutes to
put the pieces together.

I really don't care what happens to Rosenthal - personally, I think he
got exactly what he was hoping for - a national platform.  I don't
like the fact that the lay media has inflamed the jury. Personally, I
don't trust the lay media at all.