cannabisnews.com: Nord's Pot Case Goes To Denver 





Nord's Pot Case Goes To Denver 
Posted by CN Staff on January 30, 2004 at 08:30:10 PT
By Susan Bacon, Pilot & Today Staff 
Source: Steamboat Pilot & Today
A conflict between state and federal drug laws took Hayden resident Don Nord, 57, inside the glossy wooden walls of a U.S. District courtroom in Denver on Thursday. Nord is a registered medicinal marijuana user in Colorado who has battled cancer, diabetes and chronic pain and takes more than 20 medications. When his "drugs" or "medicine" -- depending on who is talking -- was seized in mid-October, he said he wanted to get it back. He said he didn't imagine the effort would earn him a trip to a federal court, but, "We're gonna take it as far as we can take it, because they absolutely (have) done me wrong," Nord said before the Thursday hearing.
The hearing was held to determine whether contempt citations -- filed in a state court against six federal agents who seized Nord's marijuana and did not return it -- should be dismissed or granted in federal court. U.S. District Judge Walker Miller said Thursday that he hoped to rule before the officers are scheduled to appear in Routt County Court on Monday but that he would delay his decision if that state court appearance also could be delayed to give Nord's attorney more time for research.Nord asked to get his marijuana and growing equipment back through a state court, and when the marijuana was not returned within the time limit set by Routt County Judge James Garrecht, contempt citations were issued for the officers.Last week, the U.S. Attorney's Office asked that the case for the six officers be removed to federal court and that the contempt citations be dismissed.Attorney Kristopher Hammond, who is representing Nord, argued that most of the officers involved in the search were not federal agents and therefore should follow state law. The five officers he referred to are Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team officers deputized by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. The sixth officer is a DEA federal agent.Hammond argued the officers asked for a search warrant through a state judge and so are subject to state rules."Your honor, they chose the court," Hammond said. "The county court was good enough when they wanted something from the county court, like a search warrant, but now that the county court wants something from them, they take refuge in the federal court."Miller said he didn't see how a warrant issued from a state court would take away a federal law's constitutional supremacy over state law.The other three officers involved in the case are Hayden police officers. Hammond filed a motion to dismiss the contempt citations against those three, who were not represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office, on Thursday morning. The Hayden officers never were in charge of the marijuana so shouldn't be held responsible for giving it back, Hammond said.Michael Hegarty, assistant U.S. attorney, said the U.S. Attorney's Office didn't seek out or desire the dispute but had to enter the case because federal officers faced contempt charges for doing their job."Everything, your honor, was done here by the letter. It is simply a matter of the supremacy of (federal law over state law)," Hegarty said. "This is a clear right that a federal officer has," Hegarty said. "If he was performing his duties under federal law, he may not be subjected to contempt in a state court."The federal and state laws, he continued, are "in positive conflict with one another."Hegarty said that under federal law, marijuana is contraband and that the U.S. government does not return contraband under any circumstances but instead has the right to destroy the drugs at any time.He also said that Hammond's argument didn't hold true because the officers in question were clearly working "100 percent for the United States government." The DEA agent involved in the case is Doug Cortinovis. The GRAMNET officers involved are Dan Kelliher of the Routt County Sheriff's Office, Dwight Murphy of the Steamboat Springs Police Department, Mike Lovin of the Grand County Sheriff's Office, Jenny Hoefner of the Craig Police Department and Todd Reece of the Moffat County Sheriff's Office. All six of those officers are represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office.Hayden officers whose contempt citations will be dismissed are Chief Jody Lenahan, Ed Corriveau and Darin Falk. Hammond will contact Miller by noon today, and Miller will either delay the decision or rule before Monday.At the end of the proceeding, Miller said that if the case turns into a challenge of the Colorado Constitution, formal notification would need to be given to the Colorado Attorney General. Miller also said that if he decides to remove the case to federal court and considers dismissing contempt charges, then legal representation for the Colorado Constitution and for Routt County Judge Garrecht would need to be dealt with.Hammond said that if the issue comes to arguing state versus federal law, the case would have to go further."If Judge Miller decides the Colorado Constitution violates the United States Constitution, then that's an issue that probably should be decided in the United States Supreme Court and not here."Note: Medicinal marijuana user says he's been wronged.Newshawk: The GCWSource: Steamboat Pilot & Today, The (CO)Author: Susan Bacon, Pilot & Today Staff Published: Friday, January 30, 2004 Copyright: 2004 The Steamboat Pilot & TodayContact: editor steamboatpilot.comWebsite: http://www.steamboatpilot.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmU.S. Attorney Enters Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18229.shtmlFeds Try To Stop State Charge in Med Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18205.shtmlU.S. Court Snags Pot Fight http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18204.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by The GCW on February 01, 2004 at 07:52:47 PT
Q & A, from Steamboat Springs, Colorado
US CO: Behind the Heads: Kris Hammond: What's next in pot case? 
Pubdate: Feb. 1, 2004Source: Steamboat Pilot & Today, The (CO) Contact: editor steamboatpilot.com Website: http://www.stmbt-pilot.com/Viewed at: http://www.steamboatpilot.com/section/news/story/21762Behind the Heads: Kris Hammond: What's next in pot case? Sunday, February 1, 2004 Q. What does Don Nord want from this case? Why are you and he pursuing it?A. Don wants the police to obey the law of Colorado. That alone is reason to pursue the case.Q. What are the national implications for this case? How could a decision from this case impact state laws on using medicinal marijuana?A. Our country is founded on the principle of Federalism -- that each state has the right and obligation to enact its own laws regarding matters of state interest. That's why laws vary from state to state on funding, speed limits, marriage, education, health, even fireworks. This encourages each state to find its own unique approach to government.States can reject ideas that don't work (Florida-style butterfly ballots) and borrow ideas which do (voter registration with drivers license). The states should be left alone to act in these matters.Colorado's medical marijuana law is simply another example of our citizens' right of self-determination. A decision from this case either affirms states' rights or makes them vulnerable to attack.Q. When you took this case, did you have a sense that it could set a national precedent?A. No. It only got big when the police refused to obey the law.Q. How far are you willing to take this case? How can Don Nord pay for it?A. Right now, we feel like taking it as far as we have to. Don is on a fixed income and pays me $100 per month. That probably covers the case's phone bill.Q. What will you do if the federal judge removes the case to federal court and then dismisses the contempt citations? Will you go to a court of appeals?A. My crystal ball doesn't work right now. When it starts working again, we'll fund the case with gambling profits.Q. What is the most important argument in this case? What's the central point of it, and what do you hope to prove through it?A. Federalism (see above).Q. Were you surprised that the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the case to federal court? If the case is removed, will that hurt your argument because the case will have to be decided in a federal arena under federal laws?A. I wasn't expecting it, but in retrospect I'm not surprised. When a state case like this is removed to Federal Court, the federal judge is supposed to do what he thinks Judge (James) Garrecht would have done.Q. Do you think the state of Colorado and Routt County Judge James Garrecht will become plaintiffs in the case? When could that happen? If Judge Walker Miller hears the case, will those state parties enter?A. I hope they enter and get lawyers smarter than me, and soon. Two or three brains are better than one. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on January 31, 2004 at 22:08:13 PT
Thanks The GCW
Thank you for posting the dispute between the papers. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by The GCW on January 31, 2004 at 21:22:18 PT
Get the Don Nord story straight.
US CO: Kopel: Post gets medical pot story right Pubdate: Jan. 31, 2004 Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)Viewed at: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2618480,00.html Kopel: Post gets medical pot story right Dispute over Hayden man's possession of marijuana is not yet in federal court January 31, 2004The Denver Post excelled and the Rocky Mountain News did not in reporting the latest legal development in the Hayden medical marijuana case. Last year, a group of federal and state agents raided the home of a 57-year-old man in Hayden who possessed marijuana in accordance with Colorado's medical marijuana law. A Routt County judge threw out the case and ordered the agents to return the man's marijuana. When the agents refused, the judge threatened to find them in contempt of court. On Jan. 23, as accurately reported in the Post on Jan. 25, the U.S. attorney's office filed papers in federal court, asking that the state case be "removed" from state to federal court. Removal is a procedure by which a federal court can take jurisdiction over a state court case. The Post article explained the legal procedures, and made it clear that the federal court has not yet ruled on the U.S. attorney's effort to remove the case.In contrast, the News article on Jan. 24 began, "U.S. authorities moved a conflict between federal and Colorado marijuana laws to federal court Friday, snatching it from a Colorado judge . . ." The News incorrectly claimed that the case had already been "moved." The News vaguely referred to "U.S. authorities," while the Post specified that the office of the U.S. attorney had filed the motion. The News never explained the procedure for moving a case from state to federal court, while the Post accurately explained "removal" and quoted from the U.S. attorney's motion arguing why removal should be granted in the Hayden case. Part of the problem with the News article, I learned, was that editors cut too much from the reporter's orignal story. Also, the reporter reasonably relied on mistaken information from a U.S. attorney's spokesman; the spokesman thought that removal is self-executing. Instead, removal is automatically self-executing in civil cases, but not in criminal cases. At the time the reporter talked with the spokesman, the federal court clerk had not yet decided to classify the case as a criminal case. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by The GCW on January 31, 2004 at 20:43:55 PT
Don Nord Legal Defense Fund
Don Nord Legal Defense FundA Legal Defense Fund has been set up for Don Nord to support him and his attorney in this important case. Don is living on a fixed income and must now buy expensive synthetic pharmaceuticals to take the place of his medicinal cannabis. Don's attorney, Kris Hammond, is working pro bono. Since this case has been seized by the feds, they both must now make an expensive four hour commute from Routt County to the federal courthouse in Denver.Any little bit will help.Make checks payable to: Don Nord P.O. Box 1616 Hayden, Colorado 81639For information on Don's case, see: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=news http://www.mapinc.org/find?GAC=n-us-co&LABEL=Colorado&YY1=1998*************************************************************** Distributed as a public service by the: Colorado Hemp Initiative Project Email: cohip levellers.org Web: http://www.levellers.org/cohip/ "Fighting over 60 years of lies and dis-information with 10,000 years of history and fact."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by The GCW on January 30, 2004 at 15:43:28 PT
Drug War Chronicle #322 update.
