Fwd: [IowaMedicalMarijuana] RE: Iowa Supreme Court

[Common Kurt]

After 7.5 months of silence, the Iowa Supreme court responded to Carl Olsen's appeal of the dismissal of his declaratory judgment asking the courts whether cannabis must be removed from Schedule I of Iowa's version of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act because it now has "accepted medical use in the United States". It doesn't seem like a coincidence that they responded the day after the election since this is such a "political hot potato". Looks like a ruling is coming soon now though. They knocked out all of his co-plaintiffs, so he has to establish standing on his own now and he has to refile his final brief because he included evidence that wasn't heard by the trial court. Stay tuned!

Every document in the case can be found here: http://petition.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/Home/Court

-Kurtis

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Olsen <carl-...@mchsi.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: [IowaMedicalMarijuana] RE: Iowa Supreme Court
To: iowamedica...@googlegroups.com

I told someone the other day the Iowa Supreme Court was probably waiting for the election before making a ruling in my case.  I had that right.

 

From: iowamedica...@googlegroups.com [mailto:iowamedica...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Olsen
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:14 PM
To: iowamedica...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [IowaMedicalMarijuana] RE: Iowa Supreme Court

 

It also looks like I’m the only one who has actually filed an appeal.

 

The district court did not complain about my standing and the state attorney did not challenge my standing to appeal, but I suppose the court could still make a ruling that I don’t have standing to appeal.

 

I’d like to see the case sent back to the trial court, but I only have one issue and it’s just a question of law.  I’m not sure the Iowa Supreme Court will send a case back to a trial court to rule on a question of law.

 

I think the only thing the court can do is rule on the merits of my argument or say I don’t have standing.  If the court does send it back to the trial court, I can include that letter from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to the Iowa Legislature.

 

State courts are not as picky about standing as federal courts, so I’m not sure what to expect here.

 

 

From: Carl Olsen [mailto:carl-...@mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:05 PM
To: 'iowamedica...@googlegroups.com' (iowamedica...@googlegroups.com)
Subject: Iowa Supreme Court

 

The Iowa Supreme Court rejected my reply brief because of the letter from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to the Iowa Legislature.

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 11-1744

Polk County No. CVCV008682

ORDER

CARL OLSEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

LADD HUFFMAN, ALAN

KOSLOW and ROBERT

MANKE,

Petitioners,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

FILED

NOV 0 7 2012

QIRKSlPR-~T.

This matter comes before the court on its own motion. A review of the

reply brief indicates that it contains three exhibits attached to the end of the

brief. The appellate rules do not allow for the filing of such attachments to

briefs. The exhibits should instead be included in a supplemental

appendix. Additionally, a review of the trial court papers and hearing

transcript indicates that the third exhibit (an e-mail) was not part of the

district court record. It therefore may not be included in the appendix.

The final reply briefs are stricken. Within 10 days of the filing of this

order, appellant shall: (1) serve one copy and file 18 copies of an amended

final reply brief with the exhibits removed; and (2) shall serve one copy and

file 18 copies of a supplemental appendix containing the first two exhibits

stricken from the reply briefs. Appellant shall change citations to the

exhibits in the reply brief to reflect that the exhibits are contained in the

supplemental appendix, and shall remove references to the e-mail exhibit.

2

The court additionally notes that appellant Carl Olsen is not an

attorney and may represent only himself in this appeal. The clerk's office

shall amend the caption of the appeal to reflect Olsen as the sole appellant.

Dated this _L day of November, 2012.

Copies to:

Carl Eric Olsen

130 E. Aurora Ave.

Des Moines, IA 50313-3654

Attorney General's Office

Attn: Scott Galenbeck

Hoover Bldg. - Second Floor

LOCAL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "iowamedicalmarijuana" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
iowamedicalmarij...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/iowamedicalmarijuana?hl=en?hl=en

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "iowamedicalmarijuana" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
iowamedicalmarij...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/iowamedicalmarijuana?hl=en?hl=en

[Oliver Steinberg]

It is unfortunate that this state's supreme court was one which was punished by the voters for the ruling on same-sex marriage.   The justices who ruled for same-sex marriage were defeated at the polls.   That has no doubt made the conditions more difficult for a ruling which they might expect would also face public hostility because it goes against the grain of popular opinion.   Only they would be wrong of course!   Medical marijuana is more popular with the voters than same-sex marriage; more popular than each of the last three Presidents. 

 Unfortunately, distortion and trivialization from news media and pressure from the police state obscure the judiciary's perceptions.   I say nothing about the LAW in the case because I am confident that Carl Olsen has the law on his side.   I simply observe that the courts don't function in a vacuum and they are in fact very much influenced by political considerations which in theory they are not supposed to yield to.    Even if there isn't actual bribery-style corruption, the courts can be induced to rule unjustly through a kind of moral corruption and cowardice.   I hope that ultimately that will NOT be the outcome in Iowa in this case.   If it had involved anything other than a steel-trap challenge to provisions of the CSA, it would have been routine.
--Oliver

--
 
 
 

[EdE]

Carl's great advances and struggles trials and tribulations are exactly why I think we cannot just sit back and wait for it to come to us here in Minnesota, each state has their indovidual responsibility to address this issue.