One Large Step!!!!!!!!

[SnSstealth]

Im not at all opposed to a Mod renaming this thread for sticky purposes...I feel this is a great idea, and needs to be followed throughout...I couldn't find another appropriate link, since the original text was from my weekly update email from ASA...
Feel free to do this Mods if ya wish..I will update as I get info from my newsletters, and would love others to update with CREDIBLE info...I hope mine is...lol
whiskeytango

[8182KSKUSH]

Hey I love the title! Very appropriate. Of course they could lose the case, but something in my gut says that they won't!
I attached the actual court document on the decision for all to read.

[8182KSKUSH]

Link to the actual complaint filed as well for your reading pleasure.
http://www.santacruzvsashcroft.com/S...v_Ashcroft.pdf

[8182KSKUSH]

Well I have my google alert set! Just go to google, type in Santa Cruz vs Ashcroft, then do a "news" search. It should give the results and the option to set an automatic email alert for that item! You will recieve a conformation if done right! I am still looking for more specific info on the where's and when, of the case. As in when the next day they will be going into court ect....I realize that this will probably take a little while, but shit man I can hardly wait to see what happens!:jointsmile:

[8182KSKUSH]

Just a correction, in all my haste I incorrectly posted Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft, it's actually
Santa Cruz v. Gonzales.
Sorry bout that!

[8182KSKUSH]

Just couldn't help myself, here is the ver batum order from the judge!

[align=left]ORDER[/align]
[align=left]Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiffsâ?? motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiffsâ?? motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED;
(3) Defendantsâ?? motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Plaintiffsâ??
first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action and DENIED as to Plaintiffsâ?? third
cause of action;
(4) Any amended complaint shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the date of this
Order; and
(5) Counsel for Plaintiffs are directed to prepare a proposed form of order granting the[/align]
motion for preliminary injunction; no bond shall be required.

To me this makes it sound like they can continue operating for now. Wow! Could this have any impact on other cases currently in the system? Anyone?

[mmjnoob]

I'm no legal-eagle but I'd imagine the precedent set by the outcome will make a huge difference for pending and future cases.

+rep to Judge Fogel

[8182KSKUSH]

Santa Cruz group wins court OK to grow pot

Ruling allows medical marijuana distribution

Maria Alicia Gaura, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 22, 2004

A Santa Cruz medical marijuana collective shut down by federal agents two years ago can grow and distribute marijuana for its patients while its civil lawsuit against the federal government is decided by the courts, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose marks the first time a court has granted a medical marijuana organization the right to grow the federally outlawed herb without interference from federal drug agents.
The ruling clears the way for the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz to challenge the federal government's authority to raid medical marijuana gardens operating within the boundaries of California law.
"This is an incredible victory for us, though we do realize that everything is temporary," said Valerie Corral, the founder and director of the collective. "We are so pleased to be able to begin our garden again."
Federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the collective's marijuana farm on Sept. 5, 2002, seizing 167 plants and detaining several of the group's members.
At the time of the raid, the collective had been operating openly for several years with the explicit support of Santa Cruz city and county officials, including local law enforcement. The group's approximately 250 members, suffering from a variety of serious illnesses, collectively grew marijuana and distributed it to members free of charge.
The federal raid was denounced by Santa Cruz officials, who responded by allowing the group to distribute marijuana from the steps of City Hall -- as an unmarked helicopter repeatedly circled overhead.
Even Attorney General Bill Lockyer protested the raid, firing off a letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in which he called the DEA's actions in Santa Cruz a "provocative and intrusive incident of harassment."
The collective's first foray into court was a civil suit demanding the return of items seized in the raid, but it was dismissed by Judge Fogel in December 2002. The case has since been appealed.
In April 2002, the collective and Santa Cruz city and county officials filed suit again, challenging the federal government's authority to interfere with medical marijuana activities that are legal under California law.
Federal authorities claim authority to pre-empt state law under provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that marijuana use of any kind constitutes interstate commerce.
But a December 2003 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a separate medical marijuana case was cited by Judge Fogel as critical in leading to Wednesday's decision.
In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit found that medical marijuana grown and used by Angel Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from a brain tumor, does not constitute interstate commerce. The appeals court ruled that Raich could use marijuana free from federal prosecution.
The collective will be allowed to grow marijuana at least until the balance of its case challenging the applicability of the commerce clause is decided in Fogel's courtroom.
Fogel dismissed four additional claims against the federal government, narrowing the case to the single issue.
This week, the Justice Department appealed the Raich case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fogel's decision was hailed as a victory for patients' rights and states' rights by the collective's jubilant legal team.
"This is wonderful news for the patients who have really endured a good deal of suffering since the raid," said collective attorney and Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen. "Since the raid we have lost more than 20 patients, and there is no question but that their deaths were more painful than they needed to be.
"The Raich decision was really the breakthrough, but this (decision) takes it a step further," Uelmen said. "It says there is no difference between a single patient growing their own medicine and a collective group assisting each other to achieve exactly the same purpose." Officials from the Justice Department and the DEA declined to comment on the decision.

[8182KSKUSH]

So these people were operating a "collective", hmm. I especially love the part where "helos were circling over head"! Fucking A man!:thumbsup:

Also noticed this is a "civil" lawsuit. I have searched and searched but have yet to find info on trial dates ect.... any help anyone would be greatly appreciated!

[allrollsin21]

This is a beacon of hope for sure. Honestly this comes as a complete surprise to me. I would not be surprised if this judge went missing...
I love the enthusiasm from you all and definitely will be following this.
Woo Hoo! Patients Rights! Woo Hoo!...:jointsmile: