Matthew Pappas <matt.s.pappas@gmail.

com>

Re: 17191 Pacific Coast Highway, Sunset Beach (Patient Med Aid)
1 message
Matthew Pappas <matt.s.pappas@gmail.com> To: "Parham, Greg (USACAC)"

Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Hi Greg, As I've previously explained, Title II of the 1971 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act does not prohibit the medical use, sales, or distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law. There is no federal law being broken and thus no basis for civil forfeiture action. Accordingly, it is important the federal government realize it is liable for violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well as other provisions of federal law. The Federal Tort Claim Act does not protect against the improper and intentional incursions by individuals working in a civil capacity in this area. 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 a conflict between individuals who are in full compliance with both state and federal law. Indeed, the effort to create that conflict is itself actionable, at least as far as the cities are concerned, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In respect to the federal 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 their effort to violate state law. Below, you will see that the limited decision in the recent Riverside case does not absolve cities of liability under the state's independent and much more comprehensive disability laws. The cities are not violating 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 seriously ill and disabled 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 those arguments where the government itself argued that the so-called CSA does not preempt state law. I also again recommend you read Gonzales v. Oregon where the Supreme Court made clear the so-called CSA is limited in scope to targeting only the recreational abuse of drugs -- not medical use under state law. You may also want to review Cipal/one v. Liggett Group where the Supreme Court makes clear the touchstone in any preemption analysis is the intent of Congress. That Congressional intent was patently clear in the 1971 legislation and was again clarified by the Supreme Court in Oregon -- the so-called CSA is limited to combatting the recreational abuse of drugs. There is no violation of federal law here, Greg. Although I already know you are aware of that, I want to ensure that, each time prior 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. Those actions include collusion and conspiracy between the federal sovereign and cities that are subdivisions of the California 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 actions against those people. Indeed, the "divide and conquer" issue you are trying to create is exactly the bad behavior at issue here, Greg. Your intent is to: 1) create a conflict between two private parties; 2) based on a federal law that you know 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 also be 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

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 not following 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 with Benghazi, this forfeiture and continuing abuse through a law meant to combat recreational drug abuse is going to become 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 them to 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 and caregivers 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, my position relates to the Cal. Disabled Persons Act. Take a look at that law, Greg. That law prohibits discrimination -- it doesn't require accommodation but rather prohibits discrimination in respect to people who meet the definition set forth 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 carefully read, "failure to follow local and state laws applicable to similar businesses." When you look at the CDPA as it integrates Title II's protections, you'll note that evidence of discrimination that violates that state law is different and adverse treatment of the use (here medical marijuana collectives) by a local law, policy, or procedures when considering comparable (similar) uses. The collectives are fully in compliance with state law, Greg, because the state's totally independent CDPA protects, like it does with methadone clinics, collectives from discriminatory ban laws. That issue was not before the state Supreme Court in the Riverside case. Just to illustrate, if a methadone clinic 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 with state law despite adverse local laws that are invalid because, under state regulations, it is only required to be in compliance with local laws that operate in respect to similar businesses (see Guidelines, 4(C)(2).) It is not required to be in compliance with discriminatory laws. Think about it, Greg -- if a city can't ban methadone clinics under the CDPA, it certainly cannot ban medical marijuana collectives. Accordingly, your office is violating the directives made by 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 and now the I.R.S. and Associated Press, the more clear it is becoming that the Administration says one thing, and does another. Do you recall Judge Guilford commenting similarly during the December, 2012 hearing? More importantly, Patient Med-Aid and Marla James are not the people you want to be targeting, Greg. I'm going to have the press folks 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 saying in television interviews -- there has actually been no guidance from Washington D.C. Do you remember making that comment 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 will not leave the patients or the landlords without recourse against the government and those in it prosecuting these civil actions. Also important is the fact that the cities are not protected by the 11th Amendment, nor are they protected 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 family emergency. I am not certain whether he will be back for the scheduled May 29 hearing on Botsch. Finally, on Burcaw and 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. For purposes of compliance with the Local Rules, unless you'd like to talk by phone and meet in person, this note has provided you, in detail, with the basis for such relief.

In closing, I'm going to again provide you with the YouTube link to the video showing the statements of President Obama, Mr. Holder, and Mr. Cole followed by the improper and illegal DEA raid of a patient group operating in full-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 regarding whether dispensaries should be worried about raids. I'll be happy to forward you links to those videos as well should you 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 property owner, J S I understand that the store is being operated by Marla James, whom you have represented 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 our 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 May 7,2013, but have not vacated yet. She said her attorney, IIMatt," was working on getting the tenants out of there. 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 Office Asset Forfeiture Section 312 N. Spring Street, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

United

Department of Justice
Attorney's Office California
United Slates Courthouse 312 North Los

1 Matthew Pappas, Esq. 22762 Aspan Street, Suite 202-107 Forest, California 92630 Re:

13

Marijuana 17191 Pacific Coast

Cal!fornia 90742

Ms. James: This office has been advised by the Drug recently was) a marijuana dispensary operating under the name property located at 17191 PacifIc Coast Highway, property you own or have under your to you that the marijuana violations of United States law relating to property 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 are illegal subject to criminal in such operations, including real is These penalties and remedies apply or the uses for which marUuana is 856(a) provides:
'-'V'vl<4'"<VA.A"

It

to knowingly and intentionally use, 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 United shall exist in them: All real property, including any title, and (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of

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 not a 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 marij uana 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 fonnal notification to you that the DEA has determined there is (or recently was) a marijuana dispensary operating on the above described property. You are further advised that the violations of federal law relating to the marijuana dispensary 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 subj ect 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 marijuana at the above-referenced location within 14 days of this letter. You may wish to seek independent legal advice concerning this matter. 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. United States Attorney

# /f? uuII!
STEVEN R. WELK Assistant U.S. Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section

James Armantrout (deceased) and Marla James

(Medical Cannabis patients)