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.)

UPDATE April 10, 2015

Lynch Files Supplemental Exhibit R

April 10, 2015; In a different medical marijuana case the Federal Government filed court documents under seal in response to 3 defendant's claim of ending sentencing, probation violations and prosecution based on Section 538. The District Court ordered the Government to release the document. The Government has relunctantly released this redacted copy of thier motions against Section 538 defendants. Charles Lynch's Federal Public Defender has again captured the moment and submitted this supplementary document to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is tricky but Lynch is reading it that the Government concedes that it cannot continue prosecutions and wants to delay these cases until the Section 538 law expires in Septemper 2015. And they want to do this under seal and redact and hide the truth from the people. So here it is folks the Federal Government's War on Drugs may over and prosecutors are trying to hide (ie seal/redact) their work because they know they are breaking the Appropriations Act, 2015 at this point.

UPDATE April 9, 2015

Lynch Files Supplemental EXHIBITS N THROUGH Q

Last night April 8, 2015 I sent Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) a message via his Facebook account. Also I posted a response to Sam Farr's (D-Calif.) message regarding Section 538. This morning I was surprised to hear from Mr. Farr in support of ending my case. Also I had an article in the New York Times today and Rohrabacher and Farr sent the DOJ a letter informing them to end medical marijuana prosecutions. My Federal Public Defender was quick to capture the moment and filed a Supplemental motion to the 9th circuit court of appeals. The motion has screen shots of my correspondence with Senator Farr, a copy of the New York Times Story and the Letter sent to DOJ from Rohrabacher and Farr.

UPDATE April 3, 2015

Government files REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SECTION 538 MOTION WITH FOURTH BRIEF ON CROSS-APPEAL

Last night (April 2, 2015) Federal Prosecutor David Kowal stayed up late into the night and filed the Government's response to Lynch's Sec 538 Motion at 11:07 pm.

Basically Government wants a merits panel to review Lynch's Sec 538 request.

"As set forth above, however, because the truncated, incomplete procedure requested by defendant for resolving the Section 538 issue is inappropriate, imprudent and unfair, defendant’s motion should be referred to the merits panel assigned to resolve these consolidated cross-appeals and the government should be permitted to file its response along with its fourth and final brief."

Prosecutor also reminds us the US Solicitor General has authorized his work:

This is particularly so where, as is the case with the government’s cross-appeal here, the appeal is a government affirmative appeal authorized by the United States Solicitor General.

Government also reminds us that Lynch has stalled the case for years and is now demanding Urgent Motions:

"Moreover, as reflected in the government’s second brief on cross-appeal, the government continually sought prompt resolution of sentencing and other post-trial issues in district court, only to be thwarted by the successful attempts of defendant and the district court to repeatedly continue and delay matters..."

The Government starts tearing the new Sec 538 law apart by stating the following

"Section 538 says nothing about “local laws,” but rather “State laws.”

And finally the Government Prosecutor is feeling confident about his work:

"The government is confident that when this Court reviews the entire briefing and full district court record in this matter that it will reject defendant’s Section 538 claim"

Lynch noted that he 'was tired of being a pawn in this stupid game of legal jeopardy' and that he has not had gainful employment for over two years mostly due to the pending dark cloud case hanging over him for eight years. He said he would continue the fight regardless because our Government is not treating people fairly and the time is NOW for change. Lynch threw out one of his favorite quotes "Just Say NOW! to legalization.