SAN FRANCISCO POLICE COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
WED, APRIL 11, 2007
5:30 p.m.
CITY HALL, ROOM 400
Polk and Grove Sts.
POA calls for resignation of Police Commissioner David Campos
Why is the POA attacking David Campos? For advocating for medical cannabis.
Medical pot is legal under California law. And, pot arrests are, by law, the lowest law enforcement priority in San Francisco. So, why is Gary Delagnes, the head of the Police Officers Association, publicly attacking Police Commissioner David Campos for supporting these laws and advocating for medical pot? At the April 4 meeting of the Police Commission, Delagnes publicly attacked Campos and called for his resignation because Campos spoke at a medical pot event and expressed his view that officers should not be aggressively going after cannabis users. Campos stated that officers should be held accountable for doing so. That sounds like a pretty reasonable view to express, given state and local law, but the POA seems to think that its officers shouldn’t be criticized when they ignore that law. One has to wonder . . . .
REGULAR MEETING
WED, APRIL 11, 2007
5:30 p.m.
CITY HALL, ROOM 400
Polk and Grove Sts.
POA calls for resignation of Police Commissioner David Campos
Why is the POA attacking David Campos? For advocating for medical cannabis.
Medical pot is legal under California law. And, pot arrests are, by law, the lowest law enforcement priority in San Francisco. So, why is Gary Delagnes, the head of the Police Officers Association, publicly attacking Police Commissioner David Campos for supporting these laws and advocating for medical pot? At the April 4 meeting of the Police Commission, Delagnes publicly attacked Campos and called for his resignation because Campos spoke at a medical pot event and expressed his view that officers should not be aggressively going after cannabis users. Campos stated that officers should be held accountable for doing so. That sounds like a pretty reasonable view to express, given state and local law, but the POA seems to think that its officers shouldn’t be criticized when they ignore that law. One has to wonder . . . .
Dublin, CA Jan 31, 2007 -- Stephanie Landa is, at last in the federal wing of the Dublin prison complex. She was kept in general population for almost a month, in the Santa Rita County Jail, where the conditions were so deplorable it's amazing she's still alive.
She has a new address:
FCI DUBLIN
SATELLITE CAMP
Prisoner Stephanie Landa
Prisoner # 09247-800
5675 8TH ST DUBLIN, CA 94568
The phone number for the jail is:
Phone: 925-833-7500
Fax: 925-833-7599
Please everyone, now that she is in Federal prison, we can visit her all day during visiting hours, as long as we have been cleared by the jail. Write to her and ask her to send you the visitors form. At the very least, please drop her a card. Mail means the world to her, it's the only thing that brightens her day. You can also order magazine subscriptions for her, and send books, as long as they come directly from the bookstore or mail order places like Amazon.com.
She has a new address:
FCI DUBLIN
SATELLITE CAMP
Prisoner Stephanie Landa
Prisoner # 09247-800
5675 8TH ST DUBLIN, CA 94568
The phone number for the jail is:
Phone: 925-833-7500
Fax: 925-833-7599
Please everyone, now that she is in Federal prison, we can visit her all day during visiting hours, as long as we have been cleared by the jail. Write to her and ask her to send you the visitors form. At the very least, please drop her a card. Mail means the world to her, it's the only thing that brightens her day. You can also order magazine subscriptions for her, and send books, as long as they come directly from the bookstore or mail order places like Amazon.com.
24/01: Please Contact Nancy Pelosi
San Francisco, CA Jan 23, 2007 -- Please contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and ask her to reschedule marijuana.
"...We are also asking our officials to contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ask her to open congressional hearings on medical cannabis." states Dege Coutee, director for the Patient Advocacy Network in Los Angeles. "Regardless of the support we gain on the local level, it ultimately means nothing to the feds until Congress really takes hold on this issue."
Patients and advocates across the United States are being urged to contact Speaker Pelosi and request that Congressional hearings be opened immediately.
It will only take 10,000 letters, phone calls and/or emails!
