DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)

Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
I know you want to make it seem like I am the one who did something wrong here, but I am suing the DEA, not the other way around.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Fin, why did you claim in your DEA lawsuit that your little brother died because of the unconstitutional drug laws, and the DEA's enforcement of them?

According to you, he died because he ate peanut butter m&m's. What exactly did the DEA have to do with that?
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
pabloesqobar said:
Fin, why did you claim in your DEA lawsuit that your little brother died because of the unconstitutional drug laws, and the DEA's enforcement of them?

According to you, he died because he ate peanut butter m&m's. What exactly did the DEA have to do with that?
Click to expand...
He could have been saved by the use of a Cannabinoid, he didn't die from Peanut butter itself, but from airways being cut off and a heart attack, then he was brought back and put on life support and into a Coma, and a few days later he died again and permanently from Brain swelling. That was in my point by point objection too, since he seemed to want more than Prima Facie.

Here are the research papers that prove Cannabinoids can stop brain swelling.

The anti edema activity of various naturally occurring cannabinoids;
An endogenous cannabinoid (2-AG) is neuroprotective after brain injury;
Cannabinoid type 2 receptor stimulation attenuates brain edema by reducing cerebral leukocyte infiltration following subarachnoid hemorrhage in rats

And I showed the doctors, and they said I was right, but they didn't want cannabinoids in the hospital.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
He could have been saved by the use of a Cannabinoid, he didn't die from Peanut butter itself, but from airways being cut off and a heart attack, then he was brought back and put on life support and into a Coma, and a few days later he died again and permanently from Brain swelling. That was in my point by point objection too, since he seemed to want more than Prima Facie.

Here are the research papers that prove Cannabinoids can stop brain swelling.

The anti edema activity of various naturally occurring cannabinoids;
An endogenous cannabinoid (2-AG) is neuroprotective after brain injury;
Cannabinoid type 2 receptor stimulation attenuates brain edema by reducing cerebral leukocyte infiltration following subarachnoid hemorrhage in rats

And I showed the doctors, and they said I was right, but they didn't want cannabinoids in the hospital.
Click to expand...
Please post a single legitimate source that proves cannabinoids could've saved your brother in that instance .
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
pabloesqobar said:
Please post a single legitimate source that proves cannabinoids could've saved your brother in that instance .
Click to expand...
Brain swelling is called Edema. Those titles I posted are titles to research papers, I will post links to them for you. Cannabinoids reverse brain swelling.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/18407416_The_anti_edema_activity_of_various_naturally_occurring_cannabinoids
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586361
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819918

And the Doctors agreed with me, but weren't willing to do it because of Federal Law, and we were in Colorado. So this even happens in Colorado, because the DEA has over enforced these laws so much that even doctors and nurses are afraid to use methods involving Cannabinoids.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And my point by Point Objection will be filed Monday. So you should be able to read it Monday or Tuesday if everything goes up as soon as they put it in the system.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
Brain swelling is called Edema. Those titles I posted are titles to research papers, I will post links to them for you. Cannabinoids reverse brain swelling.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/18407416_The_anti_edema_activity_of_various_naturally_occurring_cannabinoids
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586361
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819918

And the Doctors agreed with me, but weren't willing to do it because of Federal Law, and we were in Colorado. So this even happens in Colorado, because the DEA has over enforced these laws so much that even doctors and nurses are afraid to use methods involving Cannabinoids.
Click to expand...
You can start a different thread about that. Let's keep this one about your lawsuit being dismissed :)
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Here are some more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15729296
http://theroc.us/images/The endocannabinoid 2-AG protects the blood–brain barrier after closed head injury and inhibits mRNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines.pdf
http://jcb.sagepub.com/content/25/4/477.abstract
http://files.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/science/neuro/CB1 cannabinoid receptors are involved in .pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12035-007-8008-6

Not only would Cannabinoids have saved him, he could have made a full Recovery had they been used.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
pabloesqobar said:
You can start a different thread about that. Let's keep this one about your lawsuit being dismissed :)
Click to expand...
When was it dismissed? I just checked and it says the last action that was taken was that I filed a Motion to Certify.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19445280/Gallagher_v_Rosenberg_et_al

And Monday I am filing my Objection. They can't even Dismiss it until 14 days after the 21st of October, since I get a chance to Object to the Magistrate's Recommendation. And he didn't have everything when he made that recommendation, and didn't say it was frivolous or anything, just that he wanted more facts. So I gave him more facts and it won't be dismissed. Plus its a recommendation, it's not what happens, its just what the Magistrate Recommended. But now there is more info in the case and the recommendation won't stand up.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
When was it dismissed? I just checked and it says the last action that was taken was that I filed a Motion to Certify.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19445280/Gallagher_v_Rosenberg_et_al

And Monday I am filing my Objection. They can't even Dismiss it until 14 days after the 21st of October, since I get a chance to Object to the Magistrate's Recommendation. And he didn't have everything when he made that recommendation, and didn't say it was frivolous or anything, just that he wanted more facts. So I gave him more facts and it won't be dismissed. Plus its a recommendation, it's not what happens, its just what the Magistrate Recommended. But now there is more info in the case and the recommendation won't stand up.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you it will be dismissed. Care to make a wager on it?

Nothing big. How about if your current case is dismissed, you send me a certified check for $10. If your current case is not dismissed, I'll send you a check for $1000. Deal?
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
pabloesqobar said:
I guarantee you it will be dismissed. Care to make a wager on it?

Nothing big. How about if your current case is dismissed, you send me a certified check for $10. If your current case is not dismissed, I'll send you a check for $1000. Deal?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want to cost you $1000 just because you haven't read my response yet. It's going to be like just a minute ago where you said "Show me one thing that proves that your brother could have been saved" and then the next thing you said was "Well, let's not get off topic, let's get back to the recommendation". Once my Objection gets filed, it will change everything. Plus, I filed the 4 page summary so that the lawsuit can not be claimed to be "Incoherent" just because it was too long for them to put all the points into 1 idea. Again, just read what the Magistrate Judge said, he basically said "We need more facts here", so I am about to give him all the facts he asked for Monday. And I don't trust anyone on this website to send me $1000 anyways, so even if I was ok with taking $1000 from you, I don't think you would send it anyway.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
He basically said in that Recommendation "This guy is saying the DEA is a Monopoly, this doesn't really make sense" but that Normaco V DEA case proves that they are a Monopoly (plus the DOJ Matthey Statement, plus the DEA August 2016 Marijuana decision). So now that that is all out there, they will be like "Oh wow, the DEA is a Monopoly".
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Read this real quick and tell me that you don't think that if a Company can do this, a Religion should be allowed to do it. And not just your personal opinion, but by law according to the Free Exercise Clause, and cases like Burwell V Hobby Lobby, etc.


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION


In the Matter of

JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.

|
|
|
|
|
|
Docket Number 99-27
MEMORANDUM OF THE ANTITRUST DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT
OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.

Competition is a rough, often inelegant process by which winners and losers -- whether products, firms, or technologies -- are chosen by decisions made in the marketplace. In that process, economic actors are constantly challenged to improve on price, cost, and technology -- or exit. The end result is economic efficiency and increased technological innovation. Properly understood, the various challenges to the application of Johnson Matthey, Inc. ("Johnson Matthey") raised by Mallinckrodt, Inc. ("Mallinckrodt") and Noramco of Delaware, Inc. ("Noramco") rest on one ground: their fervid desire to avoid such competition and the challenges it would pose to them. Should their efforts to block Johnson Matthey's entry into the market succeed, the result will almost certainly be a less efficient and less innovative market and, ultimately, higher prices for consumers.

For that reason, assuming that the DEA can appropriately regulate Johnson Matthey's facilities to avoid illegal diversion, the Antitrust Division (the "Division") supports this application for registration.(1) More importantly, the Division strongly recommends that the DEA avail itself of this opportunity to clarify yet again its commitment to competition by lowering the regulatory barriers to entry consistent with the need to prevent unlawful diversion. As discussed below, where a market cannot sustain numerous participants -- whether because of production requirements, economies of scale, or government regulation -- its competitiveness depends significantly on facilitating the potential for entry. By clearly articulating the appropriate standard to be used in these proceedings, and by placing the burden of proof where it properly belongs, the DEA will be able to discourage the continuing use of its procedures by those who seek to hinder the development of competition.

ISSUES
The Court framed the issues to be addressed in this proceeding in its October 20, 1999 Prehearing Ruling (ALJ Exh. 4, p.1):

  1. Whether the amounts of raw opium and poppy straw concentrate proposed to be imported by Johnson Matthey are necessary to provide for medical, scientific, or other legitimate purposes pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 952(a)(1); and
  2. Whether the application of Johnson Matthey for registration as an importer of Schedule II controlled substances raw opium and poppy straw concentrate is in the public interest as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. §§ 958(a) and 823(a).
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
I spent some time this weekend getting the Objection as full of facts as possible, with DEA records, evidence that Mallinckrodt is selling Cocaine, the connection between Stepan & Mallinckrodt, etc. and even some extra stuff about a company called Catalent which is the only company in the US allowed to import Marijuana, then how I am personally effected by the DEA Monopoly(ies). Then there is everything I already showed here, like the DOJ statement and Normaco V DEA. So there is no way that the lawsuit is going to be dismissed. They can't let companies do things that Religions can't.

And all the Magistrate Judge wanted was more facts, so it's not like he was saying it couldn't be a case, he was just saying he wanted more facts. I just thought before that I would save most of the facts for later and start with Prima Facie evidence, but now it's all there and easy for them to see.

Then during the Discovery phase everything else will come out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top