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.
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
Lynch Files Section 542 Motion
December 12, 2016
Lynch Files Motion to End Federal Prosecution
December 12, 2016: In the ongoing Federal Medical Marijuana Appeal USA vs Charles Lynch, Lynch's Federal Public Defenders filed a motion to end the Federal Prosecution of Lynch based on Approprations Act Section 542. Lynch claims it is a Felony for prosecutors to continue this medical marijuana prosecution based on Section 542 stating:
Even a de minimis expenditure of unauthorized funds violates the plain text of Section 542 and the Anti Deficiency Act, which makes it a felony for federal employees to make or authorize and expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available... It is a violation of constitutional magnitude.
Lynch Files Motion to Release 250k Bail Bond
December 11, 2016
Lynch Files Motion to Release 250k Bail Bond
UPDATE: December 14, 2016
Judge Wu released Charles Lynch's Bail! Today Judge Wu released the Family Farm now owned by my Sister Amanda Garcia. My little brother Pat Lynch posted the Family farm as part of 400k bail to get me out of Federal Detention back in 2007. He later died and left the property to my sister Amanda. A motion years ago released other portions of the bail including 108k posted by my brother Tom Lynch and property valued at 100k belonging to my Step Father Larry Garcia. A big Huuuugge thanks to my family for believing in me through these very difficult past 10 years.
UPDATE: December 12, 2016
Judge Wu has denied Lynch's first motion to have the bond released saying that the Prosecutor must be notified. John Littrell contacted the prosecutor David Kowal who opposed releasing the bond. Littrell quickly refiled the motion noting the Prosecutors felonious opposition to the motion.
December 11, 2016: In the ongoing Federal Medical Marijuana Appeal USA vs Charles Lynch, Lynch has been on released supervision for over 9 years with a Bail of 200k. The 200k bail was posted by Charles Lynch's brother Pat Lynch who later died and in turn left the property to their sister Amanda. The property has been held for almost 10 years. Lynch's Federal Public Attorney John Littrell filed a motion before the District Court of Judge Wu to have the Bond released.
9th Circuit Rehearing on Section 542 Denied
November 29, 2016
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 11/29/2016 at 8:27:53 AM PST and filed on 11/29/2016
Case Name: USA v. Steve McIntosh
Case Number: 15-10117
Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and CARLOS T. BEA): The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Bea have voted to deny the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Silverman has so recommended. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are DENIED.  [15-10117, 15-10122, 15-10127, 15-10132, 15-10137, 15-30098, 15-71158, 15-71174, 15-71179, 15-71225] (AF)
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, Senior District Judge
Mr. Harry M. Drandell, Attorney
Robert R. Fischer, Assistant Federal Public Defender
Mr. Taki V. Flevaris, Attorney
Mr. Jesse Gessin
Mr. Daniel L. Harralson, Attorney
Mr. Peter M. Jones
Mr. Eric V. Kersten, Assistant Federal Public Defender
David M. Miller, Attorney
Honorable Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge
Mr. Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Mr. Douglas Dwight Phelps, Attorney
Kevin P. Rooney, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Ms. Camil Skipper, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phil Telfeyan, Attorney
USDC, San Francisco
Mr. Nicolas Vernon Vieth, Attorney
Richard David Wall, Attorney
Mr. J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Alexandra Wallace Yates, Federal Public Defender
Mr. Marc Jonathan Zilversmit, Attorney
Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief District Judge (daily summary)
Lynch Files for New Hearing
October 24, 2016
Lynch files Motion for new Hearing
"At a minimum, based on thnis Court's decision in McIntosh, Mr Lynch should be entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the government is enjoined from further litigating his case."
McIntosh 9th Circuit Ruling Amicus Brief
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."
McIntosh 9th Circuit Ruling
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."
Lynch Requests Supplemental Exhibit T
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."
Lynch Requests Supplemental Exhibit S
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).