tagged w/ Federal Law
-
My name is Michael Dancheck; I am a 40 year old Network Engineer that has been recently disabled due to severe nerve pain caused from overuse of my right arm. I also happen to fall into the 1% - 4% of people that experience serious side effects from all of the medications that can help alleviate my pain. I found that on occasion marijuana would help with several of my symptoms and didn’t understand why it didn’t work all of the time. I immersed myself in the subject and began extensive research. I was intrigued by all the information I found and taught myself how to cultivate legally under Colorado law. I want the public to understand all I have learned about marijuana and my thoughts of why the FDA really wants to keep this plant illegal.
What does not make sense to me is that the marijuana plant is deemed as having NO medicinal value by the FDA. Through my research, I found each strain has a different chemical composition which is why we experience different effects with each one. Marijuana is mostly comprised of THC, Cannabinoids, and Flavonoids. THC helps to relieve pain and has psychoactive properties. Cannabinoids have different effects for each type ranging from: pain relief, nausea relief, anxiety relief. One type, CBN, shrinks and kills tumors. Flavonoids are proven to protect against heart disease.
Currently, the drug companies are producing Marinol which is 100% THC. Why does the FDA allow them to make this drug if the plant has no medicinal value? Now, they are trying to synthetically make each type of identified cannabinoid. Their plan is to make several types of pills. Each of which will contain different levels and combinations of THC and Cannabinoids so they can target specific ailments/diseases with each pill.
This brings us to the question which should be presented to the FDA. Why are the drug companies permitted to make Marinol if marijuana is classified as having no medicinal value? Since these drugs are mimicking every element of the marijuana plant why is this plant still illegal? Although you can not patent a plant, you can however patent a process or chemical. As long as this plant remains illegal the drug companies stand to make billions if they can perfect these pills. America deserves to know who's being paid off
Please consider my story.
Regards,
Mike DancheckMy name is Michael Dancheck; I am a 40 year old Network Engineer that has been... more
-
-
Two Lansing-area men face federal marijuana charges in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, yet the lawyer for one of the defendants says the men were in compliance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.
The lawyer, Bob Baldori, said that the number of plants that were seized was within state law because of the number of caregivers who were growing at the location.
Randall Lloyd Darling, 24, and Joseph David Johnson each face counts of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, according to court documents. Johnson is in his 20s, Baldori said.
The charges come with a five-year minimum prison sentence. Warrants were issued for Darling and Johnson on Jan. 20. Both are awaiting pretrial hearings.
Baldori, who represents Johnson, believes both defendants were within the state’s medical marijuana law. While Baldori said the DEA confiscated more than 200 plants from a grow operation in Mason, he added that Johnson and Darling are both patients and caregivers with the maximum-allowed five patients. Under state law, each can grow up to 72 plants and possess 15 ounces of usable product. It is also Baldori’s understanding that other caregivers were using the house as a growing site.
“These kids have not broken any Michigan laws,” Baldori said. “There were enough patients and caregivers to justify the plants.”
Attempts to reach Darling’s attorney, Jack Vogl, were unsuccessful.
Special Agent Rich Isaacson, a spokesman from the DEA’s Detroit offices, confirmed that the DEA is involved with the investigation, but he declined to give details.
U.S. District Attorney Rene Shekmer did not return calls for comment.
In a separate incident, the DEA raided a growing facility at 2630 Jolly Oak Road in Okemos on Nov. 30, seizing more than 400 plants. No charges have surfaced from that incident.
Growing just one cannabis plant is in violation of federal law, regardless of state law.
An Oct. 19, 2009, memo from U.S. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden offers guidance for federal prosecutors in medical marijuana states. It says a “core priority” for the U.S. Justice Department is targeting “significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana. … “
As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws,” the memo reads.
Matt Newburg, who is representing one of the growers involved with the Okemos raid, said while Johnson and Darling violated federal law, a marijuana debate will likely ensue.
“The merits (of the indictment) will be argued later on,” Newburg said. “Clearly, they (the DEA) are active.”
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-5436-dea-strikes-again.htmlTwo Lansing-area men face federal marijuana charges in U.S. District Court in Grand... more
-
-
Latest Complete News Updates Today Federal law states that in some cases claimants may be required to file a new claim. If you are required to file a new claim a link will appear.Latest Complete News Updates Today Federal law states that in some cases claimants may... more
-
-
It's Easy If You Know How!
In the last two years, everyone flying on a commercial airline has stepped up to an airline's ticket counter and heard the agent recite a familiar litany. The monologue goes, "has your bag been unattended; have you accepted gifts from a stranger; can I see your identification please?" The traveler docilely murmurs answers, and produces a driver's license or some equivalent.
As a die-hard Constitutionalist, I believe that we still have an absolute, unfettered, God-given right to travel from point A to point B without permission from the state -- in the air, as well as on land. This Nazi procedure of "your papers, please" has never been appropriate for our country. I have had occasion to travel a good deal in the last several months, and on those trips I decided to research and test this issue about the necessity for producing identification. I have talked with agents, and their supervisors, of several major airlines in cities across America, and have gradually pieced together a rather complete picture of the real legal situation regarding our right to travel.
Next, I tested this finding with several airlines. When asked for identification, I produced only my Sam's Club card, or my travel agent's ID card, or a Costco card. These are all picture ID's, but they are privately issued, and do not even have a signature on them. The airline agents just freaked out, and demanded to see some state-issued ID. They routinely told me that "it was federal law!" The government absolutely required me to cough up an "official" ID card, without which the agent couldn't even THINK of letting me on the plane.
I told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst -- they were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every time. A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we trudged back to the counter -- and then she let me on the plane.
Alaska Air was much more reasonable -- the agent just issued my seat pass, and commented that some people seem tenaciously to hold the thought that they have the right to travel without producing government ID -- to which I responded, "yes, amazing, isn't it -- and I'm one of them." In Seattle, an agent said AS HE HANDED ME MY TICKET, "you know, if you don't show me any government-issued ID, I can't let you board the plane." I replied, Yes, I understand. But I didn't, and you are. With a smile, he just said, "have a nice trip." So I have flown several times using only my meager privately issued picture ID cards.
Every time I used this strategy, I noticed that the agent put an orange sticker on my checked bags, and also on my seat pass on the ticket. Several agents divulged that this is the policy they are supposed to follow when a person does not show government ID. The bags simply wait in the baggage room until the person presents the matching seat pass as he/she actually boards the plane; then the bags go on board.
On my next trip, I decided to push the envelope even further. When the Alaska Air agent made the usual perfunctory request for identification, I put on my best face, smiled sweetly, and said, "Gee, I'm so sorry, but I just don't have any ID I could show you." To my speechless astonishment, the agent just said, "no problem -- just fill out this simple form, and present it to the counter at the airplane gate." I watched as the familiar orange sticker again went on my bag. I repeated the same scenario with Horizon Air on another trip. I have now flown twice without producing any identification whatsoever.
Northwest was actually instrumental in advancing my education about this issue. I was so aggravated by the insolent and hostile treatment that their employee gave me, (hopefully former employee, after the blistering letter I sent to the company president), that I demanded to see a supervisor on the spot. I then demanded that he produce the relevant federal regulations RIGHT NOW, or face personal liability for authorizing an unreasonable search and seizure, dereliction of duty, fraud, conspiracy, civil rights deprivation and any other legal buzz words I could think of at that moment which would justify a lawsuit against him personally, as well as his employer. Like everyone else, he couldn't show me any statute or regulations. He even admitted that there are none.
However, he did produce a copy of Security Directive 96-05, which the Federal Aviation Agency issued to all airlines in August of 1996. Its wording is very instructive; it reads as follows:
1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER -
A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.
B. THE AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW.
C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A "SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW.
6. CLEAR SELECTEE'S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED;
A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
1. EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED SCREENER, OR;
2. BAG-MATCH -- ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES NOT BOARD.
B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT -- CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS.
This document apparently goes on for ten more pages; the Northwest supervisor gave me only the first page, which contains the information printed above.
The next time I refused to produce ID and the agent freaked, I told her, "just tap up Sec-Dec 96-5 on your computer, and go to Paragraph 1, Section C. Designate me as a 'selectee,' and proceed accordingly. She apparently thought I was an FAA undercover employee, because she said that she was "tired of you federal guys coming around" and literally spying on airline agents, "coercing us into lying to people, and essentially being the 'bag man' for an activity which has no legal requirement." I told her that I could not agree more.It's Easy If You Know How!
In the last two years, everyone flying on a... more
-
-
Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama
, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/15/states-arizona-immigration-suit/
DETROIT -- States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.
Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama
, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.
President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.
"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.
Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.
In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.
"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.
The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.
Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.
"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said.Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama... more
-
-
You know i live in chicago and i must admit it might not be such a bad thing if Guns were legal and allowed in the city it might stop the potential drug dealers and gang bangers from trying to do bad things to normal people. Also as well the crime rate would drop a bit from home invasions and also as well robberies. I think its going to take a very long time for it to become law.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended gun rights to every state and city in the nation in a ruling likely to spur new challenges to gun control measures across the United States.
The 5-4 ruling could ultimately make it easier for individuals to own handguns in a country that already has the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate. Some 90 million Americans own an estimated 200 million guns.
Splitting along conservative and liberal lines, the nation's highest court extended its landmark 2008 ruling -- that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns -- to all cities and states for the first time.
The decision extending gun rights, one of the country's most divisive social, political and legal issues, was a setback for Chicago's 28-year-old ban on handguns, which now faces new judicial review and is likely to be eventually overturned.
Legal challenges to existing laws restricting gun use in other states and cities are also expected.
Investors saw the ruling as a win for gun makers, pushing shares of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp up 5.6 percent and Sturm Ruger & Co up 2.2 percent on Monday.
The right to bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, previously applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves, like Washington D.C., where the court struck down a similar handgun ban in its 2008 ruling.
The ruling, issued on the last day of the Supreme Court's term, was a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups and the powerful National Rifle Association.
"This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period," said Chris Cox, the rifle association's chief lobbyist.
Chicago had defended its law as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. That law, and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Illinois, were the nation's most restrictive gun control measures.
"We hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states," Justice Samuel Alito concluded for the court majority, ruling that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right.
YEARS OF LAWSUITS
It could take years of lawsuits before courts draw a clear line between an individual's right to a gun for self-defense and reasonable government gun regulations to reduce violent crimes like murder, suicide and accidental shooting deaths.
The justices did not strike down the Chicago law directly, but sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court for review, where it appeared likely to be struck down under the ruling.
Gun control advocates had expected the ruling and predicted that reasonable regulations would survive future challenges.
Paul Helmke of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, "We can expect two things as a result of today's decision. ... The gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail."
The court's four liberal justices dissented.
Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 57-page dissent that the "consequences could prove far more destructive
-- quite literally -- to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."
It was widely seen as one of the Supreme Court's most important rulings this term, along with the decision in January that corporations can spend freely to support or defeat candidates for president and Congress.
Gun rights could emerge as a key issue at Senate confirmation hearings that started on Monday for Elena Kagan, nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Stevens.
'LOVE TO KILL'
In Chicago, a clearly disappointed Mayor Richard Daley said he was working on a new gun ordinance now that the Supreme Court had ruled on the city's handgun ban.
He also took issue with the court's majority ruling that elected officials were not doing enough to quell gun violence.
"Common sense tells you we need fewer guns, not more guns," Daley said. "When it comes to Chicago, the court has ignored all that has been done in the past decade to reduce the murder rate and violent crime."
Daley cited statistics detailing the nation's level of gun violence: 100,000 people shot each year, eight people dying each day from gunshots, one million dead since 1968, the year Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated.
He said $10 billion a year is spent in the United States on guns and ammunition.
"We can kill more people in America than anywhere else," a visibly angry Daley told reporters. "We love to kill."
The Supreme Court case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521.You know i live in chicago and i must admit it might not be such a bad thing if Guns... more
-
-
"New figures meanwhile show the US prison population has reached an all-time high. According to the Justice Department, 2.3 million people were behind bars last year. The prison population continues to grow at less than one percent, down from an annual six percent growth during the previous decade."
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/10/headlines
(image taken from the Callifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation websites "Prison Overcrowding Photos")"New figures meanwhile show the US prison population has reached an all-time... more
-
-
"In New York, the trial of a young US citizen who has been held in twenty-three-hour solitary confinement for nearly three years has been delayed until next month. Syed Fahad Hashmi is charged with providing material support to al-Qaeda in a case that rests on the testimony and actions of an old acquaintance who turned government informant after his own arrest. Hashmi is being prosecuted for a two-week period when the informant stayed at his home carrying rain gear that was allegedly later delivered to al-Qaeda members in Pakistan. Hashmi’s period in solitary confinement is believed to be one of the longest ever for a prisoner before trial. Hashmi’s family and supporters continue to hold weekly rallies outside the Manhattan federal prison where he’s jailed."
Faisal Hashmi: “And from the court interactions where we see him in court, he looks like a shell of the person that he was before. He looks frail, and he looks jittery. As you can imagine, people cannot stand solitary confinement for a day or two days or three days. He’s been in solitary, straight solitary confinement, ahead of his trial for two-and-a-half years without having a conviction, because the government said so.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/8/headlines
"Of more than 200,000 federal inmates, 42 are held under special administrative measures (SAMs) and of those, 28 are imprisoned on terrorism-related convictions, the Justice Department said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B851920091209"In New York, the trial of a young US citizen who has been held in... more
-
-
A small-town Kansas cop e-mailed naked pictures of himself to a woman he pulled over for drunk driving, offering a sexual relationship in exchange for helping her avoid the charges. A local problem became a federal case after investigators found that his e-mail servers were located in other states.
Because the information crossed state-lines, the federal government is invoking the "commerce clause" to charge the officer with wire fraud.A small-town Kansas cop e-mailed naked pictures of himself to a woman he pulled over... more
-
-
hcice
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Centuries before Adolph Hitler was born, history witnessed an even bigger genocide than the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazi Regime. What is more disturbing is that this happened in our own back yard.
"The reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record."
You would think that the American Indians deserve a little more than little "Reservations" for them and their families... Perhaps a real piece of land as we so forcefully fight for our Israeli friends... And how about the recognition of responsibility and apology for the biggest genocide known to man kind?Centuries before Adolph Hitler was born, history witnessed an even bigger genocide... more
-
-
"Today, the US Supreme Court REFUSED to hear a landmark case brought by San Diego County stemming from a law suit they filled back in ‘06 that challenged the state-mandated use of ID cards for medical marijuana patients. The ID card program was adopted in 2004, resulting from the legislature’s passage of SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act. The ID cards can substitute for Dr. recommendations for the use of cannabis and allow patients to enter medical marijuana shops in California and can be shown to police officers who find patients in possession of marijuana.
Well, San Diego decided not to play along with the ID card game arguing that the federal ban on weed trumps state law. The San Diego Superior Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals rejected that argument. And, the California Supreme Court refused to review the case in 2008. Despite those failures the San Diego Board of Supervisors voted to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court! And, well that didn’t work out! The end of this case and the Obama administration’s decision not to raid law-abiding medical marijuana clubs has supercharged the legalization movement now.
s-pot-large1“The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California’s medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law,” said Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group with a large presence in California. “No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California’s medical marijuana law.”
“The Supreme Court and the lower courts in California have blown away the myth that federal law somehow prevents states from legalizing medical marijuana,” said Rob Kampia, executive director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
ASA has also notified ten weed-unfriendly holdout counties (Colusa, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, San Bernardino, San Diego, Solano, Stanislaus, and Sutter) of their legal obligation to implement the ID card program. Change is coming whether they like it or not."Today, the US Supreme Court REFUSED to hear a landmark case brought by San Diego... more
-
-
No Protection for Pet Food: H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act
This bill is appalling! The FDA is meant to protect the consumer! Not Big Corporations!
The Food Safety Modernization Act, currently being considered by Congress as the "answer to the many food safety concerns in the U.S.", blatantly gives pet food manufacturers 'carte blanche' opportunity to dump risky garbage into your pet’s food bowl without accountability. If this bill is approved, pet food can easily and legally get far worse than it is today.
Congress as the answer to the many food safety concerns in the U.S., blatantly gives pet food manufacturers carte blanche opportunity to dump risky garbage into your pet’s food bowl without accountability. If this bill is approved, pet food can easily and legally get far worse than it is today.
It is crystal clear the existing FDA needs an overhaul. Just as clear, the existing FDA has shown no genuine concern for the safety of pet food; the FDA has allowed pet food to be the dumping ground for useless waste of human food processing for many years despite Federal laws that should prohibit it. Over recent years, Congress has made a few half hearted attempts to improve the safety of pet food, especially after the deadly 2007 recall; seemingly just to quiet their pet owning constituents. However, the truth continues to clearly show Congress has no intentions to initiate responsible legislation demanding the safety of pet foods and the FDA has no intention of enforcing existing laws that would improve pet food safety.
To provide you with a little history, in November 2008, pet owners from across the U.S. wrote their Representatives in Congress politely demanding the FDA enforce existing Federal laws. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act laws clearly defines food to include pet food and clearly defines adulterated foods (thus prohibited by Federal law) to be foods containing sick, diseased, or euthanized animals; many of the most popular pet foods sold in the U.S. could contain ingredients, determined by the FDA, known to include sick, diseased, and/or euthanized animals.
The FDA website itself states that although some pet foods appear to be in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, they WILL NOT ENFORCE THE LAWS WITH PET FOOD..
Every single member of Congress who received a letter from their pet loving constituent, ignored the point. Not one Representative addressed the FDA’s violation of Federal laws. Some spoke of ‘hope’ to improve the FDA with H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act. http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/pages/We-are-Changing-Pet-Food.html
This unethical attempt to protect interests of BIG CORPORATION is outrageous, immoral and most importantly, at the cost of our companion animal's health.
CORPORATE & GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AT IT'S FINEST!
It is apparent, with the multitude of food related sicknesses and deaths over the last 2 years, that the FDA and USDA needs a serious overhaul.
H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is no safety modernization for pet food.
H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is the same old story and worse; forgetting the concerns of our pets yet looking out for the interests of industries that earn billions in profits re-selling waste. If H.R. 875 is passed as it is currently written, it appears caring pet owners will be completely without resources to hold a pet food manufacturer accountable for their actions. This is not something to let others be concerned about and act on; every single caring pet lover needs to take immediate action.No Protection for Pet Food: H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act
This bill is... more
-
-
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown heralded the emergence of a "new world order" Thursday as the G-20 issued details of an "unprecedented" package of measures to tackle the global economic crisis.
Gordon Brown outlines the measures agreed at the G-20 summit in London.
U.S. President Barack Obama called the deal "a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery."British Prime Minister Gordon Brown heralded the emergence of a "new world... more
-
-
A wide range of regulations and rules regarding the financial sector will be detailed today by the Obama admin. The regulations would allow the government the power to peer into the inner workings of companies that currently escape most federal supervision .Hedge funds and insurance companies will be heavily affected by the regulations. The new regulations are considered to be some of the strongest regulations established in recent memory.A wide range of regulations and rules regarding the financial sector will be detailed... more
-
-
If you ever wondered where exactly is your tax payer money going, and how is it being spent this is the chance.
Fill this form and ask your representative to listen to YOU.
"Audit the Fed" petition to Congress!!!!
"Federal Reserve Transparency Act" to audit the Federal Reserve is now up to 39 co-sponsors the House, and an identical companion bill, S604, has been introduced in the Senate. Here are the House co-sponsors:
Young (R-AK), McClintock (R-CA), Woolsey (D-CA), Rohrabacher (R-CA), Castle (R-DE), Stearns (R-FL), Grayson (D-FL), Buchanan (R-FL), Posey (R-FL), Kingston (R-GA), Price (R-GA), Broun (R-GA), Abercrombie (D-HI), Burton (R-IN), Fleming (R-LA), Alexander (R-LA), Bartlett (R-MD), McCotter (R-MI), Bachmann (R-MN), Peterson (D-MN), Akin (R-MO), Taylor (D-MS), Rehberg (R-MT), Jones (R-NC), Foxx (R-NC), Garrett (R-NJ), Heller (R-NV), DeFazio (D-OR), Platts (R-PA), Duncan (R-TN), Wamp (R-TN), Blackburn (R-TN), Poe (R-TX), Paul (R-TX), Marchant (R-TX), Burgess (R-TX), Chaffetz (R-UT), Petri (R-WI), Kagen (D-WI), Lummis (R-WY)
32 Republicans and 7 Democrats so far. [Urge your Representative to co-sponsor]
Follow the link
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/auditthefed.phpIf you ever wondered where exactly is your tax payer money going, and how is it being... more
-
-
"Perusing material submitted by the DEA in response to a query from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, marijuana reform activist Dale Gieringer catches the the California Police Chiefs Association actively subverting state law. The documents received by Conyers, who is looking into the DEA's raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, include an October 2006 letter in which Steve Krull, the association's president, urges DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to "become more actively involved in working with local law enforcement to close these [medical marijuana] distribution centers, seize their profits and all marijuana which might be located and to take these cases into the federal judicial system." Krull suggests that "a concentrated effort sustained over a period of time would send a strong message to local and county government that 'medical marijuana' is not allowed and that those who profit from the sales and distribution of marijuana under the guise of 'medicine' will face the consequences."
Under California law, of course, marijuana is allowed for qualifying patients and is considered a medicine. That's why Krull complains to Tandy about the "dangers and frustrations that law enforcement has experienced in California with trying to enforce marijuana laws." He reports, with apparent amazement, that "some situations have reached the point where state judicial officers (local judges) are ordering our members to return marijuana which has been lawfully seized"—i.e., instructing police to give back the medicine that patients are permitted to have under state law. Evidently Krull and many of his colleagues find obeying state law to be an intolerable nuisance, one they want the feds to help them avoid. The DEA has been happy to oblige, conducting 130 enforcement actions and making 365 arrests related to medical marijuana from 2004 through July 2008. Gieringer, coordinator of California NORML, notes that a state appeals court ruled last year that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." Both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have declined to hear an appeal of that decision.""Perusing material submitted by the DEA in response to a query from House... more
-
-
Reporting from secret farms and not-so-secret grow houses of marijuana cultivators, Lisa Ling goes into their world -- where marijuana is not just a drug but a way of life.
"If a stranger walked up to you and poured pebble like seeds into your hand and then said, 'plant them and your harvest can be made into rope, cloth or paper. It could help the sick or intoxicate.' What would you say? Would you keep the seeds or chuck them away?"
I highly recommend this Explorer. Although it isn't perfect, it has its insightful moments and Lisa Ling shines, as always! :)Reporting from secret farms and not-so-secret grow houses of marijuana cultivators,... more
-
-
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.
Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately. The screening and trimming of voter registration lists in the six states — Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina — could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: people who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.
Some states allow such voters to cast provisional ballots. But they are often not counted because they require added verification.
Although much attention this year has been focused on the millions of new voters being added to the rolls by the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, there has been far less notice given to the number of voters being dropped from those same rolls.
States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and remove the names of voters who should no longer be listed; but for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, a review of the records shows.
The six states seem to be in violation of federal law in two ways. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote.
Some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters.
In addition to the six swing states, three more states appear to be violating federal law. Alabama and Georgia seem to be improperly using Social Security information to screen registration applications from new voters. And Louisiana appears to have removed thousands of voters after the federal deadline for taking such action.
(more at the link)Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed... more
-
-
SAN JOSE, CA (ACLU) — In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a federal court today held that the U.S. Constitution bars deliberate subversion by the federal government of state medical marijuana laws.
“Utilizing selective arrests and prosecutions, the federal government has sought to sabotage California’s reasoned approach to medical marijuana use,” said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “For the first time, a court has recognized that a calculated plan by the federal government to undercut state medical marijuana laws is patently unconstitutional. Today’s decision forecasts an end to any organized federal effort to sabotage state medical marijuana laws.”
While previous high-profile cases affirmed the federal government’s power to enforce federal drug laws against individual medical marijuana patients and providers on a case-by-case basis, today’s ruling clearly recognizes that a calculated pattern of federal enforcement can render state medical marijuana laws effectively inoperable, which would violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“It is obvious to anyone paying attention that federal officials have gone to great lengths to sabotage state efforts to allow for appropriate medical marijuana use,” said Boyd. “The court made clear that this deliberate interference - once proved - would be unequivocally unconstitutional.”
The case, County of Santa Cruz v. Mukasey, originated in 2003 when Bingham McCutchen LLP and the Drug Policy Alliance, along with private attorneys Gerald F. Uelmen and Benjamin Rice, sued the federal government for raiding a Santa Cruz-area medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana.
The ACLU and others argued, and the court agreed, that the U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is legal and what is illegal under state law, and that the federal government may not deliberately undermine this process.
“The federal government has purposely set out to systematically subvert California’s medical marijuana program,” said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Let us hope that this ruling leads to the merciful end of the federal government’s cruel war on sick and dying medical marijuana patients.”
In today’s ruling, which rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, relied on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion in Conant v. Walters, which stated, in part, “Applied to our situation, this means that, much as the federal government may prefer that California keep medical marijuana illegal, it cannot force the state to do so.”
In addition to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents involved in the raid of WAMM, and administrators of the DEA and Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The court’s ruling is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/36494lgl20080820.htmlSAN JOSE, CA (ACLU) — In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a federal court today held... more
-
-
Lawyers for a California man charged with dealing pot say they're struggling to defend him because they're barred from using the term medical marijuana.
Attorneys for Charlie Lynch, 46, of San Luis Obispo County, Calif., say he was under the impression he was working within California's state laws while operating Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in Morro Bay, Calif. But U.S. prosecutors say he broke federal narcotics laws by selling $2.1 million worth of pot to some customers not old enough to legally drink, The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.
The trial judge has ruled out any reference to medical marijuana because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that concluded federal drug laws trump those of California, where distribution of marijuana for medical reasons is allowed.
This has set up a potential showdown between conflicting state and federal laws and has hampered Lynch's defense attorneys, the newspaper said. They implied during opening statements in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles Friday that Lynch had sought and received approval from an official with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration before he set up shop.
Source: United Press International
Photo: www.michaelm.comLawyers for a California man charged with dealing pot say they're struggling to... more
-