Colorado Cannabis Confrontation: A Patient and a State Judge Take on the Feds 1/30/04 http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/322/colorado.shtml"...Last week, Nord was again hospitalized, this time for prostate surgery and bladder infections from previous hospitalizations..."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dankhank on January 30, 2004 at 13:34:34 PT:
Federal Supremacy ...?
I ask simple questions regarding the supremacy question, with, mayhap, some prefacing ...For how many years was Nevada the only state to have legal gambling AND prostitution?20?
30?
More?During any time in that period was either of said activities illegal at the Federal level?No? well ... nevermind ... :-)Yes? than why was supremacy not claimed over THOSE 'vices?'
Conversely, Can the Fed pick and choose who to harass?Silly Rabbit .... of course, but is it legal?
Hemp N Stuff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on January 30, 2004 at 12:12:00 PT:
Feebs running the Dweebs; every DEA Agent's 
nightmare.And that's not supposition on my part, but a distillation of postings on DEAWatch: http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htmThey shake in their jackboots at the prospect...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 30, 2004 at 12:10:16 PT:
Yes Indeed
This is a very significant case that should go to the US Supreme Court if that federal judge throws out state contempt charges. If the Federal Court upholds the state court's charge of contempt, DEA agents will certainly appeal.Notice that the federal attorneys didn't really want to get involved in this issue, but felt they had no choice. They realize the implications of this case.Mr. Nord is a good man indeed. Thank you sir.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on January 30, 2004 at 10:52:38 PT
I have an idea
Whoever becomes the new President should ask the FBI to babysit the DEA to make sure they stop doing things that make all federal law enforcement look bad.The FBI might enjoy that eh?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on January 30, 2004 at 10:47:31 PT
They really put their foot in it
There is absolutely no way the DEA can come out of this without even bigger damage to their already damaged public reputation.Don Nord is so visibly and undeniably ill, they can't look like anything but despicable bullies in this case.These people who run the DEA really are incapable of sensible adult decision making.They're in a lose-lose situation here but they're too full of themselves to see it.If they lose, they are losers in the eyes of the law and the public. If they win, they are bullies who succeded in bullying a very ill man. They may be winners in the eyes of the law but once again, they wil be losers in the eyes of the public, and probably in the eyes of the judge, when he's in private talking to his friends and making his political contributions.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on January 30, 2004 at 09:56:42 PT:
Yes, this is very very big
Because it strikes at the heart of the concept of Federalism, which all the top lawyers in the Busch Regime adhere to, including Crisco Johnny: the idea that the Feds have overstepped their authority for too long in interfering in what are essentially local matters, and that the powers usurped by the Feds MUST be returned to the States.Yet, lookee here: Feds defending precisely that kind of usurpation. And trying to claim it can deputize sworn LOCAL LEOs at will anytime it wants to. This flies in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Either local LEOs are just that, or every cop in America is a Federal agent, and should not be paid from State tax monies, because they are not serving the local populace but the nation at large. You can't have it both ways, because then what is the point of having States and counties at all? Every State's laws are in greater jeopardy than they presently are. Because if the Feds can claim suzerainity anytime they want to, no State is safe from having it's laws re-written on the fly courtesy of some Fed magistrate drawing a red line through it. That kind of dictatorial power was never meant to be held by ANY branch of the US Government..yet it is being claimed by the Executive Branch, which controls the DEA. Big? This is one of a great many cases which will be the belweather for our future as a nation. If it is lost, then America slides further down the slope into fascism's pit.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on January 30, 2004 at 09:02:37 PT
This could turn into a big case!
I hope these guys can continue this right to the Supreme Court.If not, how about a civil suit against the state & local LEO's? Couldn't you sue them individually for cooperating with feds in a way that violates state law, and claim pain & suffering damages? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by The GCW on January 30, 2004 at 08:47:09 PT
Make note: It is not:
"Miller said he didn't see how a warrant issued from a state court would take away a federal law's constitutional supremacy over state law."BUT RATHER:I don't see how the Federal law can take away from the state court supremacy.!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment