Here’s some contact info:

Columbia Police Department
600 East Walnut
Columbia, MO 65201-4491
573-874-7652 / FAX: 573-874-3142

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Police/Contact_Us/index.php

0  0

0  0

The Syllabus does not mention if the court in Gonzales v. Raich court determined or even reviewed the Constitutional or rational basis for including cannabis and cannabinoids in Schedule I despite the facts of it’s safe, accepted medical use in the United States.

Oral arguments, petitioner’s and respondent’s briefs are available with the syllabus here:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

“California’s Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law. ”

“All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, §812, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body, §§811, 812. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, §812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, §812(b)(1). This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Pp. 6—11.”

“The Ninth Circuit cast doubt on the CSA’s constitutionality by isolating a distinct class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power: the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law. However, Congress clearly acted rationally in determining that this subdivided class of activities is an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme. ”

from the petitoner’s brief:

“. . . respondents’ purported
medicinal use of marijuana, a schedule I drug, directly
interferes with Congress’ comprehensive regulation of
the drug and squarely conflicts with Congress’s determination
that the drug has no accepted medicinal use.”

source:
http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/briefs/Petitioner%27s%20brief.pdf

from the respondent’s:

“For purposes of the CSA, marijuana is classified as a schedule I drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” id. § 812(b)(1)(B), (c).3 Despite this classification, “the public record reflect[s] a legitimate and growing division of informed opinion on this issue.” Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 640 (9th Cir. 2002)”

“Federal law defines “marihuana” to mean “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L” except “the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, . . . or the sterilized seed of such plant.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). In this brief, the term “cannabis” refers to any part of the plant Cannabis sativa L used for medical purposes.”

source: http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/briefs/Respondent%27s%20brief.pdf

0  0

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html

0  0

Again, you are completely misinterpreting the False Claims Act. It applies to contracters defrauding the government for payment, not the scientific validity of legislation.

Constitutional challenges to Federal authority over drug law have failed. The latest case being Gonzales v. Raich. I suggest you read the summary.

Again, there is no law requiring the government to schedule drugs based purely on scientific validity. It is apparent you have not fully read or understood the Controlled Substances Act and the drug scheduling process.

0  0

Have I missed it?

0  0

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/amendments-to-false-claims-act-make-failure-to-return-overpayments-

“the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA) . . . deleted any requirement for liability that an entity directly present a claim to the government, so that an entity may now incur liability if it “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” In addition, an entity now may also be liable if it “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” This latter amendment applies to all claims under the False Claims Act pending on or after June 7, 2008.

FERA now creates liability under the FCA for the knowing failure to return overpayments, and it makes the FCA clearly applicable to government funds distributed by states or intermediaries rather than directly from the federal government. The amendments also require violators to reimburse the federal government for the costs of a civil action to recover penalties or damages.”

0  0

source: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Graham_County_Soil_%26_Water_Conservation_Dist._v._U.S._ex_rel._Wilson

also, from: http://www.benabraham.com/html/untouchable_us_constitution_-_.html

Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE
60 (1803) reveals that “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed
2d 694 (1966) reveals that “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.”

Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); and Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); reveal that unconstitutional enactments [laws] are treated as though they had never existed.

City of Oak Ridge v Diana Ruth Brown
(Tenn. Ct. App., Case No. E2004-01574-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 1996620, 19 August 2005 lv app den 2006) reveals that a law is unconstitutional which forbids what the U.S. Constitution allows.

Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399; 43 S Ct 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923) reveals that The Constitution protects our ‘liberty.’ Case law shows that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one’s life, family, and private pursuits.

0  0

Any person who—
(1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
(2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;
(3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid;
(4) has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government or willfully to conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate or receipt;
(5) authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to be used, by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government, makes or delivers the receipt without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true;
(6) knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from an officer or employee of the Government, or a member of the Armed Forces, who lawfully may not sell or pledge the property; or
(7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government,
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person,

0  0

“The False Claims Act does not apply to precedent set by legislation.”

Citations?

Plain reading of the act itself. Try reading it yourself. It doesn’t limit government — it allows actions against federal contractors who defraud the government. It has no bearing on the government lying to the people. You can’t use the False Claims Act against the government. Or for that matter against members of Congress, the Judiciary or executive members of the Administration.

Instead of this bizarre multiple posting requiring us to come up with citations that don’t allow a clearly inapplicable law from being applied the way you want it, why don’t you come up with some citations of any procedure in the United States Constitution for negating a law because it was based on false information.

0  0