Santa Clara County Patients Pre-Trial Information

3 replies [Last post]
SVCPU
SVCPU's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 03/26/2006

Hello All:
Jim Lohse and Chuck had their arraignment on Friday and they are scheduled for Pre-Trial on Monday, October 16, 2006 at 1:30pm in Department 42 (Judge Schwartz), Hall of Justice, Hedding Street, San Jose.
We suspect that the charges will be dropped but no one can say for sure.
Jim is being represented by Attorney Randy Moore and Chuck is handling his case himself.

I will be having my Pre-Trial on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 1:30pm in Department 48 (Judge Fox), Hall of Justice, Hedding Street, San Jose. My case differs from Jim and Chuck's because I also have a charge of illegal lodging on campus as well as possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

We hope to have these issues resolved at pre-trial for all three of us.

Thanks for all the support.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SVCPU
SVCPU's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 03/26/2006
UPDATE on Santa Clara County Patients

Jim and Chuck had their Pre-Trial at 130pm on Monday, October 16th. Jim was not present, and his case was NOT listed on the calendar outside the courtroom as a line item, however, he was on the main listing in the courthouse lobby. I have not been able to speak to Jim directly yet and will give an update as information comes available.

Chuck was present and provided a copy of his Santa Clara County MMJ ID card, State ID card, and Doctor Recommendation Letter to the District Attorney present in the courtroom. The DA stated to Judge Schwartz that she had seen the documentation and asked the judge to dismiss the charges. The judge then confirmed with Chuck what was discussed and ordered the charges "DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE".

The next step is to file the Motion for Return of Property.

I will be at Pre-Trial on Tuesday, October 24th at 130pm (see previous post). If my case is "dismissed in the interest of justice", I plan to persue a Motion for Return of Property but only after I contact the SJSUPD and ask for my medicine back with the paper given to me from the Courts.

To me, it seems absolutely ridiculous that we should waste the courts time and the taxpayers money on Motions, when the judgement of the courts is plain to see on the papers you are given before leaving the courtroom.

Thanks for all the support from the MMJ community. KEEP UP YOUR RIGHT TO USE YOUR MEDICINE AND SAFELY ACCESS IT!!!

Christine Marie Flora
Spokesperson and Board Representative
SVCPU-Silicon Valley Cannabis Patients Union
Santa Clara County Chapter of Compassionate Coalition
408-509-7656
svcpu@hotmail.com
www.area420.com
www.compassionatecoalition.org

RSteeb
RSteeb's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/26/2006
"... in the interest of Justice"

See you [in Court] Tuesday!

"When tyranny is abroad, SUBMISSION is the crime."
- Rev. Andrew Eliot, May 29, 1765

SVCPU
SVCPU's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 03/26/2006
"... in the interest of Justice" Breaking News From Santa Cruz

Here's another bit of newsworthy information for ALL patients in the Great State of California!!!! More news to share with your local law enforcement agencies.
For my own daily thought-----"Tolerance is a fundamental value. It is very hard to tolerate those who do not tolerate."
***********************************************************

US CA: Medical Marijuana Advocates Get Victory in State

Newshawk: The Leading Source for News www.drugnews.org
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Oct 2006
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Copyright: 2006 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/edit/form.htm
Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/394
Author: Genevieve Bookwalter, Sentinel Staff Writer
Cited: The ruling, a 31 page .pdf file
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H028783.PDF
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATES GET VICTORY IN STATE APPEALS COURT

Medical marijuana advocates say this week's state appeals court
ruling broadens the scope of who can legally sell marijuana and will
make it easier for those who need the drug to get it.
California's 6th District Court of Appeal on Wednesday overturned the conviction of Roger Mentch. The Felton man found guilty last year of cultivation of marijuana and possession of the drug for sale because he was not considered a "caregiver."
Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice said in the past, caregivers have had to prove they had regular contact with a patient and provided services beyond drug delivery. But now, "all you have to do is show some evidence of helping in some fashion with a person's health," Rice said. That help includes providing medical marijuana, and could apply to a distributor or collective.
California voters in 1996 approved Proposition 215, legalizing the
use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and allowing designated
"caregivers" to provide the drug. It is still illegal under federal law.
In the 31-page ruling, Justice Franklin Elia wrote that a jury should have been allowed to hear evidence that Mentch, who runs the
Hemporium LLC, a caregiving service and pot collective in Felton, was a legal caregiver of the clients for whom he grew and delivered
marijuana. That evidence was not permitted in court and Mentch was
found guilty.
District Attorney Bob Lee, whose office prosecuted the case, did not
return phone calls to comment.
Mentch's troubles began in 2003, when he was arrested after a bank
teller reported his cash deposits consistently reeked of marijuana.
He had started the business a year earlier after being laid off by
his Silicon Valley employer.
When arrested, Mentch said he grew marijuana for himself and five
other people, all of whom had medical marijuana prescriptions. His
defense team wanted to argue that service defined him as a caregiver.
The court, however, would not allow it.
Appellate court justices agreed with the defense.
Mentch, "by consistently growing and supplying physician-approved or
prescribed medicinal marijuana ... was meeting an important health
need of several medical marijuana patients," Elia wrote.
Ken Sampson, president of the Santa Cruz Patients Collective in Santa Cruz, said the ruling helped legitimize those who provide medical marijuana.
"We pay sales tax, we do everything by the book," said Sampson, whose collective sells medical marijuana in the Harvey West neighborhood.
While Santa Cruz has agreed that collective workers qualify as
caregivers, Sampson said he hopes the ruling will give credence to
those operating outside city limits.
"This new decision adds weight to that countywide," Sampson said. "It just legitimizes what we're doing here."
***************************************************************

PEACE-----and STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!
Christine Marie Flora
Spokesperson and Board Representive
SVCPU-Silicon Valley Cannabis Patients Union
Santa Clara County Chapter of Compassionate Coalition
408-509-7656
svcpu@hotmail.com
www.area420.com
www.compassionatecoalition.org

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.