Skip to main content

Federal Courts

Press Release: U.S. Farmers Suing DEA to Grow Hemp in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 12

PRESS RELEASE: October 30, 2008 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or [email protected] U.S. Farmers Suing DEA to Grow Hemp in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 12 Oral Arguments Open to Public; Media Availability after Proceedings ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., will be back in court on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit begin at 9:00 am CST in the Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse at 316 North Robert Street in St. Paul and will immediately be followed by a press conference on the courthouse steps. The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as the DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only is industrial hemp genetically distinct from drug varieties of Cannabis, but there are also absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from ingesting it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html). Representative Monson will appear in court to observe oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state–regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. WHO: Rep. David Monson, North Dakota House Assistant Majority Leader, licensed hemp farmer Tim Purdon, attorney with Vogel Law Firm of Bismarck, ND and co-counsel for the plaintiffs Joe Sandler, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and legal counsel for Vote Hemp, Inc. Eric Steenstra, President, Vote Hemp, Inc. Lynn Gordon, Owner, French Meadow Café of Minneapolis, MN WHAT: Oral arguments and media availability WHERE: Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 316 N. Robert St., St. Paul, MN WHEN: Wednesday, November 12, 9:00 am CST for oral arguments (media availability afterwards) Background In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org. # # #

L.A. Protest Supporting Convicted Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owner Draws 350

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   
OCTOBER 6, 2008

Protest Supporting Convicted Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owner Draws 350
Patients and Advocates Call for an End to Federal Obstruction of State Law

CONTACT: Aaron Smith, MPP California organizer, (707) 291-0076

LOS ANGELES — The California organizer for the Marijuana Policy Project, Aaron Smith, joined approximately 350 medical marijuana supporters at a rally outside the U.S. District Courthouse in Los Angeles today.

    The rally was organized to support Charles C. Lynch, a former operator of a Morro Bay medical marijuana collective who was recently convicted on federal drug charges. Lynch opened Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in 2006 but was raided by federal and San Luis Obispo County law enforcement agents in March 2007. A respected member of the community who operated with the support of local officials and the chamber of commerce, Lynch was known to refuse payment from patients who could not afford it.

    "He was just a compassionate kind of guy," Steve Beck, the father of a cancer patient who relied on Lynch's dispensary to relieve the pain caused by his treatment – which included an amputated leg – told Reason magazine this summer.

    The raid and subsequent prosecution was conducted at the request of San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Patrick Hedges, who was unable to use his office to close the facility since it was in full compliance with state and local laws.

    The jury that convicted Lynch was barred from hearing any evidence about medical marijuana or his compliance with state law. Rally participants hope that a judge will grant Lynch a retrial. A hearing to consider Lynch’s retrial request is slated for Nov. 4.

    "Only a small minority of extremists still support imprisoning Americans for medical marijuana," Smith said. "That's why it's no surprise the federal drug warriors didn't allow jurors to hear all the facts in Charles' case."

    Smith encouraged the crowd to engage in the public process by urging Congress to lift the federal ban on medical marijuana. "With your help we can bring federal policy in line with the public sentiment," added Smith.

    With more than 25,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit www.MarijuanaPolicy.org.

####

Marijuana Policy Project to Participate in Medical Marijuana Rally Today

MEDIA ADVISORY   
OCTOBER 6, 2008

Marijuana Policy Project to Participate in Medical Marijuana Rally Today
 California Spokesperson to Join Advocates in Demanding an End to Federal War on Patients

CONTACT: Aaron Smith, MPP California organizer, Mobile (707) 291-0076

LOS ANGELES — MPP’s California organizer, Aaron Smith, will be speaking at a rally which is expected to be attended by hundreds of medical marijuana patients and advocates on Monday morning in downtown Los Angeles.

    The rally has been organized by local patients and advocates supporting Charles C. Lynch, a Central Coast man who was recently convicted on federal drug charges for operating a medical marijuana collective in Morrow Bay. Lynch complied with state law and obtained a permit to operate the facility. The jury in his trial was denied any information about the state’s medical marijuana law.

    - WHAT: “Free Charles C. Lynch” rally

    - WHEN: Monday, Oct. 6, 2008, 11 a.m.

    - WHERE: U.S. District Courthouse, 312 North Spring St. (at Temple St.), Downtown Los Angeles

    With more than 25,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit www.MarijuanaPolicy.org.

####

A great day for the Martin family and the medical cannabis movement

[Courtesy of Rebecca Saltzman]

Michael Martin speaking at the press conference before his sentencing hearing.

I woke up this morning feeling nervous and unsettled. My friend and colleague Michael Martin was to be sentenced this afternoon, and I prepared myself for the worst. But after an emotional rally and lengthy sentencing hearing, I felt at ease because Mickey is not going to prison.

After pleading guilty in federal court to manufacturing marijuana edibles, with the government finding more than 400 plants, Mickey faced a guidelines range of 30 to 37 months imprisonment.  However, due to the tension between state and federal law and the lack of any evidence that any edible produced by Mickey was diverted to recreational use, United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilkin exercised her discretion to sentence Mickey to 5 years probation, with one year to be served in a halfway house and one year to be served in home confinement.

The hearing was intense. Judge Wilkin asked several astute questions about state law and the interplay between state law and federal law. Clearly, she saw that the conflicting laws made medical marijuana cases unique. After Mickey's attorneys spoke about state law and the need for a change in federal law, Mickey spoke for himself. He talked about the cancer patients that had been able to eat after using his edibles. He spoke about his loving family and his service to the community. He explained that he had only done what he did to help people, and never to profit. Half way into his speech, most of the dozens of supporters packing the court room were in tears.

His speech and the stack of support letter the judge had received made a difference. And after the judge announced his sentence, the entire court room of supporters stood up and clapped.

Of course, Mickey never should have been prosecuted in the first place and deserves no punishment for providing medical cannabis edibles to ailing California patients. But this punishment was the best he could have hoped for. It means that he will not miss any years of his children's lives and that he can continue to work and provide for his family.

This sends another message by a federal judge that the federal government should not waste its time bring these cases.

Bob Barr Praises Federal Court Ruling Upholding Right of States to Allow Medical Use of Marijuana

Atlanta, GA - “The principle of federalism seemed dead three years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the federal government to run roughshod over state laws permitting the medical use of marijuana,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Barr says the tide may be turning with the recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who refused to dismiss a case by city and state officials against the federal government for raiding a medical marijuana group in San Cruz, California. “Keeping the case alive was significant enough,” notes Barr. “But Judge Fogel suggested that the Bush administration might have violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution in adopting a policy intended to effectively void California’s medical marijuana law." As Judge Fogel explained, a trial must proceed on whether the federal government attempted to make ‘California’s medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and thereby forcing California and its political subdivisions to recriminalize medical marijuana.’ In short, says Barr, the courts may end up deciding that while the federal government may implement a policy that runs contrary to state rules in an area of traditional state authority, namely the criminal law, Washington may not work to overturn state law. “After spending billions of dollars and arresting millions of people, we seem no closer to eliminating illicit drug use than we were at the start,” Barr says. “But we certainly have lost a lot of our freedom. While we might disagree about the best approach to problem drug use, we should be willing to accept the compassionate use of marijuana by those who are sick and dying. Certainly states have authority under the Constitution to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana as medicine. The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere,” insists Barr. Barr says that neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. John McCain is willing to consider real change to current policy. “Sen. Obama says the federal government shouldn’t interfere with state policy, but he says he doesn’t want to waste his political capital on the issue," Barr explains. "Sen. McCain was for respecting state authority before he was against it. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican presidential candidate is willing to put constitutional principle—or the lives of those who are suffering from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and more—before federal power." Barr says as president, he would "direct the DEA to initiate, for the first time, a truly open and objective scientific evaluation of the medical potential of marijuana." Moreover, Barr says he would ensure that all federal officials, including those in the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency, respect the decisions of states that choose to allow the medical use of marijuana. Finally, Barr would undertake a comprehensive review of federal crimes, which have expanded far beyond the few narrow cases foreseen by the nation’s Founders. "What the federal government does, it should do well, but it attempts to do far too much today," Barr says. "We must never forget that we are supposed to be living in a free society." "Such a decision, especially if upheld on appeal, would have significant and positive repercussions in other matters of public policy in which the federal government has used the power of federal law to thwart decisions by citizens of individual states," Barr notes. Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. (This press release was reprinted by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Pain Relief Network Sues State of WA

As always, we ask that you help PRN fight to protect the rights of patients and the doctors who treat them. Please click the link below.

Link

Pain Treatment Advocacy Group Sues State of WA

Jun 25, 2008

By: Donna Gordon Blankinship

The Associated Press SEATTLE - A pain treatment advocacy group filed suit Wednesday in federal court to challenge the restrictions Washington state officials have put on prescription pain medication.

The nonprofit Pain Relief Network says the guidelines for prescribing narcotics, written by the Washington state Department of Health and published in March 2007, have influenced pain treatment across the country and have made doctors afraid to give opiate prescriptions[...]

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Damages a class action lawsuit by Laura Cooper (lead attorney) et al., Filed: 2008-06-24

Exhibit 1: The WA state Opioid Dosing "Guidelines" by Agency Medical Directors Group (AMDG); Mar. 2007; Filed 2008-06-24

Exhibit 2: Findings of Fact Laura Cooper, Esq.; Filed 2008-06-24 www.painreliefnetwork.org

Fry & Schafer Released on Bail Pending Appeal

[Courtesy of California NORML] SACRAMENTO, Mar. 19th - Dr. Mollie Fry and Dale Schafer walked out of US Court free on bail pending appeal after being sentenced to a five-year mandatory minimum by a US District Judge Frank Damrell, who deplored the sentence as a "tragedy" that should "never have happened." Supporters were elated by Damrell's decision to grant release on bail, which capped a tense and dramatic day that began with a succession of adverse rulings for the defense. Defense attorney Tony Serra called it "one of the saddest days I've confronted in a long career" after Damrell turned down all the defense's motions to avoid the mandatory minimums. Mollie Fry stirred the courtroom to tears as she related the story of her cancer and subsequent desire to help people with medical marijuana. "We caused no harm to anyone," she said, "There were no victims." Judge Damrell acknowledged the legitimacy of Fry's medical use of marijuana, but said that the couple had "spiraled out of control.' He concluded that he had "no choice" but to impose the mandatory minimum of 5 years, a sentence dictated by the jury's finding that the couple had grown a total of slightly more than 100 plants over a period of three years. On the final and crucial issue of the day, however, Damrell agreed that the couple had "substantial" grounds for appeal so as to justify their release on bail. Following expert testimony by attorneys J David Nick and Ephraim Margolin, Damrell found substantial appeals issues relating to entrapment, the defendants' state of mind, and the conflict between state and federal laws. He added that the couple's precarious state of health was further extraordinary grounds for keeping them out of prison. He reprimanded Dr.Fry for her loose standards in recommending marijuana, and stipulated as a strict condition for her release that she desist from further recommendations, to which she assented. To this observer, today's events felt like a momentous step forward towards the inevitable changing of federal marijuana laws. Judge Damrell effectively declared the bankruptcy of US laws regarding mandatory sentencing and medical marijuana, and rightly referred the matter to higher authorities to decide. There are good grounds to hope that Dale and Mollie will be vindicated by the Ninth Circuit and/or a change in administration. More later.... Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML -- California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114 -(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org

March 19, 2008: Dr. Mollie Fry to be Sentenced for Medical Marijuana

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 17, 2008 CONTACT: Bobby Eisenberg, FRY/SCHAFER Defense Committee at [email protected] or 530-823-9963 California Dr. Mollie Fry to be Sentenced for Medical Marijuana Sentencing scheduled for Wednesday, March 19th at 2pm in Sacramento Federal Court. The federal sentencing of medical marijuana defendants Dr. Mollie Fry and her husband, Attorney Dale Schafer will take place on Wednesday, March 19th at the US courthouse in Sacramento (5th and I St.). The sentencing is at 2 PM. There will be a press conference before the hearing at 1PM in front of the Court House. The couple was denied the right to defend their actions that were protected under the Laws of the State of California. WHO: Sentencing in Federal Court of Dr. Mollie Fry and her husband, Attorney Dale Schafer for cultivation and dispensing medical marijuana under the Laws of California. WHAT: Press Conference prior to sentencing at 1 PM WHEN: Sentencing is Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 at 2 PM WHERE: Federal Court House, 501 "I " St., Sacramento, CA "We never would have grown marijuana had it not been sanctioned by the Laws of the State of California, the Attorney General of California and the District Attorney and Sheriffs’ of El Dorado County. Why aren’t they being charged with conspiracy to violate Federal Law?" asks Dr. Fry. Dr. Fry and her husband face a likely 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to cultivate and dispense medical marijuana for a small number of Dr. Fry’s patients. They ran (and continue to run) a popular medical marijuana clinic in El Dorado County that provides recommendations for many needy patients in the Sierra Foothills: http://www.docfry.com. Go to articles link for background. Like other federal defendants, they were denied the right to mention medical marijuana or Prop 215 in their trial. Both are in fragile health - Dale has hemophilia and suffers from chronic back pain, and Mollie is a breast cancer survivor. They are currently caring for three beautiful children and two grandchildren in their home. They were among the first medical marijuana providers raided by the Bush Administration, just a couple of weeks after 9/11 (9/28/01), but were not successfully indicted until June 22nd, 2005 after the Raich decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. Dale Schafer had also run for District Attorney in 2001. The sentence they face is particularly egregious compared to other defendants who have grown far more marijuana. They are liable to a five-year mandatory minimum because they were convicted of growing 100 plants over a period of three years, a number far smaller than is usually prosecuted by federal authorities. The jury was forced to add three different years worth of gardens to come up with the 100-plant count. They were not allowed to mention at their trial that local law enforcement had (deliberately) entrapped them by telling them it was OK to grow their relatively modest garden or that they had received advice of counsel supporting their right to grow and care for others under the Law in California. The Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, the District Attorney and the Sheriff in El Dorado County were all aware of and supportive of Dr. Fry and Schafer’s activities, but the jury was also denied these truths. Fry and Schafer’s case aptly exemplifies the kind of DEA enforcement abuses bill SJR 20 condemns. Patients and medical marijuana rights supporters are welcome to attend.

Press Release: Dr. Mollie Fry to be Sentenced for Medical Marijuana - March 6th

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 3rd, 2008 Contact: Nathan Sands, t: (916) 709-2483, e: [email protected] California Dr. Mollie Fry to be Sentenced for Medical Marijuana Sentencing scheduled for March 6th at 10am in Sacramento Federal Court The federal sentencing of medical marijuana defendants Dr. Mollie Fry and her husband, Attorney Dale Schafer will take place on Thursday, March 6th at the US courthouse in Sacramento (5th and I St.). The sentencing is at 10 AM. There will be a press conference afterwards at Noon in front of the Court House. The couple was denied the right to defend their actions that were protected under the Laws of the State of California. WHO: Sentencing in Federal Court of Dr. Mollie Fry and her husband, Attorney Dale Schafer for cultivation and dispensing medical marijuana under the Laws of California. WHAT: Press Conference to follow at NOON WHEN: Sentencing is Thursday, March 6th, 2008 at 10am WHERE: Federal Court House, 501 I St., Sacramento, CA “We never would have grown marijuana had it not been sanctioned by the Laws of the State of California, the Attorney General of California and the District Attorney and Sheriffs’ of El Dorado County. Why aren’t they being charged with conspiracy to violate Federal Law?” Dr. Fry asks a group of patients who are waiting to see her at her clinic. Dr. Fry and her husband face a likely 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to cultivate and dispense medical marijuana for a small number of Dr. Fry’s patients. They ran (and continue to run) a popular medical marijuana clinic in El Dorado County that provides recommendations for many needy patients in the Sierra Foothills: http://www.docfry.com. Go to articles link for background. Like other federal defendants, they were denied the right to mention medical marijuana or Prop 215 in their trial. Both are in fragile health - Dale has hemophilia and suffers from chronic back pain, and Mollie is a breast cancer survivor. They are currently caring for three beautiful children and two grandchildren in their home. They were among the first medical marijuana providers raided by the Bush Administration, just a couple of weeks after 9/11 (9/28/01), but were not successfully indicted until June 22nd, 2005 after the Raich decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. Dale Schafer had also run for District Attorney in 2001. The sentence they face is particularly egregious compared to other defendants who have grown far more marijuana. They are liable to a five-year mandatory minimum because they were convicted of growing (not a lot more than) 100 plants over a period of three years, a number far smaller than is usually prosecuted by federal authorities. The jury was forced to add three different years worth of gardens to come up with the 100-plant count. They were not allowed to mention at their trial that local law enforcement had (deliberately) entrapped them by telling them it was OK to grow their relatively modest garden or that they had received advice of counsel supporting their right to grow and care for others under the Law in California. The Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, the District Attorney and the Sheriff in El Dorado County were all aware of and supportive of Dr. Fry and Schafer’s activities, but the jury was also denied these truths. Dale Schafer is still meeting with the local Task Force (2/29/08) made up of local law enforcement and medical marijuana advocates to further implement the State and County guidelines regarding medical marijuana. Fry and Schafer’s case aptly exemplifies the kind of DEA enforcement abuses bill SJR 20 condemns. Patients and medical marijuana rights supporters are welcome to attend. Bobby Eisenberg-FRY/SCHAFER Defense Committee • [email protected] • 530-823-9963

North Dakota’s Licensed Hemp Farmers File Appeal in Eighth Circuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, February 19, 2007 CONTACTS: Tom Murphy 207-542-4998 or [email protected], Adam Eidinger 202-744-2671 or [email protected] North Dakota’s Licensed Hemp Farmers File Appeal in Eighth Circuit BISMARCK, ND – Two North Dakota farmers, whose federal lawsuit to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on state-licensed and regulated commercial hemp farming in the United States was dismissed on November 28, 2007, filed their appeal today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. A copy of the appeal will be available later this evening at: http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html. Lawyers working on behalf of the farmers, State Representative David Monson and Wayne Hauge, are appealing the district court’s inexplicable ruling that said hemp and marijuana are the “same,” as the DEA has contended. The ruling failed to properly consider the Commerce Clause argument that the plaintiffs raised — that Congress cannot interfere with North Dakota’s state-regulated hemp program. Indeed, the lower court itself recognized in the decision under appeal that “the stalk, fiber, sterilized seed, and oil of the industrial hemp plant, and their derivatives, are legal under federal law, and those parts of the plant are expressly excluded from the definition of ‘marijuana’ under the CSA [Controlled Substances Act].” “This appeal is basically saying why can Canadian farmers grow non-drug industrial hemp plants to produce perfectly legal hemp fiber and seed commodities for the interstate US market, but North Dakota farmers cannot under North Dakota’s state-regulated industrial hemp program,” says Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra. “The DEA has banned hemp farming for 50 years by conflating hemp and marijuana on very shaky legal ground while at the same time imports of hemp fiber, seed and oil are allowed. With North Dakota regulating industrial hemp, there is no reasonable threat farmers would be able to grow marijuana without being caught,” says Steenstra. Scientific evidence clearly shows that industrial hemp, which includes the oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis that would be grown pursuant to North Dakota law, is genetically distinct from the drug varieties of Cannabis and has absolutely no use as a recreational drug. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial assistance for the lawsuit. If the suit is ultimately successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own regulated hemp farming programs without fear of federal interference. More information about the case can be found at: http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html. # # # Vote Hemp is a national, single-issue, non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for low-THC industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow this agricultural crop. More information about hemp legislation and the crop's many uses may be found at www.VoteHemp.com and www.HempIndustries.org. BETA SP or DVD Video News Releases featuring footage of hemp farming in other countries are available upon request by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.