|
Today I'd like to discuss the Toxin Rid review with you. It is the most well-known detox pill brand on the market. However, for many people it seems impossible that it works, and I must say that I was one among them.
So, in this overview, I'll tell you everything you need to know about Toxin Rid, including what it contains and how effectively it works to eliminate drug toxins.
I'll go through the many methods for passing a drug test, include hair drug test, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of each.
I also go into drug metabolite elimination times and what I've discovered to be the most effective technique to pass a drug test based on my personal practice.
Then I'll show you how to use Toxin Rid and compare it to the next best pill course on the market, Rescue 5 Day Detox.
February 26, 2003
CounterPunch Exclusive
http://www.counterpunch.org/harrison02262003.html
Mistrial? Rosenthal Jurors Say They Received Outside Legal Advice!
by ANN HARRISON
SAN FRANCISCO. Lawyers for convicted medical marijuana grower Ed
Rosenthal say he is entitled to a new trial because two jurors in
the case received outside legal advice that compromised their
ability to make an impartial judgment.
Jurors Marney Craig and Pamela Klarkowski have been subpoenaed by
Rosenthal's attorneys who today presented U.S. District Judge
Charles Breyer with evidence of juror misconduct.
Judge Breyer repeatedly admonished the jurors to judge the case
according to federal law, and consider only the evidence presented
in court. But Craig has revealed that during the trial, she
contacted a friend who is a practicing attorney. Craig believes
that her decision to seek his advice was not improper because she
revealed no details about the case, and asked a narrow question
about a point of law.
"I simply asked him if I had to follow the judge's instructions,
or if I had any leeway at all for independent thought,'' said
Craig in
declaration. "His answer was that I definitely did have to follow
the judge's instructions, and that there was absolutely nothing
else that I could do.''
Craig said that her friend, whom she declined to name, further
warned her that she could get into trouble if she strayed from the
judge's instructions. She passed this information on to Klarkowski,
who said in her declaration that the two women had discussed
whether past cases challenged the law.
Craig and Klarkowski later voted with their fellow jurors to
convict Rosenthal on three federal counts of marijuana cultivation
and conspiracy. Rosenthal remains free on a $200,000 cash bond,
but faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal
prison when he is sentenced in June.
"In order for a new trial to be warranted, we simply have to show
there is a reasonable possibility that the independent judgment,
or freedom of action, of one or more of the jurors was affected in
some way," said Rosenthal attorney Joe Elford. ''We have met that
standard because Marney Craig was given what we consider to be
erroneous legal advice which suggested she would get into trouble
if she refused to convict."
The defense team has until March 14th to present a motion for a
new trial. But when Rosenthal's attorneys alerted Judge Breyer of
potential juror misconduct on February 20th, he gave the defense
just three business days to produce evidence of impropriety, and
reasons for requesting hearing to determine if the information
warranted a new trial. Government prosecutors now have until March
5th to respond. The San Francisco U.S. Attorney's Office declined
to comment on the potential impact of juror prejudice in the case.
But the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
jurors are lying, or that the
extraneous influences or improper contact was harmless.
Craig confirms that the advice she received during the trial did
effect her actions in the courtroom. She said she was upset to
discover after the verdict that she had the power to reject the
judge's instructions, and vote to acquit Rosenthal if she felt the
law itself was unjust. She said she wished someone had told her
about the right to jury nullification.
"Had I known that it existed, I think it would have given me the
confidence to pursue other options both in my own mind, and in
deliberations talking to other jurors," said Craig from her home
in Novato, California. "I think we might not have been able to
come up with a unanimous verdict, I think it is entirely likely."
Craig says she sought her friend's advice because while Rosenthal
was accused of conspiring with a medical marijuana club, Judge
Breyer forbade the issue of medical marijuana to be presented at
trial. Craig said in her declaration that this left her feeling
"frustrated and confused."
''We don't condone what the jurors did," said Rosenthal attorney
Bill Simpich. "But at the same time, we are deeply sympathetic
that they are torn between conscience and duty, and in that vein
we feel we have a right to a new trial given this unparalleled
situation."
Craig and Klarkowski were among the seven jurors who later said
they were misled when Judge Breyer blocked the defense from
explaining that Rosenthal was growing medical cannabis under
California's Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215). Judge Breyer ruled
that because all cannabis cultivation is illegal under federal
law, Rosenthal's motivations for growing the marijuana were
irrelevant. Jurors said they were outraged to discover after the
trial that Rosenthal had been deputized by the City of Oakland,
California to grow medical cannabis for patients.
During Rosenthal's trial, his attorneys filed a series of motions
citing other grounds for a new trial. These included Judge Bryer's
rejection of federal immunity provisions granted to Rosenthal, and
the judge's refusal to permit testimony from DEA supervisor Mike
Heald.
But Elford said the defense alerted Judge Breyer to the juror
misconduct because they wanted to separate this argument from
others. He expressed concern that Judge Breyer will decide the
issue before the defense has an opportunity to fully brief it in
their motions for a new trial. If Judge Breyer rules that the
evidence of juror impropriety does not support a new trial, Elford
says all defense motions will be presented to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
In the meantime, Elford says the defense has no scheduled reply or
oral arguments to respond to the government's interpretation of
the juror's actions. But he says the defense will cite numerous
cases in both the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court where
outside influence on jurors overturned convictions and resulted in
new trials. ''The jury misconduct issue is by far the strongest
grounds for a new trial,'' said Elford. ''The other issues that
have already been raised have been
denied by the court."
_______________________________________________
Government's Attempt to Silence Activist in Medical Marijuana Trial Fails
Court Hears Testimony on How Rosenthal Helped Patients Live
Better Lives
Thursday, January 23, 2003
The U.S. government's attempt to silence marijuana-cultivation
expert and author Ed Rosenthal, as well as his attorneys, was
thwarted today in federal court, but those assembled to hear the
outcome of the latest twist in what was already a Kafkaesque legal
saga had to wait to the end of the day for the judge's decision.
Fear of pervasive media reports on the trial "contaminating
the jury" had yesterday prompted Assistant U.S. Attorney George
Bevan, Jr. to ask the judge to put a stop to all press interviews
until the conclusion of Mr. Rosenthal's federal trial. U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer responded yesterday by asking Mr.
Rosenthal to agree not to speak to the press, with the added
threat that -- in the event of a conviction -- he would take Mr.
Rosenthal's conduct during the trial into account in considering
the wide range of sentencing options available - 10 years to life
in prison, and up to $6,500,000 in fines.
But with an attorney from the San Francisco Chronicle and a
media-law expert from the First Amendment Project present in court
to argue the matter today, Judge Breyer rejected the requested
order, saying that the media attention was part of a "legitimate
public controversy" and that the government had not made a
sufficient showing that the jury was being influenced.
But that came at the end of the day, after court had
recessed.
Today's proceedings, which saw eight witnesses called,
began with Judge Breyer directing the prosecution to play for the
jury several minutes of videotape from the raid on Mr. Rosenthal's
Oakland cultivation facility. The video depicted DEA agents
holding up small marijuana cuttings, or clones, to demonstrate
which of them had begun to show roots. The number with roots is of
grave importance, because only cuttings with visible root
structures can be counted as plants, and federal marijuana
sentences are based on the number of plants, regardless of size.
The vast majority of the marijuana plants seized in the raid were
clones or cuttings a few inches tall, and only a small fraction of
them had roots, even by DEA accounts. The defense is disputing the
number of rooted plants the government can prove were present.
Special Agent Charles Taylor of the DEA was called to the
stand to testify about the plants he had helped count during the
raid. One counting sheet bearing his initials showed a number
crossed out and a different one entered, just as had a counting
sheet seen yesterday during another agent's testimony. Agent
Taylor stated under cross-examination that he had no idea why
several large garbage bags filled with marijuana clippings had
been left behind after the raid, since it was DEA policy to seize
all such contraband.
Next up was Lesley Wilmer, the 74-year-old former landlord
of the Oakland building that housed the cultivation facility. A
retired MUNI bus driver, Mr. Wilmer testified that after initially
leasing the site, Mr. Rosenthal had bought the building, with
financing help from Mr. Wilmer. Defense attorney Robert Eye asked
Mr. Wilmer if Mr. Rosenthal had told him that he was growing
marijuana there under the authority of the city of Oakland, but --
as with all such questions during this trial -- a prosecution
objection sustained by the judge stopped him from answering.
IRS Special Agent Anita Dobberstein then climbed into the
witness stand to briefly testify about two checks she had
recovered from the Rosenthal home. Made out to Ed Rosenthal from
the Harm Reduction Center and signed by Robert Martin, the checks
had been returned for insufficient funds. Agent Dobberstein said
she had neither written a report about the seizure of the checks
nor done any investigation into the circumstances that lead to
their being written.
The next witness called was a firefighter/paramedic for the
Oakland Fire Department, "German" Sierra, who had filled out an
initial fire-safety inspection report on Mr. Rosenthal's
cultivation facility. He testified that he had been shown a valid
City of Oakland business license, and that Mr. Rosenthal had,
after explaining that the marijuana was for distribution to the
local medical clubs, shown the fire department inspectors through
the building. Mr. Sierra said that at no time had Mr. Rosenthal
attempted to hide anything or prevent them from inspecting any
part of the building. He also said that neither he nor the other
Oakland firefighters present had either commented on the marijuana
growing in the building or reported it to any law enforcement
officials. The inspection report showed that Mr. Rosenthal had
brought the building up to code.
Another IRS Special Agent, John Wilson Baker III then came
to the stand to tell the jury about a surveillance he had carried
out with a DEA agent in which they had observed Mr. Rosenthal
leave his Oakland building with a white grocery bag and drive to
the Sixth Street Harm Reduction Center in San Francisco, which he
entered, carrying the bag. The agent couldn't say if he'd left
with the bag, nor could he say what the purpose of the
surveillance was. He did say that Mr. Rosenthal made no attempt to
hide either the bag or where he was going.
Robert W. Martin was then compelled to testify. One of
several witnesses subpoenaed by the prosecution and forced to
testify under a grant of immunity to keep them from asserting
their fifth-amendment rights against self-incrimination, Mr.
Martin described for the jury the circumstances surrounding the
checks he had written Mr. Rosenthal (which had been seized in the
raid of the Rosenthal home), the number of times he'd seen him at
the Harm Reduction Center, and conversations he'd had with others
at the HRC about Mr. Rosenthal's involvement with providing
medicine for the patients. In answer to a question from the judge,
Mr. Martin explained that he sold Mr. Rosenthal's clones to
patients for $10 so they could "grow their own medicine and make
their life better."
Another grant of immunity was then issued to force the
testimony of James Joseph Kyne, who had been living on property in
Petaluma belonging to Ken Hayes and working as a volunteer at the
Harm Reduction Center at the time of the raids. Mr. Kyne was put
on the stand in an attempt to identify a particular phone number
as belonging to Mr. Hayes, the proprietor of the HRC, but the best
he could do was say he'd seen a piece of paper with Mr. Hayes name
and a phone number on it, which the DEA had seized in raiding Mr.
Hayes' home. He described his volunteer work at the HRC as
counseling patients, helping them find housing, and the like.
Last on the stand was John Brian Padgett, the DEA Special
Agent in charge of the search at the Harm Reduction Center. But
he'd barely gotten started on testifying about the marijuana
plants he'd found in the basement of the HRC when the court day
ended. He's scheduled to return to the stand when trial resumes at
8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 29.
The prosecution estimated for Judge Breyer that they have
an hour and a half left in presenting their case. The defense will
present its opening argument at that time and expects to call at
least a day's worth of witnesses. Judge Breyer then instructed
defense counsel not to try and call such witnesses as Barbara
Parker, the assistant city attorney for Oakland; Nate Miley, a
former Oakland City Councilman; Lt. Richard Hart, the head of the
Oakland Police Narcotics unit; or anyone else who might testify -
as they all did during pretrial hearings - about the City of
Oakland's medical marijuana program, for which Mr. Rosenthal had
been deputized to cultivate.
_______________________________________________
Gag Order Fight Draws First-Amendment Expert to Rosenthal
Defense Federal Government Seeks to Silence Author of Self-Help
Marijuana Books
Wednesday, January 22
Fear of front page newspaper articles, radio
news interviews and television reports "contaminating the jury,"
prompted Assistant U.S. Attorney George Bevan, Jr. to ask for a
gag order on noted author Ed Rosenthal, his attorneys and his
family, forbidding any of them to speak to the press until the
conclusion of Mr. Rosenthalıs trial on federal marijuana
cultivation charges.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said
he had never before imposed such an order, but observed that the
pervasive media attention may be contributing to the three days of
demonstrations outside the federal courthouse. He then asked
defense counsel to get an agreement from Mr. Rosenthal not to
speak to the press.
Judge Breyer then struck an ominous
note, pointing out that he had a wide range of possible sentences
available to him in the event of a conviction, and that he thought
it appropriate to consider the defendantıs conduct during the
course of the trial in determining what that sentence should be.
If convicted of all counts, Mr. Rosenthal faces penalties of
anywhere from ten years to life imprisonment, as well as asset
forfeiture and up to $6,500,000 in fines.
The defense will respond to the judgeıs
request in court tomorrow, but given Mr. Rosenthalıs more than 30
years of First-Amendment activism as a writer and publisher, it is
highly unlikely that he will muzzle himself. Failing a voluntary
agreement from him, the prosecution is to present to the judge a
written sample of the sort of order they want him to impose.
Threat of the gag order has attracted
the attention of many newspapers. The San Francisco Chronicle's
First-Amendment attorney will be in court tomorrow, along with Jim
Wheaton, senior counsel to the First Amendment Project and a media
law instructor at Stanford University, who will be there to advise
the defense. Consideration of the gag order will be at 8:00 a.m.,
before the jury is brought into court at 8:30.
In today's proceeding, the defense
returned to cross examining Special Agent Daniel Tuey of the Drug
Enforcement Administration about the seizure of evidence from the
Oakland facility where the government contends Mr, Rosenthal was
engaged in growing marijuana plants for distribution to local
marijuana dispensaries. At issue was what evidence the government
could present as to the exact number of plants present, since both
of the two most serious charges -- conspiracy to cultivate more
than 1,000 marijuana plants and actual cultivation of more than
100 -- hinge on quantity. Agent Tuey conceded under questioning
that not only did the government destroy substantial amounts of
the evidence seized, but that they had left behind several large
trash bags full of leaf cuttings. He was also unable to identify
the number of plants, rooted or otherwise, pictured in the
governmentıs still photos.
Under further questioning from
prosecutor Beven, the agent claimed that the other two videotapes
made during the raid showed each and every plant with roots, in
such a way that they might be counted, but the jury has yet to see
that footage, though they were shown video of a walk-through of
the grow facility.
DEA Special Agent Anthony Levey was then
brought in by the prosecution to testify as to the mature ³mother²
plants heıd counted during the search. Notes he had made on the
number present in each bed of plants showed at least one counting
discrepancy -- a number crossed out and another entered -- which
he conceded was the result of error, saying some of the beds had
been counted more than once because he and another agent had
disagreed as to the number of plants present. He testified further
that he did not know if he had ever counted such plants before --
he thought maybe he had -- but he had certainly not done so since.
He could not identify any of the dried plant material entered into
evidence as being plants he had counted or cut, nor could he
provide or identify any photos showing how many plants were in the
room he had been responsible for counting.
Trial resumes tomorrow, Thursday, January 23, at 8:00 a.m. in U.S.
District Court, Courtroom of Judge Charles Breyer, 19th Floor, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.
_______________________________________________
January 22, 2003
Ed Rosenthal's
Federal Trial Begins
Feds May Falter on Pot Plant Count
Tuesday, January 21 --
In the midst of a minor media blitz, the cultivation trial of
marijuana
activist and noted author Ed Rosenthal got underway in San
Francisco federal court today.
Assistant U.S. Attorney George Beven outlined the case against the
man known as the
foremost expert on marijuana growing, without actually discussing
what Mr. Rosenthal was
doing -- providing small starter clones of high-potency female
plants to local marijuana
dispensaries for distribution to qualified patients. The result
was a disjointed opening
argument. After a preliminary discussion with judge about whether
the purpose of Mr.
Rosenthalıs activities could be mentioned -- it couldnıt -- the
defense elected to reserve its
opening argument for after the prosecution completed presenting
its case.
First on the stand was the ailing James Halloran, 61, one of Mr.
Rosenthalıs indicted
co-conspirators and a former racquetball partner, who testified
about the marijuana-growing
activities he began immediately after California passed the
Compassionate Use Act,
otherwise known as Prop 215, in 1996. According to Mr. Halloran,
he entered into a
partnership with Mr. Rosenthal in late 1997 or early 1998 to
produce marijuana for the local
medical clubs, before going their separate growing ways about a
year later, though he
continued to buy small clones and cuttings from Mr. Rosenthal
until the time of their arrest.
Mr. Halloran also told the court that he was testifying in
exchange for a more lenient sentence
in his guilty plea to cultivation and money-laundering charges,
charges he told the jury would
otherwise have resulted in a 50-year mandatory minimum with the
possibility of a triple life
sentence upon conviction. While this appears to be an
overstatement designed to cast his
decision to rat out a friend and former partner in a more
favorable light, it nonetheless
introduced to the jury the seriousness of the consequences facing
Mr. Rosenthal, should they
choose to convict.
Defense attorney Robert Eye also elicited testimony from Mr.
Halloran concerning an
extraordinary provision of his plea agreement with the government,
allowing him to seek
dismissal of the conviction at such time as the federal law on
marijuana is either determined to
be unconstitutional or repealed by Congress.
Next on the stand was an electrician who detailed work heıd done
at Mr. Rosenthal's
direction to ensure safety and bring the marijuana cultivation
facility into compliance with city
of Oakland building codes, at a cost of roughly $7,500. Under
questioning from the defense,
he described the inspection of the facility by the Oakland Fire
Department, emphasizing the
complete lack of interest on the part of officials in the small
marijuana plants that filled the
building.
The last witness of the day was DEA Special Agent Daniel Tuey, who
had supervised the
February 2002 raid on the cultivation facility. As part of his
testimony, the prosecution played
a videotape the agent made and narrated during the raid, showing
several small rooms
containing "mother" plants, young clones and fresh cuttings, as
well as various items tacked to
the walls, including a bumper sticker that read "Thank you for pot
smoking" and a newspaper
article that appeared to be about the 6th Street Harm Reduction
Center providing medical
marijuana for the most seriously ill patients. The prosecution
also introduced into evidence
one grow light and ballast, one large corroded fan, and a few
medium-sized bags of dead
marijuana cuttings. The rest of the evidence seized, the agent
conceded under defense
questioning, had been destroyed.
The defense had, in fact, only begun its cross-examination of
Agent Tuey when the court day
drew to a close, but defense attorney Robert Eye nonetheless
extracted testimony highlighting
the fact that no local law enforcement had either participated in
the raid itself or delivered any
information to the DEA about Mr. Rosenthalıs operation. To further
make the point, Mr. Eye
questioned the agent about the Oakland Fire Departmentıs
building-inspection report, which
the DEA had seized in the raid. With the report projected on a
screen for the court to see,
Mr. Eye asked Agent Tuey about a three-word note scrawled across
the top of the form,
apparently written by the inspecting Oakland Fire Department
officer. "Can you tell us what
that note says?" Mr. Eye asked. "Doesnıt it say 'Donıt get
caught'?"
After the jury had been dismissed for the day, presiding judge
Charles Breyer vented his
displeasure with the defenseıs line of questioning regarding the
attitude of local officials, as
well as the time spent by both prosecution and defense counsels on
the matter of how many
of the plants seized were either rooted or not. He asked the
attorneys to come to an
agreement about a range of numbers -- more than x but less than y
-- rather than take up too
much time arguing over a precise count. Yet the number of viable
plants is germane to the
specific charge of cultivating more than 100 marijuana plants. The
defense believes the
prosecution will be unable to produce any such number of plants.
Then came what may prove to be the dayıs most significant moment,
in which Judge Breyer
quashed the defense subpoena of one of the DEA agents who had
participated in the raid.
Mike Heald, the former supervising agent from Sonoma County was
being called to testify,
outside the presence of the jury, about comments heıd made to a
colleague of Mr.
Rosenthalıs regarding the DEAıs policy on prosecutions in
California. The colleague, Mary
Pat Jacobs, who runs the Sonoma Alliance for Medical Marijuana,
claimed in a declaration
provided to the court that Agent Heald had told her that it was
policy to follow the lead of
local authorities in determining whether or not to prosecute those
cultivating medical
marijuana under Prop 215 guidelines. Ms. Jacobs had relayed that
conversation to Mr.
Rosenthal, who had relied upon it, in addition to the numerous
assurances of local officials, in
concluding that his cultivation of marijuana plants on behalf of
medical patients would be
immune from federal prosecution.
The quashing of the subpoena of Agent Heald is of particular
significance to the defense
argument that the prosecution of Mr. Rosenthal is a case of
"entrapment by estoppel" in
which officials tell an individual that their conduct is legal and
then try to prosecute them for it.
In rejecting this argument, Judge Breyer made much of the fact
that, while Mr. Rosenthal
could reasonably have believed he was immune, the defense had not
produced a key element
in that defense: any federal government official or agent whoıs
said as much. Now the federal
agent who might have testified to exactly that will not be
permitted to appear.
Trial continues at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, in U.S.
District Court, with trial
commencing on Tuesday, January 21, 2003.
_______________________________________________
January 13,
2003
URGENT
NOTICE - Ed Rosenthal Trial Date set for Jan. 21, 2003
Now Is The Time To Act!!
Despite a voter referendum that makes medical marijuana legal in
California, long-time activist and author Ed Rosenthal was
arrested by federal agents and now faces 20 years in prison for
helping the sick and dying in accordance with California state
law.
The Federal government knows that they must defeat the medical
marijuana movement at all costs, or else they have lost the Drug
War. The issue is clear - Federal prosecutors want to stop legal
providers of medical marijuana, despite the growing consensus on
medicinal use. According to the
November 04, 2002 edition of Time Magazine, "80% think adults
should be able to use marijuana legally for medical purposes."
Jury selection in Ed's landmark case begins on January 16, 2003.
Ed needs the support of his peers and all those who believe in
compassion and the democratic process.
The good news is that the Green Aid: The Medical Marijuana Legal
Defense and Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization,
has been officially launched with a contribution of pro bono legal
services. Green Aid is providing Ed with a group of skilled
attorneys to defend Ed as the first of
many such cases.
However, we still need to raise an additional $350,000 to pay
trial costs. Please donate whatever you can to help in this
just fight. Even a little help will make the difference in
defending both state laws and our ethical rights to be
compassionate.
Green Aid needs your help to help Ed and others win their trials.
To make your tax-deductible donation go to
http://www.Green-Aid.com
or call 1-888-271-7674.
Please email this notice to your friends and acquaintances who
care about the issue. If you have a website, you can pick up a
banner ad at
http://www.Green-Aid.com. Updates
on the legal developments are posted there as well.
Thank you for your support! -- Ed & Jane
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In the face of the federal government's unprecedented assault on
medical marijuana patients, caregivers and growers, Green Aid is
an invaluable source of legal aid to those on the frontlines of
the struggle."
- Dale Gieringer, Coordinator, California NORML, Co-sponsor, Prop.
215
_______________________________________________
Final Defense
Motions Denied; Jury Selection Moved Up Further
Judge Refuses to
Dismiss Charges Against Rosenthal; Difficulty of Finding a Jury
Willing to Convict Advances Trial Calendar Yet Again
Thursday, January 9,
2003 - Fear of jury nullification and public opinion polls showing
that 80% of Americans think medical marijuana should be legally
available were the reasons Judge Charles Breyer gave for moving up
the jury selection process yet again in the federal trial of
activist and author Ed Rosenthal. Only one day after rescheduling
jury selection in the case to next Thursday, the judge moved it up
even further, to Tuesday January 14th, saying he was concerned
about being able to seat a jury that "passes Constitutional
muster" in being able to "render both sides a fair trial," because
such a large percentage of people may view the prosecution of
Rosenthal as unfair. A discussion of how that jury is to be
selected is now scheduled for Monday at 2:00 p.m. in Judge
Breyer's courtroom, with selection to begin the next day at 8:30
a.m.
This scheduling
change followed Judge Breyer's ruling denying the remaining
defense motion to dismiss the charges based on immunity or
entrapment. Defense attorneys argued that because Rosenthal had
been deputized by the City of Oakland to provide medical marijuana
and believed himself to have been immune to federal prosecution,
the federal government's case was a form of entrapment. Several
Oakland officials testified today in support of that argument.
The court heard from
Barbara Parker, the Assistant City Attorney for the city of
Oakland, who said that the city's intent in passing its medical
marijuana ordinance had been to make individuals participating in
their program immune to prosecution.
Similar testimony was
offered by Nate Miley, a former Oakland City Council member now
serving on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, who had
participated in needle exchange programs, enacted the medical
marijuana ordinance, and (as Rosenthal testified) visited the
cultivation facility with his aide and "literally blessed it."
Miley and Parker both
stated that despite extensive media publicity about their attempts
to provide a legal haven for the distribution of medical
marijuana, as directed by California's Compassionate Use Act,
Proposition 215, they were never contacted by any federal official
advising them that they were violating federal law, or encouraging
others to violate federal law , and that prosecutions could
result.
They were joined on
the stand by Lt. Richard Hart, the head of Oakland Police
Department's Narcotics Division, who testified that while he
worked closely with the DEA under a memo of understanding and
supervised cooperative efforts between their agents and his
officers, he was also participating in the meetings of the Working
Group assigned to implement Prop. 215. He was never told by
federal officials that there was or would be any problems with the
program he was helping develop to ensure safe, affordable access
to medical marijuana for patients who needed it.
Rosenthal's trial on
federal charges stemming from his participation in that program is
scheduled to begin Tuesday, January 21, in U.S. District Court.
COMING UP:
Monday, January 13, 2003 -- determination of jury selection
process.
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 -- Jury selection begins.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003 -- Trial commences
WHERE: U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Courtroom of
Justice Charles Breyer, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate, San
Francisco, California
FOR MORE
INFORMATION: Updates and background information on Ed Rosenthals case are
also available on the web at
www.green-aid.com or
www.safeaccessnow.org.
Federal
Judge Rejects Dismissal in Medical Marijuana Expert's Case
Oakland City Attorney To Testify Thurs., Jan. 9,
Jury Selection Set for Thurs., Jan. 16
WHAT: Federal District Court justice Charles Breyer,
presiding over the case against renowned marijuana expert Ed
Rosenthal, has rejected motions to dismiss charges against
Rosenthal and set Jan.16 to begin selecting a jury for trial,
scheduled to commence Jan. 21.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN FURTHER
BREAKING NEWS, Breyer will hear testimony Thursday, Jan. 9,
from Oakland Asst. City Attorney Barbara Parker on assurances
Rosenthal was given regarding immunity from federal prosecution,
and encouragement to continue his work to provide patients
medicinal cannabis free from federal intervention and harassment.
Despite this understanding, Rosenthal was subsequently arrested by
the U.S. DEA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosenthal, author of
over a dozen books on marijuana, was arrested in February 2002 for
marijuana growing and possession after agents raided an Oakland
facility where starter plants were being cultivated for use by
medical marijuana patients. Rosenthals research and work on
behalf of sick and dying patients followed the 1996 passage of
Proposition 215, Californias pioneering medical marijuana
initiative. Prop. 215 allows patients to grow and possess
marijuana. The federal government has mounted an attack on this
initiative, and Rosenthal is seen as a high-profile target in
their attempts to eradicate the medical marijuana movement.
WHEN: TODAY!
1:30pm, Thursday, January 9, 2003
WHERE: U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Courtroom of
Justice Charles Breyer, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate, San
Francisco, California
WHO: Ed
Rosenthal, 58, is internationally regarded as one of the leading
experts on marijuana and marijuana cultivation. The charges
against him could land him in jail for 20 years. Knowledgeable
activists in the medical marijuana movement regard Rosenthals
prosecution as an attempt by the federal government to silence an
outspoken and brilliant advocate for the compassionate use of
marijuana. They recognize that if the federal government prevails
in its attack on Rosenthal, it will have a chilling effect on the
Compassionate Use movement.
Jury Selection to Begin Jan. 16th in Federal
Medical Marijuana Case
Judge Denies Motions Challenging the
Charges Against Marijuana Expert/Author Ed Rosenthal
January 8, 2003 -
Marijuana cultivation expert and author Ed Rosenthal moved one
step closer to trial today, when Judge Charles Breyer denied his
attorneys' motions seeking to invalidate the search warrant that
led to his February 2002 arrest. Rosenthal's attorneys presented
several arguments challenging the legitimacy of the government's
actions, all but one of which were dispensed with by the judge.
The last motion to be considered concerns Rosenthal's assertion
that he was entrapped, because the federal government had an
understanding with local officials that individuals providing
cannabis for medical patients at authorized clinics would not be
subject to federal prosecution. An attorney for the city of
Oakland will be among those testifying on Rosenthal's behalf
Thursday, January 8th at 1:30 p.m.