Washington, D.C. Office
2371 Rayburn HOB -
Washington, DC 20515 -
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-8259
District Office -
450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor -
San Francisco, CA 94102 -
Phone: (415) 556-4862
Fax: (415) 861-1670
Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
"...We are also asking our officials to contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ask her to open congressional hearings on medical cannabis." states Dege Coutee, director for the Patient Advocacy Network in Los Angeles. "Regardless of the support we gain on the local level, it ultimately means nothing to the feds until Congress really takes hold on this issue."
Patients and advocates across the United States are being urged to contact Speaker Pelosi and request that Congressional hearings be opened immediately.
It will only take 10,000 letters, phone calls and/or emails!
Washington, D.C. Office
2371 Rayburn HOB -
Washington, DC 20515 -
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-8259
District Office -
450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor -
San Francisco, CA 94102 -
Phone: (415) 556-4862
Fax: (415) 861-1670
Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
The DEA is currently raiding 11 dispensaries in the Los Angeles area, including several in West Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley.
HempEvolution.org, Axis of Love and ASA-SF are also calling for a protest tomorrow at the Burton Federal Building; 450 Golden Gate; San Francisco at 12 noon in response to this unprecedented attack on the medical cannabis community.
Please bring signs, noisemakers and loud voices to let the feds know what you think.
HempEvolution.org, Axis of Love and ASA-SF are also calling for a protest tomorrow at the Burton Federal Building; 450 Golden Gate; San Francisco at 12 noon in response to this unprecedented attack on the medical cannabis community.
Please bring signs, noisemakers and loud voices to let the feds know what you think.
01/12: Hit By Truck..
Sorry to all my loyal visitors, but I was struck by a DHL delivery truck on my way to work the Wednesday before Thanksgving and suffered a fractured pelvis and sacrum.
I'll have the site updated very soon.
Thank you for your patience!
I'll have the site updated very soon.
Thank you for your patience!
On 11/15/06, Sean Elsbernd wrote:
Mr. Sullivan,
I apologize for not being exact enough in my remarks about the Ocean Avenue
dispensaries. "Gun running" was an exaggeration.
Perhaps it would have been better for your clients and those in support of
the legislation, if I had been more specific about the money laundering
charges, the charges related to the distribution of ecstasy, and the 3
firearms that were found in a storefront located within a half mile of
neighborhood park, a senior center, and a middle school all in a facility
that claimed to be about helping people who truly needed help.
When the item comes up for second reading next week, I will indeed correct
my statement, but also further clarify all that allegedly occurred in the
residential neighborhood along Ocean Avenue.
Thank you for brining this to my attention,
Sean
Supervisor Elsbernd,
It is obvious from your voting record, public statements and reply to my email that you are not a medical cannabis supporter and that you exploited the Ocean Avenue raids for political gain. The damage you have caused to the reputations of legitimate medical cannabis dispensaries has been immediate, judging from your quote, "We had one [re: the Herbal Relief Center] that was a front for gun running", that was published in today's edition of the San Francisco Daily.
I would strongly urge you to be more careful in remarks made about defendants awaiting trial. You are in effect, trying them in the court of public opinion, which can be construed as denying these folks their constitutional right to due process. As your allegations are entered into the official public record, they could possibly be used as ammunition for the prosecution. Please bear this in mind in the future as the lives of the defendants and their families hang in the balance.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems odd that you are able to clarify the events that took place, given that defense attorneys have only recently filed a motion for discovery. If you were able to obtain a DEA report from the U.S. Attorney's Office, I would be interested in sharing it with my constituency and I am certain that their defense attorneys would be interested as well.
As far as allegations about the discovery of firearms in an [unnamed] storefront, no firearms charges were listed in the indictment, nor was any mention made of this by the DEA spokesperson at the press conference. Surely, if guns were found, the DEA would have proudly announced their presence.
Furthermore, money laundering is a standard charge levied in federal cases against medical cannabis defendants as any monetary transaction involving MCDs could be legally construed as money laundering. It is prudent for dispensaries to destroy all financial records as they are not required by local MCD regulations beyond proof that they are not accumulating excessive profits, and they could be subpoenaed as evidence by federal authorities.
I cannot speak for all those currently charged, as I was only personally acquainted with two individuals, most notably Van Nguyen, who was, in fact, wholeheartedly committed to providing compassion [free medicine] to over one hundred low-income patients for well over a year and supported numerous activities and events in the cannabis community with generous donations of time, money and the use of his dispensary for gatherings. Your insinuation that the Herbal Relief Center acted solely out of greedy self interest is without merit as they amply served the needs of patients in their area and their absence has been sorely missed.
It is not my desire to enter in an adversarial relationship with you and I remain open to any comments, ideas or concerns that you might express and I look forward to working with your office in the future to insure the San Francisco public is provided safe access to medical cannabis.
Thank You for Your Consideration,
Clark Sullivan
HempEvolution.org
415 424 0125
Mr. Sullivan,
I apologize for not being exact enough in my remarks about the Ocean Avenue
dispensaries. "Gun running" was an exaggeration.
Perhaps it would have been better for your clients and those in support of
the legislation, if I had been more specific about the money laundering
charges, the charges related to the distribution of ecstasy, and the 3
firearms that were found in a storefront located within a half mile of
neighborhood park, a senior center, and a middle school all in a facility
that claimed to be about helping people who truly needed help.
When the item comes up for second reading next week, I will indeed correct
my statement, but also further clarify all that allegedly occurred in the
residential neighborhood along Ocean Avenue.
Thank you for brining this to my attention,
Sean
Supervisor Elsbernd,
It is obvious from your voting record, public statements and reply to my email that you are not a medical cannabis supporter and that you exploited the Ocean Avenue raids for political gain. The damage you have caused to the reputations of legitimate medical cannabis dispensaries has been immediate, judging from your quote, "We had one [re: the Herbal Relief Center] that was a front for gun running", that was published in today's edition of the San Francisco Daily.
I would strongly urge you to be more careful in remarks made about defendants awaiting trial. You are in effect, trying them in the court of public opinion, which can be construed as denying these folks their constitutional right to due process. As your allegations are entered into the official public record, they could possibly be used as ammunition for the prosecution. Please bear this in mind in the future as the lives of the defendants and their families hang in the balance.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems odd that you are able to clarify the events that took place, given that defense attorneys have only recently filed a motion for discovery. If you were able to obtain a DEA report from the U.S. Attorney's Office, I would be interested in sharing it with my constituency and I am certain that their defense attorneys would be interested as well.
As far as allegations about the discovery of firearms in an [unnamed] storefront, no firearms charges were listed in the indictment, nor was any mention made of this by the DEA spokesperson at the press conference. Surely, if guns were found, the DEA would have proudly announced their presence.
Furthermore, money laundering is a standard charge levied in federal cases against medical cannabis defendants as any monetary transaction involving MCDs could be legally construed as money laundering. It is prudent for dispensaries to destroy all financial records as they are not required by local MCD regulations beyond proof that they are not accumulating excessive profits, and they could be subpoenaed as evidence by federal authorities.
I cannot speak for all those currently charged, as I was only personally acquainted with two individuals, most notably Van Nguyen, who was, in fact, wholeheartedly committed to providing compassion [free medicine] to over one hundred low-income patients for well over a year and supported numerous activities and events in the cannabis community with generous donations of time, money and the use of his dispensary for gatherings. Your insinuation that the Herbal Relief Center acted solely out of greedy self interest is without merit as they amply served the needs of patients in their area and their absence has been sorely missed.
It is not my desire to enter in an adversarial relationship with you and I remain open to any comments, ideas or concerns that you might express and I look forward to working with your office in the future to insure the San Francisco public is provided safe access to medical cannabis.
Thank You for Your Consideration,
Clark Sullivan
HempEvolution.org
415 424 0125
November 14, 2006
Supervisor Elsbernd,
I was present at the Board of Supervisors hearing today and I must frankly admit that I was deeply offended by the off the cuff remark you made about the Ocean Avenue dispensaries' involvement with gun running when speaking on the lowest law enforcement priority ordinance.
As someone who is deeply committed to providing court support services for marijuana defendants, I feel your comment was offensive, and found it quite disturbing that you would allude to the commission of the felony of gun running, when in fact, none of the defendants from the Ocean Avenue raids was ever indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office on any charges even remotely similar to the one you described. I was personally acquainted with several of the defendants and to my knowledge, none of them was involved with the trafficking of firearms.
