sacv 13-0615 - forfeiture - medical marijuana - 1638 e. 17th street (burcaw) - request for judicial...

Case 8:13-cv-00615-JST-AN Document 11 Filed 09/23/13 Page 199 of 308 Page ID #:282

:\nJn: !li ml h.' , Jr . \-b~' .l. 20 I I P:lg~ 2

"do:;~t1 .. Ih~ir :-;hl\p~, lll\ly In h;1\ l: a mariju;llIa di:'!-ll'Il:;;lry n:-\.Ipln ill Ih~ ~1I1l~ IlIGllioll linda ;llk:;nIlY-lli Ih.(I.'IlI 0pl'raIN:- \\ 1"1 th~1l C 1:lilll III 1\ III h~ hnUII.! hy III~ c':lrl ia i ni \1n~lil Ill.

MOSI r\:(clllly, Ihl! Cllifornia k~i,:daIUrc cnacll.'ll kgi.~I:lli\11\ dkclin' January l. ~Ol 1 Ihat prohibils marijuana Jispcnsari~s \\ i Ih ill 6U() Ji.,\.t of Sdh '0 1:;, \VII~I\ Ihl' (' i I~ J i S(\l\'creu thai 11 illl! ur Ihes~ Jisr~nsaril.'s :lrc \\ ilbill th~1 diSI;1l1CL' OJ';1 schnol. we against .~ollg.hl :mJ llt'tta irll!d - 'llll or .mother 1\\elllt'tcr (If ynur l)lfll:1' 10 diSl:lIsS how \\'c can Wl)C!.: ll'gdh~r 10 addrl!ss this ,

I :1It"!osm..:

SI',)11 C. SllIil" JeITrt'Y V. D\l1111 Il:Ini.:1 \{(lhLrr.' nl'lksl Ik~1 & Kl'il'gl'r I.Ll' C il~' :\ IlnrllL'y ( ' i I > II r L;l!.:~ Furc,t

\.'C: I knll iSl.' \Vi I kit, ell id. S.,nl:l Alia I)i \. i,idll 1~(lIIl'rI 1 )lIl1d;, ( . i Iy ;...Ian:lga. ('ily oJ' I .ill....: /-".,rl'sl

(. "'I ;,,' W!" \j ,4 ,' I ; ~' ) ~ I

RJN P. 185


EXHIBIT 20

RJN P. 186


Amid Biro/Ie Jr. United SIDtu Allorney (213) 891-24J4 (telephone) (2IJ) 8940141 (focslmlle)

October 7, 20 II

Scon C. Smith, Esq. City Attorney City of Lake Forest Best, Besl, & Krieger, LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1500 Irvine, California 92614

Dear Mr. Smith:

U. S. Depllrtment of Justice

United StaJes AIlOrlley CeltJral DisJrict 0/ Cali/omia

Unlled SIDIU Courth()us~ 312 North Spring Slreet LosAngdCJ. California 90011

O' II.

I write to respond to your earlier letter seeking the assistance of my office with the City of Lake Forest's efforts to combal commercial marijuana stores operating in violation of local ordinances and regulations, and other laws. We have received similar requests from other municipalities throughout the Central District of California (the District). As a result, in conjunction with federalnnd local law enforcement agencies, we have carefully examined the siluation in Lake Forest, and the problem of commercial morijuana operations in the District.

The Department of Justice has stated on many occasions thllt it is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in all States, including those like California that have enacted some fonn of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerolls drug Ilnd that the illegul distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue \0 large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and drug cartels. While it would not be an efficient or reasonable use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individunls with cancer or other serious illnesses who use drugs as part of a recommended lreatment regime consistent with applicable state law or advice [Tom their healthcare professionals, the prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijua.na, remains a core priority of the Department.

Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributin mnri"u8lUl and those who knowingly facilitate such activHics, arc in violation of the eSA re ardless of state law. Such persons are subject to federal crim.inal and clivil enfo.rcement actions. These include, but are not limited to, actions to enforce the crimi nal provisions o[ the eSA such as Title 21, United Stales Code, Section 84 I, which makes it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance including marijuana; Tille 21, United States Code, Section 856, which makes it illegal to knowingly open, lease, rent, maintain. or use property for the

RJN P. 187


manufacturing, storing, or distribution of controlled substances including marijuana; and Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, which makes it illcgalto conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the CSA. Federal money laundering and related statutes also prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds, and the goverrunent may also pursue civil injunctions or the forfeiture of drug proceeds, property traceable to such proceeds, and property used to fllcilitate drug violations.

In recent years, commercial marijuana operations have proliferated in this District. including in cities like yours that have vigorously opposed them. This expnnsion has been driven primarily by the profits generated by marijuana snies. The intent behind California's medical marijuana laws may have been a well-meaning desire to help the seriously ill. However, based on federal investigations, discussions with district attorneys, municipalities, and numerous law enforcement agencies, [t is clear that, in reality, and in direct vioilltion of these state laws. virtually all the marijuana stores operating in the this District are profit-making enterprises. In addition to the local problems posed by these stores thnt you have oUllined in your letter, marijuana is being illegally grown on public and private lands to support the commercia! distribution at stores, causing harm to the environment and surrounding communities. Moreover, marijuana and marijuana profits associated with these operations travel frequently throughout the state and are being moved between CaJifomia and other sllltes Ihroughout the country.

In response to this problem, my office is working with federal, slate, and local law enforcement agencies to make renewed efforts to combat the commercial marijuana industry in your city and throughout the District. In addition to undertaking criminal prosecutions and other enforcement actions, this office is today sending out leiters 10 the property owners and landlords of the marijuana stores in your city and nearby areas. These leHers provide formal notice that the properties in question are being used to possess, distribute, or cultivale marijuanu in violation of federal law, and that such activity may subject the property owners to criminal prosecution, fines, and forfeiture of their properties as well as any money they receive from the distribution of marijuana by the stores. At three proper1ies -located in Lake Forest, Wildomar, and Montclair -where the government believes that the property owners were well aware of the marijuana operations in their properties, my offICe is filing civil complaints in federal court seeking forfeiture of the properties without a preliminary warning letter. We have also acted with the help of I.R.S. to seize a bank account containing rent money from marijuana stores. These actions are of course onJy the beginning of what will be on-going efforts to help remove (hese operations.

In choosing to take theses actions in your city and ncarby conununities, we have noted the substantial efforts your city has made on its own to combat commercial operations through both civil and criminal enforcement. The commercial marijuana industry is illegal and subject to federal enforcement wherever it is found. However, gillen the number of stores and other operations in the District, in considering the efficient expenditure of federal resources, this office wi'll continue to give extra consideration to communities like yours that have made it clear that commercial marijuana operations are unwanted and Ihal have made, and continue to make, all

2

RJN P. 188


reasonable etIorts to identify and remove commercial marijuana operations. This office Mot efficiently address this problem alone. We look forward to working together with your city and our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to uphold the law Ilnd help your community.

ANDRE BIROITE JR. United Slates Attorney

3

RJN P. 189


EXHIBIT 21

RJN P. 190


~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTrf"

THE UNITED STATe., A"lTOI{NE~ 01+1(:1:: SEARCH THE SITE

CENTRAL lJISTIUCT c:7 CALI FORNI A Search HOME ABOUT NEWS MEET THE U.S. ATTORNEY DIVISIONS PROGRAMS CONTACT US

f> Pres s Re(ease

NEWS A , --~ ,

Enforcement Actions Directed At Commercial Marijuana Operations Across Southland Include Criminal Drug Trafficking Case, Property

Forfeiture Lawsuits And Warning Letters To Landlords

FOR IMMEDIATE RElASE Octo ber 7, 2011

LOS ANGELES - As part of a coordinated effort by California's four United States Attorneys, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have taken a series of actions against illegal commercial marijuana operations, including a building in South Orange County that houses eight marijuana stores and a trafficking ring that sold marijuana at its San Fernando Valley storefront, and sent marijuana to customers as far away as New York state.

The coordinated enforcement actions that were announced today address a marijuana industry in California that has swelled to include numerous drug-trafficking enterprises that operate commercial grow operations, intricate distribution systems and hundreds of marijuana stores across the state - even though the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits the sale and distribution of marijuana.

"It is important to note that for-profit, commercial marijuana operations are illegal not only under federal law, bU l also under Caljfot'nia law," said United S ates Attorney And re Birotte Jr. "While California Jaw pennits collective cLtltivation of marijuana ill limitec1 circumstances, it does not allow commercial distribution through the store-front model we see across California. ~

The actions being announced today in the Central District of California include:

a criminal indictment that charges six people with marijuana trafficking that allegedly generated nearly $15 million in profits in only eight months;

the filing of civil forfeiture lawsuits against three properties and a related seizure of more than $135,000 from the bank account of one property owner; and

warning letters sent to the operators and landlords of 38 marijuana stores.

The criminal case unsealed this week names six defendants linked to a now-defunct North Hollywood marijuana store called NoHo Caregwers. The drug trafficking organization - which sold marijuana at NoHo Caregivers, sold marijuana to other stores, and sent marijuana to affiliates in New York and Pennsylvania - distributed approximately 600 to 700 pounds of marijuana per month, according to the indictment.

The defendants used encrypted BlackBerry devices, but investigators were able to intercept email communications that detailed the distribution of marijuana, as well as the payments for the drugs. That indictment details one email exchange between the two lead defendants in which they "discussed the amounts of marijuana they intended to distribute monthly over the coming year and estimated that they would each receive over $194,000 in profits per month."

The defendants named in the NoHo Caregivers indictment are:

Paul A. Montoya, 37, of Arleta, a co-owner of NoHo, who was arrested on Wednesday;

Noah Joel Kleinman, 36, of Santa Clarita, a co-owner of NoHo, who has agreed to surrellder to federal authorities on Tuesday;

Kathy Thabet, 25, of Los Angeles, a courier and bookkeeper for the organization, who was arrested on

www.juslice.gov/usaO/Ulc/Pressroom/2011/144.hlm(

Communi}, ()urre

Givi ng Back tlllh e Commonily lhrnogh a variety of Yen ues & initat i ves.

VWA V I C f I ,

W I T N ESS A SSISTA CE

Making sure that victlms 0 crim es are treated with cor fairness and respect.

Individuals who believe II may have been victims o( discrim ina tion by Cou n tr. and have questions about settlement may email the Oepa rtm en t of Jusrice at

RJN P _ 191


2/25/12 USDOJ: US Morney's Office - CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALI FORN IA - 144

Wedneday;

James Stanley. 33. of Grass Valley, California, an alleged marijuana grower, who is currently a fugitive;

Bryant Watson, 43, of Douglassville, Pennsylvania, a NoHo customer on the East Coast, who was arrested in Pennsylvania on Wednesday and has agreed to appear in Urrited States District Court in Los Angeles on Tuesday; and

Casey Wheat, 40. of Huntington Beach, who allegedly arranged to transport marijuana for NoHo, who is currently a fugitive.

The indictment alleges drug traffIcking violations, as well as money laundering charges. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of $14.7 million - which is a conservative estimate of the value of the marijuana allegedly trafficked by the organization from the summer of 2008 through the beginning of 2009.

In relation to the NoHo case, federal agents on Wednesday executed a search warrant at NoHo's former location, which is now occupied by a marijuana store called the Green Camel Collective. During the search, agents seized about 23 th pounds of marijuana and nearly a pound of hashish - and observed two 16-year-old boys who were smoking marijuana inside the store.

"NoHo Caregivers was illegally operating an enormously profitable marijuana store, ~ said Special Agent in Charge Leslie P. DeMarco of IRS-Criminal Investigation's Los Angeles Field Office. "IRS-CI specializes in following the money in illegal drug operations, enabling increased criminal prosecutions and the forfeiture of assets. IRS-CI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to restore the respect for federal laws that has not been exhibited in the medical marijuana industry during the past several years."

Prosecutors on Thursday filed three forfeiture actions against properties where the owners knowingly allowed marijuana stores to operate. The buildings named in the forfeiture lawsuits house:

the Wildomar Patients Compassionate Group in Wildomar, a city that expressly prohibits marijuana stores and has spent more than $50,000 on legal fees in its efforts to close the store;

Montclair Caregivers in an unincorporated part of Montclair, which has repeatedJy received citations-ignoring most of them - from San Bernardino County Code Enforcement personnel; and

eight stores located in a two-story strip mall at 26402 Raymond Way in Lake Forest.

The forfeiture complaint relating to the Lake Forest building alleges that eight of 11 suites on the second floor of the building are occupied by marijuana storM, and that a prior owner of rhe property had previously received a warning letter from the DRA. According to the complaint, the operator of one of the stores at the property has previously been convicted on narcotics-related charges. Records show that the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) charged [hree people related to anotber store on the property in March 2010, and that the OCDA convicted the owner and the manager of another store in the building, both of whom were sentenced to state prison in April 2010. The property is across the street from a school serving pre-school and kindergarten students. As part of forfeiture efforts. authorities on Wednesday seized $136,686 from a bank account controlled by the owner of the building. The forfeiture lawsuit states that the City of Lake Forest has spent approximately $585,000 in legal fees as part of its efforts to shut down the marijuana stores operating in the building.

[n addition to the criminal case and the forfeiture actions, the United States Attorney's Office sent dozens ofletters yesterday to people affiliated with 38 marijuana stores in selected cities across the Soutbland. Those recei vi ng letters - the owners of the build ings where the stores are allowed to operate, as we 11 as some owners of the illegal stores - are warned that the stores are operating in violation of federal law and that they have two weeks to "take the necessary steps to discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana" at the stores.

All known marjjuana stores in the following areas are being sent letters warning that their operations are in violation of federal law:

Orange County - the cities of Lake Forest, Dana Point. Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, and Rancho Santa Margarita;

Riverside County - the cities of Murrieta, Wildomar, and Temecula; and

Inland Empire - the cities of Pomona, Claremont, Upland, Montclair, and Chino.

The letters note that the operation of a marijuana store "may result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of assets, including the real property on which the dispensary is operating and any money you receive (or have received) from the dispensary operator. OJ

T he areas in which the initial \ 'arnings have been sent are all areas where local officials have taken steps to eliminate marijuftn a stores and have asked the federal government for assistance. The Un ited States Attorney's Office will continue to ,\lork wi th local municipali ties and local law nforcement Lhroughollt lhe Distr ict to assist in ongoing efforts to co mbat ill egal commercial marijuana operat io ns.

www.justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/2011/144.html RJN P. 192


EXHIBIT 22

RJN P. 193


Nutritional Concepts 660 Baker St., #217 Costa Mesa, CA 92626

U. S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney Central District of California US Courthouse, I iii Floor 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90() 12

January 18, 2012

Re: Marijuana Dispensary Operating af 660 Baker St., #217, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Dear Nutritional Concepts:

This office has been advised by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that there is (or recently was) a marijuana dispensary operating under the name "Nutritional Concepts" at the real property located at 660 Baker St., #217, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, which property you own or have under your management or control. This letter serves as formal notice to you that the marijuana dispensary's operations violate United States law and that the violations of United States law relating to the marijuana dispensary's operations on your property may result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of assets, including the real property on which the dispensary is operating and any money you receive (or have received) from the dispensary operator.

Under United States law a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions. Property involved in such operations, including real property, is subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States. These penalties and remedies apply regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary or the uses for whjch marijuana is purportedly sold and distributed. Specifically, Title 21, United States Coce, Section 856(a) provides:

It shall be unlawful to knowingly and intentionally rent, Lease, or make available [or use, with or without compensation, [a] building, room, or enclosure for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing or using a controlled substance.

Section 881 (a)(7) of TitLe 21 provides:

The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land which is

RJN P. 194


used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this sub~chapter.

United States law takes precedence over State law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana. Accordingly, it is nota defense to either the referenced crime or to the forfeiture of property that the dispensary is providing "medical marijuana." Even under these circumstances, an owner of real property with knowledge or reason to know of illegal marijuana distribution occurring on real property that he owns or controls may have his interest in the property forfeited to the government without compensation.

As noted above, this letter is formal notification to you that the DEA has determined there is (or recently was) a marijuana dispe~sary operating on the above described property. You are further advised that the violations of federal law relating to the marijuana dispensalY' operating on your property may result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment, fines and forfeiture of assets, including the real property on which the dispensary is operating. Any money you receive (or have received) from the dispensary operator may also be subject to seizure and forfeiture. Your prompt attention to this matter is strongly advised. Please take the necessary steps to discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marij uana at the above~referenced location wi (hin 14 days of this letter.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice concerning this matier. Please direct any inquiries to Claire Charron at (213) 894-0496. You may also submit e~mail inquiries to USACAC,BlanketNotice@usdoj .gov.

Regards.

ANDRE BIROTTE JR. Uniter tates Attorney

STEV~N r;:;;LK~ Assistant U.S. Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section

RJN P. 195


EXHIBIT 23

RJN P. 196


DECLARA TION OF HOWARD WEITZBERG

I, Howard Weitzberg, am over the age of 18 and am a citizen of the United States

of America.

1. My wife, Joyce Weitzberg, is a medical marijuana patient. She suffers

from a health condition which substantially impairs life activities. Her doctor

recommended medical marijuana to her. As part of the collective process, she

compassionately helps other seriously ill patients learn how to cultivate medical cannabis

for medical use.

2. In late January, I learned that a patient collective group that my wife is a

member of received a letter from the United States Attorney for the Central District of

California ordering the collective to shut down wi thin 14-days. I asked for and was

provided a true and COlTect copy of the letter, which I provjded to Marla James. The

copy of the letter included as an exhibit with this motion is a true and COlTect copy of the

letter provided to me by the patient collective. The letter was dated January 18,2012.

3. Through our own investigation, my wife and I learned that letters with the

same content and demand as the letter that is included with this motion were sent to all

other patient collectives in Costa Mesa.

4. On January 26, 2012 at approximately 8:15 a.m., I called Assistant U.S.

Attorney Greg Parham, the person that had signed the letter demanding closure. In the

course of my call with Mr. Parham he said: 1) "there is no such thing as medical

1

RJN P. 197


marijuana"; and 2) patient classes on cultivation of medication are equivalent to

teaching people how to rob banks and is not allowed."

5. During my phone conversation with Mr. Parham, when I asked him where

patients will be able to access medicatiQn because he had told me his office was going to

shut down all collectives, he told me, CLthey can go back to the streets to the same i11icit

dealers where they used to get it."

6. Mr. Parham told me Joyce could not have any classes for seriously ill,

disable~ or permanently injilled patients or discuss medical marijuana cultivation with

them.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

that the foregoing declaration is made of my own personal knowledge and is true and

correct.

DATED: January 30, 2012

Harold Weitzberg

2 RJN P. 198


EXHIBIT 24

RJN P. 199


1

2

3 1.

DECLARA TION OF TRACIE BUTCHER

I, Tracie Butcher, declare as follows:

4 2. I am a resident of Mission Viejo, CA. r work as the office manager for the Law Office of

5 Matthew Pappas.

6 3. On July 18, 2013, I traveled with Mr. Pappas from Orange County to Los Angeles,

7 California for a meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney in-charge of Asset Forfeiture Steven Welk and

8 Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Galatzan. We arrived at the Spring Street U.S. Courthouse in Los

9 Angeles at approximately 2:00 p.m.

10 4. After parking and walking to the courthouse, we went through security and then rode the

11 elevator to the fioor of the U.S. Attomey. We checked-in, were told to go to another Ooor, and used the

12 phone on that floor to contact Mr. Galatzan. We waited a bit and a woman met us outside the locked

13 doors of the U.S. Attorney's offices on that floor, took us inside, gave us sticker-tags to wear, and then

14 had us sign a visitor log. Thereafter, the woman escorted us to a conference room where Mr. Welk and

15 Mr. Galatzan were already waiting. After entering the conference room, the door was closed, we sat

16 down, and I remained in the room the entire duration of the meeting. Although I took notes during the

17 meeting, my declaration is based entirely on my memory of the meeting and was made within days of

18 when the meeting took place.

19 5. During the meeting, Mr. Pappas asked Mr. Welk why the federal government was taking

20 forfeiture action against the landlords of properties where state compliant medical marijuana patient

21 collectives were leasing space. Mr. Welk said that there "are no collectives that are in compliance with

22 state law" in the entire Central District of California, which comprises multiple southern California

23 counties including Los Angeles and Orange counties. Mr. Pappas asked Mr. Welk if the U.S. Attorney

24 even checks for state compliance to which Mr. Welk shook his head indicating "no." He then said

25 compliance with state law is irrelevant and that "we are closing all collectives in the Central District - it

26 does not matter if they're state compliant."

27 6. During the meeting, Mr. Pappas asked why documents from the City of Anaheim received

28 as part of the discovery process included emails from P. Greg Parham, the Assistant U.S. Attorney

DECLARATION OF TRACIE BUTCHER (712212013) - 1

RJN P. 200


1 originally handling all of the medical marijuana federal enforcement action cases but who had left

2 indefinitely because of a medical issue, stating the U.S. Attorney had "strategically" decided not to send

3 any notices to landlords by registered or certified mail. Mr. Welk smiled and replied that the government

4 sends no notices at.ill to landlords it believes will not cooperate to begin with. He said filing the actions

5 without any notice had a "shock" value.

6 7. During the meeting, Mr. Pappas began saying that he knew the U.S. Attorney was only

7 going after collectives in cities that had asked for the federal government's assistance but before he could

8 finish his question, Mr. Welk interrupted and said, "no" and explained he was not just enforcing in the

9 cities that had asked for heip, but that he was going ''to close every collective in the Central District." He

10 repeated this statement throughout the meeting.

11 8. Throughout the meeting, Mr. Pappas discussed issues faced by medical cannabis patients.

12 He specifically brought up Marla James, a client of the law office who is confined to a wheelchair and

13 who suffers from a number of debilitating conditions. Mr. Pappas asked what could be done to ensure

14 prosecution of those people not complying with state law but leave-alone patients and caregivers operating

15 fully in compliance with the state's law. Mr. Welk acknowledged he had read about Mr. Pappas'

16 daughter, who became a medical cannabis patient after being severely assaulted and almost killed in

17 Nevada but said the patients would have to wait until Congress changed the law. Mr. Pappas brought up

18 the statements made by President Obama during campaign speeches and in television interviews and also

19 the policy statements made by Attomey General Eric Holder. After a while, Mr. Welk, who had moved

20 back in his chair with his arms folded and who appeared to be getting tired of the discussion about

21 patients, moved forward, put one of his hands forward, and while counting off on his fingers said, "look,

22 we're closing all of them because it is ethically, morally, religiously, and spiritually the right thing to do."

23 9. When Mr. Pappas asked where the patients were supposed to go to get medical marijuana if

24 all of the collectives and cultivators were shut down, Mr. Welk said, "I don't know what they'll do, but

25 there were plenty of place to get marijuana before these state marijuana laws were passed."

26 10. During the meeting, Mr. Pappas asked Mr. Welk why he was not following the guidance

27 and public statements made by the President, Attorney General Holder, former Deputy Attorney General

28 Ogdens, and Deputy Attorney General James Cole that federal enforcement resources would not be

DECLARATION OF TRACIE BUTCHER (712212013)2

RJN P. 201


1 targeted at patients and caregivers, including properly operating cultivators and dispensaries, in full

2 compliance with state law. Mr. Welk said Mr. Pappas was "mistaken" -- that the guidance only applies to

3 patients. He then said the same guidance "gives me full discretion" and that he had decided to close all

4 collectives, dispensaries, and cultivation sites in the Central District of California. Me Pappas then

5 brought up, as an example, a press statement made by Attorney General Holder in New Mexico shortly

6 after the U.S. Attorneys in California began targeting patient collectives and Mr. Holder's recent

7 testimony before a committee of the House of Representatives. Me Pappas noted that Mr. Holder was

8 asked whether New Mexico dispensaries and cultivators would be targeted by the reporter asking the

9 question to which Mr. Holder explained the federal government was only targeting "drug traffickers" as

10 we think of that tenn and not cultivators or dispensaries or patients operating in full compliance with state

11 law. Mr. Welk appeared unfamiliar with the testimony of Mr. Holder before the House conunittee or the

12 various press statements Mr. Pappas had raised. Mr. Pappas raised Mr. Cole's June, 2011 memorandum

13 and statements Mr. Cole had made during a November, 2012 "60-Minutes" interview. Mr. Welk

14 responded simply that he was going to close all collectives in "his jurisdiction." Again ttying to discuss

15 resolution of the issues with Mr. Welk, Mr. Pappas asked why Mr. Birotte was allowing the policy of not

16 even looking at state compliance while Mr. John Walsh, the U.S. Attorney in Colorado, was not. Mr.

17 Welk then stated that he remembered when John Walsh "sat down that hall" (pointing) and he had no idea

18 why Mr. Walsh was doing what he was doing.

19 11. During the meeting, Mr. Welk asked Mr. Pappas first telling him "you do not have to

20 answer this if you don't want to" whether Mr. Pappas had been "advising" patients to keep their collective

21 groups open despite warning letters sent by the U.S. Attorney. Mr. Pappas said that he has not advised

22 patient groups to stay open that have received the federal letter and that he had in-fact, for example in

23 Long Beach and Santa Ana, told all of the collectives to close in those cities once it was reported to him

24 the U.S. Attorney had started sending letters to landlords. Mr. Pappas said that he had not advised

25 collectives in cities that had not received federal letters to close because he had believed, until that

26 meeting with Mr. Welk, that the federal government was only taking enforcement action in cities that had

27 asked for its assistance. Mr. Pappas also explained that, until the meeting that day, he believed Mr. Welk

28 was following the policy directives and statements issued by the Attorney General and his deputies. Mr.


RJN P. 202


1 Welk again reiterated that he was closing all collectives, regardless of state law compliance, in the Central

2 District.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. During the meeting, Mr. Welk stated several times that he was offended by the comparison

of Mr. Parham and him to the government of fran. f believe he may have said the comparison made to

both the governments ofIran and Syria. He clarified that he was referring to various press articles that

had been published about the case and specifically to a reference made in an editorial article written by

people working for the Institute for Justice, an organization helping on one of the forfeiture cases with Mr.

Pappas. Following Mr. Welk's reference to being a person with a family who should not be compared to

Iran, Mr. Pappas reminded him that the landowners, who Mr. Welk had just told him during the meeting

received no notice for "strategic" and "shock" purposes before being served with lis pendens and

forfeiture lawsuits, had been severely traumatized with at least one having to go to the hospital because of

the stress. Mr. Welk insisted the landlords had to know they were breaking federal law to which Mr.

Pappas responded they did not and explained that most citizens who are not lawyers do not understand the

differences between the different sovereigns - especially when states are reported as "legalizing" medical

marijuana and considering the public statements made by President Obama, Attorney General Holder and

the deputy attorney generals. Mr. Pappas also reminded Mr. Welk that the federal law Mr. Welk says is

being broken is one meant to combat recreational drug abuse, not a law meant to thwart the use of a

medicine prescribed by doctors that even the federal government's National Cancer Institute has reported

on its website combats various forms of cancer. He also told Mr. Welk that he was mistaken about the

landlords breaking federal law. Mr. Pappas reminded Mr. Welk it is not the landlords allegedly breaking a

federal law meant to combat recreational drug abuse, but rather the dispensaries -- that going after the

landlords showed the federal government simply wants to get to large sums of money.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States

and America that the aforementioned statement represents my personal knowledge and is true and correct.

EXECUTED this 22nd day of July, 2013:


RJN P. 203


EXHIBIT 25

RJN P. 204


THE ORANGE COUNTY

REGISTER NEWS HOME NEWS SPORTS BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIFE

Blogs I California I Citi- by-C it~' News I Columns I Crime and Courts I Data Central I Education I Elections llmmigratio OC \ atchdog) Photos J Politics and Government I Science I Technology I Videos I World

Published: Feb. 7, 2012 Updated: Feb. 8, 20t2 2:Oi p.m.

Costa Mesa asked feds for help in pot crackdown

About a dozen medical marijuana patients and former collective owners protested the city's involvement in federal crackdown outside City Hall Tuesday.

It Tweet 111 iJ Recommend 11 41 people recommend this. I f=:J Email! ~-'-~

By SEAN GREENE I FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

COSTA MES.A - Months before federal authorities shut dawn dozens of medical marijuana facilities, the city ask.ed them for help.

Tangled In a web of lawsuits w ith several dispensar,ies, the City Council and the city attorney turned to the United States Attorney's affice. requesting federal assistance in shutting down 27 known active meolcal marijuana collectives - which are illegal under dty ordinance - according to an Oct. 26 letter obtained by the Register.

Kandice Hawes. 30. dJredor of Orange County NORML. holds up a sign before the start of the Costa Mesa City Council meeting on Tuesday night. Costa Mesa police officers Informed everyone attending the council meeting that signs were not allowed in council chambers.

LEON RD RTiZ THE R4 GE '"'.DUN-( REG TEq

MORE PHOTOS

,tVe believe that by work.ing together 'with the U.S. Department of Justice we can eradicate these illegal businesses from our City, the letter, signed by City Attorney Tom Duarte and sent on behalf of the cOllneil. stated. -In our opinion, twenty-seven dispensaries in a 16.8 square mile area constitute mass cultivation and distribution of marijuana.

Owners of the now-closed medical marijuana collectives in Costa Mesa have expressed frustration with the City Council for involving federal authorities. About a doz.en former collective owners and cannabis patients protested before Tuesday's City Council meeting and addressed the council in the meeting's public comment section.

Among the speakers was Joyce Weitzberg , a 62-year-old retired nurse and owner of Nutritional Concepts Pain ReleafCenter, vvho said not ali medicall1larijuana stores are created equal.

In an impassioned speech, Weltz.berg asked the City Council to adopt an emergency ordinance that would allow two or three collectives to re-open so local patients could get their medidne.

Weitzberg opened her own non-profit collective two 'fears ago alter becoming a patient of medical marijuana - a last re sort to manage the pain of her bone and lung diseases, she said in an InteNiew early this weel

~We've Clone it1 00 percent right and I'm guilty by association. There's no due process.- Weitrberg said.

After the collectives were shut down, rumors in the mecflcal marijuana community swirled that the City Council called for both the federal crackdown and Sunday's cancellation of local

radio station KOel LP-FM's "Cannabis Community- show Both the station's management and the city have said there was no federal or local influence on the decision to cancel the show.

uCannabis Community," hosted by Robert Martinez, a veteran U.S. Army medic and president of medical marijuana collective Newport Mesa Patients Association, recently broadcast a show from Mayor Gary Monahan's bar, Skosh Monahans.

During the Jan. 15 show. Monailan joined a number of medical cannabis proponents in support of regulating the business es, which are forbidden by federal law out allowed by California.

~Irs like the Wild. wild west out there,- he said on the show. "Everybody's doing whatever they want to do. You've got some really good dispensaries; you've got some really bad dispensaries that are just out for a quick buck. ... There'ra a lot of good ones that we want to support.u

Cannabis collective owners and activists questioned the timing oflhe appearance, out Monahan said he did not know when federal authorities would come.

~I'm not happy with what happened,~ Monahan said in an interview. ,., do believe that the dispensaries are what the future is going to hold and I would like to support them in their efforts to get the businesses regulated to some type of standard so they can operate.u

Councilwoman Wendy Leece said she supports the crackdown, adding the city had too many medical marijuana facilities.

-I believe the number of clinics in Costa Mesa has been harmful and the number has been out of controt,~ she salO.

The CitlS letter was sent in response to a Department of Justice announcement in early October that the four California-ased U.S. Attorneys had begun a statewide enforcement effort targeting the state's comm ercial marijuana industry.

The announcement came on the heels of the City' of Lake Forests public call for federal assistance in shutting down a number of medical marijuana dispensaries in I',tay 2011 .

Costa Mesa's letter noted the high cost offighling dispensaries in court and rising complaints from residents and business owners, who were especially concerned that the dispensaries were deterring potential customers.

The city has spent $-457,612 in legal cases Involving marijuana dispensaries as of Jan. 31, city spoke sman Bill LoMeli said.

RJN P. 206


EXHIBIT 26

RJN P. 207


US Attorney Hints Medical Marijuana Crackdown to Continue I Legal ... hltp:/!b logs. lawyers. com/20 l3/09/us-at torney-hints-medica l-marij uana-c ...

20f4

Lawyers.com > Legal News > L~test New~ -, Crime Marijuana '> US AttOfnay Hmh;: Medrcal M.ariju~na Crackdown to Continue

US Attorney Hints Medical Marijuana Crackdown to Continue POSTED SEPTEMBER 9. 2013 IN CRIME MARIJUANA BY JOSH CRANK 4 COMI.1ENTS

7 Unkedln 0

U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, one of four federal attorneys behind the nearly two-year crackdown on medical marijuana in California. suggested her enforcement will continue despite new drug policy guidance from the Department of Justice.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in late August that the federal government won't sue to block state laws legalizing marijuana in various forms. including the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington. An accompanying memo issued by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole identified eight specific enforcement priorities on which the U.S. Attorneys should focus.

In the wake of the Justice Department memo, Haag spokesperson Uli Arauzhaase made a brief comment:

"At this time the US Attorney is nOI releasing any public statements. The office is evaluating the new

iStockphotofThinkstock

guidelines and for the most part il appears thatlhe cases that have been brought in this district are already in compliance with the guidelines. Therefore. we do not expect a significant change."

Memo Could Affect Critical Case

The fact that Arauzhaase hedged a bit by claiming Haag's enforcement cof'lplies with the new guidelines -for me most part" could be good news for Oakland's Harborside Health Center. the world's largest medical marijuana dispensary. Since July 2012, Haag has been trying to seize Harborside and its assets, but the dispensary has remained open due in part to legal support from Oakland's City Attorney.

The Justice Department memo says that 'in exercising prosecutorial discretion. prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Departmenl"s enforcement priorities."'

This directive may as well have mentioned Harborside by name. In announcing her forfeiture action against Harborside, Haag said. 'the larger the operation. the greater the likelihood lhat there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need: U S.Attomey

Melinda Haag To date. Harborside has not been accused of specific Violations of California's medical marijuana laws. Time will tell if Haag will accept the Justice Department's

guidance and drop her forfeiture case against Harborside. But because federal law enforcement is still left up to her personal discretion, Haag is at liberty to ignore the memo and proceed.

Federal Attorneys Go Their Own Way

The new Justice Department guidance elaborates on how U.S. Attorneys should assess threats to its eight marijuana enforcement priorities. encouraging prosecutors to "continue to review marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence"' before deciding to snut dispensaries down.

But Cole's presumption that U.S. Attorneys have been laking a case-by-case approach shows just how easy it is for them to ignore this guidance altogether. In a 2012 interview with Lawyers.com, Thorn Mrozek. spokesperson for U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. of Califomia's Central Distlict. said the state's federal attorneys "are not examining each marijuana operation" since launci1ing their coordinated crackdown in October 2011.

Mrozek broadly characterized California's medical marijuana dispensaries as being in violation of state laws requiring them to operate as non-profit organizations and stressed that federal law gives the U.S. Attorneys the right to shut down any marijuana operation without further explanation.

"We have yet to see a marijuana store that is operating as a true non-profit;' Mrozek said. "I'm not saying that we have looked at every operation, nor am I saying that there isn't one out there, but I am saying

Criminal Law Law Firms In Los Angeles. CA change location

law Office of Barry Smith Serving Los Angeles.CA 323-2710015 I Contaci Now

Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin . LLP S~Nln9 l~ An.gP.tA~

County.Califom" 8187811570 I Contaol Now

TakakJian & Silkoff. LLP Serving Los Angele. County.Calilcmia 1l/!!H1655>15 I ConlaCl Now

View AI! 201 Law Finns

Legal News When You Need It

Dally (or weekly) free fegat newslellets.

Enter em ad address

Top rated lawyers are ready to answer. It's Free, Easy and Safe

Ask 1I Quesllon

Most Popular on Lawyers.com

Topics

Ex Radio Slar Piorln Accuses

Former Staffers 01 E.>ctonlon

US Allomey Hints Medical

Man1uana Crackdown [0 Continue

Is Marijuana Legal Where You

Live? [Inlographic]

When Can I.he Polica Search Your

Car"?

When the Police Can Search Your

Home Wfthau, a Warrant

Meet the Team

Archives

Search Lawyers.com 810g

Search-

View An Topics

RJN P. 208 9/9/20133:53 PM


EXHIBIT 27

RJN P. 209


aze of illogic on rna iju na In city that hosts huge pot expo, feds target small-time landlord

STEVE LOPEZ

Marijuana policy. like immigratien policy, is something thecOlmtry just can't seem to get right.

For the latest evidence of how con-fusing pot laws can be, just take a look atAnaheim, where a property owner is iighting a federal govern-ment attempt to seize Ius two-story commercial build-ing, which is worth about $15 million.

Tony Jalali's C11me? On two occasions he

reJl.ted one ofllis 12 office spaces to medical marijua-na dispensaries. thinking such operations were per-fectly legal In California.

But the feds see thing'S differently. After an under-cover Anaheim police otl'icer used a doctor's recom-mendation card to pmchase ~37worth of marijuana from the tenant., the U.S. Dmg Enforcement Adminis-tration swooped in. and Jalali was notified last ycar that the federal government had initiated proceedings to seize the entire building in which the sale had taken place.

Its not hard to under-stand why Jalali was con-fused by mixed signals on marijuana pollcy. or why he was unaware of an Anaheim ordinance prohibiting dis-pensaries in the city. For one thing. there were ot.her dispensaries in town when he rented space to an opera-tor. And at its convention center. Anaheim hosts an annual event bOled as the "the world's biggest mari-juana festival. "

"1 saw banners on Ar-tesiaBoulevard," said Jalal!. "Kush Expo. City of Ana-heinl."

That's 11ght. Anaheim is home to a gigantic annual pot emporium. wit.h more smoke in the air than you get from the average Califot'-niawildllre.

Last mont.h's extrava-ganza featured a "Hot Kush Girl Contest" and awards for the "best strains" in Southern Oaliforrrla. Festi-val attendees were infol1ned they co dn't sample the g{)ods without marijuana recommendations fl'Om doctors. but no wOlTies.

"Doctors will be on site!'" After looking at photos of

the Kush ElI."])o. I'm guess-ingthat nearby Disneyland is only the second-happiest place on earth. And I'm wondering-why thefeds didn't just seize the conven-tion center.

AddingtoJalali'sconfu-sion is the fact that Califor-nia voters approved medical cannabis in 1996. Even the U.S. attorney's office in recent. years has sent (:on-fusing Si&11als as to where it stnnds.

"I had no idea I was dOlllg anything wrong. " said Jalali. who kicked out his pol, tenant as soon-as he got the seizure notice last yea]'. But that wasn't enough t.o call otl'the dogs. and JalaiUs still fighting to save his property in federal court, 'Nith the nex."t healing sched-uled fol' Monday.

"I have property rights in this country." said Jalali. a comput.er engineer mani.ed to n dentist. with two kids in college. "I pay my t!L'{es. I obey the law. I have a spot-less record."

Jalali said he moved to the U.S. Irom Iran In 1978 to enjoy the benefits of country where rule oflaw prevails. He never dJ'ean1ed the gov-ernment could take his property without even accllsinghimofactime. The city has claimed it sent two notices about problems with a dispensary to Jalali's home in II'Vin.e. a

EXHIBIT 28

RJN P. 211


U.S.A.M. 9-2.400 Prior Approvals Chart

USAM

SECTION

TYPE & SCOPE OF REPORTING, CONSULTING CONTACT

9-2.031

9-2.032

9-2.136(D)

OR APPROVAL

Approval is required to continue and/or

initiate a federal prosecution affected by

Petite policy (dual and successive

p rosecut ion).

Notification to Criminal Division of certain

prosecutions of attorneys, see 9-2.032.

The USAO shall notify CTS of the opening of

any international terrorism matter. The

notification should include the names and

identifiers, if known, of subjects of the

investigation and a general overview of the

investigation, so that CTS may attempt to

identify linkages to, and deconflict the

investigation with, investigations that may be

ongoing in other districts or within CTS and

may raise any concerns about the proposed

investigation. To allow this process,

notification should be made in advance where

practicable and otherwise as SOOI1 as possible,

but the USAO should not delay in taking

necessa ry investigative action, particula rly

where such action is covert. Notification may

be made by email or telephone; or, as

necessary to protect classified and sensitive

information, by secu re fax or telephone; and

may utilize the standard Case Notification

Form available from CTS if preferred. If after

notification, CTS determines that there are

related matters pending in other districts that

could be affected by investigative action in

the new matter, CTS will so inform the USAO

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal

Division, through the Policy and

Statutory Enforcement Unit of the Office

of Enforcement Operations.

AAG/Criminal Division through Policy

and Statutory Enforcement Unit, Office

of Enforcement Operations.

Regional ATAC Coordinator in the

Counterterrorism Section.

RJN P. 212


9-2.136(0)

9-2.136(E)

9-2.136(F)

and will advise the other districts of the new

matter.

In all international terrorism matters, the

USAO shall notify CTS of significant

developments in the investigation and

prosecution, including the filing of search

warrants; the filing of material witness

warrants; the application for electronic

surveillance; the declination of the matter

without filing of charges; the filing and

dismissal of criminal or immigration charges;

the entering of plea agreements; the

initiation and resu Its of trials; and the results

of sentencings and appeals. CTS will be

responsible for reporting to the Department's

leadership on such developments, although

the USAO should also send Urgent Reports on

such matters as required byUSAM Chapte r 1-

13.000. Regional AlAC Coordinator in the


Where a USAO is aware that another USAO or Regional ATAC Coordinator in the

CTS has a related international terrorism

matter opened, the USAO shall not issue

grand jury subpoenas or apply for a pen

register or trap and trace order that may

impact such related matters without first

consulting with CTS and the other district.

Counterterrorism Section, and the AlAC

Coordinator or other designated AUSAs

in the other district.

When CTS becomes aware of information that The ATAC Coordinator or other

may be relevant to an international terrorism designated AUSAs in the other district.

matter pending in a USAO, including relevant

investigative action that may be planned in

another district a nd issues rega rding FISA

searches or electronic surveillance, CTS shall

share that information directly with the USAO

as soon as practicable and to the extent

authorized by the originator of the

information. Where relevant information is

RJN P. 213


9-2.136(H)

9-2.136(H)

known to CTS but cannot be shared with a

USAO due to originator requirements, CTS

shall request that the originator authorize

such sharing.

Prior express approval of the Assistant

Attorney General of the National Security

Division (AAG) or his designee is

presumptively required for certain court

actions involving the international terrorism-

focused (Category 1) statutes:

1. Filing an application for a search

warrant.

2. Filing an application for a material

witness warrant.

3. Filing a criminal complaint or

information or seeking the return of

an indictment.

4. Filing a superseding complaint or

information, or seeking the return of

a superseding indictment.

S. Dismissing a charge for which AAG

approval was initially required,

including as part of a plea agreement.

6. Other specific court filings as

requested by the AAG.

Prior approval is required in other (Category

2) international terrorism matters only upon

AAG request. As noted above, even court

actions that do not require prior approval will

qualify as significant developments with

notification requirements.

Before entering into a plea agreement in a

case in which court documents utilize one of

the Category 1 statutes {or cases using

AAG of the National Security Division or

his/her designee.

AAG of the National Security Division.

RJN P. 214


9-2.136{1}

9-2.136(J)

9-2.137

9-2.137

Category 2 statutes in which the AAG makes a

requestL the USAO shall notify and seek the

concurrence of the AAG, with any

disagreement to be resolved by the Deputy

Attorney General.

If exigent circumstances require a USAO to Regional ATAC Coordinator in the

take immediate action in an international Counterterrorism Section.

terrorism matter without complying with the

consultation or prior approval requirements

set forth above, the USAO must notify CTS of

any action taken as soon as practicable

thereafter and the exigent circumstances that

precluded obtaining prior approval. The USAO

shall provide copies of any court filings made.

The written certification of the Attorney Regional ATAC Coordinator in the

General is required to allege a violation of 18 Counterterrorism Section.

U.s.c. 2332.

The USAO shall notify US, through its CTS

Regional Coordinator, the CTS Domestic

Terrorism Coordinator, or the National ATAC

Coordinator, of the initiation and significant

developments in domestic terrorism

investigations (i.e., a terrorism investigation

that does not involve foreign nationals,

foreign locations, or connections to foreign

countries or groups).

Regional ATAC Coordinator, the CTS

Domestic Terrorism Coordinator, or the

National ATAC Coordinator in the


When CTS becomes aware of information that The ATAC Coordinator or other

may be relevant to a domestic terrorism designated AUSAs in the other district.

matter pending in a USAO, including relevant

investigative action that may be planned in

another district, CTS shall share that

information directly with the USAO as soon as

practicable and to the extent authorized by

the originator of the information. Where

relevant information is known to CTS but

cannot be shared with a USAO due to

RJNP.215


9-2.138(C)

9-2.138(D)

9-2.138(D)

9-2 .138{D)

9-2.138{E)

originator requirements, CTS shall request

that the originator authorize such sharing.

Notifying CTS of routine hoax or threat

matters is not required, but is encouraged.

USAOs must promptly notify CTS when the

USAO opens any WMD matter.

Counterterrorism Section


Where a USAO is aware that another USAO or Counterterrorism Section and the other

CTS has opened a related matter, the USAO

shall not issue a grand jury subpoena or apply

for a pen register or trap and trace order that

may affect the related matter without first

consulting with CTS and the other district.

The USAO shall notify CTS of any significant

development in the investigation and

prosecution of the matter, including the filing

of a search warrant; the filing of a material

witness warrant; the application for electronic




the entering of a plea agreement; the

initiation and resu Its of trials; a nd the results

of sentencings and appeals.

Prior, express approva I of the Assista nt

Attorney General (AAG) of the

National Security Division (or his or her

designee) is required for the following court

actions involVing a WMD matter: filing an

application for a search warrant; filing an

application for a material witness warrant;

filing a criminal complaint or information or

seeking the return of an indictment; filing a

superseding complaint or information, or

seeking the return of a superseding

indictment; dismissing a charge for which

district

Co u nte rte rro rism Secti on

Assistant Attorney General (AAG) of the

National Security Division, through the


RJN P. 216


9-2.138(F)

9-2.138(G)

9-2.139(C)

9-2.139(C)

9-2.139(D)

9-2.139(D)

AAG approval was initially required, including

as part of a plea agreement; and other

specific court filings as requested by the AAG.

The USAO must seek the prior concurrence of Assistant Attorney General (AAG) of the

the AAG before entering into a plea National Security Division

agreement in a WMD matter.

If exigent circumstances require a USAO to

take immediate action in a WMD matter

without complying with the notification,

consultation, concurrence, or prior approval

requirements set forth above, the USAO must

promptly notify CTS of any action taken and

of the exigent circumstances that precluded

obtaining prior approval.

When the USAO opens any torture, war

crimes, or genocide matter, the USAO shall

promptly notify the Human Rights and Special

Prosecutions Section (H RSP) of the Cri minal

Division .

HRSP shall immediately notify CTS of all

notifications made by a USAO under 9-

2.139(C)


Human Rights and Special Prosecutions

Section (HRSP).


Where a USAO is aware that another USAO or Human Rights and Special Prosecutions

HRSP has opened a related matter, the USAO Section (HRSP) and the other district.

shall not issue a grand jury subpoena or apply

for a pen register or trap and trace order that

may affect the related matter without first

consulting with HRSP and the other district.

The USAO shall notify HRSP of any significant Human Rights and Special Prosecutions

development in the investigation and Section (HRSP) .

prosecution of the matter, including the filing

of a search warrant; the filing of a material

witness warrant; the application for electronic

RJN P. 217


9-2.139{E)

9-2.139{F)

9-2.139{G)

9-2.145




the entering of a plea agreement; the

initiation and results of trials; and the results

of sentencings and appeals.

Prior, express approval of the Assistant

Attorney General (AAG) of the Criminal

Division (or his or her designee) is required

for the following court actions involving a

torture, war crimes, or genocide matter: filing

an application for a search warrant; filing an

application for a material witness warrant;

filing a criminal complaint or information or

seeking the return of an indictment; filing a

superseding complaint or information, or

seeking the return of a superseding

indictment; dismissing a charge for which

AAG approval was initially required, including

as part of a plea agreement; and other

specific court filings as requested by the AAG.

Assistant Attorney General (AAG) of the

Criminal Division, through the Human

Rights and Special Prosecutions Section

(HRSP).

The USAO must seek the prior concurrence of Assistant Attorney General (AAG) of the

the AAG before entering into a plea

agreement in a torture, war crimes, or

genocide matter.

If exigent circumstances require a USAO to

take immediate action in a torture, war

crimes, or genocide matter without complying

with the notification, consultation,

concurrence, or prior approval requirements

set forth above, the USAO must promptly

notify H RSP of a ny action ta ken and of the

exigent circumstances that precluded

obtaining prior approval.

Approval to dismiss any charge or reduce any

charge for which approval was necessary to

Criminal Division.

Human Rights and Special Prosecutions

Section (HRSP).

Assistant Attorney General,

Criminal Division having jurisdiction of

RJNP.218


9-2.154

9-2.159

9-2. 170

9-2.170

through the Section indict or file an

information or complaint.

the Offense.

Legislative proposals should be forwarded for Office of Policy and Legislation.

consultation.

Approval to dismiss case based on agency

refusal to produce documents.

Prior approval is required of the following


Criminal Division.

Solicitor General, through Appellate

appeals, requests, or petitions: 1) Any appeal Section, Criminal Division.

of a decision adverse to the government,

including an appeal of an order releasing a

charged or convicted defendant or a request

to seek a stay of a decision adverse to the

government. 2) A petition for rehearing that

suggests rehearing en banc-and any rare

appeal in which the government wishes to

suggest that it be heard initially en banco See

Fed. R. App. P. 35(c). Although a petition for

panel rehearing does not require the approval

of the Solicitor General, one should not be

filed until the Solicitor General has been given

the opportunity to decide whether the case

merits en banc review. 3) A petition for

mandamus or other extraordinary relief. 4} In

a government appeal, a request that the case

be assigned to a different district court judge

on remand. 5) A request for recusal of a court

of appeals judge. 6) A petition for certiorari

(only the Solicitor General may file petitions

for certiora ri).

Notification is required of all adverse,

appealable district court decisions (including

adverse 28 U.S.c. 2255 habeas rulings,

coram nobis rulings, and forfeiture rulings).

USAOs need only report adverse district court

Sentencing Guidelines decisions if they wish

to obtain authorization to appeal that

Appellate Section, Criminal Division.

RJN P. 219


9-2.170

9-2 .170

9-2.173

9-2.181

USAM

SECTION

9-5.150

decision. Other adverse sentencing decisions

should be reported.

Notification is required of every published

court of appeals' decision that is adverse to

the government in any respect.

Appellate Section, Criminal Division.

Consultation is required before confessing Appellate Section, Criminal Division.

error in a court of appeals, or before taking a

position that may be inconsistent with the

government's position in another case.

Under some treaties, prosecutors are Consular Officials of foreign countries.

required to notify the consula r official when a Contact the Office of Internationa I

foreign national is arrested in the United

States on federal criminal charges.

Approval is required for Organized Crime

Strike Force matters. Every significant action

in the investigation and prosecution, from

case initiation, court authorized electronic

surveillance, witness immunities, witness

protection requests, undercover proposals,

case indictment, disposition by plea, and

other important events must be approved in

advance by Organized Crime and Gang

Section. All significant dispositions, including

indictments and verdicts, must be reported to

Organized Crime and Gang Section in writing.

Affairs, Criminal Division, to determine

whether a treaty requires contact with a

consular official.

Organized Crime and Gang Section,

Criminal Division.

TYPE & SCOPE OF REPORTIING, CONSULTING CONTACT

OR APPROVAL

Approval is required to move for or consent Deputy Attorney General (through the

to closure of judicial proceedings. 28 C.F.R. Division having supervisory authority

50.9. over the offense charged; the Office of

Enforcement Operations, through the

Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit,

RJN P. 220


9-7.110

9-7. 111

9-7.112

9-7.200

9-7.302

handles these approvals for the

Criminal Division).

Approval is required for applications for court Assistant Attorney General,

orders authorizing the interception of oral, Criminal Division or Deputy Assistant

wire or electronic communications (except for Attorney General, through the Office of

applications involving electronic Enforcement Operations.

commu n ications to digita I-display paging

device-which may be approved by a United

States Attorney). Approval is also required for

extension requests.

Approval is required for roving interception of Attorney General, Deputy Attorney

wire and oral communications.

Approval is required for emergency

interceptions under 18 U.s.c. 2518(7} without a court order.

General, Associate Attorney General,

Assistant Attorney General, or Acting

Assistant Attorney Genera!, through

Office of Enforcement Operations,

Criminal Division.

Attorney General, Deputy Attorney

General, Associate Attorney General

(after obtaining oral approval of AAG or

DAAG of Criminal Division, through

Office of Enforcement Operations).

Approval is required to use video surveillance Assistant Attorney General, Deputy

for law enforcement purposes when there is a Assistant Attorney General, Director and

constitutionally protected expectation of Associate Directors of the Office of

privacy requiring judicia I authorization. Enforcement Operations, Criminal

Division.

Approval is requi red to intercept a non- Di rector or Associate Director of the

telephonic verbal communication without the Office of Enforcement Operations,

consent of all parties to the communication

(but with the consent of at least one party to

the communication),when it is known that: 1)

The monitoring relates to an investigation of a

member of Congress, a federal judge, a

member of the Executive Branch at Executive

Level IV, or above, or a person who has

Criminal Division.

RJN P. 221


9-7.500

served in such capacity within the previous

two years; (2) The monitoring relates to an

investigation of the Governor, Lieutenant

Governor, or Attorney General of any State or

Territory, or a judge or justice of the highest

court of any State or Territory, and the

offense investigated is one involving bribery,

conflict of interest, or extortion relating to the

performance of his or her official duties (3)

Any party to the communication is a member

of the diplomatic corps of a foreign country;

(4) any party to the communication is or has

been a member of the Witness Security

Program and that fact is known to the agency

involved or its officers; (5) the consenting or

nonconsenting person is in the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons or the United States

Marshals Service; or (6) the Attorney General,

Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney

General, any Assistant Attorney General, or

the United States Attorney in the district

where an investigation is being conducted has

requested the investigating agency to obtain

prior written consent before conducting

consensual monitoring in a specific

investigation.

The use of pen registers to collect all or part

of a URL is prohibited without prior

consultation with CCIPS. This policy does not

apply to applications for pen register orders

that would merely authorize collection of

Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, even if such

IP addresses can be readily translated into

URLs or portions of URLs. Similarly, this policy

does not apply to the collection, at a web

server, of tracing information indicating the

source of requests to view a particular URL

using a trap and trace order.

Computer Crime and Intellectual

Property Section, Crimina! Division.

RJN P. 222


9-8. 130

USAM

SECTION

9-10.020

9-10.040

9-10.040

9-10.050

9-10.050

Notification must be provided prior to filing

any motion to transfer a juvenile proceeding

to an adult prosecution.

Organized Crime and Gang Section,

Criminal Division.

TYPE & SCOPE OF REPORTING, CONSULTING CONTACT

OR APPROVAL

A district indicting a Title 21 capital offense Capital Case Unit, Criminal Division.

that occurred before March 6, 2006, should

consult with the Capital Case Unit ofthe

Criminal Division regarding indictment and

procedure.

In all cases subject to the provisions

of USAM Chapter 9-10.000, the Attorney

General wi ll make the final decision about

whether to seek the death penalty. The

Attorney General will convey the final

decision to the United States Attorney in a

letter authorizing him or her to seek or not to

seek the death penalty.

Attorney General.

In no event may the information identified in Attorney General.

the second paragraph of USAM 9-10.040 be

disclosed outside the Department and its

investigative agencies without prior approval

ofthe Attorney General. The United States

Attorneys may exercise their discretion,

however, to place additional limits on the

scope of confidentiality in capital cases

prosecuted in their Districts.

Prior to seeking an indictment for an offense

subject to the death penalty, the United

States Attorney is strongly advised, but not

required, to consult with the Capital Case

Unit.

Capital Case Unit, Criminal Division.

The United States Attorney must immediately Capital Case Unit, Criminal Division.

RJN P. 223


9-10.080

9-10.110

notify the Capital Case Unit when a capital

offense is charged and provide the Unit with a

copy of the indictment and cause number,

even if the materials described in USAM 9-

10.080 are not yet ready for submission.

The United States Attorney must submit to

the Assistant Attorney General for the

Criminal Division every case in which an

indictment has been or will be obtained that

charges an offense punishable by death or

alleges conduct that could be charged as an

offense punishable by death. The submissions

to the Assistant Attorney General must be

done as expeditiously as possible following

indictment, but no fewer than 90 days before

the Government is required, by an order of

the court, to file a notice that it intends to

seek the death penalty. In the absence of a

court established deadline for the Attorney

General's death penalty decision, the United

States Attorney must make the submission

sufficiently in advance oftrial to allow for

both the 90 day time period encompassed by

the review process plus any additional time

necessary to ensure that a notice of intent to

seek the death penalty is timely filed under 18

U.s.c. 3593(a). If a case is not submitted 90

days in advance of a deadline for the Attorney

General's decision or 150 days in advance of a

scheduled trial date, the prosecution

memorandum should include an explanation

of why the su bmission is untimely.

Absent the authorization of the Attorney

General, the United States Attorney may not

enter into a binding plea agreement that

precludes the United States from seeking the

death penalty with respect to any defendant

falling within the scope of USAMChapt er 9-


Criminal Division.

Attorney General.

RJN P. 224


9-10.110

9-10.140

9-11.101

9-11.120

9-11.140

9-11.140

9-11.150

10.000.

For proposed plea agreements that precede a

decision by the Attorney General to seek or

not to seek the death penalty, the United

States Attorney should send a request for

approval to the Assistant Attorney General for

the Criminal Division as early as possible,

absent unavoidable circumstances, no later

than 90 days prior to the date on which the

Government would be required, by an order

of the court or by the requirements of 18

U.s.c. 3593(a), to file a notice that it intends

to seek the death penalty.


Criminal Division.

Once the Attorney General has authorized the Attorney General.

United States Attorney to seek the death

penalty, the United States Attorney may not

withdraw a notice of intention to seek the

death penalty filed with the district court

unless authorized by the Attorney General.

Consultation is required before any grand jury Chief of the Organized Crime and Gang

report is initiated, whether by a regular or

special grand jury. See also 9-11.330.

Section, Criminal Division.

Approval is required to resubmit matter to a United States Attorney.

grand jury after no bill.

See 9-13.525 for DOJ policy regarding issuing Office of International Affairs,

subpoenas to obtain evidence or testimony Criminal Division.

from other countries.

"Forthwith" subpoenas should be used only

when an immediate response is justified and

then may be used only with prior approval.

Prior approval is required to subpoena a

target to the grand jury.

United States Attorney.

United States Attorney or Assistant

Attorney General.

RJ N P. 225


9-11.160

9-11.242

9-11.260

9-11.300

9-11.330

9-11.330

Prior approval is required to resubpoena a

contumacious witness before successive

grand juries and to seek civil contempt

sanctions if the witness refuses to testify.

Requests for appointments of Non-

Department of Justice Government Attorneys

as Special Assistant United States Attorneys

or Special Assistant to the Attorney General

so that they may appear before the grand jury

must be made in writing.

Prior written approva I is required to request a

court for permission to disclose grand jury

materials under Federal Rules of Criminal


Criminal Division, through the Office of

Enforcement Operations.

Executive Office for United States

Attorneys (or Office of Enforcement

Operations, Criminal Division, if the less

common Special Assistant or Special

Assistant to the Attorney General

appointment is to be used in cases or

matters within the jurisdiction of the

Criminal Division.).

Assistant Attorney Genera! for the

Division having supervisory responsibi lity

for the principal offenses being

Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(iv) (disclosure of 6(e) investigated. (If the Criminal Division has

material to State and Local Law Enforcement supervisory responsibility, such requests

Officials). for approval should be sent to the Policy

and Statutory Enforcement Unit of the

Office of Enforcement Operations.).

Prior certification is required to empanel a

special grand jury under 18 U.S.c. 3331(a).

Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit of

the Office of Enforcement Operations,

Criminal Division.

Notification is requested when a special grand Chief of the Organized Crime and Gang

jury (empaneled under 18 U.S.c. 3331- Section, Criminal Division.

grand juries for organized crime) will be

considering the issuance of a report, or will be

preparing a report which the United States

Attorney has not requested.

Approval of draft special grand jury Chief of the Organized Crime and Gang

(18 USc. 3331-organized crime) reports is Section, Criminal Division.

required before the draft report may be

furnished to the special grand jury.

RJN P. 226


9-13 .400

9-13.410

9-13 .420

9-13.500

See Criminal

Resource

Manual 276

Approval is required to: subpoena,

interrogate, arrest or indict members of the

news media, or to subpoena the telephone

toll records ofthe news media.

Approval is requi red to issue gra nd jury or

trial subpoena to attorneys for information

relating to the representation of client.

No application for a search warrant for a

subject attorney's office may be made to a

Attorney General, through the Division

having supervisory authority over the

offense charged. If the Criminal Division

has supervisory authority, requests

should be sent to the Policy and

Statutory Enforcement Unit of the Office

of Operations.



Enforcement Operations.



court without the express a pproval of the Enforcement Operations.

United States Attorney or pertinent Assistant

Attorney General. In addition to obtaining

approval from the United States Attorney or

the pertinent Assistant Attorney judicial

authorization for the search warrant, the

federal prosecutor must consult with the

Criminal Division.

Consultation is required before contacting

any foreign or U.S. State Department official

in relation to extradition of a fugitive or the

obtaining of evidence in a criminal

investigation or prosecution. Prior approval is

required before attempting to do any act

outside the United States relating to a

crimi na I investigation or prosecution,

including contacting a witness by telephone

or mail.

Office of International Affairs,

Criminal Division.

Consultation is required to determine Office of International Affairs,

whether the United States has a Mutual Legal Criminal Division.

Assistance Treaty with the country from

which the evidence is sought.

RJN P. 227


9-13 .525

9-13.525

9-13.526

9-13.534

9-13.540

Written approval is required before issuing

any subpoena to persons or entities in the

United States for records located abroad.

Office of International Affairs,

Criminal Division.

Prior approval is required to serve a subpoena Office of International Affairs,

ad testificandum on an officer or attorney of a Criminal Division.

foreign bank or corporation who is

temporarily in United States when in

connection with the operation of the foreign

bank or corporation.

Notification is required before filing civil

forfeiture action pursuant to extraterritorial

jurisdictional provision contained in

28 U.s.c. 1355(b){2) against assets in foreign

country. Consultation is required before

taking steps to present a foreign government,

for enforcement or recognition, any civil or

crimina! forfeiture order entered in the

United States for property located within the

fa reign j u risd icti 0 n.

Approval is required for travel to a foreign

country in connection with criminal

investigations, trials, or other criminal law

enforcement related to official activity.

Office of International Affairs, which will

consult with Asset Forfeiture and Money

Laundering Section.

EOUSA approves with consent of Office

of International Affairs.

Consultation is required regarding execution Approval is required for an ex parte

of foreign legal assistance requests that have motion for tax returns and tax return

not been routed through Office of information under

International Affairs. 9-13.900. 26 U.S.c. 6103.,Attorney General,

Deputy Attorney General, Associate

Attorney General, any Assistant Attorney

General, any United States Attorney, any

special prose

sacv 13-0615 - forfeiture - medical marijuana - 1638 e. 17th street (burcaw) - request for judicial...

Documents

s i ih

j i slcreu thai

page id

ll c il

sale of marijuana

medical use of marijuana

ipln ill ih

central district of