cannabisnews.com: Vanished Med-Cannabis Activist Vindicated 





Vanished Med-Cannabis Activist Vindicated 
Posted by CN Staff on September 03, 2003 at 20:42:39 PT
By Mark Tide
Source: Arcata Journal 
Only a few weeks following Chris Giauque’s sudden disappearance in August, Chief Judge Marilyn Patel of the U.S. District Court for Northern California has ruled that the federal government must now return the ounce of Giauque’s cannabis that it seized in 2001 at the instigation of former Humboldt County Sheriff, Dennis Lewis.In so ruling, Judge Patel reveals fundamental flaws in the legal theories, used by former Sheriff Lewis and Humboldt County, to attempt to justify this federal intervention. The federal seizure warrant involved in this case was, “improperly issued,” according the Judge Patel.
After being ordered in early 2001, by Judge W. Bruce Watson of Humboldt Superior Court, to return the ounce of cannabis (seized by local deputy sheriffs in 1999) to Chris Giauque, former Sheriff Dennis Lewis instead filed papers for what is now seen to be a bogus plea for intervention through declaratory relief in federal court, purportedly seeking a determination of which court (state or federal) was entitled to the cannabis.A few weeks later, upon an application by the federal DEA, a (soon to retire) district judge issued a seizure warrant, and Giauque’s cannabis was given over by Sheriff Lewis to the federal government. This federal judge involved in the warrant claimed that he was, “trumping the jurisdiction (and ruling on P215) of the state court.”On July 25, 2001, Giauque filed a motion for return of property (this ounce of cannabis) with the federal court. During 2002 the district court held limited discovery proceedings, establishing a P215 basis for Giauques possession of the cannabis, although the federal government’s position is that such matters are entirely irrelevant.Giauque’s winning argument was an obvious one, that the federal seizure warrant and its enforcement illegally intruded within a state law process. “[E]xclusive jurisdiction in one court is necessary in order ‘to avoid unseemly and disastrous conflicts in the administration of our dual judicial system . . . and to protect the judicial processes of the court first assuming jurisdiction[,]'” declares the federal court, indicating a mountain of legal material supporting this principle.Basic provisions of the California Penal Code “provide and vest in [state] courts the explicit power to return property held in evidence[,]” and the “officer holding such evidence on behalf of the court retains no power to dispose of property,” finds Judge Patel.Thus, the activities by Sheriff Lewis, directed toward provoking federal authorities to somehow prevent enforcement of Judge Watson’s order, that Lewis return the cannabis to Giauque, appear to be in flagrant violation of state law. This is consistent with Juge Watson’s issuance of contempt proceedings against Lewis, which were stayed while Giauque appealed against the federal custody of his cannabis.“Section 1536 requires that the seizing law enforement officer retain custody of seized property, subject to order of the court. Sheriff Lewis was not authorized by statute or otherwise to dispose of the property absent a court order. After the state court ordered the Sheriff to return the [cannabis], he certainly had no discretion to dispose of the property in any other way . . . [it] was unquestionably under the exclusive control of the state court,” asserts Judge Patel.On this judgement, Sheriff Lewis clearly abused his lawful authority, perhaps quite intentionally (since the legal issues in question here are relatively simple), in an effort to thwart valid processes of state law. “By seizing the [cannabis] from the Sheriff, federal law enforcement necessarily contravened the orders of a state court disposing of property under its control. Federal authorities may not ‘muscle in’ on state proceedings in order to gain control over property seized by state police,” admonishes Judge Patel. Even if this court had the power to issue a warrant, seizure of the subject [cannabis] would violate . . . principles of comity and federalism[.] The conflict hardly seems less disastrous or unseemly, or the [existing] state judicial processes more respected, because the federal court has stripped the state court of jurisdiction[.]”Lewis acted ouside of his legitimate role as Sheriff, hatching a plan to tempt federal law enforcement officials, similarly antagonistic toward P215, to initiate a legal hoax for intervention (in the form of a baseless seizure warrant). Legal jurisdiction providing for such a move, simply does not exist. In fact, “federal courts may not interfere with state court jurisdiction by forcibly taking possession[,]” indicates Judge Patel. It is difficult to understand how Lewis would be unaware of such basic principles of state / federal law.Judge Patel even identifies further merit in Giauque’s claim that federal (district level) review of such state legal process is impermissible. Federal district courts cannot overturn state courts on matters of state law. In this case, the federal district court judge issuing the faulty seizure warrant was somehow persuaded into believing that, “the state court’s ruling (on the validity of California’s medical [cannabis] under federal law) was in error[,]” when such a question could not even properly be before it.Thus, the success of Dennis Lewis’ attempt to evade his responsibilities under state law depended on a federal judge mistakenly overlooking fundamental jurisdictional matters, in a rush to assume that federal law simply, somehow, “trumps” state law - wherever P215 is concerned.That his ability to refuse to perform his duties as Sheriff hinged on the silly, legal mistakes of a soon-to-retire judge, though, does not diminish Lewis’ apparently wanton and reckless violations of state law . . . all done just so that he could keep from returning a long-stale stash to a its lawful owner.The costs to Humboldt County for defending former Sheriff Dennis Lewis’ unlawful conduct, for several years through the legal system, are unknown at this time (but will be the subject of a future report).Complete Title: Vanished Med-Cannabis Activist Vindicated by Federal Court in Action Against Former Sheriff & Humboldt CountyNote: Former Sheriff Dennis Lewis Clearly Abused Authority of State LawSource: Arcata Journal (US CA)Author: Mark TidePublished: Tuesday, September 2, 2003Copyright: 1998-2003 Arcata Journal ~ www.arcata.orgWebsite: http://www.arcata.org/Contact: http://www.arcata.org/contact.htmlRelated Articles:US Judge Rules Giauque's Pot Off-Limits To Feds http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17222.shtmlAdvocate Missing from Spy Rock Areahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17192.shtml Missing Activist Wins Back Disputed Ounce of Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17177.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment