Randy Brush update

[Storm Crow]

Randy Brush is a medical marijuana user who grew 4 plants and got 3 years. Tonya, Randy's friend, has done an update and gave me permission to repost it. Please visit Tonya's site for the whole awful story.

Smile Randy Brush Update
Hello friends ,
I spoke with Randy for the second time this week and his spirits were up. He sends his love to his children and everyone who's life his story has touched.

I have agreed to keep everyone informed like I had promised many of you .

What outrages me and as should you........ Once he is moved from the jail into the prison system.. He will only receive ibuprofen for his debilitating conditions for pain. I would think that would be a serious violation of his rights ....to whom ever is responsible for making that judgment call I think they need brought out into the light.

The ACLU has been contacted and it is up to the law department on whether they will take his case. They will review it and look into its validity then decide. My local law enforcement thinks the ACLU will jump all over this. Way to harsh of a punishment.
Keep your fingers crossed.

I have also spoken with many judges/politicians who all 100 % agreed that Randy's case was WAY OVER sentenced and harsh. The report on those discussions will shortly follow

Please continue to pray for Randy and his children. This is such a difficult time for them all.

OPN leaders have also worked hard for Randy... Way to Go for anyone who is stepping up to help this patient in trouble.

I have a few more reports as promised to write. I will work on them this evening...

Everyone have a great weekend.

This will be a working weekend for me.


Thank you NONORML so much for everything.. Please check out their website and support NORML
. Yes ! I have the energy ,passion and drive but if it wasn't for these folks It sure would be harder and some of it wouldn't have been possible. and I know for a fact, whats to come, sure wouldn't be possible. You will have to wait and see!!!!.... Randy thanks you from the bottom of his heart .

A thank you also goes out to Mmjactionnetwork.com , Treating Yourself.com , Cannabis news.com, and OPN members all for the support shown. I am sure I have missed folks so I apologize if I have.

Have a great weekend
Tonya



www.mmjactionnetwork.com is dedicated to help "Free Randy Brush"
937435-7922 private line
cell 937-479-0461

Respectfully
Tonya Davis
__________________
Treating Yourself.com ROCKS

Tonya Davis
Founder of
http://www.mmjactionnetwork.com

May God Bless and Protect us All

[Psycho4Bud]

Great post and best of luck to Randy and his family. The ONLY crime here is getting 3 yrs. for 4 plants....medical or not!!!:mad:

[Psycho4Bud]

Thought I'd bump this to the top over the B.S.......this is what activism is about people!!!

[Psycho4Bud]

Thought I'd bump this to the top over the B.S, AGAIN!.......this is what activism is about people!!!

[Psycho4Bud]

Worth TRYING to bump up again!

[Sparrow]

Where did he live

[Psycho4Bud]

Where did he live

I've been trying to find news stories on him but this is the only thing I can come up with. Lets all wish him the best and also, there are a few links on this site where we "might" be able to make a difference.


Date: January 3, 2006

SUBJECT: THE RANDY BRUSH MEDICAL MARIJUANA TRIAL - UPDATE
Another Ohio Patient Persecuted and Prosecuted

(Lisbon, OH) At 9am, on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, Randy Brush of Wellsville, Ohio will again appear before Columbiana County Judge C. Ashley Pike on felony marijuana cultivation charges. This case, originally to be tried in October, was continued until January 2006. Like so many cases of its kind, it refutes the claim that patients who use cannabis medicinally are rarely arrested and prosecuted with regard to their medicine.

Summary details about this case:

What: Jury trial on felony (medical) marijuana charges
Who: Randy Brush of Wellsville, Ohio
When: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Where: Court of Common Pleas for Columbiana County, 105 South Market Street, Lisbon, OH 44432
Case #: 2005 CR 00110
Charges: (Two total) Illegal cultivation of marijuana (third degree felony) and possession of drugs (fifth degree felony)
Judge: Judge C. Ashley Pike, Republican

What Happened?: On October 3, 2004 at about 8:00 am, Wellsville police came to Brushâ??s home saying that they allegedly had aerial photographs showing marijuana growing on a roof behind his house. Without a valid search warrant, police searched his home and found four live cannabis plants. Police uprooted these plants and confiscated them along with a small quantity of dried product. Apparently understanding that Brushâ??s use of marijuana was medicinal, the police left behind a significant portion of Brushâ??s supply. They told Brush that his case would be heard by a grand jury within six months and left without arresting him.

On April 28, 2005, a grand jury in Columbiana County returned a Secret Indictment against Brush, charging him with two counts of felony marijuana possession and cultivation. Brush was arraigned on May 25, 2005, in the Columbiana Courthouse in Lisbon, Ohio. A jury trial is scheduled there for October 11, 2005.

Who Is Randy Brush?: Randy Brush grew up in Columbiana County and even knew a couple of the police officers who arrested him as childhood friends. He received an Associate Degree in Computer Technology from Kent State University in 1987, but earned his living by crafting custom homes, along with wood furniture pieces and artwork.

His life changed radically when his health began to fail in 2001. In December 2003, Brush was declared eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Cited in the judgment were impairments that included ischemic heart disease, disorders of the back (discogenic and degenerative), and depression. Other clinical diagnoses he has had include High Blood Pressure, Osteoarthritis, Spinal Stenosis, Spondylostenosis, Osteopenia, DVT Lower Extremities, Facet Disease, Disc Disease, Pinched Nerves (L5 & S1), and Neural Foraminal Stenosis. Brush has undergone two operations on his left wrist for ganglion cysts and one for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. The Bureau of Workers Compensation declared these injuries to be permanent and equal 5% of his total body, something clearly career-limiting to a skilled cabinetmaker.

Like many patients, Brush has taken his share of legal pharmaceuticals including clonasepam, indomethacin, Toprol XL, Lotensin, Tramadol, Fosamax, Paxil, Wellbutrin, Zoloft, Ultram, Flexeril, and Zocor. And like many patients, these drugs, particularly in combination, resulted in unpleasant side effects: abdominal discomfort, nausea, headache, ringing ears, dizziness, decreased appetite, fatigue, insomnia, bone pain, and drowsiness.

Thatâ??s when he found marijuana. As he became less and less able to perform even simple household chores, he began to search the Internet for answers. A friend recommended that he try marijuana and procured a sample. He found it a Godsend. For him, it has immediate benefit, with little waiting for the desired effect. Instead of lying down all the time as required or induced by other pain medicines, Brush was able to get busy and clean his house. As added benefit, he didnâ??t need as much of his regular pain medicine, and when he did take it, he had an appetite to ingest food as required beforehand.

Because purchasing marijuana on the black market is dangerous and costly, Brush decided to grow his own. Toward that end, he crafted a secure location on a roof, invisible from the street, where he could cultivate his medicine. Thatâ??s when the police allegedly obtained an aerial photo, which led to his arrest.

Brushâ??s disabilities, use of cannabis, and the bust have taken an even larger toll on his personal life. Shortly after being arrested, his wife of 13 years filed for divorce.

Why is this Case Important?: The prosecution of Randy Brush again dispels the myth that medical marijuana patients rarely incur the scrutiny of law enforcement. Brush had been a quiet, family man with failing health as his main tormentor. The cannabis plants he was growing solely for his personal use were neither in plain view nor accessible by anyone else. His growing number of medical conditions coupled with his inability to tolerate the myriad conventional medications he was forced to take made marijuana an attractive and effective alternative.

The involvement of the legal system has added nothing to his well-being. This prosecution has torn apart his family. Where he once found acceptance and understanding, he now faces hostility. His wife, fearing further intrusion by police for use of his medicine, filed for divorce. Like many of the disabled, Brush does not have the financial resources to battle the legal system. No part of his arrest or prosecution is necessary nor improves his situation.

â??What happened to Randy Brush represents the unfortunate treatment of the poor, sick, and disabled in our society,â?� commented OPN President, John Precup. â??In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and how we saw these people treated in its aftermath, surely we can do better.â?�

Senator Robert Hagan (D-Youngstown) introduced Senate Bill 74, Ohioâ??s medical marijuana act, into the Ohio Senate in January 2005. Under SB 74, Brush would have been able to identify himself to police as a medical marijuana patient. The police could also have checked with the Ohio Department of Health for records concerning his state-issued card before ever approaching him.

SB 74 was forwarded to the Ohio Senate Criminal Justice Committee, chaired by Senator Jim Jordan (R-Urbana). Hearings on SB 74, as required by law, have yet to be held.

Who is the Ohio Patient Network?: The Ohio Patient Network (OPN) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit coalition of patients, caregivers, medical professionals, concerned citizens, and organizations who support the compassionate use of cannabis for various medicinal purposes. In January 2005, OPN formed the Ohio Patient Action Network (OPAN) to lobby for SB 74.

Information about OPN can be found at http://www.ohiopatient.net. The link â??Patient Profilesâ?� contains information about Randy Brush including photographs of his carpentry work.

OPN is making a number of its members available for interview about medical marijuana including Randy Brush. Please call 1-888-262-2843 for details.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For updates on the Randy Brush case, please see The Randy Brush Medical Marijuana Trial
http://ohiopatient.net/v2/content/view/50/69/

[Psycho4Bud]

Leaping over the B.S.! :thumbsup:

[Sparrow]

This will help.......can you send it to someone who knows him?
More files.
File a motion to dismiss. ( I can write it for him no problem)
Accompany with a memorendom of law ( got one written)


Florida v. Riley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Florida v. Riley

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 3, 1988

Decided January 23, 1989
Full case name: Florida v. Riley
Citations: 488 U.S. 445 (1989);
Prior history:
Subsequent history: None
Holding
Helicopter surveillance at an altitute of 400 feet did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Florida Supreme Court reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
Majority by: White
Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy
Concurrence by: O'Connor
Dissent by: Brennan
Joined by: Marshall, Stevens
Dissent by: Blackmun
Laws applied


Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Facts
* 2 Issue(s) Before the Court
* 3 Decision and Rationale
* 4 Justice O'Connor's Concurrence
* 5 Justice Brennan's Dissent
* 6 Justice Blackmun's Dissent
* 7 External link

[edit]

Facts

A Florida county sheriff received a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on his five acres of rural property. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the sheriff circled over the property using a helicopter. The absence of two roof panels allowed the sheriff to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing inside. A warrant was obtained and marijuana was found in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeals disagreed, siding instead with the state, but the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Riley and overturned the Court of Appeals.
[edit]

Issue(s) Before the Court

* "Whether surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse constitutes a 'search' for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, 12 of the Florida Constitution." â?? Justice White, quoting the Florida Supreme Court decision

[edit]

Decision and Rationale

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:

Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.

Also vital to the Court's ruling was the fact that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:

As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[edit]

Justice O'Connor's Concurrence

Justice O'Connor felt that the plurality focused too much upon FAA regulations, "whose purpose is to promote air safety, not to protect [Fourth Amendment rights]." She deviated from the plurality opinion in arguing that the frequency of public flight in the airspace was a necessary concern, and that the mere legality of such flights was insufficient to determine whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy:

[I]t is not conclusive to observe, as the plurality does, that "[a]ny member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse." Nor is it conclusive that police helicopters may often fly at 400 feet. If the public rarely, if ever, travels overhead at such altitudes, the observation cannot be said to be from a vantage point generally used by the public and Riley cannot be said to have "knowingly expose[d]" his greenhouse to public view.

Nevertheless, O'Connor concurred with the plurality opinion because she thought the defendant still needed to show that public use of the relevant airspace was uncommon. The Justice closed by saying flights less than 400 feet in altitude "may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy."
[edit]

Justice Brennan's Dissent

Justice Brennan, joined by Marshall and Stevens, strongly believed that the plurality had misstated the issue, agreeing with O'Connor that the frequency of public air travel was a necessary consideration, and that the key issue in the case was whether ordinary citizens were normally in the air above the defendantâ??s home:

The police officer positioned 400 feet above Riley's backyard was not, however, standing on a public road. The vantage point he enjoyed was not one any citizen could readily share. His ability to see over Rileyâ??s fence depended on his use of a very expensive and sophisticated piece of machinery to which few ordinary citizens have access.

However, Brennan disagreed with O'Connor in that he believed the defendant did not necessarily need to show that public flight was rare, but rather that the state needed to show that it was common:

Because the State has greater access to information concerning customary flight patterns and because the coercive power of the State ought not be brought to bear in cases in which it is unclear whether the prosecution is a product of an unconstitutional, warrantless search, the burden of proof properly rests with the State and not with the individual defendant. The State quite clearly has not carried this burden.

[edit]

Justice Blackmun's Dissent

Justice Blackmun recognized that five of the nine justices (O'Connor and the four dissenters) had agreed that "the reasonableness of Riley's expectation [of privacy] depends, in large measure, on the frequency of nonpolice helicopter flights at an altitude of 400 feet." Like Brennan, Blackmun noticed that the main disagreement among these five justices was whether the government or the defendant had the burden of proof in establishing whether public flights above Riley's home were common or rare. Blackmun thought it was likely that such flights were quite rare, supporting Riley's case, so the government had to show they occurred with some regularity. He wrote that "burdens of proof relevant to Fourth Amendment issues may be based on a judicial estimate of the probabilities involved."
[edit]

External link

* ↑ 488 U.S. 445 (Text of the opinion from Findlaw.com)

One love
c

[Sparrow]

Here is part of my memorendum that can be put into his. Mine has a table of contents and shit but if itll help I can write up the shit for him, will take a day or two, no problem

1.
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen is entitled to be free of invasive visits from unwelcome agencies if no jurisdiction is had or laws have been broken.


