-------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Rejects Marijuana Clubs' Defenses (The Associated Press
says US District Judge Charles Breyer has ordered the closure
of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative without a jury trial,
saying he has no authority to decide whether the federal ban
on marijuana is irrational.)

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:50:07 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: WIRE: Judge Rejects Marijuana Clubs' Defenses
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Tue, 13 Oct 1998
Source: Associated Press
Copyright (c) 1998 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Author: Bob Egelko

JUDGE REJECTS MARIJUANA CLUBS' DEFENSES

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Medical marijuana clubs cannot fight off a
federal shutdown by claiming the drug is necessary to relieve
patients' pain or save their lives, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer was reported by
representatives of marijuana clubs in Oakland and Marin County,
targets of a Clinton administration lawsuit seeking to close them for
violations of federal laws against marijuana distribution.

Breyer's order allows federal marshals to close the 2,000-member
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative on Friday, said Rachel Swain, a
spokeswoman for the clubs.

William Panzer, lawyer for the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana in
the city of Fairfax, said the judge did not order that club closed,
but allowed a trial on the narrow question of whether it actually
distributed marijuana on the day that it was under a federal agent's
surveillance.

But Panzer said Breyer rejected the defenses that would allow the club
to operate, including the claim that enforcing the ban on marijuana
violates patients' constitutional right to relieve excruciating pain.
Panzer said he planned to appeal.

Advocates, backed by medical testimony, say only marijuana can make
certain treatments for AIDS and cancer bearable, and ease pain from
glaucoma and other conditions. Longstanding federal law declares,
however, that marijuana has no medical use and cannot be administered
safely under medical supervision.

The clubs sprang up around California after passage of Proposition
215, the November 1996 initiative that allows seriously ill patients
to grow and use marijuana for pain relief, with a doctor's
recommendation, without being prosecuted under state law.

But many of the clubs have been shut down through the efforts of
Attorney General Dan Lungren, who obtained state court rulings
limiting the scope of Proposition 215, and the Clinton
administration's Justice Department, which sued six clubs to enforce
federal laws against marijuana distribution.

Breyer issued an injunction in May prohibiting the six Northern
California clubs from distributing marijuana while the government's
suit was pending. His latest ruling involved the government's motion
to hold the two surviving clubs in contempt of court and require their
immediate closure for violating the injunction.

Breyer concluded he had no authority to decide whether the ban on
marijuana was irrational, Panzer said, reading from the ruling. He
said the judge found that the only legal way to challenge the ban was
to ask the government to lift it, wait for a denial and then go to a
federal appeals court.

The government's position is "absurd, considering that marijuana is
one of the safest substances known to mankind," Panzer said. He said
Congress should not be able to pass a law that prevents judges from
deciding whether a prohibition of a medical treatment is rational.

The clubs also argued that administering marijuana was justified by
"medical necessity," the legal doctrine that allows someone to violate
a law in certain narrow circumstances when it is the only way to
prevent a more serious harm.

But Panzer said Breyer effectively rejected that defense by requiring
the clubs to show that each patient had no alternative, rather than
allowing the clubs to argue to a jury that their screening procedures
admitted only patients who needed marijuana.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Ames Arrest Report (A first person account by the medical marijuana
defendant himself says Sacramento police stated that their policy is to
arrest all persons caught with marijuana and "let the courts sort it out.")

From: "ralph sherrow" (ralphkat@hotmail.com)
To: ralphkat@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Bob Ames Arrest Report
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:29:09 PDT

Subject: MMJ Patient Arrest
Date: 10/13/98

By: Robert Ames (bob@rush.com)

On October 12, Columbus Day, Sacramento Medical Cannabis Patient Robert
Ames, of Rio Linda, was arrested on charges of Cultivation of Cannabis.

When the Sacramento City police knocked on the door they were informed
that Robert Ames is a patient with documentation from a doctor
recommending medical cannabis. Police examined medical documentation
throughout the initial interview. Within 5 minutes of the initial
police contact, after Robert repeatedly showed his doctor's statement,
and explained the law as stated in California Health & Safety Code
Section 11362.5, the officer stated: "I have reason to believe that you
are in compliance with (proposition) 215."

The police stated that they intended to get a search warrant but they
also stated that they would break down Robert's door if he did not open
it immediately. This was several hours prior to obtaining a search
warrant. Robert repeatedly stated to all officers that he was a patient
protected under California Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5.

Later in the evening, the Sacramento City police stated that their
policy is to arrest all persons caught with Marijuana and "let the
courts sort it out."

This detention and arrest took approximately 10 hours prior to the
actual jail time. A large part of this 10 hours consisted of 5 to
7 officers waiting for a search warrant to be served on a legitimate
medical cannabis patient, not a criminal. One important point is
that many medical cannabis patients are citizens with jobs, homes,
and social consciousness. The only difference between these patients
and other citizens is that they have a medical condition that,
according to a doctor, can be alleviated through the use of cannabis.
This was the purpose of the passage of California Health & Safety Code
Section 11362.5. The law allows Californians who obtain a doctors
recommendation for cannabis not to be subject to persecution or
prosecution.

Although the police were immediately and repeatedly provided with
doctor's paperwork, demonstrating compliance with California Health
& Safety Code Section 11362.5, nothing in the search warrant mentioned
anything about 11362.5 or took under consideration that this was a
medical patient with a written doctor's documentation. Although
several of the officers were provided with, and did read, the Oakland
City Council's guidelines concerning reasonable protocols for dealing
with patients apprehended with medical cannabis, they repeatedly stated
that those guidelines don't apply since they're not in Oakland.

The Oakland City guidelines were established using the criteria of the
Federal Government's Investigative New Drug (IND) program, a program
providing medical cannabis, grown on government land in Mississippi
since the 1970's, to 8 patients who are still living. President Bush
ended new patient registration. These two guidelines are the only known
medical, scientifically evaluated guidelines available, nationwide.

Apparently the only guideline established in Sacramento is "2 plants
or 1 ounce", an extremely minimal guideline being promoted by the
Attorney General's Office. For a patient being treated with Cannabis,
this is far below any reasonable amount required, as established by
both the Federal Government's IND program and the Oakland City
guidelines.

Robert was released on his own recognizance just before noon October 13,
1998.

Robert will be represented by Joe Farina, who's running for State of
California's Attorney General in the November General Election.
Robert's first court appearance will be on 10/20/98 at 11:AM in
department 8, at 720 9th street, Sacramento.

Robert will be available to meet with members of the media.
Coordination will be by Ryan Landers, 916-448-6442.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Real Criminals' (A letter to the editor of The Fresno Bee from a criminal
defense attorney and Libertarian candidate for congress says tape recording
police interviews with suspects would save the taxpayers the expense of a lot
of trials, but halting prosecutions of victimless crimes such as using
or selling illegal drugs would save a lot more.)

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:46:58 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: PUB LTE: 'Real Criminals'
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison
Pubdate: Tuesday, October 13, 1998
Source: Fresno Bee, The (CA)
Contact: letters@fresnobee.com
Website: http://www.fresnobee.com/
Copyright (c) 1998 The Fresno Bee
Author: Jonathan Richter

'REAL CRIMINALS'

I agree with much that Mona Charen writes, but she is way off base on the
Miranda rule.

I am a criminal defense attorney and can tell you from personal experience
that Miranda rarely affects the outcome of a case. Police give the warnings
in almost every case now, as they should. Despite the warnings, most
suspects talk anyway. Most do one of two things. They either confess, or
they tell the stupidest lie on Earth, which, when heard by the jury, is as
good as a confession.

I agree that videotaping interviews is a good idea, but I doubt the police
will go for it. It's amazing how infrequently they even bother with a tape
recorder.

There are many cases where the police claim that a suspect said one thing
but the defendant claims to have said something else. Many of these cases
go to trial because the defendant claims the cops are lying. Having a
videotape would avoid a lot of trials. If the police are lying, the DA will
dismiss. If the defendant is lying, a look at the tape will convince him to
take a deal.

I question the validity of the study she relies on. A more likely
explanation for the drop in clearance rates is the amount of police time
wasted on victimless crimes like drug use and sales. If the police would
concentrate on catching real criminals like robbers,
rapists and murderers, they would have a higher success rate.

Jonathan Richter Libertarian candidate 19th Congressional District

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Police Lies "Ruined My Life" (The New Zealand Herald says A Kerikeri woman
plans to sue the New South Wales government in Australia after being jailed
for three and a half years on the fictitious testimony of disgraced Sydney
detectives. The NSW Criminal Appeal Court overturned her conviction because
of a detective's confession in 1995 that the case was "straight fiction.")

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:55:48 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: New Zealand: Police Lies "Ruined My Life"
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: 13 Oct 1998
Source: New Zealand Herald (New Zealand)
Contact: editor@herald.co.nz
Copyright: (c) New Zealand Herald Website:
http://www.herald.co.nz/nzherald/index.html

POLICE LIES "RUINED MY LIFE"

A Kerikeri woman plans to sue the New South Wales Government after being
jailed for 3 1/2 years on the fictitious testimony of disgraced Sydney
detectives. Now, 10 years after Suezanne Hayman was sentenced on a drug
importing charge, the NSW Criminal Appeal Court has overturned the
conviction because of a detective's confession in 1995 that the case was
"straight fiction." He told the Commission of Inquiry into Police
Corruption that evidence used to convict her was fabricated and that he and
other officers lied under oath. Suezanne Hayman, aged 48, served 31/2 years
of a six-year sentence, then was deported to New Zealand. "It affected my
children [then 16, 19 and 21] and still does ... I had lived in Australia
for 14 years. My family were there and I had grandchildren there. How
many times was I going to be punished for something I didn't do?"

Two detectives arrested Suezanne Hayman in Sydney in 1986. She denied
conspiring to import heroin from Thailand in 1984. But, she said, the
police produced a confession they claimed she made but refused to sign. "It
was their word over mine and the jury believed them." Suezanne Hayman's two
sons are now in New Zealand, her daughter remains in Australia. The
quashing of the conviction means she is entitled to go back to Australia.
Instead she has briefed a lawyer and is planning to sue the NSW Government.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]