cannabisnews.com: Federal Court Orders Bail for Chico Man 










  Federal Court Orders Bail for Chico Man 

Posted by CN Staff on August 07, 2004 at 15:19:49 PT
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer 
Source: Sacramento Bee  

San Francisco -- A federal judge in Sacramento was ordered Friday to release Bryan James Epis from prison while the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the fate of state-sanctioned medical marijuana cooperatives that operate wholly within California.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. to set bail terms for the co-founder of Chico Medical Marijuana Caregivers and to handle the proceedings on an expedited basis.
Through his lawyer, Brenda Grantland, Epis said he was ecstatic. He thanked "literally thousands" of supporters.Epis has been serving a 10-year term at the federal prison at Terminal Island outside Los Angeles since his 2002 conviction on federal marijuana conspiracy charges. Damrell instructed jurors to disregard evidence of medical use sanctioned by California's medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215.Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/orders.htmSource: Sacramento Bee (CA)Author:  Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs WriterPublished: Saturday, August 7, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Sacramento BeeContact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Bryan Epis Protest Pictureshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/protestpics.htmChico Man's Pot Case On Hold http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19176.shtmlFirst Federal Medical Marijuana Conviction http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13398.shtml Conviction in Federal Pot Trialhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13389.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #14 posted by Max Flowers on August 08, 2004 at 15:14:03 PT
Thanks
for the civics lesson. I guess I didn't realize it could be done simply because it has never been done.Found an interesting article saying the same thing you are:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33380
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on August 08, 2004 at 12:52:35 PT:
Max, I'll try to explain as best I can
I'm no lawyer, however.I was speaking politically. Contrary to what most think, even a Supreme Court judge can (and in my opinion, many of them *should*) be impeached. Regretably, the kind of climate necessary to do so would require a very high degree of social polariztion. A polarization which I submit we already have and that it will get worse. The unthinkable has already happened, and the precedent has been set. No high office is safe from political retribution, now.Recall how reluctant people were to impeach Clinton, citing historical paucity of such cases, namely, there having only been one. But now? Impeachment has become a tool used in recent historical memory; the die has been cast, and the Black Robes are a bit more careful in their deliberations. The Supremes have only themselves to blame for that unConstitutional ruling that they made in 2000 in stopping what was lawfully Florida's call on counting the votes. They even noted in their ruling that they can never do it again, admitting *de facto* interference where they had no right to do so. The case SHOULD have been remanded to the Florida Supreme Court to follow Florida laws regarding elections. The Supremes are on shaky ground with regards to any future rulings as to what is and is not permissable regarding State conduct of internal affairs. And they have now, with the Blakely decision, (http://www.usscplus.com/current/cases/PDF/9940074.pdf) stated that mandatory minimums were essentially unConstitutional. Mandatory minimums were an encroachment upon the States' abilities to regulate themselves by absconding with judge's powers in discretionary sentencing. Another tacit admission of stepping where they had no right to. A claim made by many State judges. The judges in the States want the power back, and State's Rights are the path to that. Standing in the way of this swing of the pendulum would be very *im*politic indeed. The vast majority of the Supremes are Republicans. Who are supposed to be for State's Rights, but have until fairly recently foregone their support of issues critical to dyed-in-the-wool Repubs. This appears to have changed.The double whammy comes when they will be forced to review Raich/Monson, another State's Rights issue regarding the control of what States may and may not regulate within their own borders. The Supremes may engage in all manner of sophistry, but between the two issues, they have placed themselves in a very delicate situation. This is not just a can of worms they've opened; it's a can of worms with a grenade in it. They must be consistent in their decisions now, or risk impeachment. They dared to politicize the Supreme Court far beyond the usual barely skirted limits. The price for that may be higher than many of them are willing to pay. A lot of them are contemplating retirement, and not just because of poor health. They sense that they had better leave, lest they be caught in another round of even worse political s**tstorms.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Max Flowers on August 08, 2004 at 11:00:13 PT
Kaptinemo
I of course share your hopes for what will happen, but you confuse me when you say things like: - And when the Raich/Monson case is reviewed, and the lack of commercial *inter*State commerce is made unequivocally plain, the Sue-premes will have been placed in a dangerous *political* position. They put their own heads in a vise with this; the only way out is to reverse the process. - ...because I don't see where they would see "political danger" and a situation where they seek "a way out". Is someone going to fire them? It's the SUPREME court... I mean short of an armed revolution, who is going to tell them "no way"? Their word is the last one, more or less, no? Am I missing something? Why would they ever worry about how people like their decisions? I hope you can fill me in on some aspect I clearly am not aware of, because if they have the power to "validate" questionable presidential election results, striking down medical cannabis would be just another day at the office for them, I would think. I hope I'm wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by charmed quark on August 08, 2004 at 09:46:47 PT
Jose, I agree but ...
The historical context of the "Commerce Clause" makes it very clear that it was put in so the Feds can prevent individual states from impeding interstate trade. The Feds are to smooth it out and settle disputes, etc. It certainly does NOT imply that the Feds are allowed to prevent trade. I totally agree and there are lower rulings to support this.But I just don't trust the Supremes. As I said, they seem to rule on expediency, not true constitutional readings. They know that if they rule in favor of the 9th Circuit that the whole DEA "schedule 1" will go away, and with it, the drug war. I just can't see them doing that.Either they will make a very, very narrow ruling upholding the 9th circuit, or they will come up with some contorted interpretation of the Commerce Clause to justify overturning the 9th Circuit ruling.That's what I'm betting.-Pete 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by The GCW on August 08, 2004 at 08:34:19 PT
Yes, Kaptinemo,
"Something's gotta give, and it will." For the reason You mentioned and so many other reasons, all at the same time.Heros have jumped on the runaway train and are about to bring it to a halt.Harnessing a monster.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on August 08, 2004 at 07:08:54 PT
on restraints of interstate trade/foreign commerce
"the Supremes might just reverse this by saying all drug production activity can impact interstate activity."Feds can regulate, but not restrain interstate trade or foreign commerce.from: http://august1.com/lectures/ibl/lect-04/notes4.htm
 
Unfair Competition Laws a. United States Unfair Competition Laws1) Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is the principal US law regulating anticompetitive    behavior.a) Section 1 of the Act prohibits contracts, agreements, and conspiracies which     restrain interstate or international trade.
     b) Section 2 of the Act forbids attempts to monopolize commerce or trade either between     the states of the US or in international commerce affecting the US.2) Clayton Act of 1914: defines certain specific acts that constitute unfair business    competition.
    3) Robinson-Patman Act of 1936: makes price discrimination illegal. b. Enforcement Provisions of US Antitrust Laws 1) US Justice Department may bring criminal suits for egregious violations.    2) US Federal Trade Commission may bring civil actions (notably for injunctions) to ensure    full compliance.    3) Private persons may sue and recover treble damages for injuries they have suffered.from: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/Antitrust/parker_v_brown.htm " . . . we cannot say that the effect of the state program on interstate commerce is one which conflicts with Congressional policy or is such as to preclude the state from this exercise of its reserved power to regulate domestic agricultural production.[51]    We conclude that the California prorate program for the 1940 raisin crop is a regulation of state industry of local concern which, in all the circumstances of this case which we have detailed, does not impair national control over the commerce in a manner or to a degree forbidden by the Constitution.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on August 08, 2004 at 06:26:27 PT:
CQ, they've ALREADY put their foot in it
Their ruling regarding the unConstitutionality of the sentencing guidelines has already thrown a huge monkey wrench into the machinery. This recent decision releasing Mr. Epis is a result of the Blakely case, which is a can of worms that the Sue-premes themselves opened. And when the Raich/Monson case is reviewed, and the lack of commercial *inter*State commerce is made unequivocally plain, the Sue-premes will have been placed in a dangerous *political* position. They put their own heads in a vise with this; the only way out is to reverse the process. As you pointed out, the Sue-premes have been favoring the powers of centralized government over individual liberties. But according to the 10th Amendment, such favoritism has been unwarranted. The Feds have for the past 40 years encroached upon the powers of the States to regulate themselves. This has largely been accomplished through the mechanism of withholding Fed tax funds from the States. But the economy doesn't look so great right now. The States aren't getting what they used to, and are being forced to make do without. Lessened Fed funding would generally mean lessened Fed *influence*. Which means that the only thing the Feds can use to ensure compliance is force; there's no carrot anymore, only a stick. But that also means that lacking a severe enough threat to the Union to warrant such force, the States are resuming control of what they had originally to begin with but was taken in the name of Fed suzerainty. That means the power to coerce the States has been lessened; the only trump card the Feds can play now to keep the States in line is the one of 'national emergency'. And as we've seen with all this 'cry wolf' behavior of the Bush Regime every time the polls don’t look so hot, this has gotten tiresome. The States want the Feds off their backs. And the economy simply won't allow the 'champagne taste' DrugWar to continue p***ing money away when everyone from Joe Citizen on up is forced to get back to belt-tightening, 'beer-budget' realities. The rent and groceries come first, again. The days of 'disposable income' are long gone. The rubber is FINALLY meeting the road. The Feds risk a huge backlash by demanding the DrugWar machine is fuelled at its present rate. The US simply cannot afford it anymore. It's 'guns or butter' time, and 'butter' will have to win, lest we be sunk in an inflationary spiral caused by the Treasury printing out too many Fed Reserve Notes. (It's the Guv'mint that creates inflation, friends, nothing else. Print too much paper 'money' and the value of it goes down; this is what causes inflation. If the Feds try to print too much money, foreign investors will flee from the cheapening dollar, and the economy tanks...or worse. Uncle can't afford to print up any more monopoly money to fund the DrugWar. Period. It's time for some checkbook-balancing.)The chickens are coming home to roost, while at the same time the piper has finished playing his tunes and wants his pay. The bills have come due, and the collector has had enough excuses. The media is jumping on the "DrugWar is a failure!" bandwagon, and the Feds have egg dripping from their faces. Something's gotta give, and it will.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by charmed quark on August 08, 2004 at 05:47:16 PT
How likely is a positive Supreme Court decision
The current court has had a very uneven record on states' right. Many of the members seem to base decisions on what is most expedient to the Feds, not what the constitution says. Just like they have made a lot of privacy decisions in favor of the police, saying that the police need to violate our contitutional rights to protect themselves, and besides, it's only a little invasion, so the ends justify the means.So who knows. Past courts have gone through contortions to extend Federal control. Read the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision which implies that the Feds have the right to regulate all intrastate commerce. They said the Feds had the right to fine a wheat farmer for growing too much grain. There had been a federal price control regulation that limited how much grain you could grow. They ruled that the feds could regulate the farmer under the commerce clause of the constitution even though all the grain he grew was consumed on the farm. They decided that if he hadn't grown his own grain, he would have purchased it and impacted interstate commerce. Note that no financial transaction took place as he fed all the grain to his family and livestock! Sounds a bit like the Cannabis Club cases, no?Now the 9th Circuit said that the Wickard case doesn't apply because he was a commercial farmer, and while commercial activities impact interstate commerce, non-commercial medical activities don't. But the Supremes might just reverse this by saying all drug production activity can impact interstate activity.-Pete
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #6 posted by Truth on August 07, 2004 at 22:44:43 PT

good
Martha and I spent an afternoon standing on the doorstep of the DEA in Sacramento demanding that they free Brian Epis so this is great news to us.I liked the true statement that the feds have no power over law abidding MMJ patients.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by The GCW on August 07, 2004 at 20:45:12 PT

At any given moment,
Cannabis prohibitionists will be FORCED to flush their toilets and think clearly. 
Heel a vicious dog.The filthy cannabis prohibitonists that support caging Bryan Epis and others... are sick in their ungodly heart. 
& We are going to stop them!

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on August 07, 2004 at 19:24:38 PT:

The ramifications are enormous
Unless I am mistaken, Epis's retrial will be the first to allow the medical defense to be heard by a jury. In a State where medicinal cannabis is legal. The likelihood of a conviction is nil.Needless to say, all those medicinal cannabis patients who have had their lives destroyed by the authorities, and especially those imprisoned, may demand a retrial as well. The resutling demands will clog the courts. The prosecutors may as well concede defeat right now, as every one of those imprisoned for medical cannabis will be able to demand a jury trial. And after the Rosenthal debacle, with the jury for the first time in American jurisprudence actually apologizing for their verdict and all the notoriety it has received, the probability of finding a jury that hasn't had any exposure to the concept will be vanishingly small. It is not only a great day for Mr. Epis, it is a victory for all California medicinal cannabis patients.California conveniece stores should stock up on ketchup; there's sevsral tons of crow about to be eaten raw by California antis. They'll need it.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Hope on August 07, 2004 at 18:32:22 PT

Wonderful!
It's about time.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by RasAric on August 07, 2004 at 16:29:46 PT

The Honorable(sic) Judge Damrell
 should have an opportunity to fill in for Mr. Epis at the same prison for the remainder of Epis' initial sentence, which was imposed by civic-criminal Judge Damrell himself.Guess that leaves the ol' Judge with only 8 more years...far less than ol' Damrell actually deserves.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on August 07, 2004 at 15:31:44 PT

hooray!
WOW! That's great news!
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment