u.s. attorney threatens to take property leased to fully state-compliant medical cannabis dispensary...

7/30/2019 U.S. Attorney Threatens to Take Property Leased to Fully State-Compliant Medical Cannabis Dispensary (May 16,

1/6

Matthew Pappas

Re: 17191 Pacific Coast Highway, Sunset Beach (Patient Med Aid)1 message

Matthew Pappas To: "Parham, Greg (USACAC)"

Hi Greg,

Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM

As I've previously explained, Title II of the 1971 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act does notprohibit the medical use, sales, or distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law. There is no federal law being brokenand thus no basis for civil forfeiture action. Accordingly, it is important the federal government realize it is liable forviolations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well as other provisions of federal law. The Federal Tort ClaimAct does not protect against the improper and intentional incursions by individuals working in a civil capacity in thisarea. Likewise, there is no conflict of interest because nobody is violating federal law.

While I realize our positions may differ in respect to the applicability of Title II of the CDAPCA, that does not create aconflict between individuals who are in full compliance with both state and federal law. Indeed, the effort to create thatconflict is itself actionable, at least as far as the cities are concerned, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In respect to thefederal government, your actions violate the Tenth Amendment and raise a substantial separation of powers issue.You and the entire federal government have been put on notice of the decision in Qualified Patients v. City of

Anaheim (2010). I have also advised you that the Cal. Supreme Court has determined that cities are not sovereign -they are units of state government. Accordingly, you know that, by working with cities, you are assisting them in theireffort to violate state law. Below, you will see that the limited decision in the recent Riverside case does not absolvecities of liabili ty under the state's independent and much more comprehensive disability laws. The cities are notviolating art. XI, sec. 7 -- they are violating the CDPA. I am certain that you know, Greg, my arguments have been

focused on the disability laws since I began advocating for Ms. James, my daughter, and other seriouslyill

anddisabled people in this area -- not on art. XI, sec. 7 of the state constitution.

I advise you to look at the arguments raised by the Justice Department in Sibley v. Obama back in 2010. It is thosearguments where the government itself argued that the so-called CSA does not preempt state law. I also againrecommend you read Gonzales v. Oregon where the Supreme Court made clear the so-called CSA is limited in scopeto targeting only the recreational abuse of drugs -- not medical use under state law. You may also want to reviewCipal/one v. Liggett Group where the Supreme Court makes clear the touchstone in any preemption analysis is theintent of Congress. That Congressional intent was patently clear in the 1971 legislation and was again clarified by theSupreme Court in Oregon -- the so-called CSA is limited to combatting the recreational abuse of drugs. There isno violation of federal law here, Greg. Although I already know you are aware of that, I want to ensure that, each timeprior to your decision to instigate these frivolous civil forfeiture actions, I make certain we're on the same page.

There is no conflict between individuals who are being attacked illegally through improper government action. Thoseactions include collusion and conspiracy between the federal sovereign and cities that are subdivisions of theCalifornia state sovereign. There is no conflict between people who are all in compliance with state and federal law(i.e. the Sw , Ms. James, Patient Med-Aid, etc.) simply because the government is engaged in illegal actionsagainst those people. Indeed, the "divide and conquer" issue you are trying to create is exactly the bad behavior atissue here, Greg. Your intent is to: 1) create a conflict between two private parties; 2) based on a federal law that youknow is not targeted at them; and 3) garner the closure of collectives without political or legal recourse against you,other individuals who will be liable for these civil actions (under the FTCA), and the U.S. government, which will alsobe liable. The government, Greq, is one that is by the People and for the People. I am one of the People. So is Ms.James as are Mr. and Mrs. Sw


2/6

I'm listening to Ted Olson right now talk about tyrannical government -- you know what is going on with the I.R.S. -you know what is happening with the President right now in that area and in respect to Benghazi. Like him, you're notfollowing the law, Greg. And there is no conflict between my clients, who are. Your "tyrannical" abuse of power -laughing when you take cars or property -- is not going unnoticed and -- like the I.R.S. issue and the issue withBenghazi, this forfeiture and continuing abuse through a law meant to combat recreational drug abuse is going tobecome a huge problem for your office and the Administration.

May I refer people in the press who are looking for comments from the government in this area? Should I refer themto Deputy Attorney General Cole? Who should I refer them to in Huntington Beach government? Because, you see,Greg, that collective is operating in full conformance with state law. Recall the variety of statements by Mr. Holder, Mr.Ogden, and Mr. Cole noting the Justice Department would not be expending resources to prosecute patients andcaregivers in full compliance with state law. Next, let's analyze what a collective can be under state law -- just patients-- take a look at 4(A)(2) of the 2008 Cal. Atty. Gen. Guidelines for the Safety of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use.Then review People v. Hochanadel and People v. Jovan Jackon -- those cases provide that storefront dispensaries in

compliance with the Atty. Gen. Guidelines are legal in California. Now, let's talk about those invalid city ordinances.First, I've already told you that my position in regard to the "bans" had and has nothing to do with the limited

argument on art. XI, sec. 7 preemption raised by the collective in the recently decided Riverside case. Indeed, myposition relates to the Cal. Disabled Persons Act. Take a look at that law, Greg. That law prohibits discrimination -- itdoesn't require accommodation but rather prohibits discrimination in respect to people who meet the definition setforth in Cal. Gov't Code 12926.1. I will again remind you that cities cannot ban methadone clinics under the CDPA.Let's now go back to the Atty. Gen. Guidelines -- because the weak argument that the collectives are not in

compliance with state law because of invalid city bans is incorrect. Look at 4(C)(2) of the Guidelines and carefullyread, "failure to follow local and state laws applicable to similar businesses." When you look at the CDPA as itintegrates Title II's protections, you'll note that evidence of discrimination that violates that state law is different andadverse treatment of the use (here medical marijuana collectives) by a local law, policy, or procedures whenconsidering comparable (similar) uses. The collectives are fully in compliance with state law, Greg, because thestate's totally independent CDPA protects, like it does with methadone clinics, collectives from discriminatory banlaws. That issue was no t before the state Supreme Court in the Riverside case. Just to illustrate, if a methadoneclinic challenged a city methadone-clinic-ban based on art. XI, sec. 7 preemption, it would lose. For over fifteen (15)years, those same city methadone-clinic-bans have failed under the disability laws.

The Patient Med-Aid collective operates in full compliance with state and federal law. It is not out of compliance withstate law despite adverse local laws that are invalid because, under state regulations, it is only required to be incompliance with local laws that operate in respect to similar businesses (see Guidelines, 4(C)(2).) It is no t required

to be in compliance with discriminatory laws. Think about it, Greg -- if a city can't ban methadone clinics under theCDPA, it certainly cannot ban medical marijuana collectives. Accordingly, your office is violating the directives madeby Mr. Holder, Mr. Cole, Mr. Ogden, and Mr. Obama (see Pres. Obama interview with Barbara Walters, Dec. 12,2012). Perhaps those outward directives were deceitful. The more information that comes out about Benghazi andnow the I.R.S. and Associated Press, the more clear it is becoming that the Administration says one thing, and doesanother. Do you recall Judge Guilford commenting similarly during the December, 2012 hearing? More importantly,Patient Med-Aid and Marla James are no t the people you want to be targeting, Greg. I'm going to have the pressfolks call you and you can explain to them why you're not following the directives of Mr. Cole, Mr. Holder, Mr. Ogden,and Mr. Obama. Perhaps you can explain what you said to Judge Guilford -- that despite what those four are sayingin television interviews -- there has actually been no guidance from Washington D.C. Do you remember making thatcomment during the hearing? If not, I'll send you the transcript.

The collective is, of course, closing because of the attacks. Your efforts have worked, Greg. Thankfully, the FTCA willnot leave the patients or the landlords without recourse against the government and those in it prosecuting thesecivil actions. Also important is the fact that the cities are not protected by the 11th Amendment, nor are theyprotected by any law that allows the federal sovereign to insert itself into state affairs -- there is no such law.

Please advise if you received service of the counterclaim on Jalali. Also, as you may know, Dave Kettle had a familyemergency. I am not certain whether he will be back for the scheduled May 29 hearing on Botsch. Finally, on Burcawand Wu, we will be filing the Rule G5 claims as well as answers and counterclaims. Pursuant to the Local Rules,please be advised that, in those cases, I will be seeking injunctive relief against the government and Santa Ana. Forpurposes of compliance with the Local Rules, unless you'd like to talk by phone and meet in person, this note hasprovided you, in detail, with the basis for such relief.


3/6

In closing, I'm going to again provide you with the YouTube link to the video showing the statements of PresidentObama, Mr. Holder, and Mr. Cole followed by the improper and illegal DEA raid of a patient group operating infull-conformance with state law (http ://www.youtube .com/watch?v= L6eifTZG9ns ). I also have recent testimony by Mr.Holder before a Congressional committee as well as a his direct answer of "no" to a reporter's question regardingwhether dispensaries should be worried about raids. I'll be happy to forward you links to those videos as well shouldyou want to review them.

Matt

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Parham, Greg (USACAC) wrote:Matt:

On lVIarch 13, 2013, this office sent a warning letter to the above-referenced marijuana store and the propertyowner, J S I understand that the store is being operated by Marla James, whom you haverepresented in the past. I was recently informed that the location continues to operate as a marijuana store.This morning, I contacted Ms. Sw to get an update on her efforts to abate the illegal use of her property.She said that she had received ou r warning letter and had asked the tenant to leave. I asked if she had any

timeframe when the tenants were expected to be gone. She added that they were supposed to be gone by May7,2013, bu t have no t vacated yet. She said her attorney, IIMatt," was working on getting the tenants ou t ofthere. I asked her if IIMatt" was Matt Pappas. She said yes. I told her that I would contact you.

P. Greg Parham! Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney's OfficeAsset Forfeiture Section312 N. Spring Street, 14th FloorLos Angeles , CA 90012


4/6

Matthew Pappas, Esq.22762 Aspan Street, Suite 202-107

Forest, California 92630

Re: Marijuana

United

17191 Pacific Coast

Ms. James:

This office has been advised by the Drug

Department of Justice

Attorney's OfficeCalifornia

United Slates Courthouse312 NorthLos

1 13

Cal!fornia 90742

recently was) a mari juana dispensary operating under the nameproperty located at 17191 PacifIc Coast Highway,property you own or have under your

to you that the marijuanaviolations of United States law relating toproperty may result in criminal prosecution, .including the real property on which the

have received) from the dispensary operator.

Under United States law a dispensary's ' - ' V ' v l < 4 ' " < VA . A "are illegal subject to criminalin such operations, including real is

These penalties and remedies applyor the uses for which marUuana is

856(a) provides:

I t to knowingly and intentionallyuse, with or without compensation, [a] building, room, or

of unlawfully manufacturing, storing,substance.

881 (a)(7) of Title 21 provides:

following shall be subject to forfeiture to the Unitedshall exist in them: All real property, including any title, and

(including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of


5/6

used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, aviolation 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 not a defense toeither 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 withknowledge or reason to know of illegal marij uana distribution occurring on real property that heowns or controls may have his interest in the property forfeited to the government withoutcompensation.

As noted above, this letter is fonnal notification to you that the DEA has determined there is (orrecently was) a marijuana dispensary operating on the above described property. You are furtheradvised that the violations of federal law relating to the marijuana dispensary operating on yourproperty 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 (orhave received) from the dispensary operator may also be subj ect to seizure and forfeiture. Yourprompt attention to this matter is strongly advised. Please take the necessary steps to discontinuethe sale and/or distribution of marijuana at the above-referenced location within 14 days of thisletter.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice concerning this matter. Please direct anyinquiries to Claire Charron at (213) 894-0496. You may also submit e-mail inquiries [email protected].

Regards,

ANDRE BIROTTE JR.United States Attorney

# /f? uuII!STEVEN R. WELKAssistant U.S. AttorneyChief, Asset Forfeiture Section


6/6

James Armantrout (deceased) and Marla James

(Medical Cannabis patients)

u.s. attorney threatens to take property leased to fully state-compliant medical cannabis dispensary...

Documents