BREAKING NEWS: November 2023 Federal Prosecutors miss deadline to file in McIntosh hearing in USA vs Lynch two times in a row. Lynch files for motions to dismiss. Scroll down for latest updates
January 2023 Court again re-schedules McIntosh hearing in USA vs Lynch for August 7, 2023. Government pushes the blame off to Lynch for all his delays in hearings in the past.
October 2020 Court re-schedules McIntosh hearing in USA vs Lynch for April 2021. In 2020 Lynch's case was stalled by the Corona Virus Outbreak. The McIntosh hearing will determine if Lynch was following State Law 14 years ago. The McIntosh hearing is now scheduled for April 1, 2021.
April 2, 2020 Federal Prosecutors schedule McIntosh hearing in USA vs Lynch. In 2019 Lynch took his arguments to Supreme court which paused the Section 531 Arguments. Lynch lost at the Supreme Court but won a McIntosh Hearing. The McIntosh hearing will determine if Lynch was following State Law 13 years ago. The McIntosh hearing is scheduled for March 2020 through August 2020.
March 3, 2017 Free Federal Public Defenders file Notice and Request for a McIntosh Remand or Relief to end ongoing 10 year Federal Medical Marijuana Prosecution of Charles Lynch.
Appropriations Action Section 538 of 2015 was renumbered to Appropriations Act Section 542 in 2016. The Section expires in April 2017 if not renewed. The rider was renewed in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The 2020 version is numbered Section 531.
February 24, 2015 Charles Lynch filed Appropriations Act, 2015 Section 538 Motion to end his prosecution for operating a medical marijuana dispensary in 2006. The series of Government and Lynch motions follows with most recent first.
SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
Lynch Wins McIntosh Hearing
September 13, 2018 9th Circuit Lynch wins McIntosh Hearing
After 10 years on appeal the 9th Circuit finally made a decision in USA vs Lynch. The Good News Lynch won a McIntosh hearing which says Federal Government cannot spend money to overthrow state medical marijuana laws. The Rider has been on the books since 2015. This year it is known as the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2019 Division C Section 537. The Bad news, even McIntosh himself has not won his arguments which are still ongoing.
The panel did not need to reach the question of whether a congressional appropriations rider (enacted following the filing of this appeal), which this court has interpreted to prohibit the federal prosecution of persons for activities compliant with state medical marijuana laws, operates to annul a properly obtained conviction. The panel explained that a genuine dispute exists as to whether Lynch’s activities were actually legal under California state law, and therefore remanded to the district court for a factual determination as to state-law compliance.
Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.
Lynch Section 542 Motion Denied
USA vs Lynch 9th Circuit Denies Section 542 Motion June 16, 2017
9th Circuit Denies Lynch Section 542 argument without prejudice. Lynch will now have to make his Section 542 arguments in his final Brief due July 17 2017, ten years to the day after Lynch was arrested on July 17, 2007.
Lynch’s Notice (Docket Entry No. ) is denied without prejudice to renewing the arguments in the third cross-appeal brief. No motions for reconsideration of this denial will be entertained. Lynch’s third brief on cross-appeal is due within 30 days of the date of this order.
Click the 'Motion Denied' button to read the 9th Circuit's string of decisions on previous filing and the Section 542. Thank you for your support :( Charles C. Lynch
Lynch Final Section 542 Reply
USA vs Lynch Lynch Files Final Section 542 Motion April 24, 2017
Free Federal Public Defenders file Lynch's oversized (38 pages) Section 542 motion reply and at the same time file Request to File the Oversized reply.
And the government’s proposal flips the presumption of innocence on its
head. Criminal defendants, of course, are innocent until proven guilty. See In re
Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Mr. Lynch is entitled to a presumption that he
complied with California law unless and until the government proves otherwise.
The Reply is 38 pages and there is a 10 page max so a request to file the oversized brief is included. The 9th Circuit hasn't replied to any of the requests for extensions lately...
Click the 'Final Reply' button to read Lynch's Final Section 542 reply. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch
Lynch Motion for Final Extension
USA vs Lynch Federal Public Defefenders Files Final Extension to Respond April 21, 2017
Free Federal Public Defenders file for a final one day extension to reply to Government's opposition to Lynch's Section 542 motion.
Lynch Motion for Extension
USA vs Lynch Federal Public Defefenders Files Extension to Respond April 3, 2017
Free Federal Public Defenders file for extension to reply to Government's opposition to Lynch's Section 542 motion.
Government Final 542 Opposition
USA vs Lynch Government Files Final Section 542 Opposition March 23, 2017
Federal Prosecutors file oversized (27 pages) opposition to Lynch's Section 542 motion and at the same time file request to file the oversized reply.
For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion should be denied,
and this Court should order that defendant third brief on cross-appeal be filed
without further delay.
Federal Prosecutors file oversized response opposing Lynch's Section 542 Motion. The response is 27 pages and there is a 20 page max so a request to file the oversized brief is included. The 9th Circuit hasn't replied to any of the requests for extensions...
Click the 'Government 542 Opposition' button to read the Government's Final oppositin to Lynch's Section 542 motion. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch
Government Request for Extension to Respond
USA vs Lynch Government Request for Exentsion March 16, 2017
Government Prosecutors file an entension request to file a response to Lynch's Section 542 motion.
I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central
District of California...Additional time is also needed because of the size and
nature of defendant’s Motion. Defendant’s Motion consists of an
oversized 27-page brief, presents multiple issues, and includes two
volumes of exhibits.
Click the 'Request for Relief' button to read the request. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch
Section 542 Notice and Request for McIntosh Relief
USA vs Lynch Request for McIntosh Relief March 3, 2017
Free Federal Public Defenders filed Section 542 Notice and Request for McIntosh Relief based on Appropriations Act Section 542 Motion to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in USA vs Lynch, an ongoing Ten Year Federal Medical Marijuana Prosecution in Californa.
In their amici curiae brief, U.S. Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam
Farr (D-CA), the lead authors of Section 542, explained that the rider was intended
to apply to cases like Mr. Lynch’s—and to this case in particular. Specifically,
they wrote that the purpose of their amendment was stopping federal prosecutions
“like the one pending . . . against Charles Lynch.” Dkt. No. 103, at 8. Referring to
this case, the Congressmen cautioned that “[p]ermitting the DOJ to spend more
federal funds to prosecute one of the very cases Congress intended for the DOJ to
cease prosecuting defeats the purpose of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment
entirely.” Id. at 11
Money Slinging Marijuana hating Federal Prosecutor David Kowal is expected to file his felonious frantic reply by March 16, 2017. But my Deputy Federal Public Defenders have some news for him:
In addition, if the government’s continued spending on this case is unlawful,
the Court should not ignore that fact and allow further expenditures on appeal. The
concern is not solely unauthorized waste of taxpayer funds—although that interest
is weighty. The government’s failure to comply with Congress’s directive violates
the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7, and the Anti-Deficiency
Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341 et seq., 1511 et seq., implicating constitutional rights and
potential criminal liability for the government. See McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1175
(“[I]f DOJ were spending money in violation of § 542, it would be drawing funds
from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the
Appropriations Clause.”); 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A) (making it a felony for
federal employees to “make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an
amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation”);
see also id. §§ 1350, 1517(a), 1519.
Click the 'Request for Relief' button to read the 253 pages of work by Federal Public Defenders. At the cost of an appellate attorney these days that cost could be up to and beyond $253,000 just for this one motion not to mention the millions spent prosecuting and defending Lynch. Lynch has Free Federal Public Defenders and your donation is greatly appreciated. Freedom Fighting is not a paid position. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch
Section 542 Hearing Countdown Timer
USA vs Lynch Hearing Set for February 2, 2017
February 2, 2017 10:30 am
United States Courthouse
350 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Courtroom 9D, 9th Floor
UPDATE: February 15, 2017: Click here for the transcripts from the February 2, 2017 hearing. I see the transcripts are not even dated correctly, it was Thursday February 2, 2017 not Monday February 2, 2017.
UPDATE February 14, 2017: Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The court has received the defendant’s motion (Docket Entry No. ) for an additional extension of time in which to file the third cross-appeal brief, the government’s opposition (Docket Entry No. ), and the defendant’s reply (Docket Entry No. ). The motion is granted in part. The third cross-appeal brief is due within 45 days after the date of this order. Any further request for an extension of time to file this brief is disfavored. The government’s optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the third cross-appeal brief. (Pro Mo)  [10-50219, 10-50264] (MS)
UPDATE February 13, 2017: Lynch's Federal Public Defenders file reply to Government's opposition to Lynch's request for extension saying Federal Public Defenders should be working on the Section 542 motion as the Final Brief may be mute if Section 542 relief is found.
UPDATE February 10, 2017: Federal Prosecutor Dave Kowal files opposition to Lynch's latest extension of time to file Final Brief to the 9th Circuit court of Appeals saying any section 542 motion should be combined into the Final Brief.
UPDATE: February 7, 2017: Lynch's Federal Public Defenders filed an extension to file the Final Brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals while they work on the Section 542 motion.
UPDATE: Thursday February 2, 2017: Charles Lynch appeared in Los Angeles Federal Court before Judge Wu regarding the 9th Circuit Court of appeals request from Judge Wu as to whether Charles Lynch was in compliance with State Law while operating his dispensary. Judge Wu refused to answer the Compliance question on hand and instead asked the question of whether Appropriations Act Section 542, a spending rider, can unwind a conviction and even possibly incarcerations based on the Controlled Substances Act. He also stated that if he were to decide on Compliance on this day either side would Appeal his decision, so it was faster according to the Judge to let the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals answer his question about whether a conviction can be unwound, then he can make his ruling based on the existing record.
The Prosecutor in the case tried arguing that Lynch's chance to file a Section 542 motion had expired and the Judge dismissed this claim. The Prosecutor also said that Lynch's Section 542 motion should be combined into his final appeal as opposed to being argued on its own merits.
UPDATE: Friday January 27, 2017 Lynch files final Section 542 brief 'Reply in Support of Motion for Written Indication That the Court Would Grant or Entertain a Motion for McIntosh Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities'
Click the 'Lynch Final Reply' button below.
UPDATE: Thursday January 19, 2017 Government files 'GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INDICATIVE RULING' Click the 'Government Opposition' button below for the document.
I'm living in New Mexico now, help me get to Los Angeles, Donate Today. Thank you!
Scan the code to load the Facebook Event page or just click here
Lynch Section 542 Hearing
USA vs Lynch Hearing Set for February 2, 2017
A decision in USA vs Charles Lynch is set for February 2, 2017 at 9am in the Downtown Los Angeles Federal Court House. Lynch's Federal Public Defenders filed a Appropriations Act Section 542 motion to end his Federal Prosecution for operating a Medical Marijuana Dispensary in Morro Bay CA. Section 542 prohibits the Goverment from spending money on such prosecutions. The Section expires in April 2017 if not renewed. Prosecutors responded with a request for a delay until late January 2017. Judge Wu set a hearing date of February 2, 2017 9am in Los Angeles CA. Even found a typo in the document "no long with this office".
This request is based on the Attached Declaration of AUSA David Kowal...I am one of the government’s counsel of record in defendant Lynch’s pending appeal and the government’s cross-appeal before the Ninth Circuit, 9th Circuit Docket Nos. 10-50219 and 10-50264...My co-counsel in this matter is no long with this office. Other government counsel who are likely to assist me in responding to the Motion have lengthy pre-planned leave similar to or more lengthy than mine.
Big Thank You to all my supporters. Your help getting me to Los Angeles for this possibly historic hearing is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Charles C. Lynch