On Sept. 22 in the Long Beach Superior Court, Judge Charles D. Sheldon denied Joe Grumbine and Joe Byron the ability to use California State laws as a defense in their upcoming Medical Marijuana trial.
It's important to a society that the society applies the law as it was intended.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Joe Grumbine and Joe Byron ran a legal under California state law, non-profit collective. They followed AG guidelines and even the city of Long Beach Medical Marijuana Dispensary guidelines.
State of California voted Medical Marijuana laws into place with Prop.215 in 1996, and SB420 was later introduced with specific laws to protect caregivers and patients from prosecution.
Joe Grumbine works tireless with a non-profit organization, giving 100% of his time, energy and effort to his community and the patients that know him. His selfless efforts of providing wheelchairs, education, clothing, food and free medical assistance to patients, and leading a group of activists that are active positive force in many communities, has perhaps targeted him in an effort to suppress his cause.
THIE GROSS ABUSE OF POWER AND UNEDUCATED DECISIONS MADE IN LONG BEACH WILL AFFECT ALL PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS IN CALIFORNIA.
California Senate Bill Number: SB 420 -- Bill Text
INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 20, 2003 BY Senator Vasconcellos
PASSED SENATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
PASSED ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 10, 2003
An act to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 420, Vasconcellos. Medical marijuana.
Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, prohibits any physician from being punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. The act prohibits the provisions of law making unlawful the possession or cultivation of marijuana from applying to a patient, or to a patient' s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
This bill would require the State Department of Health Services to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients and would establish procedures under which a qualified patient with an identification card may use marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would specify the department's duties in this regard, including developing related protocols and forms, and establishing application and renewal fees for the program.
The bill would impose various duties upon county health departments relating to the issuance of identification cards, thus creating a state-mandated local program.
The bill would create various crimes related to the identification card program, thus imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the Attorney General to set forth and clarify details concerning possession and cultivation limits, and other regulations, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General to recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in the bill. The bill would require the Attorney General to develop and adopt guidelines to ensure the security and no diversion of marijuana grown for medical use, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
Judge Sheldon has decided to completely ignore State laws or is completely unaware of them. Defense attorney Chris Glew is quoted asking the judge, "Your honor, does that then mean I can disregard the speed limit signs when I drive home?"
Judge Sheldon's decision will affect every medical marijuana patient, collective, dispensary manager, and caregiver in California as we know it.
The above link is a brief video of Joe Grumbine explaining to a group of activists outside of the Long Beach court house on Sept. 22nd. just after hearing Judge Sheldon's ruling. Please copy and paste.
Judge Sheldon's denial of an affirmative defense will keep the jury from hearing all the evidence that these men followed State laws, because those laws wont be allowed to be discussed. This creates an extremely unfair trial for our defendants before they even begin - as the jury will never hear one word of State laws that were followed, or the many positive impacts made to his community as a direct result of their compassionate acts through the dispensary.
We're asking to please help protect caregiver and patient rights under state laws and demand that Joe Grumbine and Joe Byron be allowed a fair trial by respecting State Laws and allowing for their protection.
Investigating Long Beach Superior Court and it's judges today.
Prohibition never works!
Demand that our State courts respect our State laws.
Mother and Cannabis Activist