Charlotte Figi, namesake of Charlotte’s Web medical marijuana strain, dies with COVID-19

Image may contain: 1 person, child, outdoor and closeup

Colo. (KRDO) — Charlotte Figi, the little girl who inspired the low-THC medical marijuana strain, “Charlotte’s Web,” has passed away with COVID-19.

Multiple family members tested positive for the virus, said those close to the family.

As of Tuesday, 179 people have died of coronavirus in Colorado, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Figi had suffered hundreds of grand mal seizures when her parents, exhausted of heavy-duty drugs, sought out the help of the southern Colorado-based Stanley Brothers, who eventually engineered the non-psychoactive CW Hemp in 2011.

The advent of the CW Hemp plant spurred hundreds of families to flock to Colorado, seeking alternative treatment for a variety of health issues, including seizures, shortly after Colorado legalized medical marijuana.

Figi was just three months old when she started having seizures from Dravet Syndrome. After taking oil from Charlotte’s Web, her seizures reduced to two to three per month.

A Figi family friend Tuesday posted publicly on Facebook, “Charlotte is no longer suffering. She is seizure-free forever.”

The family asked for privacy during this time.

Charlotte Figi was 13.

CONTINUE READING…

1st federal inmate to die of coronavirus wrote heartbreaking letter to judge

Patrick Jones “spent the last 12 years contesting a sentence that ultimately killed him,” one of his former lawyers said.

thief-on-the-cross-large

April 5, 2020, 7:35 AM CDT

By Rich Schapiro

In the months before the coronavirus infiltrated the U.S., a 49-year-old inmate began drafting a letter inside the walls of a federal prison in Louisiana.

The man, Patrick Jones, had been locked up for nearly 13 years on a nonviolent drug charge. He hadn’t seen his youngest son, then 16, since the boy was a toddler.

“I feel that my conviction and sentence was also a punishment that my child has had to endure also and there are no words for how remorseful I am,” Jones wrote to U.S. District Judge Alan Albright in a letter dated Oct. 15, 2019. “Years of ‘I am sorry’ don’t seem to justify the absence of a father or the chance of having purpose in life by raising my child.”

Patrick Jones contracted coronavirus at a low-security prison in Oakdale, La.Courtesy of the Jones Family

Jones had been arrested in 2007 after cops found 19 grams of crack and 21 grams of powder cocaine inside the apartment he shared with his wife in Temple, Texas. His wife testified against him and was spared a prison sentence.

Jones wasn’t so fortunate. He was ultimately ordered to spend 27 years behind bars, in part because he lived within 1,000 feet of a junior college and already had a long rap sheet, mostly burglaries that he committed when he was a teenager living on the streets.

He was now writing the judge in the hope of receiving a sentence reduction through the newly-signed First Step Act, which offered relief to some inmates convicted of nonviolent drug crimes.

“My child having his own experience of raising his own child would validate my life experience and give meaning to my existence in this world, because 83582-180 has no meaning,” he wrote, referring to his federal inmate number.

“It is just a number to be forgotten in time. But Mr. Patrick Estell Jones is a very good person. Caring, hard working, free and clean of drugs and a lot smarter now, with a balanced outlook on life.”

The judge denied the request on Feb. 26, 2020. Twenty two days later, Patrick Estell Jones was dead, the first federal inmate to die of the coronavirus.

He had contracted COVID-19 at the low-security prison in Oakdale, La., a penitentiary now dealing with the deadliest outbreak of any of the 122 federal facilities.

“He spent the last 12 years contesting a sentence that ultimately killed him,” said Alison Looman, a New York-based attorney who had represented Jones in an earlier unsuccessful bid for clemency. “Ironically, it seems it is his death that might finally bring his case some attention.”

The U.S. has seen a movement in the past several years to reduce the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders, but criminal justice reform advocates say Jones’s case illustrates the limits of that effort.

“You see everything that is wrong with our sentencing system in this case,” said Kevin Ring, president of the criminal justice advocacy group FAMM.

Ring ticked off the series of factors that led to Jones’s lengthy prison term: a questionable accounting of the amount of drugs he was selling, his apartment’s proximity to a junior college, his decision to go to trial rather than take a plea and a criminal record that was largely made up of teenage offenses.

“He was no choir boy but his life had meaning,” Ring said. “I feel like his life was taken from him when he was sentenced and then he was killed in prison, and both of those things should trouble us.”

Jones’s death also focused attention on the beleaguered prison in southern Louisiana. A total of five Oakdale prisoners have died from COVID-19, officials said, and so many have come down with presumed cases that officials had temporarily stopped testing them for it.

At least 18 inmates and four staffers have tested positive, according to the Bureau of Prisons, but prison union leaders say the numbers are significantly higher.

“You’re just afraid all the time,” said an Oakdale corrections officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to speak to the media. “You’re afraid of catching it and bringing it home to your family. You’re afraid of spreading it in the community.”

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on jails and prisons across the country. Earlier this week, the federal Bureau of Prisons announced that it was locking down all inmates in their cells or quarters, with limited exceptions, for 14 days, but new cases keep popping up.

“There’s a feeling of terror not knowing when this is going to end,” the Oakdale staffer said.

Jones arrived at the prison in April 2017. It would be the last stop in a hardscrabble life that began in Temple, Texas.

His childhood was marked by tumult. Jones was initially raised by his great grandmother but he spent much of his pre-teen years at a group home for children and shuffling between relatives and friends, according to his clemency petition and a government court filing quoting an interview with him. He was on and off the streets during his teenage years, the clemency petition says.

His first run-in with the law came when he was 17, court filings say. Jones was arrested twice in the span of two months on theft and burglary charges. He was charged as an adult and ultimately spent two years in prison.

Jones was released in August 1991 but he didn’t stay out of trouble. He was arrested in May 1992 after he sold cocaine to an undercover officer, according to court records. Jones pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

He was released on parole in 2000 and eventually settled in an apartment in Temple, a few blocks from the local community college. Temple police officers showed up at his home in January 2007 looking for a woman on an outstanding warrant, court records say.

After discovering crack and powder cocaine inside the residence, they arrested Jones and his wife of two months, Sharon, court documents say.

The woman targeted by police wasn’t at the apartment but she was later taken into custody. The woman, Frances Whitlock, told police she sold crack cocaine for the Joneses, averaging about five to ten deliveries a day and sometimes made as many as 30, court documents say.

Sharon Jones agreed to testify against her husband. At his trial, she testified that they had been selling the drugs for about two months. She said they would sell a half ounce of crack every other day, earning about $1,000 every day, court documents say.

The jury found Patrick Jones guilty of possession with intent to distribute at least 5 grams of crack cocaine. His wife received a term of three years’ probation after the government recommended a reduced sentence citing her cooperation, court filings say.

At his sentencing, Jones was held accountable for 425 grams of crack – 22 times the amount that was in his apartment – based on the testimony from his wife that they sold a half ounce every other day from Thanksgiving 2006 until the day of their arrest in January 2007.

The government also used several other factors to enhance Jones’s sentencing guidelines: his apartment’s proximity to Temple College, his role as an “organizer” of criminal activity for enlisting Whitlock to deliver the drugs, his decision to fight the charges at trial and his offenses when he was 17 and 21.

In the case of his previous arrests, the government treated each charge as a separate sentence, which had the effect of further driving up his sentencing guidelines.

Jones was sentenced to the minimum term under the guidelines, but it was still 30 years. His sentence was later reduced to 27 years after the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the crack guidelines to reduce the disparity between powder and crack cocaine.

Jones’s younger sister recalled being stunned by the severity of his sentence. “My brother made some bad decisions in life but that doesn’t make him a bad person,” Debra Canady told NBC News.

In the years after his sentencing, she remained in close touch with her brother who wrote frequently, she said, asking for updates on the youngest of his three sons, Kyrell.

Jones filed a bid for clemency in Oct. 2016 pointing to court rulings and changes in sentencing guidelines that would have directly impacted his case. Jones’s lawyers argued that if he were sentenced then he likely would have received a term at least 10 years less than the one he had received.

“With good time credit,” the petition said, “Mr. Jones would have already served his entire sentence.”

The petition noted that he had no history of violence or ties to gangs, had spent his childhood “with no permanent home,” and that he was a model inmate who worked his way up to head baker–”a profession he hopes to pursue upon his release.”

In January 2017, his lawyers received word from the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney: the petition was denied.

Looman recalled that when she delivered the news to Jones, he immediately expressed concern about her and wondered aloud if she might lose her job as a result.

“It is a telling example of what a kind and compassionate person Patrick is,” Looman later wrote to his judge.

The First Step Act signed by President Donald Trump in December 2018 offered Jones a glimmer of hope.

In his motion for a sentence reduction under the law, Jones’s lawyers said shaving off years of his prison term would “support the mandate from Congress and President Trump to reduce unnecessarily lengthy sentences for defendants like Mr. Jones.”

Prosecutors took a starkly different position, emphasizing his previous convictions and his “leadership role” in his “‘crack’ distribution enterprise.”

“Jones was not a small time crack dealer whose sentence far outweighed the scope of his criminal activity,” prosecutors said in court papers.

The judge, in a ruling filed in February, sided with the government.

“Jones is a career offender with multiple prior offenses and a history of recidivating each time he is placed on parole,” Albright said in his order.

“Though the bulk of Jones’s offenses were committed at age 17, Jones displayed his continuing criminal tendencies by committing offenses each time he was released from custody.”

Albright couldn’t be reached for comment.

Looman didn’t handle Jones’s effort to get relief through the First Step Act, but she kept in touch with him via the federal prison email system.

“Happy New Year to you and may this year bring great things your way,” Jones wrote to her this past New Year’s Eve.

On Feb. 27, the day after the judge’s ruling, Jones sent her a message that made it clear he had yet to get the news.

“I’ve just been awaiting to hear something good for a change as far as legal issues go,” Jones wrote. “…But I have not got anymore info to what may be coming forth It’s been a lot of movement around here lately I hope I’m in the making for that kind of release also.”

The following month, Jones and Looman exchanged messages that referenced the coronavirus. The deadly illness was sweeping across the U.S. and there were escalating concerns of outbreaks inside detention facilities.

“I am doing well as fare (sic) as coronavirus goes and staying safe and healthy,” Jones wrote on March 14, five days before he would complain to Oakdale staffers about a persistent cough, according to federal prison officials.

He went on to say in his message to Looman that he found out the judge ruled against him, which was news even to Looman, and he revealed why it took him so long to get word: his lawyer had left the public defender’s office two months earlier.

“I talked to the head person and he said it was on him that I was not contacted and that he was going to get his people on top of the appeal,” Jones wrote. “…Anyway, enough about my problems. Are you likening (sic) the work from home thing?”

Looman replied a few days later.

She never heard back.

Rich Schapiro

Rich Schapiro is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

CONTINUE READING AND TO VIDEO….

1st federal inmate to die of coronavirus wrote heartbreaking letter to judge

Patrick Jones “spent the last 12 years contesting a sentence that ultimately killed him,” one of his former lawyers said.

thief-on-the-cross-large

April 5, 2020, 7:35 AM CDT

By Rich Schapiro

In the months before the coronavirus infiltrated the U.S., a 49-year-old inmate began drafting a letter inside the walls of a federal prison in Louisiana.

The man, Patrick Jones, had been locked up for nearly 13 years on a nonviolent drug charge. He hadn’t seen his youngest son, then 16, since the boy was a toddler.

“I feel that my conviction and sentence was also a punishment that my child has had to endure also and there are no words for how remorseful I am,” Jones wrote to U.S. District Judge Alan Albright in a letter dated Oct. 15, 2019. “Years of ‘I am sorry’ don’t seem to justify the absence of a father or the chance of having purpose in life by raising my child.”

Patrick Jones contracted coronavirus at a low-security prison in Oakdale, La.Courtesy of the Jones Family

Jones had been arrested in 2007 after cops found 19 grams of crack and 21 grams of powder cocaine inside the apartment he shared with his wife in Temple, Texas. His wife testified against him and was spared a prison sentence.

Jones wasn’t so fortunate. He was ultimately ordered to spend 27 years behind bars, in part because he lived within 1,000 feet of a junior college and already had a long rap sheet, mostly burglaries that he committed when he was a teenager living on the streets.

He was now writing the judge in the hope of receiving a sentence reduction through the newly-signed First Step Act, which offered relief to some inmates convicted of nonviolent drug crimes.

“My child having his own experience of raising his own child would validate my life experience and give meaning to my existence in this world, because 83582-180 has no meaning,” he wrote, referring to his federal inmate number.

“It is just a number to be forgotten in time. But Mr. Patrick Estell Jones is a very good person. Caring, hard working, free and clean of drugs and a lot smarter now, with a balanced outlook on life.”

The judge denied the request on Feb. 26, 2020. Twenty two days later, Patrick Estell Jones was dead, the first federal inmate to die of the coronavirus.

He had contracted COVID-19 at the low-security prison in Oakdale, La., a penitentiary now dealing with the deadliest outbreak of any of the 122 federal facilities.

“He spent the last 12 years contesting a sentence that ultimately killed him,” said Alison Looman, a New York-based attorney who had represented Jones in an earlier unsuccessful bid for clemency. “Ironically, it seems it is his death that might finally bring his case some attention.”

The U.S. has seen a movement in the past several years to reduce the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders, but criminal justice reform advocates say Jones’s case illustrates the limits of that effort.

“You see everything that is wrong with our sentencing system in this case,” said Kevin Ring, president of the criminal justice advocacy group FAMM.

Ring ticked off the series of factors that led to Jones’s lengthy prison term: a questionable accounting of the amount of drugs he was selling, his apartment’s proximity to a junior college, his decision to go to trial rather than take a plea and a criminal record that was largely made up of teenage offenses.

“He was no choir boy but his life had meaning,” Ring said. “I feel like his life was taken from him when he was sentenced and then he was killed in prison, and both of those things should trouble us.”

Jones’s death also focused attention on the beleaguered prison in southern Louisiana. A total of five Oakdale prisoners have died from COVID-19, officials said, and so many have come down with presumed cases that officials had temporarily stopped testing them for it.

At least 18 inmates and four staffers have tested positive, according to the Bureau of Prisons, but prison union leaders say the numbers are significantly higher.

“You’re just afraid all the time,” said an Oakdale corrections officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to speak to the media. “You’re afraid of catching it and bringing it home to your family. You’re afraid of spreading it in the community.”

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on jails and prisons across the country. Earlier this week, the federal Bureau of Prisons announced that it was locking down all inmates in their cells or quarters, with limited exceptions, for 14 days, but new cases keep popping up.

“There’s a feeling of terror not knowing when this is going to end,” the Oakdale staffer said.

Jones arrived at the prison in April 2017. It would be the last stop in a hardscrabble life that began in Temple, Texas.

His childhood was marked by tumult. Jones was initially raised by his great grandmother but he spent much of his pre-teen years at a group home for children and shuffling between relatives and friends, according to his clemency petition and a government court filing quoting an interview with him. He was on and off the streets during his teenage years, the clemency petition says.

His first run-in with the law came when he was 17, court filings say. Jones was arrested twice in the span of two months on theft and burglary charges. He was charged as an adult and ultimately spent two years in prison.

Jones was released in August 1991 but he didn’t stay out of trouble. He was arrested in May 1992 after he sold cocaine to an undercover officer, according to court records. Jones pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

He was released on parole in 2000 and eventually settled in an apartment in Temple, a few blocks from the local community college. Temple police officers showed up at his home in January 2007 looking for a woman on an outstanding warrant, court records say.

After discovering crack and powder cocaine inside the residence, they arrested Jones and his wife of two months, Sharon, court documents say.

The woman targeted by police wasn’t at the apartment but she was later taken into custody. The woman, Frances Whitlock, told police she sold crack cocaine for the Joneses, averaging about five to ten deliveries a day and sometimes made as many as 30, court documents say.

Sharon Jones agreed to testify against her husband. At his trial, she testified that they had been selling the drugs for about two months. She said they would sell a half ounce of crack every other day, earning about $1,000 every day, court documents say.

The jury found Patrick Jones guilty of possession with intent to distribute at least 5 grams of crack cocaine. His wife received a term of three years’ probation after the government recommended a reduced sentence citing her cooperation, court filings say.

At his sentencing, Jones was held accountable for 425 grams of crack – 22 times the amount that was in his apartment – based on the testimony from his wife that they sold a half ounce every other day from Thanksgiving 2006 until the day of their arrest in January 2007.

The government also used several other factors to enhance Jones’s sentencing guidelines: his apartment’s proximity to Temple College, his role as an “organizer” of criminal activity for enlisting Whitlock to deliver the drugs, his decision to fight the charges at trial and his offenses when he was 17 and 21.

In the case of his previous arrests, the government treated each charge as a separate sentence, which had the effect of further driving up his sentencing guidelines.

Jones was sentenced to the minimum term under the guidelines, but it was still 30 years. His sentence was later reduced to 27 years after the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the crack guidelines to reduce the disparity between powder and crack cocaine.

Jones’s younger sister recalled being stunned by the severity of his sentence. “My brother made some bad decisions in life but that doesn’t make him a bad person,” Debra Canady told NBC News.

In the years after his sentencing, she remained in close touch with her brother who wrote frequently, she said, asking for updates on the youngest of his three sons, Kyrell.

Jones filed a bid for clemency in Oct. 2016 pointing to court rulings and changes in sentencing guidelines that would have directly impacted his case. Jones’s lawyers argued that if he were sentenced then he likely would have received a term at least 10 years less than the one he had received.

“With good time credit,” the petition said, “Mr. Jones would have already served his entire sentence.”

The petition noted that he had no history of violence or ties to gangs, had spent his childhood “with no permanent home,” and that he was a model inmate who worked his way up to head baker–”a profession he hopes to pursue upon his release.”

In January 2017, his lawyers received word from the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney: the petition was denied.

Looman recalled that when she delivered the news to Jones, he immediately expressed concern about her and wondered aloud if she might lose her job as a result.

“It is a telling example of what a kind and compassionate person Patrick is,” Looman later wrote to his judge.

The First Step Act signed by President Donald Trump in December 2018 offered Jones a glimmer of hope.

In his motion for a sentence reduction under the law, Jones’s lawyers said shaving off years of his prison term would “support the mandate from Congress and President Trump to reduce unnecessarily lengthy sentences for defendants like Mr. Jones.”

Prosecutors took a starkly different position, emphasizing his previous convictions and his “leadership role” in his “‘crack’ distribution enterprise.”

“Jones was not a small time crack dealer whose sentence far outweighed the scope of his criminal activity,” prosecutors said in court papers.

The judge, in a ruling filed in February, sided with the government.

“Jones is a career offender with multiple prior offenses and a history of recidivating each time he is placed on parole,” Albright said in his order.

“Though the bulk of Jones’s offenses were committed at age 17, Jones displayed his continuing criminal tendencies by committing offenses each time he was released from custody.”

Albright couldn’t be reached for comment.

Looman didn’t handle Jones’s effort to get relief through the First Step Act, but she kept in touch with him via the federal prison email system.

“Happy New Year to you and may this year bring great things your way,” Jones wrote to her this past New Year’s Eve.

On Feb. 27, the day after the judge’s ruling, Jones sent her a message that made it clear he had yet to get the news.

“I’ve just been awaiting to hear something good for a change as far as legal issues go,” Jones wrote. “…But I have not got anymore info to what may be coming forth It’s been a lot of movement around here lately I hope I’m in the making for that kind of release also.”

The following month, Jones and Looman exchanged messages that referenced the coronavirus. The deadly illness was sweeping across the U.S. and there were escalating concerns of outbreaks inside detention facilities.

“I am doing well as fare (sic) as coronavirus goes and staying safe and healthy,” Jones wrote on March 14, five days before he would complain to Oakdale staffers about a persistent cough, according to federal prison officials.

He went on to say in his message to Looman that he found out the judge ruled against him, which was news even to Looman, and he revealed why it took him so long to get word: his lawyer had left the public defender’s office two months earlier.

“I talked to the head person and he said it was on him that I was not contacted and that he was going to get his people on top of the appeal,” Jones wrote. “…Anyway, enough about my problems. Are you likening (sic) the work from home thing?”

Looman replied a few days later.

She never heard back.

Rich Schapiro

Rich Schapiro is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

CONTINUE READING AND TO VIDEO….

(MO)”Bill” If passed, it would allow employers to drug test their employees randomly and grant them the clearance to fire them if they fail.

Missouri bill seeks to allow employers to test for medical marijuana

14518195_1791805051103482_1638685857_n

ST. LOUIS – Whether it’s medical or reactional marijuana, both are proving to be a hot topic in many states across the United States.

In Illinois, since legalizing the drug for both uses at the start of 2020, the state rang in an eye-opening $40 million in just the first month.

And in Missouri, the initial steps of setting up shops for medical marijuana are just now being put into place.

“The good thing is that we do have [medical marijuana] in Missouri,” said Gary Easter, a marijuana advocate with The Green Man Group. “So we have to look at that as a positive and keep fighting the good fight.”

While strides are moving forward, there’s new legislation on medical marijuana that’s raising some eyebrows in Jefferson City.

It’s called Senate Bill 610 and its sponsored by Republican Senator David Sater from southwest Missouri.

If passed, it would allow employers to drug test their employees randomly and grant them the clearance to fire them if they fail.

“I feel like this bill is continue to stigma that has been placed on marijuana and medical marijuana users,” said Abrahama Keys, the executive director of NORML, a support group that lobbies for the legalization of marijuana on all fronts.

She assures the senator’s bill is nothing more than a distraction on Missouri’s progression of marijuana legalization.

“When you make legislation like this, you’re almost criminalizing people who are medical marijuana users,” Keys said. “We don’t have anything that tests for, say, sleeping drugs; sleeping drugs can impair you on the job. However, there’s no test in place or legislature in place.”

Though she doesn’t agree with the bill, Keys says she welcomes all dialogue.

“I believe when things like this come in the light, it’s important to view everybody’s opinions,” Keys said.

“It’s baby steps,” Easter said. “Just baby step before getting to the ultimate picture which is legalization across the board.”

At present, the bill is in the Small Business and Industry Committee, where it failed to gather enough votes last year.

CONTINUE READING AND TO VIDEO!

Be Careful When You Ask For “MORE”…

(Next, it could/will be your vegetables…)

Congress Plans to Vote on Federal Cannabis Legalization This Week

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act would de-schedule cannabis and create a government agency tasked with righting the wrongs of prohibition.

BRUCE CAIN

2.17.2020

It does take Cannabis off the Controlled Substances Act which is a good thing.

What we never seem to hear from our representatives or within this MORE Bill is an explicit acknowledgement of the inalienable right for adults to grow: no tax, regulation or gov’t/globalist control. And nowhere in this bill does it do that.

I’m an old Perennial Hippie who has been fighting for the right to grow for many decades. And over those decades I have had the honor of knowing many great activists: Jack Herer, Timothy Leary, Gatewood Galbraith, Dennis Peron and hundreds of others.

Well before the establishment of the UN the Rockefeller’s and Rothschild’s have been diametrically opposed to Cannabis. The UN, which is really a front for these two dynasties, is still against an individual’s right to grow.

To me it symbolizes the chasm between the two major ideologies: individualism Vs collectivism. It also symbolizes the chasm between self sufficiency Vs dependency. What is really at the heart of these dynasties is power: the aspiration to control everything and everybody.

This idea of self sufficiency is the idealized goal of our founders and is the real primary reason that I spent over 30 years of my life advocating the inalienable right to grow your own. Today the biggest threat to individual self sufficiency is the UN and their fait accompli to usher us into the 4th Industrial Revolution through 5G infrastructure: Smart Cities, Smart Grids, Smart Meters etc.

Cannabis growers need to understand that — once this infrastructure is in place — they can easily take away your right to grow and make you entirely dependent on spending $15/gram at the dispensary. Smart Meters will detect your indoor grows. Drones, coupled with infrared scanners and AI, can ferret out your outdoor garden.

Cannabis legalization was always a symptom of a much larger evil: global collectivists such as the Rockefeller’s, the Rothschild’s and the globalist United Nations façade which they created. Sadly the war on Cannabis is not over: it has really just begun. They want to control Cannabis just as they want to control You and I. They are responsible for the Federal Reserve (that has been robbing us blind since 1913), they are responsible for nearly every war since 1900 and they look at us as either “useful idiots” (AOC, proponents of the New Green Deal: Agenda21 by another name) and “useless eaters.” And the funny thing about all of this is that we are not taught this through the public education system. The fact is they control that as well. Perhaps THIS is the time to stand up against these demonic forces? Because once the 5G infrastructure is “up and running” we may well remain slaves forever. And as slaves you will eventually not be able to grow your own. They have never changed their view on that one.

https://www.congress.gov/…/116th-congr…/house-bill/3884/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884/all-actions?overview=closed&KWICView=false

REMEMBER! MARK YOUR CALENDAR! MARCH 11TH, 2020; Cannabis Rally In The Rotunda–FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY.

3914307_orig

RotundaRally3.11.20

MARCH 11TH, 2020

12:30 PM – 2:00 PM

CAPITOL ROTUNDA

700 CAPITOL AVENUE

FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY  40601

We will be discussing the progress we have made, current legislation, and what folks can do to help end the prohibition against this life-saving plant.
All advocates, and all parties, are welcomed!
If interested in speaking about your cannabis bill, or a bill you have sponsored, please PM us, or leave a comment below and we will reach out to you.
We hope to see y’all there!!
If you are a CBD store owner, cannabis farmer, cannabis processor, or you sell cannabis products in Kentucky and you plan to be at the rally, please leave a comment below so folks know to look for you.

ANY QUESTIONS?  CONTACT DAN SEUM AT THIS LINK!

Kentucky House Judiciary Committee advances medical cannabis bill! (hb136)

Kentucky House Judiciary Committee advances medical cannabis bill!

Seriously ill Kentuckians have been waiting long enough — urge your state legislators to support HB 136!

Today, Kentucky’s House Judiciary Committee voted 17-1 to pass HB 136, a bill that would legalize cannabis for medical use. Next the bill will proceed to the full House, where it is expected to receive a vote soon.

Please write your legislators today and urge them to pass this compassionate legislation!

Fifty-one of Kentucky’s 100 state representatives are cosponsors of HB 136, and Gov. Andy Beshear has indicated that he strongly supports medical cannabis.

However, some Senate leaders remain opposed, so the challenge for advocates will be getting a bill through both chambers of the legislature and to the governor’s desk.

It’s critical that legislators hear from their constituents who support medical cannabis. After you write your legislators, please share this message with your friends and family.

CONTINUE READING…

STOP SIGN

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT HB136 IS A NON SMOKABLE NON GROWABLE BILL!  IT IS STRICTLY FOR MEDICAL CONSUMPTION ONLY!

“to prohibit smoking of medicinal marijuana;”

“to establish limits on the THC content of medicinal marijuana that can be produced or sold in the state”

“to exempt certain records and information from the disclosure under the Kentucky Open Records Act;”

“to permit an employer to restrict the possession and use of medicinal marijuana by an employee;”

GO

Sen. Perry Clark introduced SB105 on January 22, 2020 which DOES include adult use, small amounts of growing for personal use as well. Please view the Bill at this link!

“to allow for possession, growth, use, processing, purchasing, transfer, and consumption of cannabis;”

“to establish provisions for personal cultivation;”

“to establish provisions for palliative or therapeutic use of cannabis by persons under the age of 21;”



https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2019/12/19/2020-kentucky-marijuana-bills/

KENTUCKY CANNABIS RALLY AT THE ROTUNDA IN FRANKFORT!

The people of Kentucky, all groups, all BILLS for Cannabis whether it be “Medical” or “Adult Use”, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent, are requested to join us in Frankfort Kentucky on March 11, 2020 to show our support for the effort in our State!

Please plan to be there!

RotundaRally3.11.20

LOCATED AT CAPITOL ROTUNDA

700 CAPITOL AVE

FRANKFORT, KY  40601

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/19rs/hb136.html

AN ACT relating to medicinal marijuana and making an appropriation therefor.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/20rs/hb148.html

AN ACT relating to the regulation of cannabis and making an appropriation therefor.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/20rs/hb236.html

AN ACT relating to hemp and declaring an emergency.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/20rs/hb221.html

AN ACT relating to marijuana possession.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/20rs/hb102.html

AN ACT relating to employment-related drug screens.

RELATED GROUPS/PAGES ON FACEBOOK!

MY RIGHT TO DECIDE

https://www.facebook.com/MYRIGHTTODECIDE/

KY4MM

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ky4mm/?ref=br_rs

KENTUCKY 411 UNCENSORED

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2091597957797912/

KENTUCKY MARIJUANA PARTY

https://www.facebook.com/USMjPartyKY/?ref=br_rs

FREE THE WEED KENTUCKY

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1428715180676475/?ref=br_rs

Trump Says He Can Ignore Medical Marijuana Protections Passed By Congress

President Trump Signs VA Accountability Act

December 21, 2019

Tom Angell

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.

In a statement attached to a large-scale funding bill he signed into law on Friday, President Trump said in effect that he reserves the right to ignore a congressionally approved provision that seeks to protect state medical marijuana laws from federal interference.

Division B, section 531 of the Act provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds made available under this Act to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories,” Trump wrote in a signing statement. “My Administration will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”

Although the vague language doesn’t directly say he plans to ignore Congress’s will to block Justice Department prosecution of medical cannabis patients and providers, presidents typically use signing statements such as this one to flag provisions of laws they are enacting which they believe could impede on their executive authorities. By calling out the medical marijuana rider, Trump is making clear that his administration believes it can broadly enforce federal drug laws against people complying with state medical marijuana laws even though Congress told him not to.

But it doesn’t necessarily mean that a crackdown is on the way.

The administration hasn’t carried out any major enforcement activities against state-legal marijuana businesses since taking office, in accordance with Trump’s campaign pledges that he would respect the right of states to enact their own cannabis laws without federal interference. That also goes for recreational policies and businesses that aren’t even covered under the congressionally adopted rider, which has been part of federal law since 2014.

It is the third time Trump has said in a signing statement that his administration doesn’t necessarily have to abide by the medical marijuana provision. He included similar language when signing off on annual appropriations bills last year and in 2017, though he did not do so in 2018.

In August, the president reiterated his support for letting states legalize cannabis without federal interference.

“It’s a very big subject and right now we are allowing states to make that decision,” Trump said. “A lot of states are making that decision, but we’re allowing states to make that decision.”

Last year, when asked about separate pending congressional legislation that would more broadly exempt state-legal marijuana activity from the federal Controlled Substances Act, he said he “really” supports the bill.

