cannabisnews.com: Ganja Guru' Re-Convicted





Ganja Guru' Re-Convicted
Posted by CN Staff on May 30, 2007 at 20:46:52 PT
By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Argus
San Francisco, CA -- A federal jury in San Francisco convicted Oakland "Guru of Ganja" Ed Rosenthal on Wednesday of three of the five marijuana-growing felonies of which he stood accused.After starting deliberations Tuesday afternoon, jurors convicted Rosenthal, 62, of one conspiracy count; one count of growing, intending to distribute and distributing marijuana; and one count of using a commercial building -- 1419 Mandela Parkway in Oakland -- as a site for growing and distributing marijuana.
But they acquitted him of growing and distributing marijuana at the Harm Reduction Center medical-marijuana club on San Francisco's Sixth Street, and they deadlocked on whether he had conspired to do so.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer -- who presided over Rosenthal's first trial in 2003, and has made it clear that he believes Rosenthal shouldn't have been retried -- told Assistant U.S. Attorney George Bevan to call whichever superiors he needed for approval to have that final count dropped, as he wouldn't brook yet another retrial in his courtroom. The charge was dropped within about an hour.So, more than six years after federal agents raided the Mandela Parkway warehouse, the Harm Reduction Center, Rosenthal's home and other sites, seizing thousands of marijuana plants, Rosenthal now faces -- no prison time, no fine and no probation at all.That's because Bevan and Breyer agreed months ago that Rosenthal couldn't be sentenced now to anything beyond the one day of time -- already served -- to which he was sentenced for his 2003 convictions in the same case, overturned last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals due to juror misconduct. Rosenthal is scheduled to be "sentenced" next Wednesday, but he'll walk free.Prosecutors haven't publicly discussed their motives and goals in retrying Rosenthal. It could be that they wanted him to have felony convictions on his record should he ever be busted again, or to send a message to other medical marijuana advocates, or simply to chalk up a win in so long-running and high-profile a case."I think I'm gonna flee to Canada though in the next 24 hours, just so they can bring me back for sentencing," Rosenthal quipped after Wednesday's verdict. "I feel like the whole thing is a parody. ... It's not going to really change my life much one way or the other."But he intends to appeal these convictions nonetheless as a travesty of justice, he said.Robert Amparan, one of Rosenthal's attorneys, said he'll first file a motion for a new trial; Breyer seems unlikely to grant such a motion, given his disdain for this second trial. Amparan also said his own strength is jury trial and he wants another attorney to review his work with fresh eyes, so he anticipates Rosenthal will retain new counsel for the appeal.Prosecutors had re-indicted Rosenthal in October with these charges as well as nine tax-evasion and money-laundering counts, but Breyer tossed out all the financial counts in March, deeming them to be vindictive prosecution.As in his first trial, these jurors weren't allowed to hear any testimony about the fact that Rosenthal was acting under the auspices of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative -- deemed an officer of the city by Oakland's City Council -- to grow marijuana for use under the state's medical marijuana law. Federal law still bans all cultivation, possession and use of marijuana."Whether they know it or not, the jury voted against their own self-interest," Rosenthal said. "At some point they're going to wake up and realize the enormity of what they did, and they're going to live with that for the rest of their lives the way the previous jury did."Most of the jurors in Rosenthal's 2003 trial renounced their verdict within hours or rendering it, saying they felt the exclusion of his medical motives from the trial had railroaded them into convicting him."It's a cruel thing for the government to impose upon its citizens, the idea that they have to leave their conscience behind when they vote in the jury box. That should be part of it, and so should justice," Rosenthal said.Amparan said he's concerned Rosenthal's re-conviction will embolden federal authorities to crack down on medical marijuana throughout California and elsewhere. If the federal government could persuade a Bay Area jury to convict someone who'd been acting under Oakland's municipal authority, he said, everyone is now at risk "be they a dispensary, be they a grower, be they a patient."Rosenthal said he's working with a pair of state legislators to draft a bill that would grant providers more explicit protection under state law; he expects to have an announcement on that within the next few weeks.Source: Argus, The (Fremont, CA)Author: Josh Richman, Staff WriterPublished: May 30, 2007Copyright: 2007 ANG NewspapersContact: http://tinyurl.com/2vcr6kWebsite: http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/Related Articles & Web Site:Ed Rosenthal's Pictures & Articles http://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmFederal Jury Convicts Guru of Ganja on Pot Chargeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23017.shtmlPot Advocate Convicted on Three Charges http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23016.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 01, 2007 at 16:02:34 PT
Way To Go Ed!
Ed is going to appeal his conviction, further tying up federal prosecutor time and money to chase cannabis users. Fantastic! Make them government lawyers waste time, spend money, and lose. LOLJustice is blind, but our justice department is deaf, dumb AND blind.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by afterburner on May 31, 2007 at 21:37:39 PT
Refused to Testify against Ed
A New Activist's Tactic Emerges in the Rosenthal Trial
http://tinyurl.com/yr3sgn
stopthedrugwar.org[-]/speakeasy_main/2007/may/31/[-]a_new_activists_tactic_emerges_i[-] added to avoid spacing problems, http:// removed to keep from creating a link (use tinyurl link instead)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 31, 2007 at 15:30:11 PT
museman
The way I look at it is we pay and pay taxes for everything. We have no say where our tax dollars go but we should. Universal health care would have its drawbacks but it can't be worse then no insurance or insurance where people pay thousands of dollars annually and carry a $10,000 per year deductible. Who can afford it? I don't know anyone that could afford that much of an output for a payment. Years ago you got good insurance when you worked for a big company. Now they seem to hire more part time with no benefits. You can go to other countries and get care for a fraction of the cost of getting treated here in the states. I don't know how they can do it and we can't as wealthy as this country is.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by museman on May 31, 2007 at 14:51:55 PT
FoM
"We've lost our common sense and given the government control that they shouldn't have but health care we should have and it should be like other countries that have universal health coverage or something close in my opinion."Yes, and considering it was the government and their 'special interests' which were the actual means by which the health and safety of the entire world was put, and is, in jeopardy, that entity and institution literally OWES us. Will we get what should be given? I am decidedly pessimistic on that. War and dominion takes precedence.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 31, 2007 at 13:39:25 PT
museman
Insurance doesn't mean much of anything. The word insurance might make people feel better but loopholes seem to always help find a way for an insurance company to not pay. I remember when car insurance was optional. All the drug testing laws are ways out for companies and a control mechanism for the masses. When I started riding we had a sign that said ride at your own risk. No one sued anyone back then because we understood sports are risky. We've lost our common sense and given the government control that they shouldn't have but health care we should have and it should be like other countries that have universal health coverage or something close in my opinion. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by museman on May 31, 2007 at 13:06:31 PT
FoM
There is always a distance between the 'idea' and the 'actuality' at least in the beginning of the action. We have been subordinate to that New World Order for so long that most people think of it as a done deal, and 
'there's nothing you can do about it.'The current state of health care in this country is criminal, but the source of the problem is economic, and therefore in the literal hands of the wealthy.The entire 'insurance' scam is nothing more than another empowering of the rich, and a disempowering of the poor.Do you remember when insurance was an option, instead of a law? I do.Current political issues like 'health coverage' were invented and enacted by the very political clubs that we 'vote' for. Makes them look like they are 'serving the public good.'Near the entrance to every hospital, and dr.s office -before Reagan, there was a plaque outlining the Hipocratic Oath that every doctor and nurse swore to. That oath guaranteed that no human being ever went without care.Right about the same time that legislation was passed to begin to make auto insurance mandatory, that plaque disappeared from many hospitals, and the guarantee of service as well. There are still some medical facilites that uphold that oath to some degre, but believe me, if you have no insurance, you have a greater chance of being turned away with no care whatsoever, than even getting to talk to a doctor. And if services are rendered anyway without payment, the collection agencies will hound you for years, and prosecute if they can.Incidentally, about the same time that doctors were forced to overthrow their own creed (because of 'malpractice suits') I noticed the first portraits of 'Jesus' with a haircut. They're all in it together.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 31, 2007 at 12:14:40 PT
museman
I want to add that I can't put my faith in a person in politics or a particular party. I know they aren't the way that change will come. I am interested this election season because of health care. I am not insurable but thank goodness my husband has the VA but so many people can't afford a hospital if they need it. After I got so sick this past winter and almost couldn't take the pain and had to decide what to do so I did nothing. Yes a hospital has to give care to those who don't have insurance but it is the minimum care they can get by with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 31, 2007 at 12:08:25 PT
museman 
I have believed for years to stand against a New World Order. That could be the beginning of the end in my opinion. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by museman on May 31, 2007 at 11:49:18 PT
checks and balances
No matter what actual real constitutional foundation exists, or existed to give the people the idea that 'justice' is the purvue of the state, anyone who took the time to research history -without governmental bias and propaganda included- would see the facts that our 'leaders' have been giving lip-service to liberty since the beginning.Justice has always been in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, the exclusive club that governs the world. Some may say that the advent of America was a noticeable change from the former system of law and governance, but true history tells a different tale. The only freedom that was gained by the Revolution, was economic. The ability of the wealthy to not have to give tax and tithe to one central dynasty, and to set up their own rules of 'capitalism,' and a 'new' economic aristocracy (New World Order)"Novus Ordo Unum".The common man, or 'the people' hardly noticed the change in the 1700's. One could still be bought and sold as a slave. You could sell your own children for a 'bondage price.' Bondage as a servant was one of the more benevolent 'judgements' handed down by the judiciary for such crimes as stealing a loaf of bread to feed starving children.The laws of this country are all about the bottom line of profit, and a phrase you hear often by politicians 'to preserve our way of life.' That 'our' mentioned has nothing to do with you or me, unless 'you' are a member of the club.As people are beginning to see -what every true patriot discovered when brought up against the rules and the rulers, is that the law, like everything else can be bought and sold. In fact it WAS bought and sold a long, long time ago.We hear over and over, 'the people' this, and 'the people' that, from the politicians and their source pool -lawyers, but everything they do is about keeping 'the people' down, from deliberate wage and price disparity, to generational wars that create division amongst the youth and train ruthless killers to police us.The 'educational' system teaches war in the various forms of 'competition' as the 'only way to succeed in modern society,' and the state religion teaches 'obedience to the state.' This provides a substantial population of adamant ignorants that acts as a buffer to protect the ranks of the privileged.Justice, Liberty, and Truth are all commodities on the rich man's list. The only 'checks and balances' that exist have $$ signs attached, and truly is about banking, not jurisprudence -which is another word those criminals who live in luxury without accountablity and rule over us like to use to describe their 'benevolent power.'So if Ed can be harrassed, re-tried, and re-convicted in an obvious case of 'Double-Jeopardy' if there ever was one, no one who is not sanctioned by the elite is safe, and they cannot depend on 'rights' or 'constitutional guarantees.'Time for some kind of revolution of the people, but as long as the people give the most power to the most propertied, there is not a chance in hell of doing anything real or constructive about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 31, 2007 at 07:08:44 PT
dongenero
The way I look at it is if they chased Ed Rosenthal like they did over a medicinal plant what else do they chase that we don't know about. It is so darn depressing what our country has become over these last 6 years. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dongenero on May 31, 2007 at 07:05:06 PT
not sure how this is to help the Govt.......
....but it certainly highlights just how broken the justice system is.Just fills you with confidence doesn't it? The current administration has certainly pulled back the curtain on many of the "rights" and "virtues" of our country and system of government. Unfortunately and sadly, what it exposes is not what we thought America to be.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on May 31, 2007 at 06:42:43 PT
Ed Rosenthal Guilty Verdict
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVJFr8A8o40
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by AOLBites on May 30, 2007 at 21:08:25 PT
jurors
Ed Rosenthal: Opening Statements Set for Today
Posted by CN Staff on May 15, 2007 at 05:44:51 PTBy The Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press -=snip=-Of the ninety members of the jury pool, 60% were dismissed because of strong feelings in support of medicinal marijuana.-=snip=--=snip=-''The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . . [T]he jury trial provisions . . . reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power--a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power . . . found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.''-=snip=--=snip=-The size of the jury, the Court continued, bore no discernable relationship to the purposes of jury trial--the prevention of oppression and the reliability of factfinding. Furthermore, there was little reason to believe that any great advantage accrued to the defendant by having a jury composed of 12 rather than six, which was the number at issue in the case, or that the larger number appreciably increased the variety of viewpoints on the jury. A jury should be large enough to promote group deliberation, free from outside attempts at intimidation, and to provide a fair possibility that a cross-section of the community will be represented on it-=snip=-Ha.
FindLaw
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment