Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (4988)	11/18/2006 11:19:58 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Hello. My name is Ed Rosenthal and I was tried in 2003 for providing marijuana starter plants to medical marijuana distribution centers. The exact charges were manufacture, providing a place to manufacture and conspiracy. The jury found me guilty. Within four days of the trial, eight of the jurors repudiated the verdict. After leaving the jury box they had learned the whole truth: I was appointed as a City Officer empowered to provide patients with medical marijuana. They told the media that they felt that they had been used and worse. After considering all the facts of the case the judge sentenced me to one day in prison, time served. I appealed the convictions on three grounds: improper actions by the juror, the fact that I was a city officer should have exempted me from prosecution under federal law and that even if I was not protected I had been led to believe I was by proper authorities and thus should be free from prosecution under the rules of estoppal. The 9th circuit reversed the conviction on the basis of improper actions by the juror and held that I could be re-tried. On August 30, the judge held a status hearing. The prosecutor told the court that he intends to retry the case and the judge ruled that according to law the trial must start by the end of October. In addition, this time I will be tried with three co-defendants. Two of those people were subpoenaed by a grand jury and have refused to testify. This is an extremely important case for the government and for medicinal marijuana supporters. They hope that a win here against me will give them a pass to attack all providers functioning under the California Medical Laws, then they will move on to decimate progress made in other states with similar medical marijuana laws. As you probably know, the federal authorities closed all of the medical facilities in San Diego in early August 2006. Our win in this case will be a major setback for the government's efforts to contain the medical marijuana phenomenon. However, wins are costly. The last trial, which cost over $350,000, left me in a critical, vulnerable position financially. I don't have the money to finance a trial for myself and my co-defendants are in worse positions than I am. I am assembling the legal team now. Each of the four defendants is interviewing attorneys and we are planning a joint legal strategy. We are recruiting prominent and qualified attorneys to work at a reduced rate. Even so, we will need funds for various court expenses as well as publicity. This is a critical moment in the fight for medicinal marijuana. Could you help us win this battle so that we can protect medical marijuana users and dispensaries throughout California and country? Since my finances are depleted I don't have the funds to mount the defense my co-defendants and I require. Unless we can raise money very quickly we will be left to federal public defenders. Perhaps you or someone you know are one of the millions of people I've helped over the years. It is essential that you help support this trial. Millions of sick of people, perhaps yourself, will be affected directly by the outcome. The verdict will also set the mood for general marijuana policy in California and throughout the country. The federal government needs to understand the public will not tolerate federal interference in the state medical program. Thank you for reading this and for your consideration. Yours truly, Ed Rosenthal How to help: Donate to Green-Aid, The Medical Marijuana Legal Defense Fund, a California charitable corporation with 501(c)(3) non-profit tax status. All contributions are tax deductible. Green Aid Ð Postal Mail Box 172, 484Lake Park Avenue, Oakland, CA 94610 Online: green-aid.com.

To: Jim S who wrote (4988)	11/18/2006 3:33:58 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Whether or not to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes is both a public policy issue and a contentious legal issue, especially in California. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act of 1970) marijuana use for any purpose is illegal. The federal law has not stopped a number of states from enacting medical marijuana legislation. California was one of the first. In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation. Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use. Proposition 215 put California law in direct conflict with federal law, and litigation ensued. The key case began in January 1998 when the U.S. government sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC) in federal district court for violating the Controlled Substances Act. The government asked that the OCBC be banned from distributing cannabis to member patients. The medicinal marijuana group rebutted that it acted out of "medical necessity" on behalf of seriously ill citizens, and that such a medical necessity should stand as an exception to the law. The district court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, causing a temporary shutdown of the OCBC, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a medical necessity defense existed. The Supreme Court took the case and unanimously overturned Proposition 215 in a May 2001 decision. The Supreme Court decision did not put an end to the California litigation. In January 2003 Ed Rosenthal, a medical marijuana advocate who grows the drug for use by the sick, was brought to trial in district court and found guilty on federal drug charges. Rosenthal's attorneys maintained that Rosenthal was legally growing the drug as "an officer of the city" under Oakland's local medical marijuana law. The judge ruled that this defense was not valid under federal law and did not allow the defense to be presented at trial. After the verdict, five jurors came forward and claimed that, had they known that Rosenthal had official sanction to provide marijuana under Oakland's medical marijuana law, they would not have found him guilty. They issued a public apology to Rosenthal and demanded that the judge grant him a new trial. Rosenthal's attorneys are reportedly considering an appeal of the district court verdict. The opposing sides in the legalization debate have strongly held views. Legalization advocates claim that marijuana significantly lessens pain and alleviates nausea resulting from serious diseases. Anti-drug groups contend that legalizing marijuana for medical use is a smokescreen designed to enable more access to a dangerous substance. On June 5th, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, cited ?extraordinary circumstances? in Rosenthal?s trial, including the statements of the jurors that he had not received a fair trial. The judge sentenced Rosenthal to just one day in jail. He then waived the sentence for time already served after Rosenthal's arrest last year. Whether Judge Breyer's ruling will have an impact on federal policy is unclear. Opponents of medical marijuana claim that federal law clearly has precedent in drug cases, while some states rights and medical marijuana advocates have challenged the supremacy of federal law. As a result of the Rosenthal case, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced a bill in the House, HR 2233 , that would force the federal government to recognize state laws on medical use of marijuana. U.S. Reps. Sam Farr (D-Carmel) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) have also proposed a bill, ?The Truth in Trials Act? or HR 1717 IH, which would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act to allow state laws relating to medicinal marijuana to be raised in federal court cases. igs.berkeley.edu

To: Jim S who wrote (4988)	11/20/2006 12:26:17 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

but I wonder HOW it could have happened. In any trial, a person is allowed to take the stand in his own defense Since he did in the eyes of the law commit the offense, maybe he didn't want to be directly questioned on it and have to admit guilt or commit perjury. Still if they have enough evidence that a conviction would seem likely, you would think that his lawyer would realize that he has to testify and try to let the barred information slip. But IANAL, and certainly not a trial lawyer. Maybe there is something I'm missing.