Feds to Continue Raids on Medicinal Pot in California

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The federal government will continue raids on medical marijuana operations in California despite guidelines issued by the Justice Department two weeks ago indicating the contrary.

"I think it's unfortunate that people have for some reason picked up on this as a change in policy, because it's really not a change at all," said Joseph Russoniello, federal prosecutor for the northern district of California, who was appointed in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush.

Asked if federal officials will halt investigation and prosecution of medical marijuana operations in the state, Russoniello said simply, "The short answer is no."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inthemission/detail?entry_id=50860&tsp=1

[ixion]

1. hey, the private prison industry needs it's bailout, too

so we need to keep jailing, non-violent pot smokers. :eyes: :sarcasm:

[Flaneur]

2. Russoniello is a conservative holdover US Attorney. He needs to go.

Obama needs to get moving on clearing out the holdovers at DEA and the US Attorneys offices.

[Wizard777]

29. The California SAG should charge him with treason.

The "war on drugs" in now extended to the state of California over their medical marijuana laws. Now I've been calling this treason ever since Reagan issued his Official declaration of war. But legal scholars I've talked to about that said that the federal government would have to come into conflict with a state before it would be treason. Because "them" refers to the states. Well we're there. Time to start holding treason trial and hanging those found guilty.

[Iowa]

31. Obama is a conservative himself; he has absolutely no interest in removing conservatives...

Hell, most of his own appointments are conservatives of the worst kind. When it comes to drug policy, Obama appointed a cop as his "drug czar". I just heard that turd on NPR spewing right-wing propaganda about how pot leads to heroin... how there will be no discussion in the Obama administration about any type of legalization, and so on. Obama is a conservative, corporatist, staus-quo protector who sold himself as a change agent and conned an entire country into believing him.

I agree with you... a thorough housecleaning is certainly needed. But it won't happen under Obama.

[No Elephants]

39. Every holdover needs to go, even the ones whose positions were turned into civil service slots.

Even civil servants can be fired for cause and you just know a Bushie is doing something wrong. Look at pious Godling, violating federal law to do her part to make sure everyone who worked in federal civil service was a Republican.

[KamaAina]

43. Freudian Post O' The Month!!

Look at pious Godling, violating federal law

The Godling's name is 'Goodling'. :-)

[Gman]

3. In a "be careful what you ask for" moment..

it's difficult to get rid of the federal attorneys because of the ruckus over the way Bush fired some.

[wroberts189]

6. But he got away with it didn't he.. ? Obama can legally fire him for cause. nt

[MsLeopard]

7. As I understand it

It's general custom for all US Attorneys to offer their resignation to a new president entering office. For some reason either they haven't done this with Obama, or he and his AG have decided not to accept them. I can't understand why he would keep them - the ones left were the ones helping to shred the Constitution for BushCo.

[Gman]

23. I actually thought that all but one did offer their resignations

and I think Obama reappointed them all back likely because the fallout from what Bush did was still very fresh.

[Flaneur]

25. Obama should have demanded pro forma resignations from all US Attorneys

He is moving way to slow on this front. And there is still a Bush holdover at DEA, too. What's up with that?

[wroberts189]

4. The short response from Obama should be "you are fired" nt

[Metta]

5. Well, there's certainly good karma in preventing people from getting their meds. Happy karma, Joe.

You can't imagine the suffering you're taking on.

[pattmarty]

8. I'm telling you, as more and more days go by, I am believing less and less................

...............In Obama. Let's just get a "short" list:

Afghanistan

Iraq

DADT

Electronic "telecommunications" spying

The HORSESHIT (and will in its final form be "more" HORSESHIT) Healthcare bill

Cheney/Bush crimes

That's all I can think right off, but I'm sure I can think of more and people here can too.




Edit to add: Did anyone here see the Bill Maher piece in Huffpo today???

[high density]

12. What?

Iraq is winding down

Afghanistan has focus, as promised by Obama in the campaign.

Cheney/Bush is going as advertised by Obama, that is looking forward, not backward.

DADT issue is in the pipeline.

Telecom spying, yeah that's a clear miss.

Healthcare, dunno if I can fault Obama for the corporatism of congress.

[pattmarty]

13. Better change your "name" to high density BLINDERS.

[high density]

21. yes, attack my worthless nickname instead of offering a rebuttal

That's a worthwhile debate technique for sure.

[pattmarty]

34. Hey, you SAID worthless, not me.

[Winterblues]

18. Iraq is winding down????

There are still more US Troops in Iraq then there were before the "surge". Obama made several statements both before and after his election about Iraq withdrawal.. "Beginning on Day One"..."One Brigade a Month"... Neither one of those statements has a shred of truth to it.

[high density]

19. ?

The ongoing withdrawal of U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq is on or ahead of schedule but faces six “crucial challenges” that must be overcome in order to meet agreed-upon timelines, the Government Accountability Office said Monday in a new report.

The report finds that the Pentagon has made “significant progress” in implementing its drawdown plans but that a large amount of personnel, equipment and bases remain to be drawn down or closed to meet two deadlines: the Aug. 31, 2010, presidential deadline for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces, and the agreed-upon Dec. 31, 2011, deadline for complete U.S. withdrawal.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/11/military_iraq_withdraw_110209w/

[pattmarty]

36. Iraq is winding down? How so? Afghanistan has focus? You have got to be kidding..........

.....Cheney/Bush is going as advertised by Obama. It sure is. Obama doesn't even want to talk about ANYTHING done during their era. DADT issue is in the pipeline? Ha, ha, ha, ha.
You ACTUALLY agree on the spying, whoopee.
Healthcare? Obama HAS YET to say EXACTLY what he's for on healthcare, even after how many speeches he's done to "clarify".

