Ruling Lets ACLU, Others Join Suit 

Ruling Lets ACLU, Others Join Suit 
Posted by CN Staff on August 05, 2006 at 07:44:58 PT
 By Leslie Wolf Branscomb, Staff Writer
Source: San Diego Union Tribune
San Diego, CA -- The ACLU and other groups backing medical marijuana use are joining the defense against the county's lawsuit challenging the Compassionate Use Act. The county filed suit in San Diego Superior Court contending that state laws allowing medicinal use of marijuana are superseded by federal laws banning drug use and possession. The suit was filed in February against San Diego NORML  the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws  after the county Board of Supervisors refused to implement part of the state law requiring counties to issue identification cards to medical marijuana users that could protect them from prosecution.
The counties of San Bernardino and Merced later joined in the suit, on the county's side. Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. ruled yesterday that the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and the Drug Policy Alliance may join the suit on behalf of medical marijuana users. Snipped: Complete Article: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)Author:  Leslie Wolf Branscomb, Union-Tribune Staff WriterPublished: August 5, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.Contact: letters uniontrib.comWebsite: Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu/org/San Diego NORML Policy Alliance For Safe Access Get OK To Oppose MMJ Challenge The Pot To The Patients
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #11 posted by FoM on August 08, 2006 at 08:07:16 PT
Press Release from The Drug Policy Alliance
Patients Get a Voice in CA Medical Marijuana Lawsuit***Tuesday, August 8, 2006Thursday, August 3, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled that the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) can intervene in a lawsuit brought by several California counties against the state over its Compassionate Use Act. The Compassionate Use Act makes medical marijuana legal for patients with a doctor's recommendation.In the lawsuit, San Diego County, San Bernardino and Merced counties are arguing that federal laws making marijuana illegal trump state medical marijuana laws. However, the California attorney general's office issued an opinion last year that the state is free to make and implement its own policies, despite prohibition and enforcement at the federal level.The California attorney general will defend the state in the case, with the groups intervening to represent the interests of patients, their caregivers and doctors. Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for DPA, said, "These county governments have ignored the needs of their sick and dying residents and the advice of California's physicians. By intervening in the lawsuit, patients will have the chance to confront their rogue county officials in court and defend the legality of the Compassionate Use Act."Now that the groups have been permitted to intervene, they will file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. This will allow the Court to review the complaint and assess whether there is sufficient information, based on what has been argued, to enter judgment for or against San Diego and the other counties. This motion will be filed in September.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on August 06, 2006 at 12:41:32 PT
I see...
Thanks, whig.Sorry Mr. Zuckerman, but that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of doing.I was liking your fighting spirit before, but I'm afraid I see it in a whole new light now.Man, that's wild. Talk about putting yourself on a hot-list for life...!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by whig on August 05, 2006 at 17:49:19 PT
Richard Zuckerman said:After Dickinson R. Debevoise, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey, wrote an 89 page opinion holding he does not have the authority to strike down the Marijuana laws, that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not include the individual citizen, I sent him a letter stating I "...will do some things out of Faces of Death, Parts I, II, and III if this court keeps fucking me around," which led to the federal felony conviction on June 11, 1991, for violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 876, prohibiting mailing a threatening communication. of Death, if you are unaware Max, is a snuff film. was implicitly threatening to kill a judge and/or others in unpleasant ways.Even now, 15 years later, Mr. Zuckerman says that his "criminal conviction was over the pot laws." That is manifestly false according to his own testimony here.Mr. Zuckerman threatened to murder a judge.I am not okay with that.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on August 05, 2006 at 17:32:59 PT
I'm intrigued now
I want to know what kind of threat this was you made, Richard. I know that judges and prosecutors are very capable of blowing things out of proportion and even framing people when they don't like them, so I would definitely give you the benefit of the doubt and would ask what it was you wrote. (Plus I'm just plain curious!) Whig, he may not have made an actual threat, let's see what it was.Richard, are you willing? These things are all public record anyway, and you're pretty open about this stuff...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by whig on August 05, 2006 at 17:10:22 PT
Richard Zuckerman
As long as you continue to maintain that your threat was just an exercise of free speech, I think you fail to understand why you are in the situation you are in today. You need to realize that it is not okay to threaten a judge or anyone else and get past this, and if you can do that you should have grounds to have any restrictions removed -- just say you are sorry and you would not do it again and you should be able to enter the State House Annex for whatever proper purpose you need to do so -- otherwise if you won't retract your threat then it is reasonable that people in the State House Annex fear for their safety from you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Dankhank on August 05, 2006 at 16:53:24 PT
Crazyworld part deux ...
While we fight for sanity here in the USA, we should be mindful of a yellow-journalism rag in England which parrots all of the lies about that most sacred of plants: Cannabis.Little has been said about the damage caused by Alcohol ... until now?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by global_warming on August 05, 2006 at 16:26:33 PT
In The Meantime
You can have a yay or nay,In this political world,I must confess, that I am not a political person,When I witness my world so filled with lies and trickeries, I wonder, has this world been so easily confused?As a member of this world, I cannot accept this current mindset, this abortion of cannabis prohibition is wrong.Prohibition in any form has historically always beeen wrong, and has created divisions in our American Populations.The Grace of Understanding, can save some old dog from a kill shelter, it is that same energy that can work to save our own souls.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by global_warming on August 05, 2006 at 15:22:48 PT
Richard Zuckerman
I am trying to figure out how you are surviveing?You sound like an in your face type of person, yet, you have been so sorely displaced, homeless shelters, and the like, what is driving you?Whatever is driving you Mr. Zuckerman, you have my vote of support, and may the Stars of Infinite Preportion Magnify You.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Richard Zuckerman on August 05, 2006 at 15:04:23 PT:
The ACLU was quoted in a newspaper columnist article on either August 1 or August 2, 2006, of the Home News Tribune,, that the government has engaged in clandestine surveillance on private citizens merely exercising their freedom of speech.On the day of the "discussion" on the Medical "Marijuana" Bill, Senate Bill 88, June 8, 2006, I was told by New Jersey State Police posted at the rear entrance of the State House Annex, Trenton, New Jersey, that I am on a list of persons barred from entering the State House Annex and it could not be resolved at that time.On August 3, 2006, I received an Order to Show Cause from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, Judge Paul Innes, setting a hearing date in early October 2006, against the New Jersey State Police, why I should not be permitted to enter the State House Annex. I made sure to include an original plus two sets of Plaintiff's Interrogatories asking when I was put on the list of people banned from the State House Annex, why I was put on same list, what the criteria is to be placed on same list, and about ten other questions. If they do not provide me with detailed, complete, answers, I will file a motion to compel their answers to my Plaintiff's Interrogatories, within the time limit of 20 days from receipt of their half-baked answers! Yes, I was convicted of mailing a threat to a federal judge, taken thru trial in the same U.S. Courthouse where the "threat" was received, where the "victim" judge sat. The conviction was on July 11, 1991. On October 23, 1995, the federal sentence expired. It has been over ten years since then! This is the only felony conviction on my record! Should I be persecuted??!!!Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, N.J., 08840-0159, (Cell telephone number)(848) 250-8879.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by global_warming on August 05, 2006 at 13:59:42 PT
This guy is amazing
Go Dr. Denney, "This is to keep Big Brother out of my exam room," I think this is what we needed, this Dr. is ready for a showdown in the courtroom, God Bless Him.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 05, 2006 at 09:51:14 PT
Dr. Denney Sues the DEA, et al
Weekend Edition -- August 5 / 6, 2006Pot ShotsDr. Denney Sues the DEA, et alBy Fred Gardner"This is to keep Big Brother out of my exam room," says Philip A. Denney, MD, explaining the civil suit that attorney Zenia Gilg filed on his behalf Aug. 3 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern California. Denney had been sent documents by a sympathizer revealing that in the Fall of 2005, two individuals -an agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau, and an informer controlled by the Redding Police Department- had obtained his approval to medicate with cannabis by providing false histories. The documents also made reference to a "DEA case number," apparently from another investigation of his practice."Doctors have to trust their patients when taking a history," says Denney. "Violating that trust has a chilling effect on my ability to practice ethical and thorough medicine." Denney's suit claims that he was a target of "an investigation involving the DEA acting under Administrator Karen Tandy, ATF acting under director Carl J. Truscott, Shasta County District Attorney Gerald Benito, the Shasta County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff James Pope, the Redding Police Department and Police Chief Leonard Moty," all of whom are named as defendants. Denney says that the protections afforded doctors by the First Amendment and upheld by a federal-court injunction in the Conant v. Walters case have been ignored by the agencies named in the suit.Complete Article:
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment