Hello out there,
Aloha to thee. I had a feeling that something really legally good is coming our way this week. They loss of ASA’s civil court case might be it. Why? Because it shows what doesn’t work, so we can now do what DOES work! And so it is.
What do you think?
All the best to you,
Roger
@@@
—-O., Carl on 1/24/2013 3:15 PM wrote:
>
It’s really irritating because the court found one of them actually had standing. In an administrative appeal, you get four shots at showing standing: (1) in the opening appeal brief you have to have a section on standing and a supplemental addendum with affidavits and other evidence of standing; (2) if you didn’t nail it the first time, you can address it again in your reply brief; (3) if you’re a total bozo and couldn’t nail it in the opening and reply briefs you can argue it during oral argument; and (4) if you’re extremely lucky the court will ask for supplemental briefing on standing like it did in this case.
In the supplemental brief, for the first time, the petitioner says he goes from his home in Virginia to Oregon once or twice a year and participates in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program. The court gives him standing for that, even though he never mentioned it before. And, why? Because Oregon accepts the medical use of marijuana. OMG - that’s the same argument I have for why marijuana can’t be in schedule I, and that’s the only thing that gave him standing. For god-almighty’s sake, that should have lit a bulb in ASA’s brain making the connection. But, no.
Roger, this is pathetic.
ROGER CHRISTIE on 1/24/2013 5:48:45 PM wrote
@@@
Thanks, Carl. Now hopefully our attorneys Tommy and Lynn will listen and re-do our Motion to Dismiss as you’ve been saying all along. The timing for our case might be perfect. Mahalo.
All the best to you,
Roger
@@@
—-O., Carl on 1/24/2013 12:15 PM wrote:
>
The error they made is asking the DEA to consider “medical efficacy” as a matter of science. The argument should have been “federalism” as in “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The court had no choice but to uphold the DEA on the question of medical efficacy. DHHS said only Phase I trials had been completed for marijuana and that Phase II and Phase III studies had not yet been completed. According to that, states play no role whatsoever.
So, why does the statute contain that long phrase “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” if what it really means is “medical use” or “medical efficacy”?
ROGER CHRISTIE on 1/24/2013 2:21:14 PM wrote
@@@
cc to many
@@@
Hello Tommy and Lynn,
Aloha to thee. Thanks to Carl Olsen for his analysis of the recent Appeals Court ruling that ‘marijuana’ remain a Schedule 1 controlled substance. How does this affect our Motion to Dismiss based on misclassification, and our case? Mahalo.
All the best to you,
Roger
@@@
—-O., Carl on 1/24/2013 3:15 AM wrote:
>
www.stopthedrugwar.org
by Carl O., January 24, 2013, 06:56am
This case was a train wreck right from the beginning. No court has ever reversed a public health agency on a question of science. DEA did not even make the decision. DEA is bound by law to acccept the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS said marijuana was not medicine in 2006 and these petitioners just sat on it until 2011 when they started this case.
Krawitz, the only petitioner who actually had standing, only had standing because he filed a new affidavit after the oral argument alleging that he lived in Oregon a month or two out of the year and had an Oregon Medical Marijuana Act card.
How could these petitioners be so brain dead to realize Krawitz had standing based on living in a state that accepts the medical use of marijuana, but fail to make the argument the classification requires that marijuana have no accepted medical use in treatment the United States? The classification is invalid for the same reason he had standing.
He could have made a valid argument and didn t. The fact the petitioners didn’t even know any of them had standing until after the oral argument is the same reason they didn’t know they had a legal argument based on federalism that they never made.
