COMPLAINT AND REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

An

ELECTION FRAUD
COMPLAINT

to the

CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY OF STATE

Bill Jones
 

Posted for public inspection at:

http://www.kubby.com/Complaint.SecState.html
 

Copies of this document also e-mailed to distinguished members of the media


[TOP]


----------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
----------------------------------------------
 
 
 
I. PARTIES

II. BACKGROUND

III. COMPLAINT

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND REDRESS

V. ATTACHMENTS:
 

1-   POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
2-   JOURNALISTIC PERSPECTIVE
3-   MEDICAL STATEMENT OF PHYSICIAN
4-   DR. DeQUATTRO LETTER TO SUPERI0R COURT
5-   CANNABINOID INHIBITION OF NORADRENALINE RELEASE
6-   CANNABINOIDS FOUND TO SUPPRESS PHEOS
7-   BULLETIN 97-BNE-01 'PEACE OFFICERS GUIDE'
8-   THE OAKLAND GUIDELINES
9-   LETTER TO ASSIST. SHERIFF JARAMILLO
10- OVER 100 NEWS STORIES ABOUT KUBBY RAID
11- SAC NEWS: DID PLACER COPS LIE UNDER OATH?
12- COMPLAINT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
13- S.F. SUPERVISORS PASS MEDICAL MJ PHOTO ID LAW


[TOP]



 
 

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION
Website: http://www.kubby.com/AMMA.html | Monarch Bay Plaza, Box 375, Dana Point, Ca 92629
 

"The fight for medical marijuana rights is no more about marijuana,
than the Boston Tea Party was about tea."

--Michele Kubby

 
1/26/00

Bill Jones
Secretary of State
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-657-2166
fax   916- 653-3214
http://www.ss.ca.gov/
 

RE: 1996 Ballot Guide Election Fraud and Entrapment
 

Dear Secretary Jones,
 

In the election of 1996, Attorney General Dan Lungren, Sheriff Brad Gates and several major law enforcement officials and agencies made the following official statements in the California Voter Pamphlet:
 

"Proposition 215 legalizes marijuana use for 'any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.' This could include stress, headaches, upset stomach, insomnia, a stiff neck . . . or just about anything."

"Proposition 215 does not require a written prescription. Anyone with the 'oral recommendation or approval by a physician' can grow, possess or smoke marijuana. No medical examination is required."

"This initiative makes marijuana available to the public without FDA approval or regulation."

"This initiative allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere . . . without any regulation or restrictions."

"It is marijuana legalization."


Listed below were the following organizations:
 

The California State Sheriffs Association
The California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association.
The California Narcotic Officers Association and
The California Peace Officers Association
--From: 1996 Official Voter Guide: "Argument Against Proposition 215"
See: http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215noarg.htm
 
 
Secretary Jones, how can all these sheriffs, district attorneys, police, and narcotics officers tell voters that Prop. 215 would legalize marijuana and allow patients to grow as much as they need for personal use -- in an official public statement to the voters of California -- and then turn around and insist that the voters never approved any of these things?

Medical marijuana patients who read these statements in the 1996 Voter Guide, had every right to expect these statements to be truthful and that they would NOT be prosecuted if Prop. 215 passed.

These law enforcement leaders and agencies cannot have it both ways. Either they are guilty of making deliberately fraudulent and misleading statements, or they are fraudulently refusing to uphold what they know to be the legal consequences of that election.

Certainly, patients or caregivers who read these statements in the 1996 Ballot Guide have every reason to expect statements made by law enforcement officials to be valid and binding.

When elected law enforcement officials made their "Argument Against Proposition 215" in the 1996 Voter Ballot Guide, these were official statements by highly trusted law enforcement officials who voters expected to be as honest and credible as any official government certification or affidavit. For these same officials to now tell us that just the opposite is the case and Prop. 215 did not grant these medical rights is not just hypocritical, it may also constitute entrapment.

Patients and caregivers acted in good faith following passage of 215 and have been cynically arrested by local authorities who never had any intention of conforming to the voters will and the present state law. Hypocrisy may not be a crime, but entrapment is and when the action of local authorities flaunt our laws they are undermining the fundamental trust of their oaths.
 
 
It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in California when those who advocate peaceful and lawful change through the electoral process, and then peacefully assert those newly won rights, are charged as common criminals, along with their spouses or family members, and dragged through the criminal justice system.

Furthermore, when unsigned letters about patients growing medical marijuana can trigger a multi-agency, million dollar investigation in just 24 hours, while the medical and civil rights of sick, disabled and dying Californians continue to be violated THREE YEARS after the passage of Compassionate Use Act, it creates the appearance that the State of California is as blindly committed to the ideology of "Zero Tolerance" as the Nazis were to the ideology of "Anti-Semitism."

Secretary Jones, we applaud your efforts to get 100% turn out of voters, but unless you effectively deal with this issue, you may be looking at 100% apathy of voters who see the entire election process in the State of California as a fraud and an exercise in futility.

Please show us the leadership and courage you've shown in the past and act now to end this terrible war on sick, disabled and dying patients who have been entrapped by these misleading official statements by law enforcement officials and agencies.
 
 

Respectfully submitted,

WE THE PEOPLE of California, on behalf of the medical rights of patients to have access to their medicine, as guaranteed under The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, The United States Constitution, The Single Convention Treaty, The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, The Geneva Convention, and as affirmed by our individual names listed below:
 

  • Steve Kubby -National Director for the American Medical Marijuana Association
  • Anna Boyce R.N. -Co-author of Prop. 215 and campaign spokesperson.
  • Tod H. Mikuriya M.D. -Former head of all unclassified research on marijuana for the National Institute of Mental Health.
  • Jay R. Cavanaugh, Ph.D. -Former head of the California State Pharmacy Board and 17 years as director of a major substance abuse clinic.
  • John Beresford M.D. -Internationally know psychiatrist.
  • Tom O'Connell MD, -Retired Army thoracic surgeon and Drug Policy expert.
  • Michael Aldrich Ph.D., Drug Policy expert and AIDS specialist.
  • and the following Californians:
     
    197. Lisa Lupa, Oakland, CA  
    196. Matt Zinn, San Jose, CA electonics
    195. Harriet Goren Laguna Niguel CA  
    194. Joe Furcinite Santa Maria, CA Property manager
    193. Ryan Arts Fountain Valley,CA. 92708  
    192. Starchild San Francisco, CA student
    191. Don Hull Costa Mesa, CA Libertarian Candidate for Congress 2000
    190. Dawn Renee Pedersen Oakland, CA Administrative
    189. Jerry Johnson Covina, Ca  
    188. Deborah Jane DeMars Sonora, CA dress designer--care giver
    187. Christopher M DeMars Sonora Ca. Disabled
    186. Arlette J. Graham San Diego, California MS sufferer/deceased-but from Chicago
    185. Jay R. Cavanaugh, Ph.D. Van Nuys, California Research Scientist/Health Administrator
    184. Linda Baker San Diego, California caregiver
    183. David N. Graham San Diego, California janitor / paperback writer
    182. John R. Graham San Diego, California consultant / caregiver
    181. Chris Cronkrite Canoga Park, California  
    180. Paul L. Studier Lake Forest, CA Computer Engineer
    179. Michael Miller Martinez, CA Educator
    178. R.L. Root Westminster, CA  
    177. Iberio H Franco Los Angeles  
    176. Timothy J.Perkins Anaheim, CA  
    175. Jeffrey R. Sommer Hayward, CA Host, "The Libertarian Party Radio Hour"
    174. Bob Ames Rio Linda, CA Computer Specialist
    173. Sanjay Ranchod Menlo Park, CA graduate student
    172. Jeanie White Moraga, Ca medicalresearch
    171. John Lionheart Berkeley CA
    170. Geoff Olsen Los Angeles, CA  
    169. Sky Sierran Kubby El Camino Rd. Sales and Marketing
    168. Andrea Solomon Troutdale, Or internet marketing
    167. Roger Graf San Diego, CA  
    166. Rick Swanson CA  
    165. Julia Carpenter Stanford, CA graduate student
    164. Travis Thornton Clovis, Ca  
    163. Jodi Thornton Clovis, Ca  
    162. Timothy Crlenjak Eureka, CA 95503 vineyard worker
    161. line voided
    160. Colin Borchert Austin, TX i know mine doesn't count- showin' my support.
    159. Steve Harvey Redlands, California  
    158. line voided    
    157. LARRYJ. NIELSEN VICTORVILLE UNEMPLOYED / AIDS RELATED
    156. jim larsen garden grove, california  
    155. James W Essman Jr. Modesto, California Disabled (Heart Transplant)
    154. Sarah Essman Modesto, California  
    153. John R. Shearer Martinez, CA  
    152. Russell G. Naylor Petaluma Writer
    151. Howe, Daniel C. Taylorsville, CA Student
    150. line voided    
    149. Zach Harris Greenville, NC  
    148. James Carrington Mccloud Ca disabled
    147. Charles A. S. Douglas Arcata, California Green Party Organizer
    146. marshall Loskot Platina, CA disabled
    145. Alex Haulman Bakersfield, CA teacher
    144. Gerald Eugene, Oregon Information Systems Manager, Alpine Building Materials
    143. SCOTT SWAGER JOLON, CA  CARPENTER
    142. Robin Fllner Arcata, CA Writer
    141. Gene Fellner Arcata, CA  Computer Consultant
    140. Carol Colburn Meadow Vista, CA sales/computers
    139. Silvio Re Arcata, Ca student
    138. Alisha Clompus Arcata, Ca student & on newsletter staff @ Humboldt Medical Cannabis Center
    137. gregory williams santa clara california disabled- aids, hepatits c
    136. Neal A Donner Los Angeles, CA teacher
    135. andrew garret san Jose, Ca electronics
    134. Scott A. Wilson Concord, Ca Vice-Chair East Bay Libertarian Party
    133. Stephen W. Greel Sr. Garberville, Ca.  
    132. hortense h. manske san mateo, ca  
    131. Shirley Ann Greel Garberville, Ca.  
    130. william Henry Estrada Sacramento,California 95841 Music producer and chef
    129. Jeanie White Moraga, Ca medicalresearch
    128. Charles Mohnike Chico, CA writer
    127. Jon Petersen Grass Valley, CA Computer Consultant
    126. Ted Brown San Gabriel, CA Insurance Claims Adjuster
    125. Erik Burman Eureka, CA Physician
    124. Godfrey Tudor-Matthews Eureka Retired health professional
    123. Robin Fllner Arcata, CA Writer
    123. R. Allan Eddy Dixon CA  
    122. Craig O. Schwarz Camarillo, California Printer/Caretaker
    121. Lisa Cordova Schwarz Camarillo, California Publisher
    120. Veronica Garcia Sunnyvale, CA  
    119. Mark Hilgenberg Oak Park, CA  
    118. Jerilyn Griffith Imperial Beach, CA   
    117. Mark Valverde Benicia, California  
    116. George L. Ball San Diego, CA 92128 Business Forcaster (Retired)
    115. Doris V. Ball San Diego, CA 92128 Clinical Psychologist
    114. laura Christine Benedict Eureka, California Self Employed Hairdresser
    113. Amberlei Hellewell Imperial Beach, CA  
    112. Mira Ingram Fountain Valley, CA Disabled
    111. Randy Styner Garden Grove, CA.  
    110. Rosendo Perez escondido, calif disabled
    109. Donata Compa Fort Bragg Ca  
    108. Ken Waltz Fort Bragg Ca  
    107. Julie D Lortz Nipomo, California  
    106. Matt Z. Siegel Brooklyn, NY Filmmaker
    105. Jose M. Hernandez San Diego, CA Pharmaceutical Research
    104. Bill Bunn Manila, Ca. Computer Programmer
    103. Tara C. Drennen Tustin, CA  
    102. Jurgen Giessel Garberville, CA Retired Engineer
    101. Penny S. Dailey La Crescenta, CA 91214  
    100. Steve Blake Sacramento, California educator, inventor, Sacramento County AMMA Director
    99. Kim Levin Redding, CA Computer Technician
    98. Spencer J. Hahn San Diego, CA College Student
    97. Joe Renolds Los Angeles CA
    96. Shelley Kinnon Mission Viejo Ca.  
    95. Heidi Marsden Garden Grove, CA  
    94. Paul Marsden Garden Grove, CA  
    93. George Sinclair Eureka, CA Retired
    92. George Sinclair Eureka, CA retired
    91. Bob Moe San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Self-Employeed
    90. Steve Green San Diego, CA Chairman, San Diego Libertarian Party
    89. Carl Bradshaw San Diego, CA  
    88. Amanda Stamatelaky San Diego, CA  
    87. Amanda Stamatelaky San Diego, CA  
    86. Jennifer Baum Stanton, California File Clerk
    85. Sarah Zwierski Imperial Beach, CA  
    84. Sarah Zwierski Imperial Beach, CA  
    83. Andrew Gaskill La Canada, CA Art Director
    82. Richard C Charboneau San Diego, CA Retired
    81. Drew Picone Pasadena,CA  
    80. David J Wall Madera, CA Network support spec
    79. Sue Anne Saxena Clovis, California None
    78. Bryan Blackford San Diego, CA Programmer
    77. Dennis Earl Bidelman Eureka, California Health Care Provider
    76. Althea Baumeister Ca Bookkeeper with RA
    75. David Sean Murphy Thousand Oaks, CA Government Eliminator
    74. Tricia Grey chatsworth, california student
    73. Michele Kubby, Laguna Beach, Ca.
    73. ANGELA MOSKOVA CA STUDENT
    72. Autumn Browne Huntington Beach, CA Teacher
    71. Calvin T. Ellison San Diego, CA Technical Support Rep.
    70. Jeremy Miller Arcata, CA student
    69. Tiffany Haab Fullerton, Ca Computer Drafter
    68. Frederick Lumbert Eureka Network Administrator
    67. Frederick Eureka Network Administrator
    66. William Hajdu Laguna Beach US Air Force Retired
    65. Andy C Snow Eureka, CA truck driver
    64. Rebecca S Carr Ereka, CA domestic engineer
    63. Angel Ann Price Glendale, CA Lawyer
    62. Al Gilmore Redway, CA. Cabinet maker
    61. Eric Seth Prudhomme Nevada City, Ca forest ecologist
    60. Chris Yu Hacienda Heights, CA  
    59. Mel M Pinney San Diego, CA  
    58. Scott Beam Mission Viejo, CA  
    57. Lance Sprague Guerneville, Ca. Building Designer
    56. Jon Petersen Grass Valley, CA Computer Consultant
    55. Thomas J. O'Connell San Mateo. CA Physician
    54. Danny Jackson Anahiem Hills Student
    53. Carol E. Easton Venice, CA Author
    52. Robert A. Noble Arcata, CA  
    51. Jonathan Zwickel Madera, CA insurance sales
    50. Bob Laurent Oakland, CA candidate for Oakland school board; software consultant
    49. Michael Benoit Lakeside, CA.  
    48. Kevin R. Fox Eureka, CA  
    47. Craig Scott Arcata, California  
    46. Fred Mangels Eureka, CA Self Employed Gardener
    45. Matthew Fong, San Francisco, Ca  
    44. David Shapiro San Francsico, CA Programmer
    43. Frank L Richo San Francisco, CA digital image production
    42. Michael Coffee Asheville, NC Electronics Technician
    41. Georgia Boyd Madera, CA  
    40. Elizabeth Marie Page Newport Beach, CA Insurance
    39. David Mercer Madera, CA  
    38. Kelly Lee O'Boylan Fresno, CA Computer Consultant
    37. Daniel A. Westphal Santa Rosa, CA Architect
    36. Donald J. Smith Corona del Mar, CA Software Engineer
    35. Robert Deitch CA Film Industry
    34. Don F. Hull Costa Mesa, CA 2000 LP Candidate for Congress
    33. Daniel Beeman San Diego, CA ---community of North Park San Diego City Council candidate for 3rd District.
    32. Joe Manske San Mateo, CA 94402 Retired
    31. Pamela B. Maltzman Glendale, California Medical Transcriptionist
    30. Justin Garbett Newport Beach, Ca Web Designer
    29. Cinthia Duroche San Diego CA  
    28. Mark Matthews Costa Mesa, CA Computer Systems Consultant
    27. Graham Race Hellewell Imperial Beach (San Diego), California full-time student AND computer programmer
    26. Gary Stoker Fullurton, CA Carpenter
    25. Rick Nichols Anaheim, CA Electrician
    24. Carol Colburn Meadow Vista, CA 95722 Computers/Sales
    23. David Jack Angels Camp, CA Disabled
    23. Rick Huntington Beach Electrician
    22. David Oakey San Diego, CA  
    21. Laura J. Carden Concord, California disabled
    20. Doug Scribner Costa Mesa, CA Teacher
    19. David Shapiro San Francsico, CA Programmer
    18. Joe Michael Cobb Dana Point, California Personal Financial Consultant
    17. Michael S Metti San Diego, CA Businessman
    16. Michael Pietila Vista, CA M.D.
    15. Fred Gardner San Francisco, CA journalist
    14. Fred Gardner San Francisco, CA  
    13. Chris Ward, Red Bluff,  Ca.  
    12. Ron Drioane Fresno.Ca.  
    11. Frank J. Manske Concord, CA  
    10. Gary Pietila Ramona, CA Systems Administrator
     9. Andy Kinnon, Mission Viejo Ca., Union President
     8. Dominic DeLucia Trabuco Canyon, CA  
     7. Dennis Triglia San Diego, CA Research Scientist
     6. David Jack Angels Camp, CA Disabled
     5. Joshua Geller San Jose, CA Systems Engineer
     4. Bill Allyn Wenatchee, Webmaster
     3. Rev. Randy Hurley Santa Rosa, CA  
     2. Anna Barrett Victorville, CA  
     1. Gary Barrett Victorville, CA

    (note: some names repeated and some not California residents)

    [TOP]



    ----------------------------------------------
    I. PARTIES AND VENUE
    ----------------------------------------------

    Mr. Steve Kubby, hereinafter known as Kubby is a citizen of the United States and resident of the State of California. Kubby played a key role in the passage of Proposition 215 and was the Libertarian 1998 candidate for Governor of California, against Dan Lungren.  Kubby may be contacted at: Monarch Bay Plaza, Box 375, Dana Point, Ca 92629.

    Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, hereinafter known as Lungren is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. Lungren was Attorney General of the State of California. As an elected official, Lungren took an oath, on file with the Secretary of State and had a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the State of California and the laws of the State of California. Lungren was enriched, empowered and compensated for his duties.

    Mr. Bradley Gates, hereinafter known as Gates is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. Gates was Sheriff of Orange County, a leader in the "No on Prop. 215" campaign, and past president of the California Sheriffs Association. As an elected official, Gates took an oath, on file with the Secretary of State and had a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the State of California and the laws of the State of California. Gates was enriched, empowered and compensated for his duties.

    Mr. Edward Bonner, hereinafter known as Bonner is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. Bonner is Sheriff of Placer County. As an elected official, Bonner took an oath, on file with the Secretary of State and had a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the State of California and the laws of the State of California. Bonner was enriched, empowered and compensated for his duties.

    Mr. Bradford Fenocchio, hereinafter known as Fenocchio is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. Fenocchio is District Attorney of Placer County. As an elected official, Fenocchio took an oath, on file with the Secretary of State and had a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the State of California and the laws of the State of California. Fenocchio was enriched, empowered and compensated for his duties.

    Mr. Mike Carona, hereinafter known as Carona is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. Carona is Sheriff of Orange County. As an elected official, Carona took an oath, on file with the Secretary of State and had a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the State of California and the laws of the State of California. Carona was enriched, empowered and compensated for his duties.

    Mr. George Jaramillo hereinafter known as Jaramillo is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. Jaramillo is Assistant Sheriff of Orange County.
     
     

    [TOP]



    ----------------------------------------------
    II. BACKGROUND
    ----------------------------------------------

    WHEREAS: Steve Kubby is a legally disabled American who is qualified under the definitions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kubby has been certified by the United States Social Security Administration as medically disabled since 1980. Kubby was last re-certified as medically disabled in 1999. Kubby's disability is such that he can suffer a heart attack, stroke, or death anytime he is not protected by medical marijuana. Kubby can provide extensive medical research, performed by scientists and physicians at the University of Southern California which confirms that medical marijuana, which is the only medicine he uses, is successfully treating his disease, malignant pheochromocytoma. [See attachment -4-]

    WHEREAS: Kubby's medical disability is real and life-threatening. Although so rare that most physicians never encounter a case of pheochromocytoma - even casually - they all know about it because its spectacular effects are legendary in medical school. "Pheos" produce norepinephrine; and the result is explosive elevations in blood pressure which produce blinding headaches, lethal strokes and heart attacks. Benign varieties are most common and can be successfully removed if the diagnosis is made beforehand and the patient protected by medication during delicate surgery. Malignant pheos, like Kubby's are something else; because they have already spread, complete surgical removal is impossible; nor do they respond to chemotherapy or radiation. They don't grow very aggressively, but they continue to release deadly showers of norepinephrine and almost all patients succumb to a horrible, emaciated death within a few years. Only Kubby has survived and continues to survive, thanks to the unique properties of medical marijuana.  [See attachment -5-]  [See attachment -6-]

    WHEREAS: The Kubbys have been subjected to 18 months of intense surveilance, including listening through their bedroom walls at night, peeking through bathroom windows, and going through garbage, based upon unsubstantiated allegations in an unsigned letter.

    WHEREAS: The Kubbys grew their medical marijuana in strict compliance with the Oakland Guidelines, have passed a sensitive drug test and have not been found to be involved in any illegal drug sales whatsoever.

    WHEREAS: When the Kubbys' home in Olympic Valley was raided on January 19, 1999, by the North Tahoe Task Force, he and his wife showed them the physicians' documents proving that the Kubbys were entitled grow and possess pot plants under the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act. Not one officer, including their leader, Investigator Michael Lyke, had read or was familiar with the Compassionate Use Act, according to statement made by the officers to questions posed by the Kubbys.

    AND WHEREAS: The Kubbys were arrested and even told, "Prop. 215 might fly in San Francisco, but not here in Placer County." This is indicative of an attitude by Placer law enforcement officers who lack the training and tolerance to uphold the public safety and protect sick people.  As documented by a six-month investigation by the Sacramento News and Review, Placer law enforcement has demonstrated wanton disregard for state laws and the rights of sick people; creating the appearance that the sheriff and district attorney are blindly committed to arresting medical marijuana patients, in an attempt to deny rights to patients and to thwart the will of the People.
     
     

    [TOP]


    ----------------------------------------------
    III. COMPLAINT
    ----------------------------------------------

    WHEREAS: The People of California voted on November 6, 1996 to pass Proposition 215 now known as The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 or § 11362.5 H&S Code which is specifically intended to exempt medical marijuana patients from criminal prosecution or sanction for possession or cultivation.

    WHEREAS: Despite the clear intent of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 to protect patients, the Placer County sheriff and district attorney have adopted a policy of arresting patients, destroying all medicine and then forcing patients into expensive court cases in order to "let the courts sort it out."

    WHEREAS: § 11362.5 specifically states the purpose of the Compassionate Use Act is "To ensure that patients and their primary care givers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR SANCTION." [emphasis added.]

    WHEREAS: Recent court cases have come down clearly in support of medical marijuana patients. For example, in Trinity County a judge just threw out a case against Russell Amos involving 5 pounds of medical marijuana, while in Shasta County, a jury acquitted Richard Levin, of Redding, on charges of growing marijuana for sale. Mr. Levin had 41 outdoor plants and 1.5 pounds of processed marijuana valued by police at $800,000, as well as three guns, but the jury found this seriously ill, properly documented medical marijuana patient innocent, as it should have.

    WHEREAS: When the defendants win their cases, sheriffs are being forced by judges to return the marijuana, forcing officers to violate the Controlled Substances Act and creating news stories that are obviously a painful embarrassment for law enforcement.
     
     
    WHEREAS: Under the California Constitution Article 2 Section 10, Prop. 215 legally became the law of California the day after the 1996 election and only the voters can amend or repeal the Compassionate Use Act now that it has passed:
      (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon TAKES EFFECT THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION unless the measure provides otherwise. [emphasis added] WHEREAS: The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, because it is AN INITIATIVE STATUTE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF VOTES, CANNOT BE LIMITED OR RESTRICTED BY ANYONE, including sheriffs, district attorneys, the attorney general or even the legislature, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ELECTORS. Any attempt to do so is illegal - California Constitution Article 2 Section 10:
     
    (c) The Legislature. . .may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective ONLY WHEN APPROVED BY THE ELECTORS unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval. [emphasis added]
    WHEREAS: Attorney General Lungren, acting in his official capacity, issued a statement to all California voters, in the 1996 California Ballot Guide, Official Title and Summary for Proposition 215, that Prop. 215:
      "EXEMPTS: patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician FROM CRIMINAL LAWS which otherwise prohibit POSSESSION OR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA." [emphasis added] WHEREAS: throughout California, lawfully documented patients and their care givers, who read and believed the Official Title and Summary for Prop. 215 have been arrested, in record numbers, as a result of being misled by Lungren's official statements.

    WHEREAS:the Constitution of the State of California, Amendment III, Section 3.5 requires elected officials to uphold The Compassionate Use Act as follows:
     

    "An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

    (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

    (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

    (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations."

    WHEREAS: No challenge has been filed seeking to invalidate the law on the basis of a conflict with federal laws or regulations, or for any other reason.

    WHEREAS: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that patients who are seriously ill, may be legally entitled under Federal law to use, possess and distribute medical marijuana:

    "In short, OCBC (The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative) presented evidence that there is a class of people with serious medical conditions for whom the use of cannabis is necessary in order to treat or alleviate those conditions or their symptoms; who will suffer serious harm if they are denied cannabis; and for whom there is no legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment of their medical conditions because they have tried other alternatives and have found that they are ineffective, or that they result in intolerable side effects." WHEREAS: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, through malfeasance of office and conspiracy, and through the power of their offices, initiated official policies, which had the effect of directing and/or instructing their employees to violate the constitutional rights of the Kubbys and others, their civil rights, under Title 42, United States Code, their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code).

    WHEREAS: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, SEC. 202. DISCRIMINATION. 42 USC 12132 states, in pertinent part:

    "Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." WHEREAS: The Unruh Civil Rights Act states, in pertinent part: "No person may be denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to, discrimination under any program or activity either funded directly or assisted financially by the state. (Cal. Gov. Code § 11135.) Individuals with disabilities shall have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics and physician's offices, public facilities and other public places. As of January 1, 1997, a violation of the ADA will also be a violation of the Unruh Act." WHEREAS: Disabled persons are protected under the anti-hate crime statutes, which provide for sentence enhancements for persons willfully threatening persons in the exercise of state or federal constitutional or statutory rights or damaging their property, or the property of a public or private institution because of their disability or perceived disability or association with persons with disabilities. (See Cal. Pen. Code, §§ 422.6, 422.7 and 422.75.)

    WHEREAS: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department conspired to block the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act by refusing to significantly modify their prior official policies and ordering other law enforcement agencies to do the same, in compliance with the provisions of § 11362.5.

    WHEREAS: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department conspired after the passage of Compassionate Use Act to block the implementation of § 11362.5 by forcing sick, disabled and dying patients to defend themselves under an affirmative defense, rather than allowing § 11362.5 to serve as a bar to prosecution, or by challenging § 11362.5 directly in state appellate court.

    WHEREAS: Lungren, immediately after the passage of the "Compassionate Use Act," § 11362.5, issued false and misleading guidelines, intended to thwart the will of the voters, such as Information Bulletin No. 97-BNE-01 through the California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, which was issued to all chiefs of police, sheriffs and district attorneys [see attachment 7]

    WHEREAS: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, deliberately and willfully obstructed the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act, so as to disable § 11362.5 and punish those who attempted exercise their rights, rather than challenging the § 11362.5 directly in appellate court.

    WHEREAS: Bulletin 97-BNE-01 takes away the power of our electorate, acting under proper legislative authority by plebiscite and guts the Compassionate Use Act by allowing discretionary disregard by individual prosecutors, sheriffs and police chiefs and their interpretations of each individual case while ignoring the State Health and Safety Code and the State Constitution.

    WHEREAS: There exists extensive misinformation and unlawful instructions in Information Bulletin 97-BNE-01 (see appendix 7), such as the following:

    --"Patients must be seriously ill. Minor injuries, colds, common flu, most skin cancer, stress, etc., are not covered." [FALSE - Physicians are allowed to recommend medical marijuana for ANY condition which they feel marijuana could be helpful.]

    --"The patient must have had an examination by a physician." [FALSE - There is no such requirement in the Compassionate Use Act.]

    --"The patient must not be engaged in behavior that endangers others such as driving a vehicle, working with dangerous equipment, or being under the influence in public." [FALSE - There is no such requirement in the Compassionate Use Act, only the statement that, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others."]

    --"One marijuana plant produces approximately one pound of bulk marijuana. One pound will make approximately 1,000 cigarettes, "Therefore, one can argue that more than two plants would be cultivation or more than necessary for personal medical use." [FALSE - There are NO limits to how many plants a patient may grow for personal medical use. Federal IND medical marijuana patients receive 3,650 cigarettes per year, which requires approximately 144 plants indoors or 60 plants outdoors to produce, according to Dr. Tod Mikuriya, former head of all unclassified marijuana research for the U.S. government.]

    --". . . numerous studies confirm that smoking marijuana is a danger to youth. Therefore, it will be difficult in most cases for a doctor acting in good faith to recommend that a youth smoke marijuana. Officers should continue to handle youth by utilizing Section 601 or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Failure to act on the part of the officer could place both the officer and his/her department in jeopardy of liability." [FALSE - There are no such peer-reviewed studies to support this assertion nor is there an age limitation in § 11362.5]

    --"The primary caregiver must have prior and consistent responsibility for the patient's housing, health, or safety. Since the act uses the words 'primary' and 'consistent,' it assumes that the patient is unable to be responsible for or has not been responsible for his/her own housing, health, or safety and that no other person, institution, or government agency is the primary provider for these needs." [FALSE - § 11362.5 uses the word "OR" not "AND" when describing caregiver as someone who has "consistent responsibility for the patient's housing, health, OR safety. Thus there is NO requirement that caregivers be responsible for anything other than growing the medicine for their patient.]

    --"If, considering the guidelines and questions set out in section II, the officer still thinks, based on the amount, packaging, circumstances, and the answers to the questions, that he/she has probable cause to believe that the individual has cultivated, possessed, or used marijuana for other than medical purposes, the officer may arrest and book the suspect (or, if appropriate, cite and confiscate)." [FALSE. § 11362.5 specifically says that the purpose of the Compassionate Use Act is, "To ensure that patients and their primary care givers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction." Here Lungren is telling police to arrest sick people if they don't appear to be sick or using their medication properly, regardless of the law.]

    WHEREAS: The DEA's own Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young,  has ruled that: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.  It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record." [emphasis added]

    WHEREAS: The Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution proclaims: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE." [emphasis added]

    WHEREAS: The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution proclaims: "The POWERS not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the STATES respectively, or to the PEOPLE."   [emphasis added]
     
     
    WHEREAS: The Attorney General of California, Bill Lockyer has publicly refused to enforce the Compassionate Use Act uniformly and protect patients when their rights are violated as provided by Article V, Section 13, of the Constitution of California, which states:
      "Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney." [emphasis added]

     


    AND WHEREAS: The following oath has by every elected state official:
     

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, withoutany mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter."

     
    WHEREFOR: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, based upon prima facie evidence and the written policies promulgated under their hand, while in office, are guilty of conspiracy to deprive Kubby and other seriously ill Californians of the 3-year-old established rights as created by the voters of California under the Compassionate Use Act.

    WHEREFOR: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, through the power of their offices, conspired to block the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act by arresting and prosecuting patients, rather than enforcing § 11362.5, as is their oath.

    WHEREFOR: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, through the power of their offices, instituted, implemented and promulgated official policies, under their hand, to deny the Kubbys and others their constitutional rights, civil rights and medical rights.

    WHEREFOR: Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren, Gates, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, through the power of their offices, acted without lawful authority and under color of law.


     
     

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND REDRESS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set for in the above complaint, Kubby prays for relief and redress as follows:
     
     
    --Adopt as a statement of official California law enforcement policy, the official 1996 Ballot Guide Analysis of Proposition 215 by the Legislative Analyst:
     
    "This measure amends state law to allow persons to grow or possess marijuana for medical use when recommended by a physician. The measure provides for the use of marijuana when a physician has determined that the person's health would benefit from its use in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or 'any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.' The physician's recommendation may be oral or written. No prescriptions or other record-keeping is required by the measure."
    "The measure also allows caregivers to grow and possess marijuana for a person for whom the marijuana is recommended. The measure states that no physician shall be punished for having recommended marijuana for medical purposes."


    [Source: http://www.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215analysis.htm]

    --Adopt as a statement of official California law enforcement policy, the Official Title and Summary for Proposition 215, issued by former Attorney General Lungren, acting in his official capacity, which stated to all California voters, in the 1996 California Ballot Guide, that the initiative, once passed:
     

    "EXEMPTS: patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician FROM CRIMINAL LAWS which otherwise prohibit POSSESSION OR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA." [emphasis added]
    -- Seek an injunction, against arresting any patient or caregiver who is in substantial compliance with the Oakland Guidelines [see attachment 8]

    --Allow patients to form cooperative "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" that are empowered to pay their members to grow medical marijuana and allow these coops to sell their medicine to other patients. Patients or caregivers caught selling to anyone other than these coops would forfeit their protection from prosecution and would therefore be highly motivated to keep all medical marijuana within this closed white market for patients.

    --Instruct the California Health Department to begin issuing photo IDs which provide protection from arrest, without violating patients' right to privacy, similar to the outstanding I.D. ordinance that was just past by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. [see attachment 13]

    -- Order the district attorney and sheriff to enforce the law, § 11362.5, as written so as to provide a safe and effective bar to prosecution or sanctions as provided by law.

    -- Instruct all California State employees that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, because it was passed directly by the People, represents a direct mandate to ensure that qualified patients and caregivers have the protection, safety and peace of mind essential to their health, well being and survival.

    -- Take appropriate action so that every bona fide medical marijuana patient who has been victimized by violations of this law shall have the right to redress and compensation, including standing to file suit for pain, suffering, and the disruption or destruction of their beings, home, family, reputation and/or livelihood resulting from the violation of this law.

    -- Take appropriate action that the State of California be held accountable and financially responsible for any and all medical, educational or psychiatric treatment as deemed necessary by the parents and/or the child's primary physician due to trauma suffered by the child/children who have been present at the time of indiscriminate police 'raids' and subjected to the violence and intrusion these raids encompass, - or have suffered the loss of parental nurturing and companionship as a result of their parent's illegal arrest and/or jailing. To further insure other family members, house mates or caretakers equal protection regardless of age, if deemed necessary.

    -- Investigate and file complaint, if needed, with the Grand Jury for criminal charges against Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren and Gates.

    --Provide standing to sue Fenocchio, Bonner, Lungren and Gates.

    --Investigate the malicious prosecution of medical marijuana patients statewide.


     
     
     

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    V. ATTACHMENT -1- POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     

    Lungren has been a long time resident in Placer county and knows Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner and District Attorney Bradford R. Fenocchio quite well. Lungren was politically very influential in the GOP-dominated administration of Placer County and Kubby was warned in advance that his prosecution would be a political "payback" for helping to unseat attorney general Lungren and the rest of the Sacramento GOP administration in the November 1998 elections.

    Kubby has reason to believe that Lungren communicated his displeasure over Kubby's campaign for governor and his vocal criticism of Lungren's policies to Bonner and Fenocchio, who then conspired to use an "anonymous letter" to have Kubby arrested and discredited. That letter later proved to be entirely false and there is no evidence in the discovery Kubby has received that any effort was made by the Placer Sheriffs Department to determine who wrote the letter or why.

    The anonymous letter used to raid Kubby was considered, "weak and nonspecific." by the El Dorado Sheriff's deputy who received the mysterious letter and then mailed it on to Placer Sheriff's department. Nevertheless, Placer County Sheriff's Deputy Ed York rushed to open a case against Kubby within 24 hours of receiving the letter, starting his police report by stating that Kubby openly advocated medical marijuana use and enclosing hundreds of statements Kubby made while campaigning for governor of California.

    Kubby believes Lungren knew that Kubby was a key leader in the Prop. 215 campaign and was determined to get revenge. Brian Lungren, brother and campaign advisor to the former Attorney General, lived down the street from Kubby in Squaw Valley where they sometimes would meet and talk on the trail or at the post office. Once Prop. 215 passed, Brian Lungren refused to speak to Kubby and was visibly angry. In addition, Kubby was told by Dennis Peron and others that when Lungren raided the SF Cannabis Club, he asked everyone there: "What do you know about Steve Kubby?"

    As additional evidence that Kubby was a raided because of his role in the 215 campaign, one of the documents seized by the Task Force when it raided the Kubbys was a letter from 215 co-author, Dennis Peron, confirming Kubby's key role in passing the new law:

    "Now that victory is ours, I wanted to take this moment to thank you. Not many know the pivotal roll you played. Indeed, without your help we would not be basking in our glory. .When history is written there will be a footnote that there was once a man named Steve Kubby who survived cancer, who used his personal pain to create a more compassionate society."

    [source: http://www.kubby.com/family/DennisPeronLetter.html]

    A few days after the investigation against the Kubbys opened, Kubby received a tip that he was a political target of narcotics agents who wanted revenge against him. Kubby was advised to watch for a green Jeep with blackened windows. Several days later, the Kubbys spotted the infamous green Jeep watching them from a point just up the street. Outraged that they had been placed under surveillance, the Kubbys began documenting every aspect of their garden, showing how they were carefully complying with the law. Kubby even sent messages in the trash for the police to read when they were examining his garbage. These messages, entitled "ATTENTION LAW ENFORCEMENT," gave exact details about Kubby's terminal illness and how he could die if deprived of medical marijuana. Kubby also stated in the letter that at no time did he intend to possess more than a six month supply of 3.5 pounds.

    After his arrest, Peter King, a sydicated columnist who had interviewed Kubby during the gubernatorial campaign wrote a story called, "MEDICAL-MARIJUANA FIGHT IS ABOUT POWER, NOT MEDICINE," which appeared in dozens of newspapers statewide. In that story, Mr. King recounts how Kubby had warned him that he was under surveillance:

    "Now, with the interview winding down, the otherwise free-wheeling politician asked to go off the record. Kubby confided that he was concerned about drug-police payback. He had received a tip: A stakeout of his Lake Tahoe residence was under way."

    "Specifically, he had been warned to watch out for a green Jeep Cherokee with tinted windows."

    Once the Kubbys found out they were under surveillance, they made a conscious decision to fight for their rights, the rights of all medical marijuana patients and to fight to protect the law they worked so hard to pass.

    Kubby believes the agents loyal to Lungren, Bonner and Fenocchio, at the California Department of Justice, may have deliberately tampered with data on his computers. Kubby made that charge publicly last summer and challenged District Attorney Fenocchio to allow an independent examination of his computer hard drives to determine if tampering had taken place. District Attorney Fenocchio refused.

    All this was reported on July 14 1999, in the Auburn Journal:

    "Woods and Joseph Farina, who represents Michele Kubby, said repeated requests for computer disks and computer hard drives went unanswered by the Sacramento High Crimes Task Force through directives issued from the DA's office."

    "According to Farina, the records were first requested at the March 2 preliminary hearing in Tahoe City. A request by Michele Kubby on April 19 so that she could file bankruptcy also went unanswered."

    "Farina said he received the first of two disks during the first week of June, and the second last Tuesday. "

    "'I have a right to get this information that was requested five months ago in a timely manner,' Farina said. 'I should also have the computer because the software on the disks is specific to the computer. I don't know if the information can be accessed with just the disks.'"

    "In a telephone interview Tuesday, Steven Kubby - the Libertarian candidate for governor and medical marijuana advocate - said he believed the District Attorney's Office did not release the disks earlier because they purposefully withheld evidence."

    "'We have very good reason to believe the prosecutors have doctored, tampered with and falsified evidence, and that is why they refuse to turn over the hard drive,' Kubby said."

    Tyrell Software Corporation examined the Kubby CD-ROMs released to us last July by the Sacramento High Crimes Taskforce and said: "Our findings show that the CD-ROMs we examined were not created properly to copy Macintosh files onto the CD-ROMs. The copies were made for a DOS platform instead of Macintosh. This mistake has made the filenames unreadable, has corrupted the data, and in the worst case data is simply missing which did not get copied to the CD-ROM. It also appears as if entire sections of the hard drive were not backed up onto the CD-ROMs; indicated by a lack of the Macintosh System Folder where important files are kept."

    "It is our expert opinion that these CD-ROMs could not even be called copies of the Kubby's original hard drives. No further inspection could be performed due to the state of these CD-ROMs."

    As of January 20, 2000, Kubby still has not received any data from his computers. It is Kubby's opinion that these events show a deliberate pattern of obstruction of justice by these officials and agents.

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -2- JOURNALISTIC PERSPECTIVE:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     

    Another person who has suffered as a result of the Kubby's illegal arrest is journalist Pete Brady, who interviewed Kubby and photographed one of his plants, while they were being watched through the window by Placer County Investigator Michael Lyke. Investigator Lyke claimed that a check of DEA crime records identified Brady, as a Jamaican, DEA-certified drug smuggler, according to the evidence submitted to obtain the search warrant used against Kubby. Pete Brady, who had never been to Jamaica and has never been charged with smuggling, wrote the DEA under the Freedom of Information Act. The DEA told Brady there were no records on him at all.

    Here is journalist Pete Brady's account, as published in the May 1999 edition of Cannabis Culture, a popular, international magazine:

    "When I heard the Kubbys had been arrested, I was concerned for them, and immediately began seeking details necessary to update the article I'd already filed on them for this magazine."

    "I never expected Kubby's arrest to impact me. I've written about eco-tresspassers who break laws by preventing loggers from cutting 1000-year-old redwood trees, and lots of other controversial people. I'm a journalist, I figured, why worry that somebody's legal problems would become my own?"

    "In retrospect, I should have been more paranoid. I've endured three years on federal and state probation arising from a previous medical marijuana conviction, which means police can walk into my home anytime to do a "probation search.''

    "Because I break no laws, am a good neighbor and positive member of the community, I feared no evil. But on January 21, two days after the Kubbys were raided and the last day of my federal probation, a gang of armed men stormed my house claiming they were there to do a 'routine probation search.' As I later determined, the search had little to do with my probation. I had never even met my probation officer and had never been probation searched before."

    "The men identified themselves as members of the Butte County Sheriff's marijuana eradication unit; they ransacked my home and interrogated me for several hours. An authentic probation search looks for controlled substances and guns and then is over, but these cops kept asking me about people I associated with, my bank accounts, my magazine writing. They hacked my computer."

    "When they found a small quantity of medical marijuana in my freezer; I informed them I was protected by my doctor's recommendation under 215. Officers reacted with derision, saying they didn't believe in medical marijuana and alleging that my severe and documented medical conditions - arising from being injured when I was a high school teacher several years ago - weren't severe enough for them."

    "Later, they brought me out on my patio and asked about the more than 40 different house plants there. Pointing to tiny ornamental cacti, they said they were charging me with felony possession of peyote, possession of marijuana, probation violation. Unless I could provide information on a "big bad political person that you have been hanging out with in the last few weeks," I would be going to prison for a "long, long time."

    "A journalist must protect the integrity of his sources. Even though I don't want to go to prison, informing isn't something I would consider. I was taken to jail. After spending all the money in my bank account posting bail, I returned home to find items and cash missing from my house, my computer broken, my neighbors distraught."

    "NTTF's Investigator Lyke called me one morning, introducing himself as the man who'd ordered me arrested. I told him that what he saw me doing at the Kubby's was a bona fide journalistic activity. He said he'd like to read the article when it came out. "

    "At some point in our surreal conversation, I asked Lyke if he enjoyed using his career to inflict pain on cancer patients. I asked him if he felt proud, when he went home at night, knowing he'd ordered to be arrested a non-violent, introspective, partially-disabled writer."

    "Lyke didn't respond to my challenges in an overtly authoritarian manner. In fact, we spent 30 minutes engaging in an actual dialogue about hemp, drug war ethics, and medical marijuana."

    "For example, Lyke was curious about hemp seed oil found in Kubby's refrigerator. I told him hemp seed oil was a totally legal product that was also the most healthful and nutritionally complete seed oil available. Kubby makes a delicious concoction using garlic, hemp oil, tofu, lemon juice and spices. His daughter Brooke loved it, I told Lyke, and love is not yet a crime."

    "The Kubbys appear confident, but I'm not sure how I feel. Kubby has publicly described me as a "totally innocent bystander" who would not have been arrested if I hadn't visited his house when he was under surveillance. Yet as I write this, I have not been able to afford a competent private lawyer who can keep me from going to prison."

    "They'll love you in prison," a jailer told me. "You'll get raped, get AIDS and die. That's what you get for being a druggie."

    "I would be more optimistic if as a journalist I hadn't written about so many people sent to prison for legally possessing medical marijuana. Strange paradoxes occur where I live: a woman who kills her newborn child gets a year in jail while marijuana growers routinely get sentenced to two or more years. I now understand what Michele Kubby meant when she said that being arrested is like 'being robbed and raped.' When the drug warriors confiscated my medicine, they stole my faith in America."

    "Now, the prosecutor wants to send me to prison, to steal the sunshine from my eyes, to rob me of the feel of my partner's arm on a spring day. She wants to cage me, give me such a dire criminal record that I can never get employment, cause as much anguish as possible. Why?."

    "I examine my conscience and my actions honestly and objectively trying to see the evil man that the prosecutor must believe that I am in order for her to be so zealous in her prosecution. I am not perfect - nobody is - but I cannot see myself as an evil man. Like the Jamaican smuggler in the DEA's faulty file, he does not exist. The prosecutor instead is trying to send another harmless, innocent person to prison. I am scared, heartbroken and angry, but I have no choice but to soldier on."

    Pete Brady, having spent all his money to make bail, was forced to act as his own attorney in defending himself from serious charges. Fortunately, once Mr. Brady explained his story to the judge and showed her several major articles he had written about Kubby's arrest, all charges were dropped.

    [TOP]



     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -3- MEDICAL STATEMENT OF PHYSICIAN
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     

    Dr. Vincent DeQuattro, a world authority on Kubby's disease, has submitted a letter to Superior Court declaring that marijuana not only "controlled the symptoms of the pheochromocytoma, but in my view, has arrested its growth."

    Dr. DeQuattro's letter to the Superior Court is quite specific about how he believes medical marijuana is protecting Kubby from the deadly effects of his disease:

    "Further, your Honor, please consider the consequences of Steve's condition not being controlled. His tumor is manufacturing large quantities of norepinephrine (noradrenaline), and possibly epinephrine (adrenaline). Either compound in minute quantities could kill him instantly by causing sudden cardiac death due to arrhythmia, sudden cardiac death due to acute myocardial infarction, or sudden death due to cerebral hemorrhage or cerebral vascular occlusion."

    "Faith healers would term Steve's existence these past 10 -15 years as nothing short of a miracle. In my view, this miracle, in part, is related to the therapy with marijuana. Marijuana contains many substances with can neutralize the effects of epinephrine and norepinephrine on the heart and vascular tissue."

    That letter is enclosed as well as two scientific studies which show that the cannabinoids in medical marijuana have been shown to arrest the growth of Kubby's type of cancer and inhibit the production of norepinephrine, the deadly form of adrenaline that is the usual cause of death for patients with his disease.
     
     

    [TOP]



     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -4- DR. DeQUATTRO LETTER TO SUPERI0R COURT
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Vincent DeQuattro
    M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A. C.P
    Professor of Medicine
    USC Medical Center
    Director Hypertension
    Chief Hypertension
    Diagnostic Laboratory
    Division of Cardiology

    February 4, 1999

    Judge of Superior Court
    Department 14
    P.O. Box 5669
    Tahoe City, CA 96146
     

    RE: STEVE KUBBY - MARIJUANA THERAPY FOR MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF MALIGNANT PHEOCHROMOCYTOMA

    Dear Judge:

    I am writing this letter in behalf of my patient, Steve Kubby, who was diagnosed with malignant pheochromocytoma over 15 years ago. At that time, I was taking care of him with maximum medical therapy including the drugs dibenzline and alphamethyltyrosine. His tumor had spread to his liver at that time. I referred him to Ann Arbor, where Dr. James Sisson treated him with radiotherapeutic doses of the radionuclide MIBG. Then, as now, that was experimental therapy. I lost Steve to follow up over the past 10-12 years.

    I first noted his survival when I received my voter pamphlet in November 1998. I contacted him to determine how it was that he had survived all these years. He told me that he was treating himself with the advice of his physicians in Northern California with marijuana, and has been taking no other medical therapy for several years. I also contacted Dr. Sisson at Ann Arbor - he told me that every patient other than Steve, with Steve's condition, had died during this interval of time. Steve was the only survivor. I am convinced by Steve's blood pressure response during his recent incarceration when he was without marijuana therapy, that he still harbors a malignant pheochromocytoma. In some amazing fashion, this medication has not only controlled the symptoms of the pheochromocytoma, but in my view, has arrested growth.

    I strongly endorse that you consider supplying Steve with sufficient supplies of his specific marijuana product in order to control his life threatening disease. Further, over the next few weeks, I propose to evaluate in a scientific and conventional medically approved manner, Steve's condition; to evaluate his response to marijuana therapy, and to evaluate his future need for treatment.

    I have spent most of my adult life in the study and treatment of pheochromocytoma. Fortunately, it occurs only about once in 1 million people. Presently in Los Angeles, we have 7-10 patients who have pheochromocytoma. Of the five under my care presently, three have malignant pheochromocytoma. Each one is at the end of their line after having had maximum conventional therapy. If in fact marijuana therapy has improved and extended Steve's life, it may also be a terrific boon to our present patient's and their families.

    Further, your Honor, please consider the consequences of Steve's condition not being controlled. His tumor is manufacturing large quantities of norepinephrine (noradrenaline), and possibly epinephrine (adrenaline). Either compound in minute quantities could kill him instantly by causing sudden cardiac death due to arrhythmia, sudden cardiac death due to acute myocardial infarction, or sudden death due to cerebral hemorrhage or cerebral vascular occlusion.

    Faith healers would term Steve's existence these past 10 -15 years as nothing short of a miracle. In my view, this miracle, in part, is related to the therapy with marijuana. Marijuana contains many substances with can neutralize the effects of epinephrine and norepinephrine on the heart and vascular tissue. Several are potent antioxidants like vitamins C and vitamin E. I have offered Steve extensive evaluation at our Medical Center to determine in a scientific manner the extent of his ailment and the mechanisms by which his therapy has held his disease at bay for all these many years. This is not only for Steve's benefit, but to seek the potential for benefit to many patients around the world.

    Thank you for your kind consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you.

    Best personal wishes in your deliberation.

    Sincerely yours,

    s/Vincent DeQuattro, M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.P.

    Professor of Medicine

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -5- CANNABINOID INHIBITION OF NORADRENALINE
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     

    Br J Pharmacol 1999 Jan;126(2):457-66

    Effect of the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN55212-2 on sympathetic cardiovascular regulation.

    Niederhoffer N, Szabo B

    Pharmakologisches Institut der Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat, Freiburg i. Br., Germany.

    1. The aim of the present study was to analyse the cardiovascular actions of the synthetic CB1/CB2 cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN55212-2, and specifically to determine its sites of action on sympathetic cardiovascular regulation.

    2. Pithed rabbits in which the sympathetic outflow was continuously stimulated electrically or which received a pressor infusion of noradrenaline were used to study peripheral prejunctional and direct vascular effects, respectively. For studying effects on brain stem cardiovascular regulatory centres, drugs were administered into the cisterna cerebellomedullaris in conscious rabbits. Overall cardiovascular effects of the cannabinoid were studied in conscious rabbits with intravenous drug administration.

    3. In pithed rabbits in which the sympathetic outflow was continuously electrically stimulated, intravenous injection of WIN55212-2 (5, 50 and 500 microg kg(-1)) markedly reduced blood pressure, the spillover of noradrenaline into plasma and the plasma noradrenaline concentration, and these effects were antagonized by the CB1 cannabinoid receptor-selective antagonist SR141716A. The hypotensive and the sympathoinhibitory effect of WIN55212-2 was shared by CP55940, another mixed CB1/CB2 cannabinoid receptor agonist, but not by WIN55212-3, the enantiomer of WIN55212-2, which lacks affinity for cannabinoid binding sites. WIN55212-2 had no effect on vascular tone established by infusion of noradrenaline in pithed rabbits.

    4. Intracisternal application of WIN55212-2 (0.1, 1 and 10 microg kg(-1)) in conscious rabbits increased blood pressure and the plasma noradrenaline concentration and elicited bradycardia; this latter effect was antagonized by atropine.

    5. In conscious animals, intravenous injection of WIN55212-2 (5 and 50 microg kg(-1)) caused bradycardia, slight hypotension, no change in the plasma noradrenaline concentration, and an increase in renal sympathetic nerve firing. The highest dose of WIN55212-2 (500 microg kg(-1)) elicited hypotension and tachycardia, and sympathetic nerve activity and the plasma noradrenaline concentration declined.

    6. The results obtained in pithed rabbits indicate that activation of CB1 cannabinoid receptors leads to marked peripheral prejunctional inhibition of noradrenaline release from postganglionic sympathetic axons. Intracisternal application of WIN55212-2 uncovered two effects on brain stem cardiovascular centres: sympathoexcitation and activation of cardiac vagal fibres. The highest dose of systemically administered WIN55212-2 produced central sympathoinhibition; the primary site of this action is not known.
     
     

    [TOP]



     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -6- CANNABINOIDS FOUND TO SUPPRESS PHEOS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     

    The DeQuattro Study includes a University of Toronto study which shows cannabinoids suppress pheochromocytoma cells:

    Cell Bio Int 1996 Feb:20(2):147-57 Study Cannabinoid enantiomer action on the cytoarchitecture. Wilson RG Jr, Tahir SK, Mechoulam R, Zimmerman S, Zimmerman AM, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Canada, "...in general, cell viability and cell proliferation were suppressed to a much greater extent with HU-210 on...PC-12 cells."

    [HU-210 is a synthetic cannabinoid and PC-12 are actual pheochrochytoma cells, just like those in Steve Kubby.]
     
     

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -7- BULLETIN 97-BNE-01 'PEACE OFFICERS GUIDE'
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     

    Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General
    California Department of Justice
    DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
    Gregory G. Cowan, Director INFORMATION BULLETIN

    Subject: Peace Officer Guide Compassionate Use Act of 1996 No. 97-BNE-01

    Date: 2/24/97

    For further information contact
    Tom Gorman (916) 227-4044
    John Gondnier (916) 324-5169

    To: All Chiefs of Police, Sheriff and District Attorneys

    PEACE OFFICER GUIDE
    COMPASSIONATE USE ACT of 1996
    Section 11362.5 Health and Safety Code
    Prepared by the California Attorney General's Office

    California state and local law enforcement authorities should continue to enforce all laws against marijuana in the same manner as prior to the passage of Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996), subject to the following guidelines:

    I. It is not incumbent on a police officer to inquire whether the individual cultivating, possessing, or using marijuana is doing so for medicinal purposes. It is the responsibility of an individual to claim that he/she has an affirmative defense under Proposition 215 as either a "patient" or "caregiver." If an officer does choose to inquire, he/she should use the questions set out under II(B) or II(D). Some prosecutors may favor the approach that an officer always make these inquiries in situations where the circumstances suggest the defense might be used. The officer should check to determine the local prosecutor's policy.

    Should the suspect make the claim that he/she has an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions as a patient or caregiver, the officer should detain the person for the purpose of making those inquires necessary to determine whether there is a legitimate affirmative defense. If the individual refuses to provide information, the officer should note that refusal and should proceed with the arrest (or, if the quantity is less than 28.5 grams, citation and confiscation). If the individual agrees to provide information, some suggested questions to be asked are discussed in subparts B and D. In cases where an individual has been taken into custody and the officer wishes to interrogate, Miranda warnings should be given to ensure that any statements produced by interrogation can be used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. DLE 126 (Rev 10/93)

    A. Patient Qualifications

    1. Patients must be California residents. Out-of-state residents, temporary visitors or foreign nationals without legal residence in the United States are not covered by this Act. (Section 11362.5 H&S reads, "Seriously ill Californians" (emphasis added).]

    2. Patients must be seriously ill. Minor injuries, colds, common flu, most skin cancer, stress, etc., are not covered. [Section 11362.5 reads "Seriously ill" (emphasis added). The diseases highlighted are cancer, ariortxia1 AIDS, chronic pain, spaticity, glaucoma, utiwitis, and migraines. The act does contain the catchall phrase "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."]

    3. The patient must have had an examination by a physician, and the physician must have determined that the specific patient's health would benefit from marijuana as a treatment for the specific illness. (Section 11362.5 H&S reads, ". . .. where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana . . . " (emphasis added).]

    4. The patient must not be engaged in behavior that endangers others such as driving a vehicle, working with dangerous equipment, or being under the influence in public. (Section 11362.5 reads, "Nothing in this act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others ... "(emphasis added).] 5. The patient cannot be involved in any diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes such as furnishing to a friend or using strictly for recreational or commercial purposes. [Section 11362.5 H&S reads, "Nothing in this act shall be construed... to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes." (emphasis added).]

    6. Patients cannot cultivate or possess amounts greater than necessary for their personal medical needs. This precludes commercial and most cooperative style operations. Questioning by an officer should help determine whether the amount is consistent with what was recommended by the doctor for what length of time and for what illness. By way of example, if the patient is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for thirty days and the basis for the recommendation is to combat nausea caused by the therapy, then a supply greater than thirty days is more than necessary for medicinal use.

    NOTE: One marijuana plant produces approximately one pound of bulk marijuana. One pound will make approximately 1,000 cigarettes.

    Therefore, one can argue that more than two plants would be cultivation or more than necessary for personal medical use.[1]

    Health & Safety Code Section 11357 provides that any amount less than 28.5 grams should be deemed to be for personal use. Generally, one gram will make two marijuana cigarettes. The 28.5 gram standard, then, translates into approximately sixty marijuana cigarettes; quantities over this amount may be more than necessary for personal medical purposes.

    7. Although there are no age limitations in H&S Section 11362.5, numerous studies confirm that smoking marijuana is a danger to youth. Therefore, it will be difficult in most cases for a doctor acting in good faith to recommend that a youth Smoke marijuana. Officers should continue to handle youth by utilizing Section 601 or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Failure to act on the part of the officer could place both the officer and his/her department in jeopardy of liability.

    8. Patients cannot assert the affirmative defense based on a general recommendation of a physician through such means as a written article, speech, radio show, television appearance, etc. (Section 11362.5 states, "a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit" (emphasis added).]

    B. Patient Questions

    1. What is the nature of your serious illness? How long ago was it diagnosed and by whom?

    2. Do you use marijuana to provide relief from this illness? Have you tried other drugs? If so, what drugs? Have you tried Marinol?

    3. How many marijuana cigarettes do you smoke per day because of your condition?

    4. Do you have written recommendation from a licensed California physician in your possession? May I see it? Do I have your permission to contact the physician to verify this recommendation?

    ---- [1] Obviously, the number of plants will depend on the circumstances. Typically, , a controlled, indoor grow will result in fewer plants lost as well as better, more uniform quality plants. The other extreme would be an infrequently tended outdoor grow.

    5. Have you received an oral recommendation from a physician? Who? When did you obtain permission and what exactly did the doctor say? What is his/her address and telephone number? Do I have your permission to contact him/her to verify this recommendation?

    6. Did the physician conduct an examination and make a determination that marijuana would be beneficial?

    7. How long have you been seeing the doctor? Has he/she done any follow-up examination to monitor your condition? How often are you examined by the physician?

    8. Are you willing to sign an authorization allowing an examination of your medical records? Will you give permission to examine your medical records?

    C. Caregiver Qualifications

    1. The primary caregiver must be an individual specifically designated by the patient. [Section 11362.5 H&S reads ". . primary caregiver means the individual designates by the person exempt under this act.."(emphasis added).]

    2. The primary caregiver's role must have been established prior to the designation to be valid. [Section 11362.5 H&S reads, "... primary caregiver . . . who has consistently assumed responsibility..." (emphasis added).]

    3. The primary caregiver must have prior and consistent responsibility for the patient's housing, health, or safety. Since the act uses the words "primary" and "consistent," it assumes that the patient is unable to be responsible for or has not been responsible for his/her own housing, health, or safety and that no other person, institution, or government agency is the primary provider for these needs.

    4. The primary caregiver is the only individual who can qualify for the specific patient. Secondary or general caregivers may not assert the affirmative defense. (Section 11362.5 is very specific in using the term " primary".]

    5. The primary caregiver must have personal knowledge of the doctor's recommendation. [Section 11362.5 reads, "... patient and their primary caregiver who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician . . . " The law continues. " . . . a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses: or cultivates marijuana for personal medical purposes of the patient upon a written or oral recommendation or approval of physician (emphasis added.)

    6. The primary caregiver cannot engage in any conduct that endangers others. The primary caregiver cannot use marijuana unless he/she is also a patient.

    7 The primary caregiver cannot be involved in diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.

    8. The primary caregiver cannot possess marijuana for sale or sell marijuana and can only assert an affirmative defense to charges of cultivation or possession for medical use of a specific patient.

    D. Caregiver Questions

    1. The name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the individual is a caregiver and how the so-called patient can be contacted. 2. what is the caregiver's relationship to the patient? How long has this relationship existed? What has been the frequency of contact between the caregiver and the patient?

    3. What specific conditions qualify the individual as a caregiver? When did the patient request that the caregiver act as caregiver?

    4. How long has the individual assumed the caregiver role?

    S. What is the patient's serious illness?

    6. What is the name of the doctor who made the recommendation? what is his/her address and telephone number? Does the caregiver have personal knowledge of the specific recommendation from the physician?

    7. How much marijuana does the patient use and under what conditions?

    8. Is the caregiver receiving any remuneration for the service? If so, how much?

    9. Who designated the individual as a caregiver, how was designation given, and is the specific physician aware of the individual's status as caregiver?

    10. Describe the conditions that exist with the patient that make him or her unable to assume primary responsibility for his/her own housing, health, or safety.

    III. Peace Officers‚ Response

    A. If, considering the guidelines and questions set out in section II, the officer still thinks, based on the amount, packaging, circumstances, and the answers to the questions, that he/she has probable cause to believe that the individual has cultivated, possessed, or used marijuana for other than medical purposes, the officer may arrest and book the suspect (or, if appropriate, cite and confiscate).

    B- If, considering the guidelines and answers to the questions as articulated in section II, the officer thinks, based on the amount, packaging, circumstances and answers to the questions. that the individual may have an affirmative defense to certain marijuana charges, be/she should:

    1. Complete the identification of the suspect and cease the detention.

    2. If an arrest was made, release the individual from custody under Section 849b of the Penal Code.

    3. The officer should seize a sample of the marijuana under either of the circumstances (1 or 2) above and hold it as potential evidence until notified of the result of the district attorney's review. The officer should photograph and/or weigh the quantity if he/she has the equipment available. [2]

    4. Complete a detailed report outlining the circumstances of the encounter (which report documents the quantity or estimate of quantity of marijuana) and submit it to the district attorney' S office to accept or reject as a charge.

    IV. Other Issues and Questions

    Question: Under Section 11362.5 of the Health and safety Code, are cannabis clubs or growers' coop: legal? ---- [2] It is the case that marijuana remains contraband under federal law. There is authority for the proposition that a California peace officer may enforce federal laws. However, D.E.A. has stated that it would in consider "adopting,' a seizure unless then was an arrest and a refusal by the local prosecutor to take the case. Before exercising the authority to enforce federal law, an officer should consult with the local prosecutor's office and D.E.A. as well as with his own departmental policy. There may be policy and liability issues connected with local peace officers enforcing, seizing and destroying marijuana under federal law.

    Answer: Generally not, because neither cannabis clubs nor most growers Co-ops can qualify as a primary, caregiver[3]. Although they may be supplying marijuana for medical purposes, they would not qualify as being primarily and consistently responsible for the housing, health or safety of the patient. Cannabis clubs and co-ops also are not "the individual" as specified under Section 11362.5(e). Also, Proposition 215 did not amend Health and Safety Code Section 11366.5 (making it a crime to maintain a place for selling, giving away or using marijuana) or Health and safety Code Section 11366.5 (Making it a crime to use a premises to store or distribute marijuana), either or both of which sections would apply to clubs.

    The intent of the Act is to provide a primary caregiver for those individuals who are incapable of providing for themselves because of the seriousness of their illness. The primary caregiver must also have specific knowledge of the physician recommendation. The simple word of a person that he/she is a patient who has a physician's recommendation is insufficient. When investigating a cannabis club or co-op, in addition to laws against possession, possession for sale and sale of marijuana officers should consider:

    1. Section 11364.5 of the Health and Safety Code (requirements for sale of drug paraphernalia).

    2. Section 11364.7 H&S (unlawfully providing drug Paraphernalia)

    3. Section 11366 H&S (maintaining a place for sale)

    Under certain circumstances, a true cooperative cultivation of a very small number of plants by properly qualified patients and/or caregivers might qualify for the affirmative defense.

    Question: Is concentrated marijuana or hashish included in the definition of marijuana under Section 11362.5?

    Answer: Yes, it would appear to be. This Act does not differentiate between marijuana and concentrated cannabis as is the case throughout the Health and Safety Code. Based on the definition of marijuana in Section 11018, hashish is included.

    --- [3] A superior court judge in a civil proceeding has ruled that, under certain carefully controlled circumstances, a club may be a primary Caregiver. This ruling is being challenged in the appellate court.. It is still the position of the authors that most clubs and/or growers' Co-ops cannot quality as primary caregivers. Call John Gordnier, (916) 324-5169, if you have questions about this case. 7

    Question: To what sections of the Health and Safety Code does the affirmative defense as outlined in Section 11362.5 specifically apply?

    Answer: The only two sections in the Health and Safety Code that are specifically affected by tile Compassionate Use Act are Sections 11357 (unauthorized possession of marijuana) and Section 11358 (unauthorized planting, cultivating, or processing). There is an assumption that, in order for the patient to obtain marijuana, transporting and furnishing as described in Section 11360 H&S may be affected in a very limited way. Neither a caregiver nor a patient may possess marijuana for sale, sell marijuana (11360 H&S), or employ or sell to minors (11361 H&S).

    Question: Are applicable drug paraphernalia laws affected by Section 11362.5 of the H&S code?

    Answer: No. Those drug paraphernalia laws which apply to marijuana, such as Section 11364.5, or 11364.7 related to displaying, sale or furnishing, are still applicable.

    Question: If an officer has information that the possession or cultivation of marijuana might be for medicinal use, should this be included in affidavits and search warrants?

    Answer: Yes. The magistrate should be provided all pertinent facts to help make a determination whether probable cause exists for issuance of a search warrant. An omission of material facts could be grounds for overturning the warrant.

    Question: Does Section 11362.5 affect searching a vehicle for marijuana?

    Answer: Generally not. As long as a peace officer has probable cause based on tile arrest or other circumstances, he or she may search a vehicle for marijuana.

    V. General Statement

    California officers should use common sense when applying the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and abide by the spirit of the voters narrow intention regarding proposition 215. officers should be familiar with both department policy and the policy of his/her district attorney's office as it applies to Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code. This new law should be dealt with professionally, with special care not to violate anyone's right. or develop bad-case law. Guidelines for dealing with physicians who recommend marijuana will be covered in a separate document.

    IF YOU BECOME AWARE OF UNUSUAL CASE CIRCUMSTANCES, COURT DECISIONS. OR ATTEMPTS BY CITIZENS TO MISUSE SECTION 11362.5 OF THE H&S CODE, PLEASE CONTACT AND REPORT THESE TO THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION AT (916)443-2017. FAX (916)443-0540. S0 THEY CAN BE SHARED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT STATEWIDE..

    [TOP]



     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -8- OAKLAND GUIDELINES
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     

    City Hall One City Hall Plaza
    Oakland, CA 94612
    Office of City Manager
    Robert C. Bobb City Manager
    510-238-33012 fax 510-238-2223

    June 23, 1998

    Public Safety Committee Oakland City Council Oakland, California

    Chairperson Miley and Members of the Committee:

    Subject: A Follow Up Report from the Medical Marijuana Working Group regarding the City's Low Law Enforcement Policy towards Medical Marijuana.

    The Medical Marijuana Working Group recommends that this committee adopt a policy, which allows for the possession of a three-month supply of medical marijuana for each patient who grows their marijuana indoors or possesses processed marijuana, or a year supply for patients who grow outdoor marijuana. Medical marijuana caregivers should be allowed to possess the same amount for each patient for whom they can establish legitimate caregiver status.

    The Police Department has agreed to implement a process, which does not seize processed marijuana or uproot/destroy plants when a credible claim to medicinal use or caregiver status is made.

    BACKGROUND

    On February 10, 1998, the Public Safety Committee received a Status Report on City's Implementation of Medical Marijuana Low Priority Policy prepared and presented by the Oakland Police Department. In the relevant part of the report it proposed:

    The Police Services Agency implements the low-priority policy as follows:

    1. The Police Services Agency does not target medical Marijuana-related activities. The Agency Investigates and becomes involved in marijuana-related activities (1) as a result of citizens complaints, (2) incident to law enforcement activities related to violation of laws unrelated to marijuana activities, or (3) due to public activity involving marijuana that provides probable cause for investigation.

    2. Persons who come into contact with law enforcement will not be cited or arrested and marijuana in their possession will not be seized if all of the following conditions are met:

    a. The person establishes medicinal use or primary care giver status to the satisfaction of the officer who makes the initial contact; A Command Officer shall be summoned to the scene prior to any enforcement action.

    b. The person possesses less than one once of marijuana in particle form or no more than two grown plants; and

    c. The person is not taken into custody for violation of laws unrelated to marijuana activities.

    3. An individual may be cited and/or arrested and marijuana in his/her possession will be seized, submitted to the Police Services Agency's criminalistics' division and returned to the possessor only pursuant to court order if:

    a. The person does not establish medicinal use or primary care giver status; or

    b. The person possesses more than two grown plants or an ounce or more of marijuana in particle form; or

    c. The person is taken into custody and marijuana is seized and turned into criminalistics' Division in accordance with standard police procedure.

    4. Consistent with the low-priority policy, the agency does not pursue law enforcement activities with respect to the Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative's operations unless citizen complaints or other reports dictate such action.

    5. Persons who do not establish personal medicinal use or primary caregiver status may be cited and arrested and marijuana in their possession will be seized.

    Several questions were raised by members of the Committee, and members of the Medical Marijuana Work Group expressed concern about adopting the one ounce and two plant standards suggested by the District Attorney and the Attorney General, respectively, for triggering law enforcement action. Those standards did not evidence consideration of any recommendation from the medical community concerning reasonable amounts necessary for legitimate medical use. The Medical Marijuana Working Group also objected to uprooting/destroying marijuana plants in cases in which the possessor claimed to be a patient or a caregiver but was unable to provide satisfactory proof at the time of encountering an officer. In addition they objected to a process which would force a legitimate patient or caregiver to obtain a court order to secure the return of their medicine.

    This Committee directed the Medical Marijuana working group to address the above concerns and return to the Committee with appropriate recommendations. Specifically, the Committee requested medical input concerning reasonable amounts necessary for legitimate medical use.

    DISCUSSION

    The Medical Marijuana Working Group met four times in preparation for this report. The Group reached easy consensus that a three-month supply was a reasonable amount for a patient to possess. The Group wrestled with the difficulty of defining what would be a reasonable amount of marijuana for a three-month supply. The difficulty in determining this amount comes from the interplay of a variety of factors. The nature of the patient's illness bears strongly on the amount of marijuana they need to relieve symptoms. Some illnesses will require daily medication. Others may only require occasional medication. The type of marijuana available to the patient is another factor. Some types are stronger than others are. Some can only be baked in other foods. That requires more marijuana than the type that can be smoked. Even within the same types of marijuana, there are qualitative differences in separate harvests.

    Dr. Mikuriya offered the following Method for Calculating Actual Usable

    THE MIKURIYA FORMULA.

    Amount:

    -Total number of plants (T)

    -Number of Immature plants (I)

    -Number of Unsuitable plants (u)

    -Usable number x Height in centimeters (H) x Width (W) /divided by Density (D)

    -water (w)

    -lower leaves and stems (L)

    -seeds (S)

    =Net Usable amount

    /divided by Number of stains (s)

    =Actual Usable Amount (A) in grams
     

    Reasonable Amount of Processed Marijuana

    The Group agreed that a case by case determination of what was a three-month supply would be an undue burden to place on the police department. It would require familiarity with treatment schedules for different diseases. It would also require an ability to differentiate between types as well as comparative efficiency within types. Rather than impose such an unwieldy burden on the Police Department, the Group agreed to reach a specific amount that could act as an operational rule of thumb.

    The Food and Drug Administration is currently testing the medical uses of marijuana. In their experiments the patients are given a monthly ration of three hundred cigarettes, each weighing approximately . 9 gram. This is approximately one half pound per month. The Group agreed to adopt this federal standard as a reasonable amount for medical marijuana patients to possess. Therefore a reasonable amount of processed marijuana for a patient to possess would be a three-month supply, at half a pound per month, for a total of one and a half pounds. A reasonable amount of processed marijuana for a caregiver to possess would be the number of substantiated patients times one and a half pounds.

    Reasonable Amount of Marijuana Plants

    The Group also discussed the difficulty of determining a reasonable number of plants to be processed. Outdoor plants are harvested once a year while indoor plants can be harvested quarterly. Outdoor plants are typically larger and therefore generate a greater yield.

    In determining the reasonable number of outdoor plants, the group considered the fact that they only produce once a year and that the reasonable harvest should be capable of yielding the annual supply of four three month supplies, six pounds. 30 adult plants should yield this harvest. An adult plant is one that has begun flowering. In order to assure that the patient is capable of producing 30 flowering plants they should be allowed to plant twice that number, 60 plants. They may maintain all 60 plants until they have 30 flowering plants. Once they have 30 flowering plants, they must destroy all the rest.

    For indoor plants, it will take 48 plants to yield one and half pounds in a three-month period. As above, the patient should be allowed to plant twice the number, 96 plants, and maintain them until 48 are flowering. Once they have 48 flowering plants, they must destroy the rest of the flowering plants. However, they can continue, for the next cycle, to possess up to 96 non-flowering plants, for a cumulative total of 144 plants.

    Patients are equally free to grow a combination of indoor and outdoor plants so long as they do not exceed the individual (indoor or outdoor) limits described above, nor does their cumulative number of plants (indoor and outdoor) exceed 144.

    The reasonable number of plants for a caregiver to possess would be a multiple of the number of substantiated patients being cared for times the type of plant, indoor or outdoor.

    Alternative Process

    To avoid the possibility of destroying the plants of legitimate medical marijuana patients and caregivers, the Police Department agreed to an alternative process to uprooting/confiscating plants in cases in which a credible claim to patient or caregiver status is made but not satisfactorily proven and there is no other collateral evidence indicating an intent to sell (e. g. sales records, intercepted conversations, informants, witnesses, or scales and packaging materials beyond what is reasonable to the situation).

    The police will not uproot/confiscate plants so long as the claimed patient/caregiver signs a statement declaring the number of plants, type of plants (i. e. marijuana) and ownership of the plants. The police may also take photographs of the plants and sample clippings from the bottom of the plants. The patient/caregiver must, within the next two business days, provide proof as to their status as patient or caregiver. If they fail to do so, within the time proscribed, the marijuana will be confiscated and treated as evidence under standard police procedures.

    In cases where an individual possesses processed marijuana but cannot satisfactorily establish his/her patient or caregiver status, the police will confiscate the processed marijuana. The marijuana will be specially stored for two business days. If satisfactory proof of patient/caregiver status can be provided, within the proscribed time, the marijuana will be returned. If not, the marijuana will be treated as evidence and handled accordingly.

    RECOMMENDATION

    By consensus, the Medical Marijuana Working Group recommends adoption of the following policy:

    The Police Services Agency' implements the low-priority policy as follows:

    I. Marijuana-related activities are not targeted by the Police Services Agency. The Agency investigates and becomes involved in marijuana-related activities (1) as a result of citizen complains, (2) incident to law enforcement activities related to violation of laws unrelated to marijuana activities, or (3) due to public activity involving marijuana that provides probable cause for investigation.

    II. Persons who come into contact with law enforcement will not be cited or arrested and marijuana in their possession will not be seized if all of the following conditions are met:

    A. Status as Caregiver or Patient

    The person establishes medicinal use or primary care giver status to the satisfaction of the officer who makes the initial contact;

    B. Amount of Marijuana

    1. Particle Form

    a. The medical marijuana patient possesses

    (I)less than one and one-half pounds of marijuana in particle form, or

    b. The caregiver possesses no more than the amount specified above for each patient as to whom primary caregiver status is established to the officer's satisfaction.

    2. Plants

    a. The medical marijuana patient possesses

    (i)Indoor Plants:

    -no more than 48 plants if they are flowering

    AND

    -no more than 96 plants if the plants are indoors and less than 48 are flowering

    (ii)Outdoor Plants:

    -no more than 30 plants if they are flowering

    OR

    -no more than 60 plants if less than 30 are flowering

    (iii)Combination of Indoor an Outdoor Plants

    -no more than a total of 144 plants, provided that the maximum amounts for indoor and outdoor plants specified above (i. e. 30 flowering outdoor plants and 48 flowering indoor plants), may not be exceeded.

    b. The primary caregiver possesses no more than the amounts specified above for each of the patients for whom proof of primary caregiver status is established to the officer's satisfaction.

    C. The person completes a statement admitting ownership, possession and amount

    D. The person is not taken into custody for violation of laws unrelated to marijuana activities.

    III. An individual will not be cited and/or arrested and marijuana in his/her possession will not be seized if:

    A. The individual does not establish primary caregiver status or medicinal use status to the officer's satisfaction, but based on the totality of the circumstances the officer determines that there is no evidence of criminal activity (e. g. , intent to sell, informants, witnesses, sales records, etc. ) and that the individual's claim of medicinal use or primary caregiver status is credible.

    B. The person completes a statement admitting ownership, possession and amount

    C. The person is not taken into custody for violation of laws unrelated to marijuana activities.

    D. The person provides proof of medicinal use or caregiver status to the satisfaction of the Police Department within two business days after the police contact; and

    E. The person possesses less than the amounts specified in the applicable provision of II, above.

    IV. Consistent with the low-priority policy, the Police Department does not pursue law enforcement activities with respect to the Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative's operations unless citizen complaints or other reports or information dictate such action.

    V. Persons who fail to establish medicinal use or primary caregiver status to the satisfaction of the officer and whose claim of such status is not determined by the officer to be credible, may be cited and arrested and Marijuana in their possession may be seized and turned into Criminalistics Division in accordance with standard police procedure.

    VI. No law enforcement action will be taken without the consultation and approval of a Command Officer.

    VII. The purpose of the foregoing policy guidelines is to assist the Police Services Agency in implementing the City's low-priority policy. These policy guidelines are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to override an officer's judgment and discretion based on a case-by-case evaluation of the totality of the circumstances or to interfere with the officer's sworn duty to enforce applicable law. It is understood by the City's policymakers that the low-priority policy does not guarantee that every individual who is a patient or caregiver within the meaning of Proposition 215, will not be arrested, cited or have his/her marijuana seized.

    VIII. the Police Department will develop an appropriate training bulletin to implement the policies adopted by the Council.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Robert C. Bobb, City Manager

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -9- LETTER TO ASSIST. SHERIFF JARAMILLO
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ====================================================
            THE AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION
            Monarch Bay Plaza, Box 375, Dana Point, Ca 92629
            Web site: http://www.kubby.com/AMMA.html
            Subscribe: AMMA-Talk-on@list.kubby.com
    ====================================================

    1/13/00

    George Jaramillo,
    Assistant Sheriff
    Orange County Sheriff Dept.
    550 N. Flower Street
    Santa Ana, CA 92702
    (714) 647-1800
    Fax (714) 953-3092
     

    Dear George,

    A recent article in the Orange County Register praised the considerable achievements of Sheriff Carona's leadership and I know you played a big role in the achievements as well. Even your worst critics have had to admit that you've improved morale within the Sheriff's Department and won the respect of the community, as well.

    I had hoped we could resolve our concerns through redress of grievances with county officials, but I have learned that is no longer possible, due to a decision by the County Counsel that throws us and your department on a direct collision course.

    Since we have exhausted all other administrative relief, we have no choice but to seek more direct action. That puts me in a difficult position, because although I think you guys are the best thing that's happened to the Sheriff's Department, your current policies directly threaten my life and my exercise of important rights vital to my life.

    In the past week, I've filed three formal complaints against rogue officers and corrupt elected officials for their role in the illegal and immoral actions waged against us and other patients.

    The first action is was filled as an online complaint which triggers a mandatory investigation by Placer County Sheriff's Internal Affairs Division. My complaint charges that the named individuals are guilty of attempted murder and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Act, and the Compassionate Use Act.

    The complaint is against three deputies, including the head of the North Tahoe Narcotics Task Force, Michael Lyke. Part of my complaint includes the following stern warning to the Placer Sheriffs Department:

    "In addition, I wish to call your attention to the fact that disabled persons are protected under the anti-hate crime statutes, which provide for sentence enhancements for persons willfully threatening persons in the exercise of state or federal constitutional or statutory rights or damaging their property, or the property of a public or private institution because of their disability or perceived disability or association with persons with disabilities. (See Cal. Pen. Code, §§ 422.6, 422.7 and 422.75.)"

    The second action was filed with the California Attorney General and is a Civil Rights Complaint against Sheriff Ed Bonner, District Attorney Bradford Fenocchio, Investigator Michael Lyke, Deputy D.A. Christopher Cattran and Deputy D.A. Eugene Genie. All of these men knew of my life-threatening illness and chose to ignore it, nearly killing me and violating my civil and medical rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Act, and the Compassionate Use Act.

    The third action was a 45 page formal Civil Rights Complaint against former Attorney General, Dan Lungren and former Orange County Sheriff, Brad Gates. The complain details how these two men gutted the Compassionate Use Act and waged war against me and other patients. My complaint explains how Lungren and Gates, based upon prima facie evidence and the written policies promulgated under their hand, are guilty of conspiracy to deprive myself and other seriously ill Californians of the 3-year-old established rights as created by the voters of California under the Compassionate Use Act.

    It has been nearly a year since the January 19th raid on our home. My family and I have been thrown out of our home, force into bankruptcy, and dragged through the criminal justice system, despite our carefully documented compliance with Section 11362.5. Now my friends and family worry that because I have taken on former Sheriff Brad Gates, and because Gates still has many loyal deputies in your department, that I am at great risk.

    They point out that at anytime, hostile forces could again raid us, drag me off to jail, where I could die before arrangements are made for my release.

    In light of all these issues, and in light of the grave threat which your department's policies pose to my life, I cannot just sit back and see if I get arrested, I have to take action before hand to defend my rights and the rights of other patients through legal actions.

    Any thoughts or suggestions you may have to resolve this matter out of court would be greatly appreciated.

    Let freedom grow,
     
     

    s/Steve Kubby

    [TOP]



     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -10- OVER 100 MEDIA STORIES ABOUT KUBBY RAID
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     

    OVER 100 NEWS STORIES, EDITORIALS AND OTHER RESOURCES:
     

    [KUBBY HOME PAGE] [AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION] [PROP. 215]
     
     

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -11- DID PLACER COPS LIE UNDER OATH?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pubdate: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
    Source: Sacramento News & Review
    Contact: sactoletters@newsreview.com
    Address: 1015 20th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
    Fax: (916) 498-7920
    Website: http://newsreview.com/sacto/
    Author: Mike Pulley, michaelp@newsreview.com

    Search unwarranted
    Did Placer County cops lie under
    oath to get marijuana convictions?
    by Michael Pulley



    Early in the morning last July 1, Lyman "Sandy" Sanborn and his wife, Grace, were jolted out of bed by the loud banging of the Placer County Sheriff Department's Special Operations Unit.

    When Sanborn opened the front door of his Roseville residence, he was literally knocked backwards. A group of deputies charged into his home, brandished guns and yelled out "warrant search." Sanborn's 76-year-old wife sat terrified on the couch in the family's living room as police placed handcuffs on her 78-year-old husband, her grown son and her grown granddaughter.

    "Where is it?" the deputies kept yelling. For the next two hours, they rifled through belongings in a search for an illegal indoor pot garden. But there was no pot garden. The Sanborns were the victims of a mistaken drug raid.

    The next day, Placer County Sheriff Edward Bonner personally apologized to the elder Sanborn, a childhood acquaintance of former President Ronald Reagan and a lifelong Republican Party activist. But the Sheriff couldn't explain why one of his deputies had sworn in an affidavit to have found "fresh, green" marijuana stems in the Sanborn's trash when it was left out for collection a week earlier.

    To Sandy Sanborn, the police seemed to have it out for him. "[Placer County] Sheriff's Deputy Ron Goodpaster maliciously and intentionally lied under oath in order to get the judge to issue a search warrant to look for marijuana at my house," he wrote in a claim filed with Placer County in November. In a second claim filed Dec. 30, the Sanborn family asked for $1 million to compensate family members who allegedly "suffered physical, mental and emotional injuries as a direct and proximate result of the officers' actions."

    The Sanborn raid is not an isolated incident. A six-month SN&R investigation of more than 70 drug cases has revealed that Sheriff Bonner's Special Operations Unit finds itself caught in the crossfire of an emerging legal battle. At the heart of the controversy is Goodpaster and fellow Placer County Sheriff's Deputy Tracy Grant, two veteran detectives who have participated in hundreds of drug cases over the years. In multiple claims and lawsuits filed in recent months, both police officers have been accused of committing perjury and violating the civil rights of individuals living in Placer and Sacramento counties. In interviews and court records, the two detectives were accused of lying about the existence of marijuana they claim to have seized from trash cans as evidence and making false claims about residents' electrical power usage. In two instances, Grant said under oath that he observed cars parked in driveways. But SN&R's investigation revealed that the cars were not there at the time Grant said he saw them. The two policemen's statements on affidavits about trash searches, power records and vehicles are significant because they established the probable cause that was used to obtain search warrants and convictions in more than 70 marijuana cases in the last three years.

    "I'm the lowly detective here, and you need to talk to [Placer County Sheriff's Department spokesman] Lt. Dan Hall," said Grant, when asked about the allegations concerning his marijuana raids. Goodpaster could not be reached for comment. Both deputies recently denied doing anything illegal or improper in court papers pertaining to one of their cases. Lt. Hall declined to discuss his agency's controversial drug raids and said he couldn't allow Goodpaster or Grant to be interviewed by the SN&R because of "ongoing litigation." Hall referred all questions to Sheriff Bonner, who declined to comment.

    The Placer unit's activities included more than 30 raids within the last two years on homes throughout the city and county of Sacramento in a wide-ranging drug sting that targeted marijuana gardens grown hydroponically within residential homes. But it's not clear why Placer's drug team was aggressively targeting so many residences within the jurisdiction of the city and county of Sacramento.

    "I don't know anything about that," said Larry Saunders, tactical commander of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department's Narcotics/Gang Bureau. But Saunders said it's typical for a neighboring county's law enforcement agency to obtain search warrants and carry out drug raids within Sacramento if the neighboring county's detectives receive the tip that suspected drug activity is occurring.

    The Green Fire connection

    Numerous defendants arrested by Placer County's special drug unit told the SN&R they believe they were targeted because they shopped at Green Fire, a Sacramento gardening supply store that specializes in hydroponics and organics. In at least 14 of the raids, Placer detectives confiscated as evidence Green Fire catalogs and Green Fire store receipts found at the homes of defendants, court records show.

    As with the Sanborns, the Place's Special Operations Unit came up short on three other residential raids. Detectives found less than an ounce of marijuana in two of the cases, a misdemeanor, but no pot gardens. The defendants in all three cases were hydroponic enthusiasts who said they shopped at Green Fire. Sanborn's mistaken raid had a link to Green Fire, too. Just weeks before Placer deputies were pounding on the door of the elderly Roseville couple, their son had shopped in the store at 3230 Auburn Blvd.

    "We have a store that tries to help people that garden," said a distressed Jeanne Shelsky, Green Fire's owner. "We have no involvement in anything illegal, and we are appalled at the thought that law enforcement would target anyone just because they came to a garden store."

    The SN&R's investigation found no evidence that Green Fire knew of Placer's drug sting.

    Most of the defendants arrested in the Placer raids have been convicted or pleaded guilty in plea bargain arrangements. But the Placer sting also caught in its net at least seven medical marijuana patients who had received recommendations from physicians for use of cannabis under the provisions of the state's Proposition 215. Those patients had all purchased their growing supplies from Green Fire, too. With an ongoing legal battle regarding how many plants are acceptable under Prop. 215, Placer's Marijuana Eradication Team still arrested pot patients, charging them with illegal possession of marijuana and felony cultivation for sales.

    "Just the fact that people shop in a hydroponics store doesn't mean what they're buying is something for an illegal purpose," said Kate Wells, a Santa Cruz attorney who is considering more litigation against Placer on behalf of the Sanborns and others. "It's like saying because some people shoplift, that you're automatically presumed guilty that when you walk into a store."

    The targeting of hydroponic stores and their customers became a popular strategy of narcotics agents in the 1990s after pot growers turned to hydroponics, and illegal cultivation moved behind the closed doors of residences. In the early 1990s, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency launched a campaign to go after such stores through Operation Green Merchant. In Washington state, the drug-fighting agency managed to put a number of such stores out of business and ended up coercing the owner of one store to become an informant, according to Jeff Steinborn, a Seattle attorney who serves on the legal committee of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

    "If you're a hunter looking for your prey, the best place to find it is at a watering hole, and that's what these stores are-the watering hole," said Steinborn. "The problem is for every person who goes there to buy stuff to grow pot, there are 10 people who go there to buy legitimate equipment to grow legitimate plants such as orchids, bromeliads and tomatoes. Those same people get followed home. When they follow you home, they sneak around your yard in the dead of night trying to get a whiff. Every now and then they kick down the wrong door."

    How Placer County targeted the customers of Green Fire as part of its marijuana raids has been a well-kept secret. Tracy Grant refused to disclose that information to the physician of two of the medical marijuana patients raided and arrested by Grant's drug team. When Eugene Schoenfeld, the Sausalito physician, asked Grant in a tape-recorded phone conversation how he had learned that two of Schoenfeld's patients were allegedly cultivating marijuana at their residence, the detective refused to say.

    "Some of that I can't share with you," said Grant, according to a transcript of the conversation in a police report obtained by the SN&R. "That's part of my investigation."

    Green Fire is not mentioned in any of the two deputies' affidavits. While the affidavits use marijuana found in trash at residences and electrical power records to establish the probable cause needed to obtain warrants, the documents do not disclose the reason suspected marijuana growers are initially targeted by Placer police. That's precisely what some criminal defense attorneys find puzzling.

    "There has to be some triggering information [in the warrant] pointing to a specific residence or individual, saying these people have committed a crime or they're suspected of committing a crime," said Joe Farina, a Sacramento attorney who has represented some of the medical marijuana patients arrested by Grant. "In most cases I've seen, the triggering information is there because that's what's going to lead to the rest of the investigation. Typically, drug case search warrants have a CI [confidential informant] or CRI [confidential reliable informant] in the beginning as probable cause."

    The dentist and the doctor

    By the summer of 1998, Placer County's special narcotics team had launched their raids on residences throughout Placer and Sacramento counties. On Sept. 23, Grant's unit drove down Moss Lane in an affluent area of Granite Bay and raided the home of Michael Baldwin, a Rocklin dentist, and his wife, Georgia Chacko. Baldwin and his wife, both age 35 at the time, had recommendations for the use of medical marijuana from Dr. Alex Stalcup, a prominent Concord physician who was considered one of the state's leading authorities on illegal drugs. In fact, Stalcup regularly taught classes on the subject to narcotics agents in an arrangement with the California Narcotics Officers Association.

    The Placer County Sheriff's Department immediately issued a press release that said Baldwin and his wife were being charged with cultivation and sales of marijuana based on the seizure of 146 plants at the Baldwin home by Grant's unit, which considered 146 plants a level too high for the needs of a medical marijuana patient. Baldwin disagreed, pointing out that many of his "plants" were small seedlings. Baldwin and his wife had grown their pot garden with the use of equipment they had purchased from Green Fire.

    As Michael Baldwin prepared for his defense, the Rocklin dentist began doing his own research into the activities of Placer's drug unit. He was joined by some of the other medical marijuana patients raided by Grant and Goodpaster's unit. The pot patients began to comb through court files and examine affidavits for search warrants written by the two deputies. They noticed that virtually every single search warrant authorizing raids on residents in Sacramento County were approved by the same person-Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gary Ransom.

    And there was something odd about the wording on all of the warrants the two deputies wrote. Nearly every search warrant used the exact wording to describe marijuana confiscated during the detectives' trash searches. "The marijuana was fresh, green and still moist and had been recently cut from a mature marijuana plant." To Baldwin's group, it looked as if the detectives had simply cut and pasted the phrase into nearly every search warrant.

    Baldwin and his wife had an initial victory when their case came to trial later that year. A Placer County Superior Court jury split 6-6 on the charges against Baldwin, and it deadlocked 7-5 in favor of acquitting his wife on the same charges. But the Placer County District Attorney's office decided to re-prosecute the Baldwins.

    One of the medical marijuana patients who was helping Baldwin research Grant and Goodpaster's activities was Amy Breeze, a Sacramento resident who had been seriously disabled in a horrendous industrial accident years before. Breeze said in an interview with the SN&R that smoking marijuana had helped her to wean herself off an excessive regimen of pain killers prescribed by doctors. But Tracy Grant and the other members of his narcotics unit didn't seem too interested in hearing about the alleged benefits of medical marijuana when they burst into Breeze's home on Folsom Boulevard early in the morning of Dec. 4, 1998, according to Breeze's account of the raid.

    "I asked him not to handcuff me behind my back," said Breeze. "He said, 'Don't give that disabled bullshit. We've seen you walk. If you keep claiming disability, things will get really bad for you'."

    Deputies confiscated 55 marijuana plants and arrested Breeze and her fiancé for cultivation for sale of marijuana, a felony. In a civil suit filed against Grant on Dec. 6 in Sacramento County Superior Court, Breeze alleged "that defendant Grant committed a battery upon her person on Dec. 4, 1998, when in the course of arresting [Breeze], Grant offensively struck, battered, pushed and shoved her in such a manner as to constitute an unreasonable or excessive use of force in effectuating [Breeze's] arrest." In April, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office dismissed charges against the 38-year-old Breeze for reasons of "medical necessity."

    The nonexistent cars

    One of the two nonexistent cars that Tracy Grant claimed to have seen and that was used to justify his search was allegedly parked in Breeze's driveway, according to the affidavit signed by the detective. Grant listed the registration number for Breeze's expired disabled person parking placard as the license plate number for a vehicle he claimed to have seen parked in Breeze's driveway. Grant said in the warrant that he drove to Breeze's house Nov. 12, 1998, and "observed two vehicles in the driveway to the residence." However, Breeze and her fiancé own just one vehicle, a car that is registered in his name, DMV records show.

    Grant cited the plate number of the fiancé's vehicle as one of the two he spotted in the driveway. But he cited "K882335," the number of Breeze's expired placard, as the license plate number for the second vehicle he claimed to have spotted sitting in the driveway. State Department of Motor Vehicles records confirmed that Breeze's placard could never have been mistaken for the license plate of another vehicle.

    The number [of the placard] "has nothing to do with a vehicle," said Nina Packnett, supervisor of DMV's commercial phone unit. "It's simply a disabled placard."

    The nonexistent car in Breeze's driveway has become an issue in the civil suit Breeze filed against Grant. The detective "presented to a magistrate a false affidavit in support of the search warrant for plaintiff's home," the suit alleges. The "affidavit contained materially false information which without its inclusion in the supporting affidavit the warrant would not have [been] issued," the lawsuit alleged. "Said false statements were made in conscious disregard for the truth and/or were deliberately made by Grant."

    Grant alleged in a sworn affidavit to have seen yet another nonexistent vehicle in the driveway of another defendant. This one was at the residence of Robert and Shawna Whiteaker, two more medical marijuana patients, who were raided by Grant's drug team sometime after they shopped for hydroponic growing supplies at Green Fire.

    The detective said he drove to the Whiteaker residence on Sixth Street in Rio Linda on April 12 and "observed two vehicles in the driveway to the residence." He cited DMV plate numbers that correctly belong to the couple's two cars. However, one of those vehicles, a Dodge Caravan with DMV license plate number 3JOK648, was broken down at the time and parked miles away in an auto transmission repair shop on Madison Avenue in North Highlands.

    An owner of the auto repair shop asked to remain anonymous but confirmed for the SN&R that the Dodge in question was in the shop for repairs April 12, the day Grant claims he saw in the Whiteaker's driveway in Rio Linda. The SN&R also obtained copies of a towing receipt and repair order receipt that backed up claims made by the auto repair shop and the Whiteakers that Grant could not have possibly seen the car on that day.

    Power usage and probable cause

    Defendants in the Placer drug unit's raids also have challenged the two items that establish probable cause in most of the warrants obtained by Grant and Goodpaster. One is the finding of "fresh, green" marijuana in the trash. The other is a comparison of the electrical power usage of suspects to the power usage of other homes in the same neighborhood, or on the same street. If the comparison shows higher power usage by the home of the suspect, the detectives take that as a sign that residents are using energy-consuming lights to grow pot indoors.

    In court records, a number of suspects have blasted the detectives' power comparisons as bogus, arguing that Grant and Goodpaster unfairly compared their electrical usage to that of smaller homes with less square footage and purposely failed to take into account factors such as the existence of jacuzzis, swimming pools and other items that raise power consumption.

    Two defendants who made that allegation are Chris and Penny Miller of Citrus Heights and their San Francisco attorney, Laurence Jeffrey Lichter. "Detective Grant's allegation that Mr. and Mrs. Miller's power usage records revealed 'high power use' in comparison to 'other like residences' is unfounded and false," Lichter said in a declaration he filed in the Miller's court case.

    Chris Miller is a medical marijuana patient who said he purchased equipment from Green Fire to grow his own marijuana. Grant and his team charged both with felony cultivation of marijuana in a raid on his home. The prosecutors dropped charges against both of the Millers. Chris Miller received the marijuana taken in the raid of his house back from the Placer County Sheriff's Department after a court ordered them to turn it over.

    Ronald Reagan's old friend Sandy Sanborn also blasted the power comparisons that were done on his house in the affidavit signed by Goodpaster. "They claimed my power usage was four times higher than surrounding homes," he said. "Some of the comparisons could have nowhere near approached my usage."

    Fresh, green and still moist

    A number of the defendants have accused Grant of lying about the "fresh, green" and "still moist" marijuana that he swore under oath to have unerringly found in the trash of nearly every one of the defendants who were raided by him. "His statements about the contents of my garbage are totally fabricated," said Breeze, who insisted that she never placed marijuana in her garbage even though she had been growing it for medical reasons.

    Baldwin also accused Placer of "fabricating" the marijuana that Grant claimed to have found in his garbage. He told the SN&R that the Placer County Sheriff's Department showed him a little bag that contained only what appeared to be "ashes dumped out of a pipe" after he asked to see the "fresh green" marijuana that Grant swore under oath to have found in his garbage.

    Miller was shown a bag containing what appeared to be one small marijuana stem after he visited the Placer County Sheriff's Department with his attorney and asked to see the "marijuana stems recently cut from a mature marijuana plant" that Grant swore under oath to have found in his garbage. Lichter, his attorney, gave this account of the incident in a declaration he filed in court papers: "An evidence viewing revealed merely a brittle, light-colored twig, the length of [a] pen and half a pen's width. This twig lacked any of the characteristics normally associated with marijuana stems from recently cut plants. ... Even more important is the fact that Mr. Miller does not place stems in the trash, but uses a compost pile to discard the small portions of the plant that he does not use."

    Miller and his wife filed a claim with Placer County Sept. 10 alleging that Grant's marijuana eradication team "illegally executed a search warrant that was based on an affidavit which was insufficient on its face, and was based on illegally gathered and falsified information." The Millers said they also are planning to file civil litigation against Grant and Placer County.

    Robert Dearkland, another medical marijuana patient whose case got dropped by the Sacramento County District Attorney's office, told the SN&R that detective Grant had to be lying about the marijuana allegedly found by Grant in his trash because it would have been impossible for the detective to know with any certainty which trash can belonged to his Fair Oaks residence.

    Grant's drug team actually obtained its search warrant for a residence that was occupied by his two teenage children and his wife, whom Dearkland had separated from. The cops were unaware that Dearkland was living in a converted structure that is located behind the home where the rest of his family now resides, police records indicate. The Placer detectives claimed to have found marijuana in the trash of the house where Dearkland's wife and his kids live. But Dearkland told SN&R in a tape-recorded interview that the trash can that belonged to his wife's residence actually gets placed out for collection each week in front of yet a third house that is occupied by Dearkland's grown stepson. The three cans from the homes of the three Dearkland residences are placed out together each week in a mixed group in front of the stepson's home. So, if Grant would have tried to search Dearkland's trash, he would have never had a way of knowing with any certainty which of the three cans belonged to which of the three households, according to Dearkland.

    After Grant realized that Dearkland lived in the converted structure behind his wife's home, he searched it, too, and found 13 marijuana plants that Dearkland was growing for his medical needs under the provisions of Prop 215, according to court records and police reports in the case. Dearkland showed the detective a copy of a recommendation for medical marijuana that he had obtained from a physician. Four months later, Dearkland was arrested by a criminal investigator of the Sacramento County District Attorney's office and charged with felony cultivation and sale of marijuana. After a further review of the case, the district attorney's office dismissed the charges, citing insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. Like Citrus Heights medical marijuana patient Chris Miller, Dearkland was then able to obtain a court order forcing the Placer County Sheriff's Department to return the marijuana they had taken earlier in the raid.

    Since Dearkland's case was dropped, he has joined his wife and two teenage children in filing a civil suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento accusing Grant, Goodpaster and two other Placer County deputies of violations of constitutional rights and infliction of emotional distress due to the raid. Both Grant and Goodpaster have filed declarations in the case denying they did anything wrong or improper in the way they handled the raid on the Dearklands.

    The deep dark secret

    Some criminal defense attorneys who specialize in drug cases said the allegations of perjury on sworn affidavits that have surfaced in the cases involving Grant and Goodpaster have become almost commonplace within the criminal justice system.

    "It's the real deep dark secret of the war on drugs," said Steinborn, the Seattle attorney who advises NORML. "Perjury has become commonplace on search warrants. It's the currency of search warrants, and the courts tolerate it. It's been that way for 20 years."

    A number of attorneys were also skeptical that the allegedly wayward detectives will be held accountable for their actions.

    Farina, the Sacramento attorney who represented two of the Placer cases, said: "It's perjury. Should the cop be prosecuted? Yes, but he probably won't be. Should the cop be fired? Yes, but he probably won't be. If the public outrage is not there, nothing is going to happen."

    Attorneys involved in the case and other law enforcement experts gave a number of reasons to explain the motives for the allegedly illegal behavior of Grant and Goodpaster. But they basically attributed the cops' actions to two things: attitude and money.

    "They hate marijuana and see it as a dangerous drug, and it's pork barrel for their agency," said Lichter.

    "Most peace officers love clandestine operations," said James McEntee, a former deputy district attorney with Solano County who is now a Vallejo-based criminal defense attorney. "Clandestine operations-whether it is working a snitch or spying on citizens-remind the officer of the military, and most officers have warm memories of their military service. Clandestine operations are more exciting than routine patrol: everyone loves to share secrets. A few officers genuinely believe that smoking marijuana indicates a grave social pathology."

    "Different jurisdictions have different values, politics and priorities. Possession of a couple of marijuana plants would be small potatoes in a place like Vallejo, but it might be a big deal in Roseville. But the main reason law enforcement goes in for task forces, code names and clandestine operations is financial. For example, the state offers district attorneys grant money to fund special units for the prosecution of sexual assault, drugs, domestic violence, prison crimes and underage sex. This cash stream allows the elected district attorney to hire more staff, enlarge his power and balance his budget. The grant money becomes addicting, and to continue receiving it, the DA must justify how he spends it. If he has a grant to fund a drug prosecution 'task force,' he knows he must prosecute a certain number of drug cases or lose his funding. The fact that he is going after marijuana indicates that there isn't much to do in Placer County."

    Whether McEntee's speculation on motivation is correct or not,, some drug experts believe Placer's narcotics unit is performing an important service to the community. "They do a good job and have had some very significant grow cases, and basically we appreciate the help they provide," said Dale Kitching, supervising deputy district attorney of the Sacramento County District Attorney's office's major narcotics unit. "Those are cases that we might not otherwise learn about or have the time to pursue."

    Placer County Sheriff's Department received $206,000 in special funding from the state Office of Criminal Justice Planning to finance its marijuana operations in the current fiscal year, according to an article in the Auburn Journal. The grant provides funding for one deputy sheriff, overtime for five more deputies and a sergeant, and a 15 percent portion of costs for a deputy district attorney.

    "I thought I was dreaming"

    While Placer County's Special Operations Unit is out looking for more illegal marijuana gardens, the county's legal advisers will be responding to a growing number of lawsuits that are being planned over its past raids. Sanborn is one of four raided by the special unit who met with Santa Cruz attorney Kate Wells a week ago to discuss potential litigation over an issue that is hard for his family to forget.

    The police raid has taken a toll on the Sanborn family household, especially for Lyman "Sandy" Sanborn's grown granddaughter and their three great-grandchildren. One of the youngest is now afraid of uniformed police officers, according to the Sanborn family. "Every time she sees an officer, she's afraid," said Sanborn. His granddaughter "was so emotionally distraught that she was unable to stay in the area and has left, taking with her the three great-grandchildren," said Sanborn in his $1 million claim filed with Placer County.

    His wife, Grace, is still haunted by the memory of the incident, too. "They took one of our doors down and busted it all to pieces," she said. "It could have been unbolted. There wasn't any reason. They said that someone in this area was growing marijuana. Of course, we're not that kind of family. I was sound asleep and somebody came in and yelled, "search!" It woke me up. I thought my husband was teasing me. When I woke up in my bedroom, there was a stranger yelling, 'Get out of bed and get over here.' I thought I was dreaming. It was just something you can never forget the way they treated us. It makes me want to cry.
     
     

    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -12- COMPLAINT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ====================================================
            THE AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION
            Monarch Bay Plaza, Box 375, Dana Point, Ca 92629
            Web site: http://www.kubby.com/AMMA.html
            Subscribe: AMMA-Talk-on@list.kubby.com
    ====================================================



    1/22/00

    Sgt. John Savage, Internal Affairs Investigator
    Placer County Sheriff's Department
    FAX: 530-889-6928
    E-mail: jsavage@placer.ca.gov
    (sent via e-mail)

    RE: AMENDED COMPLAINT; ATTEMPTED MURDER
     

    Dear Sgt. Savage,

    Thank you for your e-mail of 1/21/00 and for opening an investigation regarding my complaint of 1/4/00.  In that complaint, I charged the following Placer Sheriff's employees with direct responsibility for ignoring my severe health problems and nearly killing me while I was in jail:

    ---Placer Investigator Michael Lyke
    ---Placer Deputy Davis
    ---Placer Deputy "Zanzabar" (I am unsure of spelling)
    Please be advised that I am amending my original complaint to include addition information and individuals whom I hold responsible for the treatment my wife and I received while in Placer County custody:
    ---The two Placer officers who transported us from Tahoe to Auburn.
    ---The Auburn Jail nurse
    ---The Auburn Jail medical staff
    Placer County Investigator Michael Lyke was physically present at the raid and saw large posters which repeatedly warned that I was a medically disabled cancer patient and that I could die if deprived of my medicine.  Those same large posters promised that I would hold anyone who violated my medical rights morally and financially responsible.

    Apparently Lyke didn't believe that I was disabled or that I required my medical marijuana.  Lyke failed to warn the Auburn jail medical staff of my life-threatening condition and no one at the jail would take my condition seriously.

    What Lyke and the Auburn jailers did, by denying me the only medicine that keeps me alive, is no different than depriving a diabetic of their insulin, according to my doctors.  Dr. Vincent DeQuattro from USC Medical Center, even told my wife I would probably be dead if I had stayed a fourth day in the Auburn Jail.

    The physical and verbal abuse that my wife and I were subjected to by the Placer County Sheriff's officers was willful, malicious and clearly the result of our being medical marijuana patients.  Both of us were shocked by the transformation of otherwise well mannered officers into hostile soldiers who barked orders and seemed to go out of their way to make us miserable.

    My wife and I were placed into freezing cells, with minimal jail clothing.  We repeatedly asked for blankets or clothing, but were told to stop bothering the officers.  After several hours of shivering, we were transported to the Auburn Jail, about an hour and half away.  One officer drove us from the Tahoe Sheriff's station to about halfway and then transferred us to another officer and vehicle.  At the time, there was a raging blizzard, but my wife and I were only allowed lightweight jail clothes and tennis shoes.  We were forced to walk in the raging blizzard out to a cold sheriff's van, handcuffed and shivering.  We were not allowed to have any blankets and were sternly rebuked when we asked for blankets.  Instead we were told that the van would heat up soon and to stop complaining.

    When I told the officer I was a terminal cancer patient, he told me something similar to "Don't give me that disabled crap, or you'll really be sorry."  That was the same attitude of the officer who transported us on the second leg of our journey to the Auburn Jail.  That officer even told me as I was delivered to the jail, "Let me give you some advice, we don't like complainers around here and we have ways of dealing with people like you."

    I don't know the names of either of these two officers, but I certainly remember their statements with chilling clarity.  I also noticed that another disabled medical marijuana patient reported a similar experience in a recent Sacramento News and Review story entitled, "Did Placer County cops lie under oath to get marijuana convictions?"

    Here is the Sacramento News and Review's disturbing account of how Placer officers treat disabled medical marijuana patients:

    One of the medical marijuana patients who was helping Baldwin research Grant and Goodpaster's activities was Amy Breeze, a Sacramento resident who had been seriously disabled in a horrendous industrial accident years before. Breeze said in an interview with the SN&R that smoking marijuana had helped her to wean herself off an excessive regimen of pain killers prescribed by doctors. But Tracy Grant and the other members of his narcotics unit didn't seem too interested in hearing about the alleged benefits of medical marijuana when they burst into Breeze's home on Folsom Boulevard early in the morning of Dec. 4, 1998, according to Breeze's account of the raid.

    "I asked him not to handcuff me behind my back,' said Breeze. "He said, 'Don't give that disabled bullshit. We've seen you walk. If you keep claiming disability, things will get really bad for you'."

    Deputies confiscated 55 marijuana plants and arrested Breeze and her fiancé for cultivation for sale of marijuana, a felony. In a civil suit filed against Grant on Dec. 6 in Sacramento County Superior Court, Breeze alleged "that defendant Grant committed a battery upon her person on Dec. 4, 1998, when in the course of arresting [Breeze], Grant offensively struck, battered, pushed and shoved her in such a manner as to constitute an unreasonable or excessive use of force in effectuating [Breeze's] arrest." In April, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office dismissed charges against the 38-year-old Breeze for reasons of "medical necessity."

    [source: http://www.kubby.com/000120Search-unwarranted.html]


    Deputy Davis was the officer who processed me at the Auburn Jail. When I informed Davis I was medically disabled, he commented that I didn't look disabled.  I told Davis I was seriously ill and required medical marijuana to stay alive.  My wife, who was shivering, urged Davis to believe us and to give us some blankets.  Davis refused and left us shivering in our cells.  I was fortunate that there was another prisoner in my cell, who was released and gave me his blanket.  When Davis reappeared, after leaving us for about an hour, I again tried to speak with him, telling him that I was a seriously ill cancer patient and shouldn't be in jail, but was told, "You must have done something wrong, or you wouldn't be here."

    Davis and a female officer then began to process us, but I told him I was too ill to continue, so I went back to my freezing cell.  I also had begun to vomit frequently and experience high blood pressure attacks which would last for a few minutes and leave me with a blinding headache and exhausted.

    Although I requested immediate medical attention, specifically to document the lethal high blood pressure attacks, the jail nurse would always take too long to arrive and would only catch the end of my attacks.  The jail nurse did not appear to believe me and when I told her my blood pressure attacks were proof that I was at risk of dying, she told me, "Jail is stressful."

    After a number of hours of shivering and vomiting, I was given another opportunity to complete my processing.  However, during the procedure, I became disoriented and could not see very well.  I told this to Davis and that I could not complete the intake process.  Davis told me, "I am not going to allow you to take control of this situation, either complete the intake or I will apply a police hold that you will find very painful."

    Under threat of physical violence, I completed the intake and was then thrown into an equally frigid holding cell where I spent the remaining night shivering, vomiting and experiencing excrutiating high blood pressure attacks.

    I don't know how long I was in the freezing holding cell, but it seemed like about 6 hours.  Finally, an deputy, I sent me on to the main jail facility.  I was given an old bedsheet, that had no elastic so it was worthless, and a shaving kit.  No pillow, or other items were given to me as were given routinely to all other prisoners.

    I was housed with the other prisoners who recognized my name and helped provide me with additional items and advice on how to make written appeals to our jailers.  Only when I was with other prisoners did I feel at all safe.  During my stay I observed that prisoners in the Auburn Jail are exposed to conditions which make life unnecessarily harsh.  For example, prisoners must sleep under continuous bright lights, and must always walk with their hands inside their waist band.

    My harshest criticism is for the medical staff.  I recall the jail nurse was careful to comply with her regulations, but treated me with contempt and complete disregard for my rapidly escalating bouts with high blood pressure.

    Furthermore, the doctors who saw me were all well aware of my lethal predicament, but when I refused to take their medications (which  I already knew from prior experience were not effective and actually harmful) they refused to provide any further treatment or to transfer me to a hospital as I requested.

    By the third day, the blood pressure attacks has caused me to lose vision in my left eye.  I requested medical aid, but was refused. I then wrote up a complaint and submitted it to my jailers.  It said that I was going blind in my left eye, that I was a political prisoner, and that I did not deserve to go blind for my political beliefs.  I was then taken to the jail doctor who looked and talked to me from behind a glass window in another room.  At no time did the doctor physically examine me, despite my request that he examine my eye for damage caused by the blood pressure attacks.

    I also filed a written complaint about the episode in which I was forced by officer "Zanzabar" to spend an entire meal vomiting in from of all the other prisoners, while they tried to eat.

    During my stay at the Auburn Jail, I was interviewed by the Orange County Register, which issued an editorial, "Outrage in Law" that said in part:
     

    Steven Kubby, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor and an acknowledged medical marijuana patient, and his wife Michele were arrested Tuesday and charged with possession of marijuana for sales, cultivation and conspiracy.

    About 300 plants were confiscated with street value estimated at $420,000, according to Lt. Mike Allen of the North Tahoe Task Force.

    The arrest, which followed a six-month investigation, raises yet again the question of whether Proposition 215 will ever be implemented properly in California. It would be helpful to hear more from Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who campaigned as a supporter of the rights of medical marijuana patients and could do a great deal to ensure compassionate and uniform enforcement of the law.

    The law -- Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code -- exempts patients with an authorization from a licensed physician and "primary caregivers" from the laws against possession, cultivation and use of marijuana. Selling, transporting and distributing marijuana are still illegal under state law, although appeals court decisions suggest the necessity of some leeway for patients and caregivers. So far no court has determined exactly how much leeway will be allowed and the state has not issued guidelines.

    Mr. Kubby and his wife are patients who say they have authorization from licensed physicians and who acknowledge they grow marijuana plants in their basement for their own use but deny they distribute to anyone. They were rousted from their home in North Lake Tahoe Tuesday evening by a dozen members of the North Tahoe Narcotics Task Force and taken to the Placer County Jail in Auburn. Their bail, Mr. Kubby said, was set at $100,000 each and they were denied access to marijuana while in jail.

    This is of great concern to those who know the couple. Mr. Kubby, 52, has malignant pheochronocycoma, or terminal adrenal cancer. Without medication, he says, his blood pressure "spikes" to dangerous levels. When we talked to him from jail yesterday afternoon he told us he had had three episodes of high blood pressure and was concerned that he might have a stroke. Marijuana works for Mr. Kubby better than conventional medications, and his doctor has authorized it. (The Kubby's attorney, Dale Wood, told us he didn't know what Michele's medical condition is, but that she does have a physician's recommendation.)

    Mr. Wood said the local sheriff's department has refused to provide Mr. Kubby any marijuana while he is in jail. Such a decision is outrageous. But it highlights the need to develop guidelines for the implementation of Prop. 215, a responsibility the previous attorney general shirked.

    The real outrage is that Mr. Kubby was arrested at all. As Robert Raich, an attorney who is a member of the city of Oakland's medical marijuana working group, told us, "I can't think of anybody to whom Prop. 215 more directly applies than Steve Kubby. He has a physician's authorization and he was growing only for his and his wife's personal medical use. It's troubling that he won't have access to his medicine while in jail, but it's even more troubling that he is in jail at all. Prop. 215 was written to keep patients out of jail.

    [source: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n079/a02.html]


    A few days after we were released from the Auburn Jail, I was interviewed about my jail experience by the Orange County Weekly, which reported:
     

    "After we were booked," says Kubby, "we were forced to march through a blizzard to get to a transport truck. We were freezing and miserable. They took us to Auburn, and that's when it really got bad. I spent the night in an unheated holding tank next to a pool of vomit. For the first time in years, I suffered from horrific blood pressure. It was three hours until they gave my wife a blanket. When they started to process us, I felt so nauseated I couldn't see what I was signing. They told me to continue or they would put me in some kind of painful hold. It was a struggle; I spent the night vomiting and shivering.

    "One cop told me, 'Prop. 215 may fly in San Francisco, but not here in Placer County.'"

    "The Kubbys say they still suffer aftereffects of the arrest: Michelle contracted pneumonia, and her husband developed an eye problem. Steve Kubby has lost 15 pounds in less than a week."

    [Source: http://www.ocweekly.com:80/ink/archives/99/21news5-infante.shtml]


    It's been a year now since my wife and I were raided, and arrested by twenty deputies wearing combat gear and laser-guided weapons. At the time, we believed we were legally asserting new medical rights that we had worked for two years to win at the ballot box and that honest citizens had nothing to fear.

    Now, a year later, having survived a frightening assault on our lives, our home, our possessions and our family, we are grateful just to receive your e-mail and a response from someone in authority to hear what is happening to sick people in this county, who are simply asserting their newly created medical marijuana rights.

    Asserting our lawful rights may not be easy, but rights not asserted or defended are soon lost. We passed a law that gave us rights and it is inconceivable to us that sick people asserting those legal rights should be dragged through the criminal justice system and forced to defend that law against the awesome resources of law enforcement.

    I wonder how, in the United States of America, someone such as myself, who has worked long and hard to successful implement a new law, can be arrested, along with his wife, deprived of everything and thrown into bankruptcy, for the crime of growing medicine. If something like this can happen to an all-American family like us, it can happen to anyone.

    Thank you for the opportunity to present this information to you. A letter authorizing you to access my medical records will be faxed to your office later today.

    I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this amended complaint to our friends and supporters on the Internet, as well as distinguished members of the media, in the belief that "Freedom has nothing to hide from the Truth."

    Let freedom grow,
     

    s/Steve Kubby
    National Director
    The American Medical Marijuana Association

    ----------------------------------
    From: "John Savage" <jsavage@placer.ca.gov>
    Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:09:37 -0800
    To: <steve@kubby.org>
    Subject: Placer County Complaint

    Mr. Kubby,

    I have been assigned to investigate your complaint against the employees
    listed in your e-mail and the circumstances surrounding your incarceration in
    our jail facility.  I am conducting my correspondence with you via e-mail as
    you requested.  At this time, I have not been able fully investigate your
    complaints regarding the medical care in the jail facility due to your patient
    privileges.  In order for me to review any requests for medical care and how
    they were acted on by the medical staff, I will need a release from you.  You
    may fax the release to the following fax number:  530-889-6928.  Please e-mail
    me back if you send the release so I may proceed with that portion of the
    investigation.

    Thank you in advance,
    Sgt. John Savage, Internal Affairs Investigator
    Placer County Sheriff's Department
     
     


    [TOP]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATTACHMENT -13- SF SUPES VOTE FOR MEDICAL MJ ID CARDS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ====================================================
            THE AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION
            Monarch Bay Plaza, Box 375, Dana Point, Ca 92629
            Web site: http://www.kubby.com/AMMA.html
            Subscribe: AMMA-Talk-on@list.kubby.com
    ====================================================




    1/25/00
     

    Alert: SF SUPES VOTE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA ID CARDS

    As the article below will explain, patients and doctors have put forward their own plan for a medical marijuana ID program that has won broad support from AIDS patients, medical dispensaries and politicians.

    San Francisco Patients Resource Center) co-sponsored the ordinance with Act Up, Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and C.H.A.M.P. (Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems). The groups would work with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to implement the ID system after final approval.

    The San Francisco photo ID program is very different from the photo ID program proposed by Senator Vasconcellos, which has been strongly opposed by AIDS patients, medical marijuana patients and activists. The difference is that the S.F. program brings regulation to chaos, whereas the Vasconcellos program restricts and limits patients' rights while exposing their private medical information to government agencies.

    AMMA supports the courageous and historic work of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in creating a program that put the safety and privacy of patients first. The patients, physicians and concerned citizens of the American Medical Marijuana Association thank you for your leadership.
     

    -------------------------------------------------
    Pubdate: Tue, 25 Jan 2000
    Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
    Copyright: 2000 The Sacramento Bee
    Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
    Address: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
    Feedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
    Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
    Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html
    Author: Ron Harris, Associated Press Writer

    S.F. SUPES VOTE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA I.D. CARDS

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco supervisors approveda city ordinance Monday calling for identification cards for people who qualify to use medical marijuana.

    The board voted 10-1 for the ordinance, which would allow cardholders to obtain medical marijuana at several San Francisco dispensaries. The board is scheduled for a second vote Jan. 31 for final approval of the ordinance.

    Proponents of the program said the identification system is important to prevent the arrest or detention of legitimate medical marijuana users.

    "These individuals who carry these cards have a great deal of stress on them already. They're sick and dying individuals. We don't need to press them anymore than what they have right now," said Wayne Justman, director of the San Francisco Patients Resource Center, which proposed the ordinance.

    "This should provide the bearer of this card access to the various facilities here in San Francisco that dispense medical marijuana. It should also identify to law enforcement that I am a legitimate user of medical cannabis and if I am stopped and I have cannabis that I should not be detained," Justman said.

    Those seeking the cards would have to present a doctor's recommendation and personal identification to the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

    Board president Tom Ammiano cast the sole vote against the ordinance. Ammiano said there were too many unanswered questions regarding financing and patient privacy.

    "I have a lot of trepidation about keeping people's confidentiality, particularly patients with AIDS and cancer," Ammiano said prior to the vote.

    Justman's organization co-sponsored the ordinance with Act Up, Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and C.H.A.M.P. (Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems). The groups would work with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to implement the ID system after final approval, Justman said.

    Currently, patients qualifying for medical marijuana use must often provide a doctor's validation for each visit to a dispensary. The new ID cards would be valid for up to two years, and renewable thereafter.

    Jane Weirick, director of the St. Martin's Dispensary in San Francisco, said patients who come to her facility can expect only the best quality marijuana

    "Right now we have the highest medical grade in the world," Weirick said.

    There are similar ID card programs in other California cities. In Arcata, the police chief personally issues photo identification cards to registered medical marijuana patients. Mendocino County also uses an ID card system.

    California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, which permits marijuana use under a doctor's care.
     
     

    [TOP


    v1.0