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