You're an apologist for Obama. I voted for him too, but I expected him to hold true on his promises and to be what he campaigned as, a liberal. So, make fun of your "name", no I didn't make fun of it, It's true.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. Don't you like all this changiness?

I think it's a little better than truthiness.

[MisterP]

37. chill out! he's got this!

now start chanting, or we'll put a de-rattled rattlesnake in your mailbox!

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So when did Russoneiello become Attorney General?

[tridim]

10. Arrest Russoniello, he's breaking federal law.

[pattmarty]

14. I am not a lawyer, but how in the fuck is he breaking Federal law?

[tridim]

15. It's illegal federally to bust legal growers.

And this guy says he's going to bust legal growers.

[pattmarty]

17. These are "legal" under California law. NOT Federal law.

[tridim]

20. Right, and Federal law says to leave legal growers alone

[totodeinhere]

26. No, there is no such federal law.

The Obama Justice department said it wouldn't enforce the federal anti marijuana laws, but only Congress can actually change federal laws, and don't hold your breath on that one.

[Flaneur]

28. No, sadly, under federal law, marijuana remains illegal.

Attorney General Holder has issued a policy paper telling US Attorneys and the DEA not to go after medical marijuana growers unless they are violating both state and federal law, but the federal marijuana laws remain on the books.

[Xicano]

40. Would that be common law or admiralty law?

If you say admiralty law, then, I'll agree with you. But there is no such law which can exist under our common law rights - period.

The thing here is most people have forgotten that all laws except those governing an injury to another person are commerce laws based on admiralty law and thus a violation of human rights unless you register yourself to the terms of admiralty i.e. our birth certificates. They are violations of your flesh and blood self, but not violations of your person.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2510.html">person

(6) “person” means any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation;

This is why on all legal documents, registrations, applications, summons, etc. your name appears in all caps or at the very least with the first letter in caps. But usually they're in all caps.

You are not a person, but, you do HAVE a person, and, they are not arresting you the flesh and blood, they are arresting your person, and if you're adjoined to your person at the time, then, you're going along with it.

I know its a different way of looking at things from what you're use to, but, believe you me it is the way it works.

Lets have a little bit of fun with this. We're called citizens because we have citizenSHIP while on board the commerce vessel UNITED STATES. This is why we all have a berth/birth certificate after the dock/doctor delivered the goods after traveling down the birth-CANAL, and, why when we wish to travel to a different port we need to have a port pass/passport. We have a statue of liberty, not, a statue of freedom. Sailors get liberty, but, sailors don't get freedom. The statue of liberty is symbolically not on land, it is out on the water symbolizing admiralty.

Whenever you're within the bounds of any business you are obliged to follow their rules. Your 'person' is obliged to follow all the rules of the corporation its a member of while on company property.

BTW, all this funny sounding stuff is the bases upon which the courts have declared corporations as persons (see above link "persons"). Because a person, by law, is not the same thing as a flesh and blood human being, and, human beings acting outside of commerce (admiralty) jurisdiction, by law, can only be governed by common law. And in common law unless there's an injured party there's no corpus delicti.

Its all word games used by the corrupt oligarchs who constructed it. Consequently, why we call courts, courts. Because games are played on a court. Instead of a ball court this is a word game court and they will use legal terms/words to adjoin you to your person and then you'll be under admiralty jurisdiction.

Its the same in all western countries. Here's an interesting of a Canadian giving background on this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6729904244308031068#=16m5s
:P





{Edit} One last fun in recognizing the use of words: Banks are called banks because just like riverBanks they control the flow of curren_t/curren_cy.

;)

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Which law is that?

:shrug:

[Flaneur]

32. Controlled Substances Act.

ON EDIT: Oops, I see you were replying to someone else.

Marijuana is Schedule I--no medical use, high potential for abuse.

Of course, marijuana is absolutely wrongfully scheduled. It clearly has medical uses and could easily be Schedule II or III.

But ideally, it would just be removed from the act altogether and treated like an herbal supplement.

[tridim]

33. It's a directive filed by A.G. Holder a few weeks ago.

It said that if a dispensary is following state law the feds can't bother them.

I guess technically it isn't a law, so I'll take back what I said.

[pattmarty]

35. No it does NOT.

[appal_jack]

24. no inter-state commerce here.

The whole bogus federal drug war is based on the flimsy extension of the inter-state commerce clause of the US Constitution into the realm of the absurd.

Whether you accept the drug war as conducted when federal issues are really on the line or not (I don't), there is clearly no federal justification to interfere in a state-permitted medical facility that does not export any product across state lines.

-app

[SpartanDem]

11. The guidline issued never said raids would completely stop

it said if were following state law they wouldn't go after you, if you're breaking those laws you're gonna be raided. Is he saying they'll just raid those people or is he saying they won't follow the guidelines at all?

[tridim]

16. He is making up his own federal law.

Obviously if a grower is breaking state law the federal guidelines don't apply.

[krispos42]

27. "appointed in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush."

Can this shit-head NOW!!!

[excess_3]

38. Change .nt

[taught_me_patience]

41. This isn't the change I voted for. n/t

[katkat]

42. time for Russoniello to be fired n/t