U.S. Attorney in Oakland, CA cites my case

|

The U.S. Attor­ney in Oak­land, CA, respond­ed to NORML’s law suit Tues­day (you know, the one three fed­er­al judges have already shred­ded):

http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/States/pdfs/ca_11cv05349_039.pdf

Melinda Haag
Melin­da Haag, U.S. Attor­ney for the North­ern DIs­trict of Cal­i­for­nia

The most annoy­ing thing about it is that she attacks me and I have no way of defend­ing myself.  On page 16, she cites Olsen v. Hold­er, 610 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Iowa 2009):

Oth­er courts have held that the fed­er­al pro­hi­bi­tion on dis­tri­b­u­tion, pos­ses­sion, and use of mar­i­jua­na in the CSA can­not be called into ques­tion by the exis­tence of state laws that pur­port to rec­og­nize a med­ical use for mar­i­jua­na. See Olsen v. Hold­er, 610 F. Supp. 2d 985, 994–95 (S.D. Iowa 2009) (reject­ing notion that plain­tiff could “cir­cum­vent” the fed­er­al con­trolled sub­stance sched­ul­ing process by rely­ing on deter­mi­na­tions by “sev­er­al states” that mar­i­jua­na has an accept­ed med­ical use)

She doesn’t explain the fact the court found I didn’t have stand­ing to make an argu­ment based on 16 states that I don’t live in and the judge told me I had to file a peti­tion with the DEA.  I’m already a peti­tion­er in the fed­er­al DEA resched­ul­ing peti­tion, so I’ve got that cov­ered.  The DEA moved to dis­miss me back in Sep­tem­ber and a three judge pan­el on the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the DEA’s motion on Decem­ber 7, 2011.  It’s inter­est­ing that the DEA did not cite this case in their motion to dis­miss me.  Isn’t that odd?