Marijuana State Ballot Initiatives

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/marijuana.html

Alaska Marijuana Ballot Initiative (Epperly's Testimony in Opposition)

The "People" of the "State of Alaska" voted into "Law" the "Alaska Marijuana Ballot Initiative" (2014) and the "Alaska State Legislature" will be reviewing that "Ballot Initiative" for implementation.  Mr. Epperly gives "Testimony  in Opposition" to the implementation of the "Ballot Initiative" into a "Law" for the  State of Alaska."

Alaska Marijuana Legalization -- Alaska Ballot Measure 2 - (2014)

The "People" of the "State of Alaska" approved "Ballot Measure 2" into law.  Here is the full text of that "Marijuana Ballot Measure" with "Legislative Affairs Agency Summary."

↓ — — — — — ↓

Epperly vs. State of Alaska
and The United States of America

Epperly vs. State of Alaska vs. The United States of America

A "Petition for a Redress of Grievance" was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on April 15, 2015.  The "Petition" was filed to resolve a controversy of laws that exist with the use of "Marijuana" between the State of Alaska and The United States of America.

State of Alaska's "Motion to Dismiss"

State of Alaska filed a "Motion to Dismiss" pleading "Failure to State a Claim" and "Want of Standing" for Mr. Epperly to bring his "Petition for Redress of Grievance" before the U.S. District Court.  An "Exception and Opposition" has been filed.

Epperly's Opposition to State of Alaska's "Motion to Dismiss"

Mr. Epperly filed an "Opposition" to the State of Alaska's "Motion to Dismiss."  Also filed was a "Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings."  Mr. Epperly believes that he has destroyed the "Motion to Dismiss."

State of Alaska's Reply To "Opposition To Motion To Dismiss, And Opposition to Motion For Summary Judgment"

State of Alaska has submitted its reply to Mr. Epperly's Opposition to "State's Motion to Dismiss" and Opposes Epperly's "Motion for Summary Judgment."  Mr. Epperly agreed with the Opposition to the "Summary Judgment" and had the "Motion" removed from the Record of the Court.

United State's "Motion to Dismiss"

The Respondent, "The United States of America," has submitted its "Motion To Dismiss."  The Petitioner, Gordon Warren Epperly, has "Objected" to the "Motion."

Epperly's "Objection" to United State's "Motion to Dismiss"

The Petitioner, Gordon Warren Epperly has filed his "Objection" to the United States "Motion to Dismiss."  Does Mr. Epperly have "standing" to obtain a "Declaratory Judgment" regarding the use of "Marijuana"?

United State's "Reply" to Epperly's "Objection to 'Motion to Dismiss'"

The Respondent, "The United States of America," has submitted its "Reply" to Mr. Epperly's "Opposition to 'United States Motion to Dismiss'."  Attached to the United States "Reply" is the Court Case which Attorney Richard L. Pomeroy has relied upon to show that Mr. Epperly has no "standing" to present a "Petition for Redress of  Grievance" requesting "Declaratory Judgments."  Notwithstanding the assertion of Attorney Richard L. Pomeroy, the attached case of "Montana Environmental Information Center v. Stone-Manning, 766 F.3d 1184"  shows that Mr. Epperly has "standing" and the pertinent parts of that case are "boxed" with sideline comments.

Motion to include text of "5 USC 701-706" & "Court Case"

The Attorney for the Respondent, "The United States of America" continues to allege that the Petitioner, Gordon Warren Epperly has no "standing" to question the policy of the U.S. Attorney General to delegate the "Powers" of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President to regulate and execute the "Federal Control Substance Laws" on "Marijuana" to the States of the Union.  "Title 5 of the United States Code at Sections 701 thru 706" should put the question of "standing" to rest.  The Attorney for the Respondent, "State of Alaska" has taken the position that under the doctrine of "Federalism," the States of the Union are not subject to the "Federal Control Substance Law" as that law applies to "Marijuana."  The case of "United States of America v. Michael Carl Visman, 919 F.2d 1390" says otherwise.

Notice of Relevant Court Cases and Motion to add Cases to Record of Court

Here is a listing to Relevant Court Cases as required by Local Rule 40.2 of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.  Also this document addresses Judge Robert E. Blackburn's "Court Order To Sever" sections of the "Complaint" of "Safe Streets Alliance et al., v. Alternative Holstic Healing, LLC et al.," (see below) on grounds that the Plaintiffs most likely does not have "standing" to bring a private action into the Court declaring the "Statutes" of the State of Colorado are "null and void" as being preempted by the "Federal Control Substance Law."  This "Court Order" has been addressed within this "Motion to add additional cases into the Record of the Court."

Court Order - Motions to Dismiss Petitioner's "Petition for Redress of Grievance" GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE

On November 5th, 2015; Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska has "dismissed" Gordon Warren Epperly's "Petition for Redress of Grievance" with prejudice.  This is no surprise. The "Court Order" merely states that the Petitioner had no authority (standing) to bring forth a "Petition for Redress of Grievance" before the Court.  There are no statements made within the "Court Order" that shows the allegations of the Petitioner were not true.

COMMENT: A "Notice of Appeal" will not be filed as it would be a waste of time.  It is common knowledge that ProSe litigants have no standing before the Courts for want of paying monetary tributes to the Members of the BAR.

Letter - Members of the Alaska Marijuana Board and Assemblies of City and  Boroughs - (11-23-15)

This letter is submitted as a warning to several members of the Alaska Marijuana Control Board and Members of City and Borough Assemblies informing them that with the dismissal of the above cause of action of Gordon Warren Epperly v. State of Alaska and The United States of America they are now on the front lines of causing harm to their fellow Citizens with defacto Marijuana Building Permits and Marijuana Business License to which they may be civilly and criminally liable.

IMPORTANT Court order

"Court Order" - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment DENIED

In this case of the United States of America vs. Brian Justin Pickard, et.al., U.S. District Court No. 2:11-cr-449-KJM, the federal government charged 16 Persons in a Sacramento federal court with a single charge of conspiracy to grow 1,000 or more marijuana plants between Feb 2008 and October 2011 in Trinity and Tehama counties.  1,000 plants is the magic number that makes the minimum sentence (with a couple of small exceptions) upon conviction 10 years in prison; 100 or more marijuana plants nets at least 5 years in prison.  Several of the Defendants moved the Court to dismiss the Indictment which was denied on April 17, 2015.

↑ — — — — — ↑

(Memo) - Justice Department Announces Update to Marijuana Enforcement Policy
(Memo) - Collection of U.S. Justice Department Letters and Memos
(Memo) - BATF on Marijuana and Firearms

These are the "Memos" which several "States" have relied upon as the authority to enact laws to legalize the use of "Marijuana" within their "States."  I call your attention to the "Memo" of "U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag."  If you own a "Firearm," be sure to read the "BATF" Memo.

The Theory of Prosecutorial Discretion in Federal Law

U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder and his Deputy Attorney Generals have relied upon the "Theory of Prosecutorial Discretion" as their authority to alter and amend the "Federal Control Substance Law" and delegate the exclusive "Powers" of the "U.S. Congress" to regulate "Marijuana" under the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the "U.S. Constitution" to the States of the Union.

How The Judiciary Stole The Right To Petition

In the above Court Action of "Epperly vs. State of Alaska vs. The United States of America", Mr. Epperly brought the "Cause of Action" into the Court as a "Petition for Redress of Grievance," not as a "Complaint."  As expected, the Attorneys for the "State of Alaska" and "The United States of America" have moved the Court to dismiss the "Petition" for want of "Standing" of a "Complaint."  This "Article" on our "Right" to "Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievance" explains what is that "Common Law Right" and how (over a period of time) the Federal Judges have destroyed this provision of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee - Loretta Lynch on Marijuana

U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has now retired and former U.S. Attorney, Loretta Lynch, has been promoted and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the next U.S. Attorney General.  The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has presented several questions to Loretta Lynch on "Marijuana."  This is a list of the questions raised and the answers given by Loretta Lynch.

Letter - Marijuana Ballot Initiatives

Here is a letter addressed to James M. Cole as the U.S. Deputy Attorney General questioning his authority to delegate "Powers" of "The United States of America" to the "Governors" of the "States" to execute and enforce the "Marijuana Prohibition Laws and Treaties" of the government of "The United States of America."

Letter - Alaska Medical Marijuana Laws

This letter addresses existing laws of the State of Alaska that authorize the medical uses of Marijuana.  This letter exposes those laws as being repugnant to Federal Laws and thus they are "Colorable" which may lead our "Physicians" and "Patients" to arrest and prosecution for the commission of crimes against the laws of "The United States of America."

Letter - Alaska Marijuana (Hemp) Laws

This letter addresses Alaska Senate Bill No. 08 in establishing of a "Hemp" culture within the State of Alaska.  Attached to this letter is a paper addressing that failure of the "Hemp" industry of the State of North Dakota for being in conflict with the "Federal Control Substance Acts."

Letter - Marijuana - The Assurances of the State

This letter is an e-mail message addressed to the members of the "Alaska State Legislature."  The message advises the "Legislators" that they have a duty to assure its "Citizens" of the safety to use "Marijuana" for "Human Consuption," and as the "U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency" has put everyone on "Notice" through the "Federal Register" that "Marijuana" has no use for medical purposes and it is a dangerous drug that should never be used for any purpose whatsoever, the "Marijuana Ballot Inititives" places every "State" in a state of liability for "Tort" action.

Letter (1) - Liability of Public Officials authorizing Marijuana Pot Shops

Most of our Officials of the Municipal governments have no idea that the enacting of "Ordnances" and issuing "Permits," "Licenses," and other "Documents" to allow "Marijuana Pot Shops" to be established in their Cities are placing themselves in jeopardy of being charged with "Federal Crimes."  This letter explains the problem.

Letter (2) - Liability of Public Officials authorizing Marijuana Pot Shops

This is a letter addressed to the members of the "Assembly" for the "City and Borough of Juneau" (Alaska) as a follow up to the first letter giving "notice of liability" of being arrested and prosecuted for violating the laws of the "United States."  This letter was accompanied with a "Memo" from "U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag" explaining the "Policies" of the "U.S. Justice Department" in regard to the "States" authorizing the use of "Marijuana."

Letter - U.S. Attorney,  Sally Amanda Marshall

This letter informs "U.S. Attorney, Sally Amanda Marshall" of her "errors" in reporting within the "Newspapers" of our "Nation" that "Native Indians" of "Indian Reservations" may use "Marijuana" for recreational and medical purposes.

Letter - U.S. Representative, Trent Franks

This letter addresses an "Associated Press" (AP) Article  as published in the Newspapers of our Nation wherein it was reported that several members of Congress are considering introducing legislation to discourage the States from legalizing the use of Marijuana.  U.S. Rep. Trent Franks is one of those who would like to sponsor such legislation.

Letter -  Executive Offices for United States Attorneys

This letter was mailed in obligation to report crimes that are cognizant to the Federal Courts under the mandate of 18 USC 4, "Misprision of felony."  This letter reports "Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole" as committing the crime of "aiding" and "abetting" the commission of crimes against the "Laws" of the "United States."

Letter - The Exclusive Power of Congress Over Interstate Commerce

This letter to the "Alaska State Legislature" addresses the "Power" of "Congress" to regulate "Marijuana" under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the "U.S. Constitution."