2.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Case Examples-
Example #1
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
A Florida county sheriff received a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on his five acres of rural property. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the sheriff circled over the property using a helicopter. The absence of two roof panels allowed the sheriff to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing inside. A warrant was obtained and marijuana was found in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeals disagreed, siding instead with the state, but the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Riley and overturned the Court of Appeals.

Decision and Rationale
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
Also vital to the Court's ruling was the fact that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:
As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Example #2-
Kyllo v. United States 533 U.S. 27 (2001)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the use of a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from a house constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, therefore requiring police to obtain a search warrant.


Facts
Danny Lee Kyllo had been charged and convicted with growing marijuana in his Oregon home after a search was conducted. A federal agent had made observations with an infrared camera outside of Kyllo's home which showed that there was an unusual amount of heat radiating from the roof and side walls of the home. (The assumption is, to grow indoors, one needs to provide lots of light so plants can photosynthesize.) This information was subsequently used to obtain a search warrant, where federal agents discovered over 100 marajuana plants growing in the home. Kyllo first tried to supress the evidence, then plead guilty. Kyllo appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court on the grounds that such observations with a thermal-imaging device constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. There, the conviction was upheld.

Opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore illegal.



Affidavit for warrant- Make sure there is no false facts, if so


II the evidence from a search based on the warrant may later be excluded upon the proper motion being e If the warrant is issued on the basis of statements in the affidavit that the police knew to be untrue or which were recklessly made without proper regard for their truth, the evidence from a search based on the warrant is not valid. By submitting a false affidavit, Officer Fox did not act "in good faith." The search was thus improper, and whatever it turned up is inadmissible in evidence.

At common law, all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), however, the Supreme Court adopted the "exclusionary rule," whereby evidence seized unlawfully was declared inadmissible in court. The rule mainly serves as a deterrent to police officers seeking to conduct unlawful searches and seizures; it has, however, a number of exceptions. The rule was extended to the states in Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897] (1984), the Supreme Court applied the "good faith" rule: evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant that was later found to be defective was still deemed admissible. If an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis of the warrant, if the issuing magistrate abandons his neutrality or if the warrant lacks particularity, however, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant would still be excluded.

Despite their clarity, the Fourth Amendment's protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures" have in fact been drastically weakened since they became the law of the land in 1791. As it stands today, unless there exists a "reasonable" expectation of
privacy -- that is, a "reasonable" expectation that what one does or says will not be seen
or heard by someone else -- neither local police nor federal law enforcement authorities are required to get a warrant or other court order before they start a surveillance operation.


One love
c

[Sparrow]

I gave her a call and told her about the site.
Nice lady

[GreenKing11]

I'm outraged.

[Psycho4Bud]

I gave her a call and told her about the site.
Nice lady

Good job!!! Ya went the extra mile and this bongs for you!!!:thumbsup:

[mmjactionnetwork]

First I want to apologize for not reporting this sooner. My 26 year old daughter has needed my attention . So this had to wait briefly . Now I am back...

This was a call last week from Randy .. I have talked to him 3 times so far
Randy sends his love to everyone.... I asked Randy about how they were treating him in jail. Randy says they are being real good to him. That the jailers just shake their head saying he doesn't belong there. He is praying (which a blessing) He was in good spirits...

I asked about the food.. He sighed and said Its not real heart friendly..Randy has a very strict diet and
.. lucky for him his roomies in jail are heart friendly. They give him their fruits and veg .. Randy say's the prisoners are real cool with him too.

I sure do miss my buddy...

I sure hope he gets good C O's (guards) in prison system.... They exist... just hard to find..

He wants us all working for his release..... He wants us all telling everyone we meet about medical marijuana. and his case .... He wants lots of letters and he thanks everyone for the ones hes received.
mmjactionnetwork, OPN and treating yourself members as well as cannabis news, have been writing Randy or will soon begin.

We encourage you to write or call
Ohio Governor Taft
30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-6117 or email him at
http://governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp

Phone 614-466-3555 or 614-644-HELP and ask him to look into Randy's case.
Let him know this drug war has to stop... Let him know a family has been broken because of this war on medical marijuana patients. life's has been devastated all because he grew 4 plants. for medical use .. Please tell him Randy was a first time offender and if there were laws to protect us, THIS WOULDN'T BE GOING ON.!!! And to FREE RANDY BRUSH!..
Let him know it will cost ...many thousands... to house and maintain this man in the prison system.. Let him know how very sick the man is.. How his teenage son won state championship Spelling Bee just last month and is on his way to Washington.. Randy is not a criminal he just wanted to treat himself with a medicine thats safe. marijuana is safer than asprin... Fact : People have died from asprin . Has anyone died from natural form of marijuana ? FACT : No .
If we can get lots of calls or letters to Governor . . or call and write to Governor candidates we might have a shot at getting Randy shocked out of Prison ..

Thats why I put up
http://www.FREERANDYBRUSH.com. to keep everyone updated on Randy...On this site there will be a guest book so people can post good wishes..

I just got a call from the activist in CT who got into trouble for painting marijuana leaves on his house..... He has offered to assist in Randys case..... He is representing himself and is winning.... . Thank you everything...

Thats it for now!
Tonya Davis
cell 937-479-0461
or home 937-435-7922

[Psycho4Bud]

This letter is in regards to Randy Brush, a man recently sentenced to 3 years for growing 4 marijuana plants for medical purposes. With his current health conditions, wouldn't it be more of a burdon on the state to incarcerate this individual? I realize that it is illegal, but I also believe that 3 years does not serve the states, or Randy's best interests at this current time. Thank you and I hope you take this into consideration.


This was sent to the Ohio Gov.! Best wishes to Randy and his family!!!:thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

Bump!:thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

REAL ACTIVISM AT WORK HERE FOLKS!:thumbsup:

[mmjactionnetwork]

Wow. Thank you all for everything.. I will share this the next time Randy calls me... Visit FREERANDYBRUSH.com if you click on Randys picture then click once more you will be able to read the article done in TY magazine on him...
It so so wonderful seeing the support Randy has. Please keep it up! <smile>

[mmjactionnetwork]

Please lets not forget Randy!
This morning I am told Randy was moved to a new facility. Its a intake facility to the prison system. Heres the information on where he is being housed for the time being,
Randy Brush
Lorain Correctional Institution
2075 South Avon Beldon Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
440-748-1049 phone

[Psycho4Bud]

bump:thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

bump:thumbsup:

[mmjactionnetwork]

Hello everyone! I have some good news and bad news .
The good news is I have hooked up with a little powerhouse from Canada who is the top leading female speaker for LEAP (Law enforcement against prohibition) This young lady is amazing and starting tomorrow we will begin a media project to tell the world about Judge C Ashley Pike goal of sentencing one million man years before he retires..... That judge should have never said that aloud! ..... The bad news is that there judges like that out there..... I have filed a form with the ACLU and awaiting their response.....
Please lets fill Randys cell with letters and more letters.... Thats all they in prison have to look forward to.. visit http://FreeRandyBrush.com and get Randys mailing info and please send Randy a message via guestbook . I promise to give him all the messages...
If we let this injustice go by why are we here? Everyone can help please go sign his guestbook.

[Psycho4Bud]

bump:thumbsup:

[mont974x4]

Keep the faith folks. We can, and should, fight for what is right.

Send Randy our love and prayers.

[mmjactionnetwork]

Please visit
http://FreeRandybrush.com and show Randy support by leaving him a message in the guestbook...
Thank you
Tonya

[Psycho4Bud]

Please visit
http://FreeRandybrush.com and show Randy support by leaving him a message in the guestbook...
Thank you
Tonya

Just jumped back on for ya.....I just read that the Gov. of Ohio is up on some ethics charges so I would'nt count on much help there...seems he has his hands full!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_re_us/ohio_governor_ethics

Best of luck to you and Randy!!! Send him my best wishes!:thumbsup:

[Storm Crow]

This is the first paragraph of my most recent letter from Randy. It brings out how important letters are to our friends who are prisoners of the war on marijuana.

â??Well, they moved me. I am on 23 hr. lock-down. They call this â??inmate Orientationâ?�. I still donâ??t get all my meds. For some reason they took all my letters but yours, so I read it often. Your words mean a great deal to me. I have let some others others read itâ?¦â?¦â?�

He went on to more personal things and I chose not to share those. I have had relatives in prison and one of them told me once, that the letters I sent were one of the main things that kept him sane. Hearing about all the everyday things was an anchor. Even if you donâ??t write to Randy, write to that old buddy who got busted. Make his day.

Randy Brush â?? 502945
Lorain Corrections Inst.
2075 S. Avon-Beldon Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044