Given the president’s consistently voiced support for respecting state cannabis laws, it’s not clear why he has gone out of his way to reserve his right to ignore the medical marijuana rider on a near-annual basis.

Among the handful of other provisions Trump singled out in his new signing statement are ones dealing with the closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, restrictions on diplomatic activities and the dissemination of information that may be protected by executive privilege.

The Fiscal Year 2020 funding bill that Trump signed into law on Friday does not contain a broader rider seeking to shield all state marijuana laws—including those that allow recreational use and sales—that had been approved by the House of Representatives earlier this year. It, along with another provision that would have protected banks that serve state-legal cannabis businesses from federal punishment, was dropped from the final legislation in bicameral negotiations with the Senate.

Congressional leaders did include several cannabis-related provisions in a report attached to the legislation, though, such as language directing the Food and Drug Administration to formulate a policy of enforcement discretion for CBD products and requiring the National Institute on Drug Abuse to compile a report on the barriers that the Schedule I status of drugs including marijuana places in front of scientific research.

CONTINUE READING…

RELATED:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-33/?utm_source=link&utm_medium=header

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2014/01/02/on-legalization-when-the-u-n-comes-a-marching-along-we-will-all-be-singing-a-brand-new-song/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2014/10/15/lets-talk-about-corporate-cannabis/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/05/08/and-all-the-green-fields-will-runneth-red-with-blood/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/07/09/conflicting-federal-laws-beg-to-differ-on-marijuana-enforcement/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/10/26/rights-and-freedoms-may-in-no-case-be-exercised-contrary-to-purposes-and-principles-of-the-united-nations-how-the-united-nations-is-stealing-our-unalienable-rights-to-grow/

Statement by the President

Issued on: December 20, 2019

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1158, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020” (the “Act”), which authorizes appropriations to fund the operation of certain agencies in the Federal Government through September 30, 2020.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division A, section 8070) purport to restrict the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to control the personnel and materiel that the President believes to be necessary or advisable for the successful conduct of military missions.  Others provisions (such as Division A, sections 8075, 8078, 8110, 9013, and 9016) purport to require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance.

In addition, Division C, section 534 and Division D, section 516 of the Act restricts transfers of detainees held at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.  I fully intend to keep that detention facility open and to use it, as necessary or appropriate, for detention operations. Consistent with the statements I have issued in signing other bills, my Administration will treat these, and similar provisions, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.  I also reiterate the longstanding understanding of the executive branch that requirements of advance notice regarding military or diplomatic actions encompass only actions for which providing advance notice is feasible and consistent with the President’s constitutional authority and duty as Commander in Chief to ensure national security.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division B, sections 509, 516, and 526; Division D, section 523) could, in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of the President’s constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy.  My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations, including the President’s role as the sole representative of the Nation in foreign affairs.

Division B, section 531 of the Act provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds made available under this Act to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories.  My Administration will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

Certain provisions of the Act within Division D, title II, under the heading “Office of Management and Budget—Salaries and Expenses,” impose restrictions on supervision by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of work performed by executive departments and agencies, including provisos that no funds made available to OMB “may be expended for the altering of the annual work plan developed by the Corps of Engineers for submission to the Committees on Appropriations”; that “none of the funds provided in this or prior Acts shall be used, directly or indirectly, by the Office of Management and Budget, for evaluating or determining if water resource project or study reports submitted by the Chief of Engineers acting through the Secretary of the Army are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements relevant to the Civil Works water resource planning process”; and that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).” The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch and to rely on subordinates, including aides within the Executive Office of the President, to assist in the exercise of that authority.  Legislation that significantly impedes the President’s ability to supervise the executive branch or obtain the assistance of aides in this function violates the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, including the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.  My Administration will, therefore, treat these restrictions consistent with these Presidential duties.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division C, sections 713 and 743) purport to prohibit the use of appropriations to supervise communications by employees of the executive branch to the Congress and to Inspectors General.  Other provisions (such as Division C, section 616) purport to prohibit the use of funds to deny an Inspector General access to agency records or documents.  My Administration will treat these provisions in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to control the disclosure of information that could impair foreign relations, national security, law enforcement, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties, and to supervise communications by Federal officers and employees related to their official duties, including in cases where such communications would be unlawful or could reveal confidential information protected by executive privilege.

In addition, certain provisions of the Act (such as Division B, section 112) purport to mandate or regulate the dissemination of information that may be protected by executive privilege.  My Administration will treat these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to control information, the disclosure of which could impair national security, foreign relations, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division D, section 536) purport to require recommendations regarding legislation to the Congress. Because the Constitution gives the President the authority to recommend only “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non‑binding.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division C, sections 101, 112, 113, 116, 117, 201, 541, 608, 609, 717, 730, 803(a), and 815) purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of one or more congressional committees.  These are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by the enactment of statutes.  My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval or prior consultation with congressional committees.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 20, 2019.

CONTINUE READING (SOURCE)

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All!

USMjParty Christmas 2019

Praying for PEACE on EARTH,

Good Will to ALL,

That OUR Nation will HEAL,

Once and FOR ALL,

Let COMPASSION light your way,

Every single DAY,

LOVE ALL your Brothers and Sisters,

Because OUR FATHER intended it that way,

Do not forget those most FORGOTTEN,

On this day of remembrance,

Embrace one another,

AND

Pray for PEACE,

To OUR Heavenly Father,

Whose day of birth, which we celebrate,

By giving “presents” to each other?

It’s time that we, as his Children,

Give the gift to OUR Father….

PEACE to ALL

and

ALL for PEACE!

Much LOVE to ALL,

No matter your beliefs!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

1937 Marihuana Tax Act – First Convictions — In A Nutshell

I received the following thru email from “Uncle Mike”… Thought it was well worth passing on….  No “cannabis” law is a good “cannabis” law!

caldwell

1937 Marihuana Tax Act – First Convictions — In A Nutshell

Uncle Mike 10/29/2019

Historically significant fact check list addressing common issues & problems with dates, people, places, charges and the chain of events surrounding America’s first federal marijuana convictions. This short 1-page report is based on the larger 190-page criminal case study book entitled:

U. S. District Court, Denver, Colorado Imposes First Federal Marihuana Law Penalties, Compilation of Publications, Interviews, Criminal Files and Photographs of Moses Baca & Samuel Caldwell, By Uncle Mike, Copyright Nov 12 2008, Feb 17 2010, May 5 2019.

The Marihuana Tax Act was approved August 2, 1937 and went into effect Friday, October 1st 1937.

Moses Baca, age 23, Mexican American born in Trinidad Colorado, was charged with violating the act on Monday the 4th.

Samuel R. Caldwell, age 57, white guy from Indiana, was charged with violating the act on Tuesday the 5th.

Federal grand jury indictments were issued on Thursday, October 7th, and both men were then brought before the court and sentenced on Friday, October 8th, 1937 after pleading guilty.

Leading the first federal court proceedings was Moses Baca, who received an 18-month sentence in Leavenworth Penitentiary for possessing ¼ ounce of marihuana. A search of his home was conducted at 2625 California Street, after a drunk & disturbance arrest, revealing one-fourth ounce of marijuana in his bureau drawer.

Following Baca’s possession case, Samuel R. Caldwell was sentenced. He received 4 years in the Leavenworth Penitentiary for selling 3 marihuana cigarettes to a man he met on the street named Claude Morgan and possessing 4 pounds of marihuana later found hidden in his Lothrop Hotel room at 1755 Lawrence. According to Caldwell’s friend, Alex Rahoutis, he had only been dealing a few months when he was busted by federal agents, and apparently didn’t smoke weed himself.

After their release:

Moses Baca, after his release on Dec 10, 1938, he returned to Denver, Colorado, but in 1940 he moved with his family to California. Moses ended up in Los Angeles General Hospital and died on March 19, 1948 of a ruptured pulmonary tuberculosis abscess that caused blood poisoning. The disease was most likely contracted in Denver as TB suffers commonly came to Colorado thinking the states dry air would help cure them.

Samuel Caldwell, after serving his sentence, was released on Nov. 5th, 1940. Approximately 8

months after his release Caldwell died in Denver, Colorado on June 24, 1941 of Primary Carcinoma of the Liver from excessive drinking.

United States of America National 5G Resolution


An Urgent Call for a Moratorium on 5th Generation Wireless  Technologies Pending Safety Testing

To:  Donald Trump, President of the United States of America 

December 11, 2019

We, the undersigned, are medical doctors, health professionals, scientists, engineers and public advocates who are deeply concerned about the potential health risks associated with 5G and the proliferation of electromagnetic radiation sources from wireless telecommunications technologies. 

The FCC has stated that 800,000 antenna sites will be required to fully deploy 5G in the United States. Global deployments are expected to reach almost 5 million by 2021. Industry projects 22 billion wirelessly connected devices worldwide as part of the Internet of Things. New wireless antennas are rapidly being attached to streetlights and utility poles directly in front of homes and schools. 5G will dramatically increase our daily exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in addition to the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. RF-EMF from wireless infrastructure already in place that will continue to emit. The 5G antenna densification plan will lead to a significant increase of involuntary exposure to wireless radiation everywhere.

Cell phone and wireless were never premarket safety tested for long-term exposure to humans when they first came on the market decades ago. Now the harmful effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic exposure to humans and the environment are proven. In 2015, more than 250 scientists from more than 40 countries expressed their “serious concerns” in an EMF Appeal regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices even before the additional 5G Internet of Things rollout. The scientists refer to the fact that “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Since then, hundreds of doctors have signed onto new appeals specifically calling to halt 5G.

A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs. Effects include increased cancer risk, increased cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, behavioral problems, neurological disorders, headaches, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to trees, bees, plants, animals, and bacteria.

After the EMF scientists’ appeal was initiated in 2015, additional research has associated serious adverse biological effects of RF-EMF emissions from wireless technologies. The U.S. National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program (NTP) published its large-scale, $30 million animal study showing DNA damage and statistically significant increases in the incidence of brain cancer and heart cancer in animals exposed daily to wireless radiation. These findings support the results from human epidemiological studies finding associations between wireless radiation and brain tumor risk.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs at frequencies 30 KHz to 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, since that date, new studies, including the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological and experimental investigations, have increased the evidence indicating that wireless is carcinogenic. Now in 2019, the IARC announced plans to re-evaluate RF-EMF for carcinogenicity as soon as 2022. 

As the U.S. Department of the Interior stated, “the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” FCC guidelines only protect against heating effects (EPA 2002) and ignore the effects of pulse-modulated signals. Scientists have repeatedly found adverse biological effects that are caused without heating (”non-thermal effect”) at radiation levels far below the limits in FCC guidelines. Replicated research finds memory damage, behavioral problems and tumor promotion from “low” legally allowed levels of wireless.

As the EPA was defunded in the mid ‘90s, there are no federally developed safety limits and there is no health and safety agency in the United States with authority to review the research and ensure protections regarding the human health and environmental effects from wireless antennas. Internationally, the organizations that issue exposure standards have failed to develop sufficient guidelines. Published reviews and studies on the new higher frequencies to be used in 5G call for caution and warn of future impacts that will not only impact humans but also wildlife and especially bees.

We are concerned about the health and well-being of those who are most vulnerable: children, pregnant women, and persons sensitive to electromagnetic fields and who have chronic health problems.

We join with the thousands of doctors, scientists and health care providers worldwide who have recently issued appeals for urgent action on 5G to protect public health. The rapidly growing list includes the International EMF Scientist Appeal, Appeal to the European Union, Belgium Doctors Appeal, Canadian Doctors, Cyprus Medical Association, Physicians of Turin, Italy, the German Doctors Appeal, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and Space and the International Society of Doctors for the Environment.

We call for a moratorium on 5G and any further wireless antenna densification until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from the wireless industry.  

Doctors or health practitioners who want to sign onto  this letter please email EHT at info@ehtrust.org

List of Signatories

Note: To sign please send your name, title and location to info@ehtrust.org

Signatories to the National 5G Resolution collected at the EMF Conference, September 2019

The resolution was attended the first U.S. medical conference fully dedicated to this topic, Electromagnetic Fields Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment”  convened in Scott’s Valley, California, from September 6-8, 2019.

As the conference was concluding, several participants agreed to initiate a National 5G Resolution, recommending a moratorium on the roll-out of fifth generation wireless, 5G, until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from the industry. 

Miguel Aguilera, MD, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

Robin Anderson, PhD , Santa Rosa, California             

Wayne Anderson, ND,  Santa Rosa, California

Randy Baker, MD, Soquel, California

Stephanie Belseth, NP, Edina, Minnesota

Matthew Bernstein, MD, Chicago, Illinois

Andrea Berrin, MA, Aptos, California

Tara Boyd, ND, Seattle, Washington    

Robert Brown, MD Export, Pennsylvania

Sarah Carnes, ND Woodinville, Washington

Margaret Christensen, MD  Dallas, Texas

Rowena Chua, MD,  Glenview, Illinois

Tracey Cook, ND,  Orrville, Ohio                                                                                             

Deborah L. Dykema, DO,  Phoenix, Arizona

Eric Gordon, MD,   San Rafael, California                                                                                                                            

Cheryl Grey, MD, Boulder, Colorado

Devra Davis PhD, MPH, Jackson Hole Wyoming

Trudy Heil, NP, Portland, Oregon

Anne Hill, ND, Portland, Oregon

Lynn Hinkle, PA, ND,   Mill Valley, California

Tori Jelter, MD, Walnut Creek, California

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Tucson, Arizona

Jennifer Kessman MD, IFMEP, ABFM,FAAFP, Dallas, Texas                                       

Kim Lear, MA,  Lyons, Colorado,

Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, 

Ronald Lynch, MD, Orlando, Florida                    

Karl Maret, MD, MA, Corralitos, California

Dorota Matusewicz, MD,  Clearwater, Florida

Kelly McCann, MD, Costa Mesa, California                                                                                                                            

Lisa Nagy, MD, Martha’s Vineyard, MA

Bonnie Nedrow, ND,  President, National Association of Environmental Medicine

Kalpana D. Patel, MD, Buffalo, New York

  Victoria Nee, MD, Chicago, Illinois                     

Daniel Rieders, MD, Palo Alto, California 

Stephanie Riley, ND, Truckee, California  

Sandra Ross, PhD., Mill Valley, California

Marly Sachsman, ND, Ellsworth, Maine      

Natalie Sadler, MD, Black Mountain, North Carolina                                                   

Glayol Sahba, MD,  Sacrament, California                                                                                                                            

Christine Salter, MD, St. Louis, Missouri

Lindsay Samuelson, ND, Toledo, Ohio                     

Lisa Saslove, MS, RD, Sebastopol, California 

Elizabeth H. Sims-Day, ND, Lake Forest Park, Washington 

Therese Stokan, DO, Port Angeles, Washington                                                                                                                

Irina Strelyuk, ND, San Rafael, California                       

Wallace Taylor, MD, Austin, Texas                                                                                                                                 

Veronica Tilden, DO, Nevada City, California   

Diana Vandegriff, NMD, Tempe, Arizona                                                                                                                                                    

Elizabeth Vaughn, MD, High Point, North

Carolina Kathy Veon, DOM, AP, CCN, Orlando, Florida                    

Kevin Wand, DO,  Bloomington,Minnesota                                                                                                                          

Melody Wong, ND, Burlingame, California

Mina Yoon, ND, LAC, San Francisco, California

Sarah Aminoff, Union City, California         

Laura Bobzien, Dallas, Texas           

August Brice, Founder, Tech Wellness California

Susan Busen, Palos Heights, Illinois

Nancy Costa, Heartfelt Spaces, San Rafael, California    

Teresa Demarie, MBA, Long Beach, California      

Jennifer Crumpton,  Austin, Texas         

Shilpa Dashpute, MA,  Glendora, California  

Cecelia Doucette, MTPW, Ashland, Massachusetts      

Michael Garabedian, Attorney, Lincoln, California             

David Getoff, CNN, CTN, FAAIM   Vice President, Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation                

William Holland,  Topanga, California                

Mieke Jacobs,  Lake Zurich, Illinois       

Monika Karajewski, Santa Barbara, California

Miriam Lindbeck,    Santa Barbara, California 

Rola Masri,  Los Angeles, California

Cheryl Matthews, Los Altos Hills, California      

Lloyd Morgan, EE,  Berkeley, California       

Kevin Mottus. LCSW,  Los Angeles, California   

Reilley Mullin, FNP, Trinidad, California                

Ajna Orion,  Felton, California                                                                                                                             

Cynthia Quattro, PA, LAc, Soquel, California      

Theresa Ricker,  San Antonio, Texas     

Theodora Scarato MSW, Environmental Health Trust

Stephen Scott,  Novato, California    

Taryn Slauson,   Santa Fe, New Mexico                                          

Leslie Stalder, LC,  Arcata, California               

Amber Stokes, Med,  Santa Monica, California  

Sam Wieder, MBA,  Greenville, Pennsylvania

Eric Windheim, BBEC, EMRS, Sacramento, California

Nasha Winters, ND, LAc, FABND,  Durango, Colorado                 

Glenn Kikel, ACN, Lyons, Colorado        

Mary Anne Tierney, RN, MPH,   Ashville, North Carolina

SOURCE L INK….

Agencies clarify requirements for providing financial services to hemp-related businesses

24818176-marijuana-laws-marijuana-plants-jpg

From Board of Governors Federal Reserve System

Agencies clarify requirements for providing financial services to hemp-related businesses

December 3, 2019 

WASHINGTON-Four federal agencies in conjunction with the state bank regulators today issued a statement clarifying the legal status of hemp growth and production and the relevant requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for banks providing services to hemp-related businesses.

The statement emphasizes that banks are no longer required to file suspicious activity reports (SAR) for customers solely because they are engaged in the growth or cultivation of hemp in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. For hemp-related customers, banks are expected to follow standard SAR procedures, and file a SAR if indicia of suspicious activity warrants.

This statement provides banks with background information on the legal status of hemp, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) interim final rule on the production of hemp, and the BSA considerations when providing banking services to hemp-related businesses.

This statement also indicates that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) will issue additional guidance after further reviewing and evaluating the USDA interim final rule.

The statement was issued by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FinCEN, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. Banks can contact the USDA, state departments of agriculture, and tribal governments with further questions regarding the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) and its implementing regulations.

Joint Guidance on Providing Financial Services to Customers Engaged in Hemp-Related Businesses (PDF)

For Federal Reserve Board media inquiries please contact Darren Gersh at 202-452-2955.

Source Link