Federal Courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 15, 2007 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671, [email protected], or Tom Murphy at 207-542-4998, [email protected] Judge Promises Decision by End of November in North Dakota Hemp Farming Lawsuit – Monson v. DEA BISMARCK, ND – Two North Dakota farmers who filed a lawsuit in June to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the United States were in U.S. District Court on Wednesday, November 14, 2007. The farmers, State Rep. David Monson of Osnabrock and Wayne Hauge of Ray, observed the oral arguments made before Judge Daniel Hovland on their behalf by attorneys Tim Purdon and Joe Sandler. Judge Hovland stated he had read and re-read the briefs filed by both sides in the landmark case and concluded the hearing by saying, “I promise to make a decision by the end of the month,” in regards to the DEA’s motion to dismiss. In the meantime, Judge Hovland stayed the farmers motion for summary judgment as he felt the motion to dismiss should be dealt with first. “Today’s arguments revealed numerous weak points that the DEA is relying on to thwart this landmark case,” said Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. “The DEA’s assertion that the farmers didn’t have standing because they haven’t grown industrial hemp yet was rejected by Judge Hovland when he said ‘I am not convinced that the plaintiffs have to expose themselves to prosecution’ and reminded Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney Wendy Ertmer, who argued on behalf of the government, that ‘this Court has jurisdiction to make a declaratory judgment,’ which is what we are seeking,” added Steenstra. Judge Hovland expressed skepticism that the DEA would ever act on the applications, based on the fact that an application by North Dakota State University was still pending after more than eight years. Judge Hovland also indicated he thinks that the DEA has “prejudged the merits of the applications to grow hemp.” While much of the government’s dispute centered on their contention that this case is not ripe because they are still considering the farmers’ application, attorney Joe Sandler argued that the application the farmers made to the DEA is no longer really the issue. “This case is unique because North Dakota is the only state to regulate industrial hemp so only the exempted portions of plant, that is, the non-viable seed, stalk and oil, enter commerce of any kind, whether intrastate or interstate,” said Sandler. “When the North Dakota legislature changed its eight-year-old hemp law to no longer require a DEA license this past April, it made it a matter of state law that the farmer who goes through the licensing process need not involve the DEA in any way since only the exempted portions of the plant, as described in the Controlled Substances Act, would enter commerce.” Judge Hovland also asked Ms. Ertmer what the DOJ’s position is on HR 1009, the federal Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007. Ms. Ertmer said she did not know, however Vote Hemp believes that the DOJ would in fact aggressively oppose the Act if it were to be heard in Congress. A transcript of the November 14 hearing will be available in a couple weeks. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state–regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in fifty years. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. More on the case can be found at: http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html.

[Courtesy of Vote Hemp] NEWS ADVISORY: November 7, 2007 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger, T: 202-744-2671, E: [email protected] or Tom Murphy T: 207-542-4998, E: [email protected] North Dakota Farmers in Court Nov. 14 for Oral Arguments in Hemp Lawsuit BISMARCK, ND – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the United States, will have their day in court on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 in Bismarck, North Dakota. Oral arguments begin at 10:00 am CST in the William L. Guy Federal Building, 220 E Rosser Ave Bismarck, ND and will immediately be followed by a press conference on the courthouse steps. The farmers – State Rep. David Monson of Osnabrock and Wayne Hauge of Ray – will appear in court to observe oral arguments made on their behalf by attorneys Tim Purdon and Joe Sandler. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state–regulated cultivation of commercial industrial hemp farming in fifty years. WHO: Rep. David Monson, North Dakota House assistant majority leader, farmer Wayne Hauge, licensed hemp farmer Tim Purdon, Vogel Law Firm, Bismarck, attorney for the plaintiffs Joe Sandler, co-counsel for plaintiffs and legal counsel for VoteHemp.com Eric Steenstra, president, VoteHemp.com WHAT: Oral Arguments Media Availability and Teleconference on New Lawsuit to Grow Hemp WHERE: William Guy Federal Building, 220 E. Rosser Ave., Bismarck, ND 58501 WHEN: Monday, November 14, 10:00 am CDT, Oral Arguments, Media Availability Afterwards The North Dakota Legislature recently removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the U.S. district court will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and it’s supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If successful, states across the nation will be free to implement hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. More on the case can be found at http://www.votehemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html.

[Courtesy of The Sentencing Project] At a time of heightened public awareness regarding excessive penalties and disparate treatment within the justice system, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a case that touches on the controversial crack cocaine sentencing debate. The case, Kimbrough v. United States, explores the reasonableness of a federal district judge's below-guideline sentencing decision based on the unfairness of the 100 to 1 quantity disparity between powder and crack cocaine. The Sentencing Project submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner, Derrick Kimbrough, which argues that current drug guidelines inappropriately limit the factors that judges may consider at sentencing. Mr. Kimbrough's case stems from his 2005 guilty plea in Norfolk, VA, for possession with intent to distribute 56 grams of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm. Kimbrough, a Desert Storm veteran with no previous felony convictions, was prosecuted in federal court where penalties involving crack cocaine are harsher than in state systems. As a result, instead of receiving a sentence of about 10 years under Virginia law, he faced a federal sentencing guideline range between 19 and 22 years. Federal District Judge Raymond A. Jackson, who presided over Kimbrough's case, called the recommended guideline sentence "ridiculous" and instead sentenced Kimbrough to 15 years, the minimum required by mandatory sentencing policies. Tomorrow, the Court will consider whether Judge Jackson's decision was "reasonable" according to federal sentencing standards. For more information, visit www.sentencingproject.org/crackreform or download the amicus brief at http://sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/dp_kimbrough.pdf.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 CONTACT: Tom Murphy: T: 207-542-4998, E: [email protected] or Adam Eidinger, T: 202-744-2671, E: [email protected] Strong Growth of Hemp Food and Body Care Sales Continues in 2007 U.S. Farmers Suing DEA to Grow Industrial Hemp for Expanding Market Baltimore, MD – As leading North American brands that make hemp food and body care products with hemp seed and oil exhibit at the Natural Products Expo in Baltimore from September 27-29, new retail data released today proves that these brands are racking up record sales. The strong sales have occurred against the backdrop of state-licensed hemp farmers in North Dakota fighting a high stakes legal battle against the DEA to grow hemp seed for U.S. manufacturers. The new sales data lends credibility to U.S. farmers’ assertion that they are being left out of the lucrative hemp market that Canadian farmers have cashed in on for ten years. The sales data, collected by the market research firm SPINS, was obtained from natural food retailers only, excluding Whole Foods Market and mass-market food and pharmacy stores, and thus under-represents actual sales by a factor of two to three. The new report shows that hemp food sales grew in the sampled stores by 39% over the previous year (from August 2006 to August 2007), or by $2.1 million, to a total of $7.7 million. Based on the representative growth of this sample, the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) Food and Oil Committee now estimates that the total retail value of hemp foods sold over the past 12 months in North America grew from $14 million last year to approximately $20 million this year. In addition, the SPINS data show that sales of hemp body care products grew 11% over the past 12 months in the sampled stores to $12 million. Due to the large hemp body care line sold by The Body Shop, as well as the fact that many unreported leading mass-market brands of sun tan lotion and sunscreen products include hemp oil, the HIA estimates the total retail value of North American hemp body care sales to be at least $50 million. “The hard work we did four years ago to preserve legal sales of hemp foods through successful litigation has paid off with steady double-digit growth year after year,” says David Bronner, Chair of the HIA Food and Oil Committee and President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. “The HIA is confident that the total North American hemp food and body care market over the last 12 months accounted for at least $65-70 million in retail sales,” adds Bronner. Over the last three years, hemp food sales have averaged 41% annual growth, making it one of the fastest-growing natural food categories. "Last fall we expected the double-digit growth of the hemp food sector to continue in 2007, especially since hemp milk would finally be available to waiting consumers," comments Eric Steenstra, HIA Executive Director. "We project that growth in the markets for hemp food and body care will keep pace into 2008,” says Steenstra. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada data show that the quantity of hemp seed exports increased 300% from 2006 to 2007. Hemp oil exports kept pace, with an 85% increase in quantity. Hemp fiber exports showed encouraging progress, with a 65% increase in quantity. All statistics represent growth from the period January to June in 2007 versus the same period in 2006. A summary of hemp food and body care sales data is available by visiting http://www.thehia.org/PDF/HempSPINS2007.pdf . # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, September 20, 2007 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger, T: 202-744-2671, E: [email protected] or Tom Murphy, T: 207-542-4998, E: [email protected] North Dakota Farmers File Motion for Summary Judgment in Hemp Farming Case Motion Includes Response to DEA’s Motion to Dismiss BISMARCK, ND – Two North Dakota farmers, State Rep. David Monson from Osnabrock and Wayne Hauge from Ray, have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a lawsuit filed June 18 in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota that seeks to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) obstruction of state-licensed and state-regulated commercial hemp farming in the United States. The farmers are seeking a declaration that they cannot be criminally prosecuted for growing hemp under state regulations, now in effect in North Dakota, which ensure cultivated plants have no potential drug value and are grown solely for the production of legal hemp fiber and seed commodities. The Motion and other legal documents can be viewed at http://www.votehemp.com/legal. “The DEA cannot purport to extend Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause via the Controlled Substances Act in order to interfere with North Dakota’s industrial hemp program, in which only federally-exempted, entirely legal hemp fiber and seed commodities are placed into interstate commerce,” says Tim Purdon, an attorney working on the case. “North Dakota regulations enforce conservatively strict non-psychoactive THC limits similar to Canadian regulations, which ensure there is no drug value in any part of the plant that could be diverted into the interstate market for recreational marijuana.” The farmers were issued their state licenses to grow industrial hemp from North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson in February 2007. Pursuant to North Dakota law at that time, the farmers also applied for a DEA license to grow industrial hemp. Over the next few months, however, the DEA’s delay and expressed intent to review the applications as if the farmers intended to grow an unprecedented amount of Schedule I drugs, versus cultivate a non-drug agricultural crop, fueled frustration in North Dakota’s legislature. In April, the legislature changed their law, removing the requirement for a DEA license and asserting that the state license itself was fully sufficient. An Affidavit accompanying the Motion from Professor Burton Johnson of North Dakota State University (NDSU) included a formal letter from NDSU to the DEA this summer. In the letter, NDSU relays that the public university was directed in 1998 by North Dakota state law to collect and cultivate feral, local wild hemp in order to begin breeding industrial hemp varieties that could best thrive in North Dakota’s climate and meet the requirement of 3/10 of one percent THC or less in flowering tops. NDSU filed for a license from the DEA in 1999, but to date the agency has failed to act on the application. See the letter online at http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/NDSU_Letter_7-30-2007.pdf. “The national movement supporting farmers’ right to grow hemp learned from the NDSU example that the DEA has no intention of being rational about facilitating non-drug industrial hemp research and cultivation, even when it’s by a major university,” says Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra. Vote Hemp’s grassroots supporters are funding this legal action to overcome the irrational hysteria and bureaucratic inertia of the DEA, and to restore industrial hemp farming to American farmers. Vote Hemp is dedicating this effort to recently-deceased Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, and Michael Sutherland, former board member of the Hemp Industries Association (HIA). Both were trail-blazing pioneers in the modern restoration and renaissance of the global hemp industry. # # #

STUDENTS CAN'T SPEAK FREELY? ************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************ DrugSense FOCUS Alert #348 - Monday, 2 July 2007 On Monday, June 25, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their ruling on the case known informally known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." High school student Joseph Frederick was subjected to school suspension in 2002 for his display of a homemade banner while standing across the street from school property, albeit during normal school hours. While initial court rulings held in favor of the Juneau, Alaska school district, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed in favor of Frederick. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that since the school officials might interpret Frederick's message as some form of "promoting illegal drug use", disciplining the student with school sanctioned penalties is appropriate. MAP has already archived over a hundred news clippings on this ruling from across North America. These, and additional clippings during the days ahead, may be found at: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) Please consider writing and sending a Letter to the Editor directed to the newspaper closest to your hometown. We invite additional consideration of sending appropriate letters to other newspapers which have covered this story. If you elect to write to more than one newspaper, we strongly suggest at least some modification of your message so that each newspaper receives a unique letter. Additionally, MAP has archived a large number of Opinion pieces - most being critical of the ruling - from newspaper editorial boards and columnists, including nationally known writers George Will and Debra Saunders. Most of these opinion items saw print within the past one to three days. They make excellent targets for readers to voice their own feelings about the ruling from the Supreme Court. Letters of 200 words or less have the best chance of print unless otherwise noted in MAP headers. Thanks for your effort and support. It's not what others do it's what YOU do ********************************************************************** Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/ Or contact MAP's Media Activism Facilitator for personal tips on how to write LTEs that get printed. [email protected] ********************************************************************** PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others can learn from your efforts. Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts. To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form ********************************************************************** Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource === . DrugSense provides many services at no charge, but they are not free to produce. Your contributions make DrugSense and its Media Awareness Project (MAP) happen. Please donate today. Our secure Web server at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm accepts credit cards. Or, mail your check or money order to: . DrugSense 14252 Culver Drive #328 Irvine, CA 92604-0326. (800) 266 5759 DrugSense is a 501c(3) non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness about the expensive, ineffective, and destructive "War on Drugs." Donations are tax deductible to the extent provided by law.

For Immediate Release: June 25, 2007 For more info: Tony Newman, T: (646) 335-5384 “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Decision Weakens Free Speech; Schools Can Censor “Pro-Drug Use Speech” But Criticism of Drug War is Protected Advocates Concerned about “Drug War Exception” to the First Amendment and Who Will Determine What is Inappropriate Speech The Supreme Court issued a mixed opinion in the case of Morse v. Frederick, allowing censorship of student speech that promotes illegal drug use while affirming the core principle that political speech questioning the wisdom of the war on drugs is constitutionally protected. The case focused on Joseph Frederick, who was suspended in 2002 from a high school in Alaska after displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner during a class trip to see the Olympic torch parade pass by. Justice Alito in his concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kennedy, makes clear that he only joins the majority in so far as it protects speech “that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as ‘the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.” “We take mild comfort that the decision clearly protects speech challenging the war on drugs. Never before has the Supreme Court stated so clearly that speech attacking the wisdom of the war on drugs is protected wherever it may occur,” said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “But who is going to decide what is appropriate speech? Students are on the front lines of the war on drugs, and we are deeply concerned that free speech will now be administered by those who may wish to suppress open discussion on a range of topics such as the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. program, school drug testing policies, or random locker searches,” said Abrahamson. “Our Constitutionally protected rights to free speech shouldn’t have an arbitrary drug war exception.” As Justice Stevens recognized in his dissent: “Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of countervailing views.” The First Amendment should not be curtailed by a “nonsense banner” containing “an oblique reference to drugs,” lamented Stevens, who was joined by Ginsburg and Souter.

For Immediate Release: May 16, 2007 Contact: E.C. Danuel D. Quaintance, Church of Cognizance at (928) 485-2952 I ask for nothing more than open minds to examine the possible consequences of putting scriptural interpretations of a recognized religion to a test, in order to decide if that religion qualifies for First Amendment protections. It is not uncommon amongst followers of various faiths to interpret their common faith in different ways. The Supreme Court stated, in Thomas v. Review Board, “Intrafaith differences of that kind are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve such differences in relation to the Religion Clauses,” then went on to instruct that “Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretations.” This human freedom to interpret the scriptures as we see them was something most Americans take for granted. This freedom is not something small churches can take for granted any longer. The attack against a small church, and religious interpretations in general, has begun in a U.S. District court in New Mexico. New Mexico follows prior decisions of the 10th Cir. Courts. The 10th Circuit upheld the use of a test in the District of New Mexico, which originated in deciding if the beliefs of a newly established, one-man, religion qualified to receive First Amendment protection. The test has become known as the Meyers Matrix. The use of the Meyers Matrix test was never challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States. Now the Meyers test has been inappropriately used to test if a religious group of a recognized religion deserves protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. Testimony of cultural anthropologist Dr. Deborah Pruitt, PhD, who specializes in many non-mainstream religions, revealed the Meyers test is highly skewed against a great number of recognized religions. Government, in an attempt to avoid the requirement of showing “a compelling government interest” for burdening the free “Exercise of Religion”, has chosen a new and innovative path of getting around that requirement. First government attorneys declared the religion was “a Bastardized form” of the religion. Then went on to declare, what synonymously amounts to claiming because the leader of a Christian church was no Christ, the church did not deserve the constitutional protection a religion enjoys. This wasn’t enough insult to freedom of religion, government turned to a Priest of another sect of the religion, as an expert witness, in an attempt to prove another religious group incorrectly interprets the teachings, practices, and modes of worship of their common faith. This move showed a total disrespect for prior decisions of the Supreme Court, like the one quoted above. In the end it didn’t matter that government attempted to test one sect against another. Government’s hoped results from such an attempt backfired. The testimony of government’s expert witness from the common faith ended up showing the small group might actually more correctly interpret many elements of their common faith. With the prior method failing it was up to the, recently appointed, Federal Judge to put the hammer down. U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera had her own methods of depriving religious freedoms. She decided to count the elements that were not met in the Meyers test, and then call that which was met “dicta,” which allowed her to not count that part of the test when arriving at a deciding average of whether or not the beliefs qualify for religious protections. By that move, and a determination that the “mantra” considered the “moral and ethical compass,” of this recognized religion, provided no moral or ethical guidance, the judge ruled that not enough factors of the Meyer Matrix were met to qualify for religious protections under RFRA or the First Amendment. End of story, the beginning of the end of a once highly honored protection amongst Americans. The only hope now is through contacting your representatives and asking them to investigate and put a halt to this disregard for cherished human rights. For more information visit http://danmary.org

Dear Friends: At the last two hearings, on April 13 and 20, Judge Breyer urged the prosecutor to drop Ed Rosenthal's case. The judge was trying to prevent the feds from marching straight ahead into a quagmire, just like in Iraq. Using the same wisdom they have shown on other issues, they decided to forge ahead.

FEDERAL: Raich Medical Marijuana Ruling Draws Criticism CONNECTICUT: Medical Marijuana Bill Supported MINNESOTA: State Medical Marijuana Measure Moves Forward RHODE ISLAND: Medical Marijuana Law Needs Action