Quote Originally Posted by copobo
audio is here, it just began
Old Supreme Court Chamber

Thank you. That was educational. Shows these folks are playing sliegh of hand...

Key words they used..

Clone: Seems like a plant was the issue right? Wrong... CLONING IS SECRET SQUIRREL LINGO FOR DOUBLE AGENTS, TIS WHY HE CHUCKLED ..LOCAL/DEA UNDER FEDREAL DTF CONTRACT. NOTICE THE RESPONSE.. I NOW SEE THE PROBLEMS HERE. i.e. all state csa statutes are clones of federal csa.


He next then got into bringing back the focus too...

What constitutes a plant is clear:

"Plant" means any marijuana plant in any stage of growth.



See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17) (defining "plant" as "an organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marihuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marihuana plant)") (emphasis added); see also Foree, 43 F.3d at 1581 (holding that "cuttings and seedlings are not marihuana plants unless there is some readily observable evidence of root formation") (quotations omitted).

Neither the statute nor the current Sentencing Guidelines define the term "marihuana plant." But although the question is one of first impression in this circuit, every other court that has considered the issue has concluded that, for sentencing purposes, root formation is the sine qua non of a marijuana "plant." See United States v. Delaporte, 42 F.3d 1118, 1994 WL 706105 at * 2- * 3 (7th Cir. 1994); Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.; United States v. Burke, 999 F.2d 596, 601 (1st Cir.1993) ("at the first sign of roots, a plant exists for sentencing purposes"); United States v. Edge, 989 F.2d 871, 876-79 (6th Cir.1993) (plant exists if there is "some readily observable evidence of root formation"); United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610, 616 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Bechtol, 939 F.2d 603, 604-05 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Eves, 932 F.2d 856, 858-60 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 884, 112 S. Ct. 236, 116 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1991); [**26] United States v. Carlisle, 907 F.2d 94, 96 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Angell, 794 F. Supp. 874, 875 (D.Minn.1992), sentence vacated on other grounds, 11 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 2747, 129 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1994); United States v. Fitol, 733 F. Supp. 1312, 1314-16 (D.Minn.1990) ("To distinguish two plants from one plant cut into two pieces, there must be some evidence of individual growth after the severance, such as the growing of roots from a cutting.") 12

U.S. V. Robinson, 35 F.3d 442;, (9th cir. 1994)
Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.

si·ne qua non (sn kwä nn, nn, sn, kw)
n.
An essential element or condition: "The perfect cake is the sine qua non of the carefully planned modern wedding" (J.M. Hilary).
[Late Latin sine qu (caus) nn, without which (cause) not : Latin sine, without + Latin qu : ablative of qu, which, what, who + Latin nn, not.]