cannabisnews.com: WAMM Set for Appeal To Return Seized Pot





WAMM Set for Appeal To Return Seized Pot
Posted by CN Staff on September 14, 2003 at 12:07:19 PT
By Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel 
Santa Cruz — Attorneys for an area medical marijuana cooperative will be in federal appeals court Wednesday, seeking return of more than 160 pot plants seized by federal agents in a September 2002 raid. The Wo/men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana filed the suit weeks after the raid, seeking return of the plants and other personal items.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel denied the request, except for return of a computer and other personal items that belonged to WAMM co-founders Valerie and Mike Corral.That led to an appeal in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.It is a sort of symbolic effort, as the plants have likely lost their medicinal value in the year since they were uprooted during a pre-dawn raid at WAMM’s Davenport garden, if they still exist at all."It’s to vindicate WAMM and get the 9th Circuit to agree the feds were overstepping their authority," attorney Ben Rice said.Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen will make the oral arguments before the panel, Rice said.In filing the original suit, attorneys attacked the search warrant used for the raid, saying probable cause wasn’t sufficient to obtain it. Valerie Corral said she doesn’t expect to get the plants back, but would like to get something from the federal government. "I would love to see the government paying us for the plants," Corral said. "It has been so damaging to us. It has been a difficult time since the raid."Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Richard Meyer said due to policy reasons he could not answer as to whether the plants had been destroyed or not.However, he reiterated the federal agency would continue to fight efforts to return the pot."We’re the Drug Enforcement Administration, not the Drug Distribution Administration," Meyer said. Meyer said he applauded WAMM’s efforts to help sick people, but said they could "help sick people in other ways."Last year’s raid resulted in the Corrals being briefly jailed, but they released the same afternoon and no charges have been filed.The latest hearing comes on the heels of a failed attempt to garner an injunction against the federal government preventing future raids of WAMM gardens. The county and city of Santa Cruz joined the medical marijuana cooperative as plaintiff’s in that suit, which attorneys plan to appeal to the same 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that will hear Wednesday’s case.Meanwhile, WAMM is holding its inaugural Santa Cruz WAMMFEST benefit from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. today at San Lorenzo Park in Santa Cruz. The event features music, food and vendors, but is not a "smoke-out," organizers say. Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff WriterPublished: September 14, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Santa Cruz SentinelContact: editorial santa-cruz.comWebsite: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Pictures From WAMM Protesthttp://freedomtoexhale.com/eventpics.htmMedicinal-Pot Raid To Be Rememberedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17265.shtmlJudge Refuses To Block Raids of Marijuana Farm http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17175.shtmlWAMM Lawsuit Seeks To Curb Federal Authority http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16047.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 17, 2003 at 16:25:13 PT
Important E-Mail News from Dale Gieringer
DPFCA: 9th Circuit MMJ Hearing 
    
 San Francisco, Sept. 17: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on a key constitutional challenge by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana against the federal government's efforts to suppress medical marijuana. Attorney Randy Barnett argued that the federal government was exceeding its constitutional powers under the interstate commerce clause. Much discussion was spent on the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, which authorized the federal government to regulate intra-state commerce, provided the activity involved was a "relevant class" affecting interstate commerce. Barnett argued that the "relevant class" here was different than in preceding cases involving general sales and distribution of marijuana, since it involved medical marijuana users. The Justices sharply questioned this line of argument, Justice Fletcher asking why homegrown marijuana was different from homegrown wheat (the issue in Wickard v Filburn), and Justice Silverman noting that the Congress specifically addressed the class of medical use by putting marijuana in Schedule I. Attorney Gerald Uelmen addressed the issue of patients' fundamental right to relief from pain and suffering, asking "If a dying cancer patient gets relief, what interest does the federal government have in stopping him." "We did that one," joked Justice Reinhardt, referring to the panel's previous decision in the OCBC case, which was overturned by the Supreme Court. He went on to note that the 9th Circuit had supported the right to relief from pain in suffering in an assisted suicide case, which was likewise overturned by the Supreme Court. "You want us to try again?," Reinhardt joked. Regarding Congress' authority to regulate drugs, Justice Silverman asked the poignant question, 'Does Congress have the right to be wrong about this? That's what bothers me." On the government's side, attorney Mark Quinlivan stressed that the Controlled Substances Act was a lawful exercise of Congress' authority. "Could Congress put insulin in Schedule One?" asked Justice Silverman. Yes, said Quinlivan, but it would be subject to regulatory protocols regarding petitions for rescheduling. Justice Reinhardt sharply questioned Quinlivan's assertion that the court had no right to look at the class of medical marijuana users, but could only consider the class of all marijuana commerce as defined by Congress in the CSA. "Here you have a carefully regulated category," said Reihardt, "What's wrong with looking at it?" Quinlivan objected that states had no authority to define categories in federal law. "Well, states are winning more these days," said Reinhardt. Quinlivan went on to try to link WAMM to "commercial activity" by saying it accepted monetary contributions and sold some goods at its website. Reinhardt skeptically noted that everything involves money. Reinhardt bore in on the crucial question of whether there was a fundamental right to relief from pain and suffering. Quinlivan evaded the question by saying that this issue didn't apply, since there was "no relevant class." The Ninth Circuit is expected to make its decision known in its own good time (the last OCBC decision took 6 months). In the meantime, another panel is expected to hear a related appeal by Angel Raich and Diane Monson, involving the right to possess and cultivate for personal medical use, exclusive of any distribution. - D. Gieringer, Cal NORMLDale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml igc.org2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114 
California NORML
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by motavation on September 17, 2003 at 14:05:18 PT:
WAMM WE LOVE YOU
Wamm, we love you!Thanks for standing up!Email me when you got an opening:)
WAMM Benifit-California Patients!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 09:00:52 PT
News Brief -- Associated Press
Lawyers For Medicinal Pot Co-op Want Stash BackGroup Seeks Return Of 160 Pot PlantsSeptember 15, 2003LOS ANGELES -- Lawyers for a medical marijuana cooperative in Santa Cruz, Calif., are headed to federal appeals court Wednesday to ask for the return of more than 160 pot plants seized by federal agents in a raid last year. The Womens Alliance for Medical Marijuana filed the suit weeks after the September 2002 raid, seeking return of the plants and other personal items. A US District Judge denied the request, except for return of a computer and some other items. That led to an appeal in federal court. It's sort of symbolic effort at best. The plants will have likely lost their medicinal value in the year since they were uprooted. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen will make the oral arguments before the appeals court panel on behalf of the co-op. Copyright: 2003 by The Associated Press
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on September 14, 2003 at 22:26:01 PT
sick!
"Meyer said he applauded WAMM’s efforts to help sick people, but said they could "help sick people in other ways."This is so sick.. ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 14, 2003 at 13:37:53 PT
FWD from one of Richard Lake's lists
Hanamoto Productions Presents the 1st Annual Santa Cruz WAMMFest: A Benefit for the Wo/Man's Alliance for Medical Marijuana.Entry is FREE - This is NOT a "Smoke Out" San Lorenzo Park, Santa Cruz, California Sunday, September 14, 2003 10-5 pm This year's festival brings together WAMM members and their supporters from around the World. Live entertainment and vendors are readily signing up. A wide range of subjects - Marijuana to Hemp - will be represented in many interesting ways. Music, Clothes, Foods, Glassware, Jewelry, Snacks, and Everything Cannabis will make for a fun day. The people involved will make WAMMfest 2003 as unique as Santa Cruz itself. The city and county of Santa Cruz have been behind WAMM 100%. We are thankful to be part of a community which has the compassion Santa Cruz has. So join us for: Music, Food, Games, Hemp and Related Products Vendors, Medical Marijuana Information, White Elephant Sale. Raffle: Win WAMM Collectors T-shirts, Marijuana Art, Hats, and much more.Fun for Everyone. See You There! No dogs or alcohol allowed in the City Park.For more information visit: http://www.marijuana-art.com/WAMMfest/ and/or http://www.wamm.orgPeace & Love Always & Always Love...- Prezz 420 (Ale Earth 420)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 14, 2003 at 12:40:21 PT
I Found This Web Site in CNews Guest Book
Here it is!http://www.growshop-highfive.com
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment