Jump to content

Bill Schuette Ignored Existing Federal Case Law


Recommended Posts

The city of San Diego tried the federal route.

 

It cost them a lot of money to fight it. They were refusing to return a legal patients medicine.

 

The federal court ruled the city MUST return the medical marijuana to the patient.

 

The city appealed .. and lost at the federal COA level.

 

The city appealed to the United States Supreme court. Who refused to consider the case, leaving the COA ruling stand.

 

Existing federal case law states that the medicine MUST be returned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614

 

For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008

 

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

 

Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

 

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

 

California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.

 

"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.safeacces...cle.php?id=5614

 

For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008

 

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

 

Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

 

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

 

California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.

 

"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."

 

i think i remember this case they had a video of him at the court house getting his Meds back

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo he is just badgering us at this point. He knows COA decision, just bullying. IMO its cause things are going south in court for him cause he cant puppet master every MM persecution anymore.

 

This is yet another time that Bill Schuette falsely represented a matter of law to the people of Michigan.

 

In 2008, he said that the new law would make "pot shops" legal.

In 2011, he says they are illegal.

 

One of these times was a false representation of a matter of law to the people of Michigan.

He did this either as a COA judge or our AG.

 

One or the other was a false representation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614

 

For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008

 

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

 

Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

 

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

 

California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.

 

"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."

it is not local or state polices job Exactly what I have been saying didn't know about this case I was just going by the arizona ruling about the immigration . Once again thank you PB. Now if we could get ol' BS to read and comprehend this and actually do his job instead of settling old scores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See .. my goal is federal change.

 

I figured Michigan was a done deal in April of '08.

 

So I've been watching federal ever since then.

 

well i'm in agreement there. but Michigan just starter sir. i understand your position in the community here but.. done?

 

New York was the first in prohibition for alcohol.

 

lets make Michigan the perfect tipping point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i'm in agreement there. but Michigan just starter sir. i understand your position in the community here but.. done?

 

New York was the first in prohibition for alcohol.

 

lets make Michigan the perfect tipping point.

 

Greg Fransisco charged me with a task:

 

Keep every iota of the law we can.

So I still work here.

 

In addition the courts say I have to stay in Michigan for a while. When that's over I may move to Washington DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but does that coa ruling apply to other states?

Good question and the answer is no. The COA ruling being mentioned here applies only to the states within THAT circuit of the COA. That is the 9th circuit and includes California. Michigan is in the 6th circuit and the 9th circuit's rulings are not binding precedent here.

 

Furthermore, the US Supreme Court's denial of the writ of cert. does not create law/precedent in its own right. Nor does it mean the US Sup Ct agreed with the outcome or position in the case it rejected to hear. The Sup Ct will reject cases for many different reasons.

 

Now, if a federal COA from a different circuit rules differently than the 9th circuit did then the sup court MAY take the case to resolve the difference in the circuits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question and the answer is no. The COA ruling being mentioned here applies only to the states within THAT circuit of the COA. That is the 9th circuit and includes California. Michigan is in the 6th circuit and the 9th circuit's rulings are not binding precedent here.

 

Furthermore, the US Supreme Court's denial of the writ of cert. does not create law/precedent in its own right. Nor does it mean the US Sup Ct agreed with the outcome or position in the case it rejected to hear. The Sup Ct will reject cases for many different reasons.

 

Now, if a federal COA from a different circuit rules differently than the 9th circuit did then the sup court MAY take the case to resolve the difference in the circuits.

 

Well .. not so fast.

 

If this were Michigan law, then a ruling at the COA level is something that would be proper to use in any court in the state as a precedent. Unless it was unpublished.

 

I started out saying that our AG ignored federal case law. At the COA level a ruling becomes a precedent that is strong weight in other cases.

 

Binding? No .. Precedent? Yes.

 

This is federal COA level precedent that the very next level, the United States Supreme court, refused to hear.

 

Perhaps Bill intends to take it all the way to the supreme court. That is what would be required to overcome the weight of existing case law.

 

Until then, the very highest level of federal court rulings, so far, shows him wrong.

 

So your answer was slightly incorrect. Does it apply? yes. Is it binding? no.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well .. not so fast.

 

If this were Michigan law, then a ruling at the COA level is something that would be proper to use in any court in the state as a precedent. Unless it was unpublished.

 

I started out saying that our AG ignored federal case law. At the COA level a ruling becomes a precedent that is strong weight in other cases.

 

Binding? No .. Precedent? Yes.

 

This is federal COA level precedent that the very next level, the United States Supreme court, refused to hear.

 

Perhaps Bill intends to take it all the way to the supreme court. That is what would be required to overcome the weight of existing case law.

 

Until then, the very highest level of federal court rulings, so far, shows him wrong.

 

So your answer was slightly incorrect. Does it apply? yes. Is it binding? no.

No, my answer is absolutely correct. A ruling made out of the 9th circuit does NOT show him to be incorrect because it is NOT binding precedent. It carries NO weight in our circuit. One may point to it as persuasive precedent but that is not the same thing as binding precedent. It doesn't mean it carries any weight outside of that court's circuit. No judge outside that circuit is required to follow it or give it any weight whatsoever. Its value, if there is any, is to tell a court, "well this is what the 9th circuit decided on the same issue." However, no federal judge is going to look at a court's decision in a different circuit and rule based on that court's reasoning. Imagine a lawyer telling a COA panel in the 6th circuit that, "the 9th circuit decided this same issue by reasoning thus and such, and since they must be smart, afterall they're federal judges too, then you 6th circuit judges should just take the day off and not bother interpreting the law yourselves."

 

Ain't gonna happen.

 

The fed COA judges in our circuit have just as big an ego as any other fed COA judge and they aren't going to say, "well the 9th circuit is smarter than us so let's just adopt their reasoning."

 

Think of this analogy to illustrate the issue in a easier to understand framework. If I go to Dr A, a brain surgeon, and he diagnoses me with a brain tumor and tells me it is inoperable then when I go to Dr B to get a 2nd opinion as to whether it can be removed surgically Dr B is not going to say, "well what did Dr A say? Oh, he said it is inoperable? Well no point in me even looking at your catscan then because it must be inoperable."

 

No, Dr. B is going to examine the issue on his own and come up with his own conclusions. He may consider some of the same reasons Dr. A thinks it is inoperable but he isn't going to rely on Dr A to form his own opinion.

 

So you are flaty incorrect. Schuette doesn't have to overcome the "weight" of 9th circuit caselaw because the 9th circuit carries no weight here. Also keep in mind that even if our cicuit decides the exact opposite on the same issue as the 9th circuit decided it still doesn't mean the Sup. Ct. will hear the case. There are inumerable instances of difference in the circuits where the Sup Ct has NOT granted cert to hear the case and resolve the difference. The Sup Ct is one court with one panel of judges that has to decide which appeals it will hear from the entire country. They grant cert to somewhere on the order of 1 to 1.5% of the cases that apply for the writ. That's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my answer is absolutely correct. A ruling made out of the 9th circuit does NOT show him to be incorrect because it is NOT binding precedent. It carries NO weight in our circuit. One may point to it as persuasive precedent but that is not the same thing as binding precedent. It doesn't mean it carries any weight outside of that court's circuit. No judge outside that circuit is required to follow it or give it any weight whatsoever. Its value, if there is any, is to tell a court, "well this is what the 9th circuit decided on the same issue." However, no federal judge is going to look at a court's decision in a different circuit and rule based on that court's reasoning. Imagine a lawyer telling a COA panel in the 6th circuit that, "the 9th circuit decided this same issue by reasoning thus and such, and since they must be smart, afterall they're federal judges too, then you 6th circuit judges should just take the day off and not bother interpreting the law yourselves."

 

Ain't gonna happen.

 

The fed COA judges in our circuit have just as big an ego as any other fed COA judge and they aren't going to say, "well the 9th circuit is smarter than us so let's just adopt their reasoning."

 

Think of this analogy to illustrate the issue in a easier to understand framework. If I go to Dr A, a brain surgeon, and he diagnoses me with a brain tumor and tells me it is inoperable then when I go to Dr B to get a 2nd opinion as to whether it can be removed surgically Dr B is not going to say, "well what did Dr A say? Oh, he said it is inoperable? Well no point in me even looking at your catscan then because it must be inoperable."

 

No, Dr. B is going to examine the issue on his own and come up with his own conclusions. He may consider some of the same reasons Dr. A thinks it is inoperable but he isn't going to rely on Dr A to form his own opinion.

 

So you are flaty incorrect. Schuette doesn't have to overcome the "weight" of 9th circuit caselaw because the 9th circuit carries no weight here. Also keep in mind that even if our cicuit decides the exact opposite on the same issue as the 9th circuit decided it still doesn't mean the Sup. Ct. will hear the case. There are inumerable instances of difference in the circuits where the Sup Ct has NOT granted cert to hear the case and resolve the difference. The Sup Ct is one court with one panel of judges that has to decide which appeals it will hear from the entire country. They grant cert to somewhere on the order of 1 to 1.5% of the cases that apply for the writ. That's it.

 

I disagree .. it IS case law.

 

IT IS EXISTING FEDERAL CASE LAW.

 

It doesn't make any difference how many times you say it isn't.

 

edit As a case that went to a federal COA, it is a precedent. You are correct, not a binding precedent.

 

Since it is not binding, it is not required for Bill to respect when he is setting on a federal bench.

 

Until he is ruling on federal law, he is limited to ruling on Michigan law.

 

His "federal" claim is a pretext only.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree .. it IS case law.

 

IT IS EXISTING FEDERAL CASE LAW.

 

It doesn't make any difference how many times you say it isn't.

Yes and the definition of caselaw is NOT law that applies to every man, woman, child, and goat in the kingdom. It doesn't matter what name you want to give it the fact is it is NOT controlling in our circuit. Not in the least.

 

Opinions out the Wisconsin sup ct are persuasive precedent in Michigan just like 9th circuit cases are. But does that mean Michigan must follow Wisconsin's reasoning or even rule similarly as the Wisonsin court did on a case with the same issue here in Michigan? No.

 

So, you can call it caselaw but labeling it as such doesn't change the fact that it isn't binding here in Michigan. Apparently you think that the term caselaw makes it binding here. It doesn't. Caselaw means law that comes out of court cases as opposed to laws made by a legislature. So, yes, it's caselaw, but what's your point? It's like you taking your med mj card with you down to texas and then arguing to a cop that "it IS a med mj license so don't arrest me darn it!" Yes, it is a license but it's worthless in Texas!

Edited by MichiganLawyer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and the definition of caselaw is NOT law that applies to every man, woman, child, and goat in the kingdom. It doesn't matter what name you want to give it the fact is it is NOT controlling in our circuit. Not in the least.

 

Opinions out the Wisconsin sup ct are persuasive precedent in Michigan just like 9th circuit cases are. But does that mean Michigan must follow Wisconsin's reasoning or even rule similarly as the Wisonsin court did on a case with the same issue here in Michigan? No.

 

So, you can call it caselaw but labeling it as such doesn't change the fact that it isn't binding here in Michigan. Apparently you think that the term caselaw makes it binding here. It doesn't. Caselaw means law that comes out of court cases as opposed to laws made by a legislature. So, yes, it's caselaw, but what's your point? It's like you taking your med mj card with you down to texas and then arguing to a cop that "it IS a med mj license so don't arrest me darn it!" Yes, it is a license but it's worthless in Texas!

 

chuckle .. are you a Michigan lawyer or a federal lawyer?

 

I've said several times now. You are CORRECT. It is not BINDING precedent.

 

It is a precedent and it is case law.

 

It is simply the highest level the issue has been taken, so far, and the results of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...