Pot Case Jurors Call For New Trial

Sacramento Bee ^ | Feb. 5, 2003 | Claire Cooper

[Mark Bahner]

I almost didn't make it. :-)

Best wishes,
Mark

[tpaine]

Jurors: We've been had

Judy: We've ALL been had

It's okay for cops to lie to people.
It's okay for them to kill people.
It's okay to withhold evidence from the jury.
It's okay to manipulate evidence to present to the jury.
It's okay to attack our constitional rights.

Many things are okay ... as long as they are all done in the name of the War on Drugs and/or professional advancement.

DIRTY COPS
DIRTY PROSECUTORS
DIRTY WITNESSES
DIRTY JUDGES

TRICKED JURIES

AND PEOPLE LIKE DANE WHO APPROVE IT ALL

That's okay. JESUS KNOWS. Come Judgement day, all of them will answer to God more heavily than some pitiful wigged-out addict.

The addict is sick in his mind and body.
Those listed above are sick in their hearts and souls.
20 -judy-

Well said, needs repeating BUMP.

[Dinsdale]

They did have the authority, and he was properly deputized.

This is why the prosecution will loose on appeal.

Do you think all city and state cops should be required to be sanctioned by the feds?

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Further Rosenthal has the same status as a city cop who is in possession in the course of his work. They are explicitly not covered by federal drug laws (otherwise all city and state narcs would be guilty of federal crimes).

I will bet that there are cops who have been prosecuted for possesion and distribution of drugs that would be more like what he is convicted of.

If they use some themselves or give some away they will be in the slammer.

[general_re]

Does the state law give the authority of immunizing to the City Council?

The federal law explicitly permits states and localities to claim immunity from drug laws for their officers while engaged in officially sanctioned acts. As per the snippet I posted above, this is to prevent things like narcotics officers being prosecuted when they do things like go undercover to buy and sell drugs from traffickers. The City of Oakland decided that Rosenthal was such an officer, engaging in officially sanctioned activity, and hence was entitled to immunity for his acts.

If he was so smart why didn't he know that they did not have the authority?

Rosenthal believed in good faith that the officials of the city of Oakland had the authority to do what they did. The officials of the city of Oakland believed in good faith that the federal law permitted them to do what they did. Until Rosenthal was arrested, nobody from the federal government apparently bothered to tell them otherwise.

[philman_36]

There were conspiracy charges filed though, weren't there.
'Guru of Ganja' Convicted of Cultivation
An author of how-to books on growing marijuana and avoiding the law was convicted Friday on federal charges of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy.
He even got convicted on conspiracy charges.

[Dinsdale]

No, Rosenthaul was doing his job (growing medical pot) just like narcs are doing their jobs.

The city was aware of what he was doing as an agent of the city.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Pre-emption" doesn't apply.

The Supreme court will have the last word on pre-emption.

I have been down that road in an administrative matter and they ruled that if Congress has determined to regulate in a particular matter, then pre-emtion takes place.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Was such evidence presented? How do you know that?

From stories in earlier threads my impression was that the defense wanted to present evidence along that line, and the judge ruled it inadmissable.

I was just going by what was in those stories. I have no first hand knowledge.

[tpaine]

To: Dane
You are not insane. It never ceases to amaze me how we are about to go to war and pot is the number one issue for some people.
34 posted on 02/05/2003 2:17 PM PST by KC_Conspirator



Drug warriors are all insane. It never ceases to amaze me how we are about to go to war and the WOD's is still the number one issue for many government agencies & the sick, misguided people who support them.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...They did have the authority, and he was properly deputized.

They did not have the authority to allow anyone, cops included to give drugs to anyone for their own use.

I will bet that if a cop gave anyone a controlled substance, they would go to jail just like this guy.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The City of Oakland decided that Rosenthal was such an officer, engaging in officially sanctioned activity, and hence was entitled to immunity for his acts.

This was no sting operation as you have described it. It was possession for distribution.

Cops cannot do that and the city cannot authorize it. Only doctors and pharmasists with authorization by way of a federal authorization can distribute controlled substances. I will bet that all your cops could have told them that.

[Mark Bahner]

"The Supreme court will have the last word on pre-emption."

The h@ll they will! When they violate the Constitution, I'LL talk about it until I'm dead.

"I have been down that road in an administrative matter and they ruled that if Congress has determined to regulate in a particular matter, then pre-emtion takes place."

Once again, I already KNOW the stinking courts (including the stinking Supreme Court) violate the Constitution! Just because the Supreme Court SAYS something, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, doesn't mean the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist! It merely means that the stinking slimeballs on the Supreme Court are violating the Constitution. Again! :-/

[Mark Bahner]

"They did not have the authority to allow anyone, cops included to give drugs to anyone for their own use."

The place where I work has legally produced marijuana for people to smoke for research purposes...under contract to the federal government.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...When they violate the Constitution, I'LL talk about it until I'm dead.

Talking about it will not keep him out of jail. If it is to be changed, it must be done at the federal level.

Sad as it may seem, your interpretation of the Constitution may be correct, but it will carry no weight as things are now. :-(

[general_re]

It was possession for distribution

What is it when an undercover officer sells crack to an unsuspecting buyer? Possession with intent to distribute. He possesses it, he intends to distribute it - he must be guilty of a crime, right?

No, because the law permits public officials immunity for such acts in furtherance of the state's classic right to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Just like Rosenthal.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The city was aware of what he was doing as an agent of the city.

The city cannot authorize an agent to do what they have no power to do. They cannot distribute controlled substances, and they cannot authorize an agent to do it either.

To do so is called "acting under color of law" and is not permitted.

[Trailerpark Badass]

You could check with Dane-- he's probably got a hot-line to the Big Red Guy.

You're probably right, but I'll bet Satan has Caller ID...and uses it.

[Mark Bahner]

"If it is to be changed, it must be done at the federal level."

There's nothing to be "changed," except for the federal government to start following the frigging Law!

"Sad as it may seem, your interpretation of the Constitution may be correct, but it will carry no weight as things are now. :-("

This is the counsel of despair and defeat. I'll not follow it. The federal government is NOT our masters, they are our servants! We should never, ever consider our demands that our servants follow The Law "carry no weight." They only "carry no weight" to the extent that we ALLOW them to "carry no weight."

DEMAND that your servants follow The Law! Vote Libertarian. Always. (Unless you are in Ron Paul's district in Texas. Vote for him with pride. ;-))

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...under contract to the federal government.

He was not working for the federal government, big difference.