Letter - Emergency Action To Be Taken

This letter addresses the need to adopt "emergency legislation" directed at the "Governor" and "Attorney General" for the "State of Alaska" to declare the "Alaska Marijuana Ballot Initiative" to be "null and void" for being in conflict with the "Federal Controlled Substance Acts" and thus being unconstitutional.

Letter - AICPA issues "Brief" on impact of Marijuana Laws

This letter to the "Alaska State Legislature" introduces a “Brief” by “AICPA” (Certified Public Accountants) giving them a study of the “Marijuana Laws” as adopted by the “State of Colorado” and the “State of Washington” and its impact upon the “Banks” and “Businesses” of those “States.” This “Brief” was updated January 5, 2015.

Letter - Alaska State Legislature - (01-31-15)

This letter to the "Alaska State Legislature" addresses issues that have been overlooked in regard to the legalization of the use of "Marijuana."  The legalization of "Marijuana" may jeopardize the "World Tourist Industry" of the "State" by violating the laws that govern "Cruise Ships" and other issues.

Letter - Alaska State Legislature - (02-02-15)

This letter to the “Alaska State Legislature” address misconceptions and errors that were made in the “Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee” of January 20, 2015. This letter presents undisputable evidence that the “Alaska Marijuana Ballot Initiative” of year 2014 is unconstitutional, null and void.

Letter - Alaska State Legislature - (02-12-15)

This letter addresses Congressional "H.R 1523" of April 12 2013 wherein several "Congressman" tried to remove "Marijuana" from the penalty section of the "Federal Control Substance Law" for those that are in compliance with the "Marijuana Laws" of a "State."  The "House Resolution" never was acted upon in "Committees."

Letter - Alaska State Legislature - (02-15-15)

This letter addresses "International Drug Treaties" and other issues.  This letter puts the "Alaska Legislature" and "Attorney General" on notice that there is a "controversy" with the "State of Alaska" and "The United States of America" in regulating "Marijuana" that will have to be addressed and resolved by a "Federal Judge."

Letter - Alaska State Legislature [Video Files]

This letter addresses the "supremacy" of the laws of "U.S. Congress" to regulate "Marijuana" as a commodity that moves through commerce under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the "U.S. Constitution."  This "PDF Document" has several "Video Links" to videos on the use of "Marijuana" within the "States."

↓ — — — — — ↓

Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana)

This "Petition to Reschedule Cannabis" was filed by "The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis" in an attempt to remove "Marijuana" from the "Schedule I" classification of being a dangerous drug that shall not be used for any purpose.

Federal Register -- CRC Petitions, DEA Answers

DEA denies "The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis" Petition to reschedule the "Federal Controlled Substance Law" from the "Schedule I" classification.  This "Report" is very detailed as to why the "Petition" was denied.

Federal Courts Rejects Legalizing Medical Marijuana

Here are three "Articles" reporting on the "U.S.  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia" rejecting a lawsuit to order "DEA" to reconsider its ruling denying reclassification of "Marijuana" from a "Schedule I" classification.

CRC Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Here is the full text of "The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis" Petition for "Writ of Certiorari" which was filed with the "U.S. Supreme Court."  The "Petition" was denied by the "Court."

↑ — — — — — ↑

U.N. Schedules of the Convent on Psychotropic Substances of 1971

Several "Nations" of the "United Nations" entered into "Treaties" identifying "Marijuana" as a "Psychotropic Substance" to which the party "Nations" shall not decalred "lawful" for any use whatsoever.  The government of "The United States of America" is a party to those "Treaties."

↓ — — — — — ↓

States of Oklahoma and Nebraska
vs. State of Colorado

U.S. Supreme Court - Nebraska and Oklahoma vs. Colorado - (Brief of Complaint)

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska moves the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to sue the State of Colorado for allowing "Marijuana" to be imported into their States.  This appears to be a "nuisance" lawsuit to prevent the State of Colorado from violating the Federal Controlled Substance Laws.  This suit was filed in December of 2014.

U.S. Supreme Court - Former DEA Administrators - (Amici Curiae Brief)

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska motioned the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to sue the State of Colorado for allowing "Marijuana" to be imported into their States.  Former DEA Administrators have filed an "Amici Curiae Brief" in support of the States of Oklahoma and Nebraska to sue the State of Colorado.

U.S. Supreme Court - States of Oregon and Washington - (Amici Curiae Brief)

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska motioned the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to sue the State of Colorado for allowing "Marijuana" to be imported into their States.  The States of Oregon and Washington have filed an "Amici Curiae Brief" in support of the State of Colorado to dismiss the case.

U.S. Supreme Court - Nebraska and Oklahoma vs. Colorado - (Brief of Opposition)

The State of Colorado has answered the States of Oklahoma and Nebraska's "Leave to file a Complaint" with a "Brief in Opposition."

U.S. Supreme Court - Nebraska and Oklahoma vs. Colorado - (Reply Brief)

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska have filed their "Reply Brief" in answer to the State of Colorado's "Brief in Opposition."

U.S. Supreme Court - Brief for the United States as Amicus Curia - (Amici Curiae Brief)

The Solicitor General of the United States filed a "Opposition" to the States of Oklahoma and Nebraska's "Leave to file a Complaint" into the U.S. Supreme Court against the State of Colorado.

U.S. Supreme Court - Brief for the United States as Amicus Curia - (Supplemental Brief)

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska have filed their "Supplemental Brief" with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 5, 2016 and on January 6, 2015 the "Briefs" have been distributed for Conference of January 22, 2016.  It should not be long before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court either grants or rejects Oklahoma and Nebraska's "Leave to file a Complaint" with the Court.

U.S. Supreme Court - Motion for leave to file a Bill of Complaint - DENIED.

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska filed their "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT" with copies of “Complaint, and Brief in Support” with the U.S. Supreme Court on December 18, 2015. On January 6, 2016, the "Briefs" were distributed for Conference of January 22, 2016 and on March 21, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court “dismissed” the Plaintiff State’s “MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT” without comment. Justices Thomas and Alito submitted a “Dissenting Opinion” giving their reasons why the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court should have granted the States of Oklahoma and Nebraska their day in Court.

↑ — — — — — ↑

Fear and Loathing in Colorado - Invoking the Supreme Court State-Controversy Jurisdiction

The States of Oklahoma and Nebraska has moved the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to sue the State of Colorado for allowing "Marijuana" to be imported into their States.  This paper goes into a detailed discussion on the theory of "nuisance" litigations between the States.

More Lawsuits Against State of Colorado

Judgment Affirmed - Brandon Coats vs. Dish Network, L.L.C.

The “Marijuana Ballot Initiative” of the State of Colorado was worded almost identical to the “’Marijuana Ballot Initiative No. 2' (2014)” of the State of Alaska and other States of the Union. In these “Ballot Initiatives,” the Sponsors used the word “lawful” throughout. As the use of the word “lawful” is identical to each of those “Marijuana Ballot Initiatives,” the definition of that word “lawful” as given by the June 15, 2015 Colorado State Supreme Court must be given to the word “lawful” as used within those “Ballot Initiatives"

"Coats contends that the General Assembly intended the term “lawful” here to mean “lawful under Colorado state law,” which, he asserts, recognizes medical marijuana use as “lawful.” Coats, ¶ 6, 303 P.3d at 149. We do not read the term “lawful” to be so restrictive.

"The CSA lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance, meaning federal law designates it as having no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Id. at § 812(b)(1)(A)–(C). This makes the use, possession, or manufacture of marijuana a federal criminal offense, except where used for federally-approved research projects. Id. at § 844(a); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005). There is no exception for marijuana use for medicinal purposes, or for marijuana use conducted in accordance with state law. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); see also Gonzales, 545 U.S.at 29 (finding that “[t]he Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail,” including in the area of marijuana regulation). Coats’s use of medical marijuana was unlawful under federal law and thus not protected by [Colorado State Law] section 24‑34‑402.5.”