In an apparent effort
to accelerate the trial process, Judge Breyer moved up jury
selection to next Thursday, January 16, after expressing
incredulity at the prosecution's estimate that it would take two
full days to seat a jury -- a length of time that may indicate the
government's awareness of the difficulty they face in finding a
jury willing to imprison those who help the sick and dying help
themselves. The court calendar change clears the way for the trial
to begin in earnest on Tuesday, January 21, following a recess for
the Martin Luther King holiday. The irony of scheduling the trial
of a contemporary civil rights leader around the holiday honoring
America's greatest appeared lost on the court.
First Court Date in Federal Medical Marijuana Case
Marijuana Expert/Author Ed Rosenthal Fights
Federal Charges Today
January 6, 2003 -
Lawyers for renowned medical marijuana cultivation expert and
advocate Ed Rosenthal will present arguments in federal court
today that the warrant which led to his arrest in February, 2002
on cultivation and conspiracy charges is legally flawed and should
be stricken, thereby clearing the way for charges against
Rosenthal to be dropped. Their motion to strike the search warrant
challenges the veracity of the informants used by the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) and statements by the arresting federal
agent that are integral to the DEA case.
Additionally,
Rosenthal and counsel will show that his research and expertise
were focused on developing systems to deliver safe, healing
marijuana to sick and dying patients based on the will of the
voters of California, who in 1996 passed Prop. 215, the state's
pioneering Medical Marijuana Compassionate Use initiative.
Rosenthal, author of more than a dozen books on marijuana, worked
cooperatively with state and local authorities to implement
operations and guidelines for law enforcement and marijuana
providers to make medical marijuana available to patients. In the
past year, the U.S. Department of Justice has escalated its attack
on California's Prop. 215 and the publicly-supported medical
marijuana movement across the country, arresting, harassing and
intimidating growers, providers and patients.
"Ed Rosenthal is an
absolutely essential visionary and hero to the compassionate use
movement," said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for
Safe Access. "Because of Ed's work, thousands of ill people can
have the medicine they need, and the misguided federal drug
warriors truly fear his expertise, outspokenness and courage."
Among California and
national medical marijuana advocates there exists the recognition
that Rosenthal's case is very important to conservatives opposed
to marijuana's medicinal use. His expertise in the cultivation of
marijuana, his research into various strains and their medicinal
properties, and his collaboration with officials in Oakland, San
Francisco and Sacramento to develop systems to institutionalize
medical marijuana can further legitimize marijuana as medicine and
reduce support for the Drug War. Both statewide and national polls
have already shown 80% support for the medicinal use of marijuana.
Rosenthal's
case will be heard by Hon. Charles Breyer, U.S. District Court,
450 Golden Gate, San Francisco, at 2:30pm, Monday, January 6, and
will be preceded by a rally of support outside the courtroom at
1:30.
News Advisory
Marijuana Expert
Ed Rosenthal Fights Federal Pot Charges
Lawyers to File Motions to Dismiss Case in Federal Court Jan.
6th
WHAT: Lawyers for renowned author and marijuana cultivation
expert Ed Rosenthal will present arguments to dismiss federal
charges against him beginning on Monday, January 6. Rosenthal,
author of over a dozen books on marijuana, was arrested in
February 2002 for marijuana growing and possession after agents
raided an Oakland facility where starter plants were being
cultivated for use by medical marijuana patients. Rosenthal's
research and work on behalf of sick and dying patients followed
the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, California's pioneering
medical marijuana initiative. Prop. 215 allows patients to grow
and possess marijuana. The federal government has mounted an
attack on this initiative, and Rosenthal is seen as a high-profile
target in their attempts to eradicate the medical marijuana
movement.
WHEN: 2:30pm
Monday, January 6, 2003
Wednesday, January 8, 2003
WHERE: U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Courtroom of
Justice Charles Breyer, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate, San
Francisco, California
WHO: Ed
Rosenthal, 58, is internationally regarded as one of the leading
experts on marijuana and marijuana cultivation. The charges
against him could land him in jail for 20 years. Knowledgeable
activists in the medical marijuana movement regard Rosenthal's
prosecution as an attempt by the federal government to silence an
outspoken and brilliant advocate for the compassionate use of
marijuana. They recognize that if the federal government prevails
in its attack on Rosenthal, it will have a chilling effect on the
Compassionate Use movement. |
