January 09, 2020 Busted!

Lynch Admonished for the smell of weed in his house January 09, 2020

Lynch was jamming some music in his trailer and finished playing Secret Agent Man when he heard pounding on the door. Lynch opened the door to two Federal Agents who are allowed by court order to search the house. The Federal Agents came into the house and smelled Cannabis. Lynch was admonished and written up by the Agents.

Federal Agents

The Defendant was admonished for not abiding by his condition to not use or possess illegal drugs

The defendant furthered his conversation by citing criminal codes and state marijuana usage laws.

Lynch said he was not citing State Marijuana Laws but rather Federal Marijuana Laws and said more the half the entire nation is operating in violation of Federal Law.

May 30, 2019 Final Pre McIntosh Hearing Briefs

Federal Prosecutors and Federal Public Defenders provide final briefs for McIntosh Hearing

These are the final arguments before Feds put Lynch on State trial in Federal Court to determine whether he was following state law 12 years ago when he ran his Medical Marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay California. This is the so called McIntosh hearing based on the Spending Appropriations Rider 2015-2019. Government is saying that Lynch needs to prove he followed State Law beyond a reasonable doubt. Lynch says has already shown he was following state law and it is the burden of the Government to prove he was not following State Law.

Federal Prosecutor David Kowal

Defendant further shows the weakness of his arguments by relying heavily on the unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion in United States v. Gloor

Unsurprisingly, district courts have had no problems acknowledging these opinions while still firmly holding that defendant bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence in a McIntosh hearing.

As the government has set forth, the Ninth Circuit in Kleinman properly used the Cal. AG Guidelines to measure a defendant’s state law compliance for conduct that preceded the promulgation of the guidelines

Federal Public Defenders

Misquoting and altering the transcript, the government suggests that at the hearing on the indicative motion, the defense “conceded” that if the burden is on the defendant, then Mr. Lynch has not shown compliance. (Gov’t Opn’g Br., Dkt. No. 490 at 7.) In fact, the defense stated the opposite: “Even if the burden is on us, I think we have met it.” (Dkt. No. 467 at 41:15-18.)

All this court must determine is whether, as a factual matter, California law authorized Mr. Lynch’s conduct. If so, the rider applies. See Lynch, 903 F.3d at 1087.

Finally, the government relies on the unpublished district court decision in United States v. Daleman...Daleman relies on the general rule that the proponent of a motion bears the burden of proof...Importantly, Daleman predates Gloor, where the Ninth Circuit looked to state procedural mechanisms to determine whether the defendant demonstrated state-law compliance under McIntosh.

In straining to find noncompliance, the government argues that laws and guidelines that postdate Mr. Lynch’s conduct—by as much as a decade—are relevant to the court’s decision.

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

May 09, 2019 Feds Prepare State Trial in Federal Court

Feds preparing to put Lynch on State Trial in Federal Court, McIntosh Hearing

Feds are planning on putting Lynch on trial in Federal Court to determine whether he was following state law 12 years ago when he ran his Medical Marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay California. This is the so called McIntosh hearing based on the Spending Appropriations Rider 2015-2019. Feds are saying that Lynch needs to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

AS THIS COURT HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED, DEEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS ACTIONS WERE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

Federal Public Defenders

In the appellate opinion in this matter, the court found it “contestable” whether Mr. Lynch was in “total compliance with state law,” indicating that even without further factual development, Mr. Lynch had raised doubt as to his compliance. Lynch, 903 F.3d at 1085...Thus, as dictated by law, at this stage, the burden shifts to the government to prove the CCCC was not in compliance with California medical marijuana laws beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

April 23, 2019 Feds Ask for Extension

Feds ask for 2nd Extension preparing State Trial for Lynch in Federal Court

Feds are planning on putting Lynch on trial in Federal Court determine whether he was following state law 12 years ago when he ran his dispensary in Morro Bay California. This is the so called McIntosh hearing based on the Spending Appropriations Rider 2015-2019.

hereby stipulate to the following in support of a joint motion for a two-week continuance of the dates for preliminary briefing in this matter.

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

April 8, 2019 Feds Ask for Extension

Feds ask for Extension preparing State Trial for Lynch in Federal Court

Feds are planning on putting Lynch on trial in Federal Court determine whether he was following state law 12 years ago when he ran his dispensary in Morro Bay California. This is the so called McIntosh hearing based on the Spending Appropriations Rider 2015-2019.

Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The parties shall file their opening simultaneous briefs (limited to 20 pages) on April 25, 2019. Simultaneous responsive briefs (limited to 7 pages) will be filed on May 16, 2019. The hearing shall be continued from May 20, 2019 to June 3, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2019 Hon. George Wu

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

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.

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. [137]) 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

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

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.

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.