October 24, 2016

Lynch files Amicus Brief in McIntosh 9th Circuit Ruling

UPDATE October 24, 2016; In a USA vs McIntosh the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that Government is not funded ie Section 538 (which is now Section 542) it cannot prosecute cases where an individual is in compliance with State Law. Also the Court ruled that the cases at hand be sent back to District Court to determine if they followed State Laws. Charles Lynch has filed an Amicus Brief demanding the court revisit this issue as thier decision is too restrictive and moves State Law Decisions into a Federal Court to determine Strict Compliance. Also in proving strict compliance funds will be used by government prosecutors that is not allocated in violation of Federal Law. Help Charlie keep up his fight! Ten years of a good man's life wasted on this BS :(

"In sum, it is up to the States, not the federal government, to determine the level of compliance necessary to be “authorized” under State law. The Panel’s adoption of an overly narrow interpretation of Section 542 discounts the plain language and legislative history of the rider."

UPDATE August 16, 2016

9th Circuit Rules in Favor of Section passing the case back to district courts

May 03, 2016; In a different medical marijuana case the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that while Government is not funded ie Section 538 (which is now Section 542) it cannot prosecute cases where an individual is in compliance with State Law. Also the Court ruled that the cases at hand be sent back to District Court to determine if they followed State Laws. It is not known yet if the Federal Government will Appeal the decision or how this ruling will impact USA vs Lynch. Charles Lynch's Public Defenders have asked for another extension in his final brief. Donate today to help Charlie keep up his fight!

"In ten consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising from three district courts in two states, the panel vacated the district court’s orders denying relief to the appellants, who have been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and who sought dismissal of their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), that prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws."

UPDATE May 03, 2016

Lynch directs Attorneys to File Supplemental Exhibit T

May 03, 2016; In a different medical marijuana case the Federal Government dismissed it's case against Harborside the largest Dispensary in the world located in Oakland CA. Speculation is that Section 538 was thge reason for the dismissal. The Huffington post reported:

"The U.S. Attorney’s Office didn’t immediately return a request for comment on why the case was dropped, but DeAngelo speculated the renewal of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment and the dismissal of a similar case against a Marin dispensary were both factors."

UPDATE April 14, 2016

Lynch directs Attorneys to File Supplemental Exhibit S

April 14, 2016; In a different medical marijuana case the Federal Government dismissed it's case against Lynette Mont-eton Shaw based on her Section 538 Arguments. Lynch's Federal Public Defenders made the following statement via Email:

Shaw's case has not set a precedent as that term is used in the law. A precedent is a case that controls the outcome of other cases. Judge Breyer's decision only controls Shaw's case. But it is a helpful decision that others (including Lynch) can try to use to persuade other courts (like the Ninth Circuit) to rule the same way. Judge Breyer is a well-respected judge who's opinion others may value (and who sometimes even sits on the Ninth Circuit); that would contribute to the level of persuasion the order may have. And the fact that the case is not being reviewed on appeal also can add to the persuasiveness. But no other court is required to follow, or even consider, the Shaw decision in any other case. In fact, if Judge Breyer wanted to rule the opposite way in another case, he would be free to do so.

Shaw rightly should be happy with what has transpired in her case. And the case sets a precedent in the generic, non-legal, sense that it is the first decision of its kind and an example of how a court could rule that way. It is a positive development in the overall scheme of things. But nobody should be viewing the government's decision not to appeal Judge Breyer's order as a concession on the government's part as to the correctness of the decision or as somehow suggesting it won't ‎fight a similar argument with all its might if raised in another case such as yours(Lynch's case).

Jonathon Libby Federal Public Defender

July 30, 2015 United States Members of Congress Sam Farr and Dana Rohrabacher of California delivered a letter to the United States Department of Justice Inspector General bringing attention to Federal Prosecutors not abiding by Federal Law Section 538. In the letter the Congressmen demand close record keeping at the managerial level in order to determine who is in charge of this violation of Federal Laws. The letter goes on to mention the Kettle Five case in Washington and the Charles C. Lynch case in California. Charles Lynch's Federal Public Defenders have been working diligently to end the Prosecution of Charles C. Lynch while Federal Prosecutors in the Central District of California continue to pursue a 5 year mandatory jail sentence. Charles Lynch operated a City Sanctioned Medical Marijuana Dispensary in CA in 2006-2007.

The following transaction was entered on 06/22/2015 at 1:34:40 PM PDT and filed on 06/22/2015

Case Name: USA v. Charles Lynch
 
Case Number:  10-50219
 
Docket Text:
 Filed order (ALFRED T. GOODWIN, WILLIAM C. CANBY and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN): We have considered the amicus briefs filed in support of appellant Lynch’s “motion for en banc rehearing.” The “motion for en banc rehearing” is construed as a motion for reconsideration en banc of the April 13, 2015 order. So construed, the motion for reconsideration en banc is denied on behalf of the court. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. Appellant Lynch’s fourth motion for an extension of time to file the third cross-appeal brief is granted. Additionally, the court sua sponte extends the time to file the optional cross-appeal reply brief. The third cross-appeal brief is due August 21, 2015, and the optional cross-appeal reply brief is due September 18, 2015. [9582788] [10-50219, 10-50264] (AF)
 
 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
 
 Mr. Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney
 Professor Jenny Elizabeth Carroll
 Mr. Joseph David Elford
 Mr. David P. Kowal, Assistant U.S. Attorney
 Paula Michelle Mitchell, Counsel
 Mr. Michael V. Schafler
 USDC, Los Angeles
 Honorable George H. Wu, District Judge
 Alexandra Wallace Yates, Federal Public Defender

Update May 7, 2015

BRIEF OF SENATOR MARK LENO (SD-11), SENATOR MIKE MCGUIRE (SD-02), AND FORMER SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF CHARLES C. LYNCH’S MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

California Senators Mark Leno (SD-11), Senator Mike McGuire (SD-02), and Former Senator Darrell Steinberg file legal documents in support of Charles Lynch. Leno was the principal coauthor of Senate Bill (SB) 420 the California Law which legalized Medical Marijuana.

"Whether a defendant complied with California law under Section 538 is a question for California, not DOJ."

Update May 5, 2015

BRIEF OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ROHRABACHER (R-CA) AND FARR (D-CA) AS AMICI IN SUPPORT OF CHARLES C. LYNCH’S MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Members of Congress Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr file amicus brief to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of ending Lynch's Federal prosecution for Medical Marijuana.

"Spending federal funds so the DOJ can continue looking over the shoulder of California, and other medical marijuana states, second guessing those states’ law enforcement and charging decisions, and stepping in to bring federal criminal prosecutions against lawabiding citizens like Lynch, tramples on state sovereignty, is a waste of federal tax dollars, and is exactly what Section 538 prohibits."

Update April 27, 2015

MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Charles Lynch's Federal Public Defenders filed a MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC regarding his Section 538 Motion. Previously a panel of three 9th Circuit Court Judges denied Lynch's request to enforce Section 538 to end his prosecution. Lynch is appealing this decision requesting that a larger panel of judges decide on the issue. Counsel for United States Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr prepare amicus brief in support of Lynch's 538 Motion.

"This case presents an issue of exceptional, national, and urgent importance:"

"Indeed, federal prosecutors appearing before this Court and district courts of this Circuit are committing criminal acts by spending unauthorized funds on medical marijuana prosecutions. This Court has the duty and authority to prevent the unlawful practice of law within the Court’s jurisdiction, and should not abdicate its responsibility to decide a ripe issue presented in the proper forum, thereby allowing the government’s unlawful conduct to continue unchecked."

"They are expressly awaiting guidance from this Court. This Court’s failure to act expeditiously to enforce Section 538 is effectively sanctioning the DOJ’s illegal interpretation of the law."

UPDATE April 13, 2015

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Lynch Section 538 Motion

April 13, 2015; The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on Lynch's Urgent Section 538 motion. The justices agreed to rule on Lynch's 'Urgent Motion' but unfortunately decided to punt Lynch down field on the Section 538 Motion telling him to either go back to the district court or file the motion with his 3rd cross appeal. Lynch's Federal Public Defenders are planning Lynch's strategy. Also since the Justices refused to rule on the case they said the Government's request for a Merits Panel was moot.

The 9th District Court of Appeals has created a webpage for the USA vs Lynch showdown due to the level of interest in the case.

Note: The order refers to FRAP 12.1, which they reference, it says:
FRAP 12.1. REMAND AFTER AN INDICATIVE RULING BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON A MOTION FOR RELIEF THAT IS BARRED BY A PENDING APPEAL
(a) Notice to the Court of Appeals. If a timely motion is made in the district court for relief that it lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the movant must promptly notify the circuit clerk if the district court states either that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
(b) Remand After an Indicative Ruling. If the district court states that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue, the court of appeals may remand for further proceedings but retains jurisdiction unless it expressly dismisses the appeal. If the court of appeals remands but retains jurisdiction, the parties must promptly notify the circuit clerk when the district court has decided the motion on remand.
(As added Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)