Carl’s Cannabis Corner – December 15, 2013

As you may know, I intervened in ASA’s case:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/carl-olsen-writ-of-certiorari-09112013.pdf

http://norml.org/pdf_files/brief_bank/Carl_Olsen_v_DEA.pdf

I asked Steele Smith to be my guest on Carl’s Cannabis Corner today, but he wasn’t available.

The reason I wanted to have Steele as my guest is because of this website: http://www.steelescase.org/

As you can see from that website, it says he will be the first person to successfully introduce evidence of compliance with a state medical marijuana law in a federal court. You can read an article that fills in a lot of detail here:

http://www.ocweekly.com/2011-04-14/news/steele-smith-c3-patient-association/full/

His attorney posted that same article: http://shevinlaw.com/articles-media/steele-smith-prophet-of-pot/

Because evidence of compliance with state law in federal court is generally prohibited by Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Steele’s case grabbed my attention. I tried to contact him in 2011, but I never got a response from him. I wanted to tell him that compliance with state law should be allowed as evidence because of Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), and that he was missing that essential piece of the argument. Gonzales v. Raich was about a federal statute. Gonzales v. Oregon was about a federal regulation. There is a big difference in the way a federal court will evaluate those two situations. Federal regulations are not entitled to the same level of deference as federal statutes.

I talked to Steele last Wednesday, and he said he made a plea deal in his federal case and never actually presented any evidence of compliance with state law. Of course, he attributes the plea deal to his threat to make that defense in federal court. As the article above mentions, he got a good offer to plead guilty for a smaller sentence than he would have been facing if he had gone to trial.

Steele also told me that he liked my argument based on Gonzales v. Oregon, so I decided he would make a good guest for my show on Sunday, if he was available.

I also mentioned to Steele that I have a trial coming up on January 3, 2014, here in Iowa District Court. Here are the relevant documents in that case:

04/01/2013 PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Carl Olsen
04/22/2013 MOTION TO DISMISS
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Meghan Gavin
04/29/2013 RESISTANCE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Colin C. Murphy
09/13/2013 PETITIONER’S TRIAL BRIEF Colin C. Murphy
10/18/2013 RESPONDENT’S TRIAL BRIEF Meghan Gavin
10/23/2013 OTHER ORDER MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED Scott Rosenberg
11/01/2013 ANSWER BY RESPONDENT IOWA BOARD OF PHARMACY Meghan Gavin
11/27/2013 PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF Colin C. Murphy

2 thoughts on “Carl’s Cannabis Corner – December 15, 2013

  1. Hi Carl, I hope all is well with you. For the record, you did not want to talk on the phone. I have a court transcript of my final proceedings available through Eric Shevin, Esquire. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

    1. Hi Steele,

      You and I talked on the phone and we exchanged some text messages, but I never did get a confirmation back from you about doing the show on December 15, so we just tried to call you when the show started. I did download a copy of the transcript from your sentencing, so I know what it says. The judge obviously thought you are a model citizen and seemed to be apologizing for imposing any sentence at all. I have to say that transcript speaks highly in favor of your good character. If there’s anything else you’d like to add, feel free. I’d like to have you tell your own story on my show sometime.

Comments are closed.