As the laws of the government of "The United States of America" makes unlawful the use of "Marijuana," the use of "Marijuana" is also unlawful in all States.

Sheriffs Sues State of Colorado over Legal Marijuana

Several Sheriffs for the "State of Colorado" have brought a lawsuit into the "U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado" stating that they have been damaged from the negligence of the Governor exceeding his authority in allowing the "Colorado Marijuana Ballot Initiative" to go into effect when the Governor and his Attorney General had full knowledge that the "Ballot Initiative" was "unconstitutional" for being in conflict with the "Federal Controlled Substance Act" . . .

Court Order - Order on Motions to Dismiss - Case Dismissed

Safe Streets Alliance & New Vision Hotels et.al., vs. Summit Marijuana et.al.,

"Safe Streets" joined with "New Vision Hotels Two, LLC," which owns the Holiday Inn in Frisco, Colorado to sue a handful of members of the marijuana industry on racketeering charges. New vision “is suffering injuries to its business and property caused by the operations of Summit Marijuana, a state-licensed recreational marijuana store that plans to open less than 75 yards from the front entrance of New Vision’s hotel.”

The remaining Plaintiff in this case, New Vision Hotels Two, LLC, filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" of all remaining defendants in the case on November 19, 2015 which was granted by the court, and the case was terminated on December 10, 2015.

Phillis Windy Hope Reilly, et.al., vs. Governor John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., et.al.,
Court Order Dismissing Parties
Court Order Granting Motions To Sever

The Reilly’s are Colorado property owners who have been injured by a conspiracy to cultivate recreational marijuana near their land, and they are members of Safe Streets.  Plaintiffs seek redress under RICO, which requires those who engage in racketeering activity — including the commercial production of marijuana — to pay those they injure treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

Court Order - Order Re Motions to Dismiss - Case Dismissed

↑ — — — — — ↑

Marijuana - Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30 2015

U.S. Congressional Representative, "Donna Christensen" D-VI inserted deep within the year 2015 "Appropriation Bill" a provision to withhold funds from the "U.S. Justice Department" to enforce the "Federal Controlled Substance Law" as that "Law" applies to "Marijuana" as used by those "States" that have adopted medical Marijuana laws.  Also included is the "State of Colorado" response to the "Oklahoma" and "Nebraska" lawsuit.

Federal Courts Rejects Legalizing Medical Marijuana (1)

Here is the full text of the U.S. Supreme Court case "UNITED STATES vs. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS' COOPERATIVE and JEFFREY JONES, 532 U.S. ___ (2001)" wherein the Court declared that "The Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., prohibits the manufacture and distribution of various drugs, including marijuana.  In this case, we must decide whether there is a medical necessity exception to these prohibitions.  We hold that there is not."   U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.

Federal Courts Rejects Legalizing Medical Marijuana (2)
Gonzales v. Raich -- (Brief for the Petitioners) - (2004)
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Here is the full text and Oral Arguments of the U.S. Supreme Court case "GONAZLES vs. RAICH, (03-1454) – 545 U.S. 1 (2005)" giving us a detailed history of the regulation of "Marijuana" and the "Power" of the "U.S. Congress" to regulate "Marijuana" under the "Commerce Clause" of the "Constitution" for "The United States of America."  This "Power" extends to the individual citizens of the "States" and declared that it is a crime for anyone to have any amount of "Marijuana" in their possession.

Federal Courts Rejects Legalizing Medical Marijuana (3)

Here is an "Article" reporting on the "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" rejecting a lawsuit to legalize "Medical Marijuana" with the full text of the "Court Opinion."

Federal Judge Says "No" To Washington Family's Medical Marijuana Defense

Here is an "Article" reporting that "State Laws" authorizing the use of "Medical Marijuana" will not keep you out of "Federal Prison."  "State Laws" will not override "Federal Laws."