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.

---

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

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text: 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. [10213015] [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
Andras Farkas
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, Fresno
USDC, San Francisco
USDC, Spokane
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)

---

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."

---

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."

---