Perhaps you were misinformed on this issue, but to publicly accuse the aforementioned defendants of these serious charges does them a grave disservice not only to their defense, but to medical cannabis patients everywhere and to San Francisco voters, who overwhelmingly support medical cannabis. I respectfully request that you retract these statements and publicly apologize to the former Ocean Avenue dispensary owners for your ill-advised comment.
Thank You,
Clark Sullivan
HempEvolution.org
Supervisor Elsbernd,
I was present at the Board of Supervisors hearing today and I must frankly admit that I was deeply offended by the off the cuff remark you made about the Ocean Avenue dispensaries' involvement with gun running when speaking on the lowest law enforcement priority ordinance.
As someone who is deeply committed to providing court support services for marijuana defendants, I feel your comment was offensive, and found it quite disturbing that you would allude to the commission of the felony of gun running, when in fact, none of the defendants from the Ocean Avenue raids was ever indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office on any charges even remotely similar to the one you described. I was personally acquainted with several of the defendants and to my knowledge, none of them was involved with the trafficking of firearms.
Perhaps you were misinformed on this issue, but to publicly accuse the aforementioned defendants of these serious charges does them a grave disservice not only to their defense, but to medical cannabis patients everywhere and to San Francisco voters, who overwhelmingly support medical cannabis. I respectfully request that you retract these statements and publicly apologize to the former Ocean Avenue dispensary owners for your ill-advised comment.
Thank You,
Clark Sullivan
HempEvolution.org
San Francisco, CA Nov 14, 2006 -- Despite the negative press regarding LLEP, featuring quotes from needle fetishist Arthur Evans and the NIMBYs from Fair Oaks Community Coalition, LLEP looks like it will easily pass today in the Board of Supes.
I testified yesterday at the committee hearing to remind people that the SFPD & the DA still place a high priority on marijuana, in spite of their official rhetoric [re: lies] to the contrary.
After the meeting a few folks hung around to dialogue with the Fair Oaks people, but it seems that they believe LLEP is quasi-legalization and anything to do with pot will lower their property values [which is their REAL agenda in the first place]. It seemed most of our efforts were for naught and I walked away thinking the Fair Oaks group is filled with misinformed bigots who'll be increasingly isolated from the mainstream of SF politics as these lily white neophytes attempt to become part of the process.
Although the bill is a slam dunk, your presence is needed today to show that SF voters overwhelmingly support making marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority for the SFPD.
The BOS meeting is at City Hall; Room 200. Public Comment will take place between 3 and 6 PM. You can call me for updates, in case you are late or can't make it. I's Item 37 on the agenda.
The ordinance can be found here. It's the link dated Nov 13, 2006.
You can view the testimony @ http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8
See you there,
Clark
415 424 0125
I testified yesterday at the committee hearing to remind people that the SFPD & the DA still place a high priority on marijuana, in spite of their official rhetoric [re: lies] to the contrary.
After the meeting a few folks hung around to dialogue with the Fair Oaks people, but it seems that they believe LLEP is quasi-legalization and anything to do with pot will lower their property values [which is their REAL agenda in the first place]. It seemed most of our efforts were for naught and I walked away thinking the Fair Oaks group is filled with misinformed bigots who'll be increasingly isolated from the mainstream of SF politics as these lily white neophytes attempt to become part of the process.
Although the bill is a slam dunk, your presence is needed today to show that SF voters overwhelmingly support making marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority for the SFPD.
The BOS meeting is at City Hall; Room 200. Public Comment will take place between 3 and 6 PM. You can call me for updates, in case you are late or can't make it. I's Item 37 on the agenda.
The ordinance can be found here. It's the link dated Nov 13, 2006.
You can view the testimony @ http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8
See you there,
Clark
415 424 0125
Dale beat me to the punch...
Dale Gieringer CANORML
San Francisco, CA Nov 13, 2006 -- Supervisor's Tom Ammiano's ordinance to make marijuana lowest enforcement priority in S.F.was approved 2-1 by the Board of Supervisors' City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee. The measure will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors tomorrow, Tues. Nov. 14th.
Ammiano called the measure "a question of priorities plain and simple," noting that the Bush Administration had made marijuana top priority, and that San Francisco should set its own policy.
The ordinance was supported by a coalition of drug reform & marijuana groups, plus SF public defender Jeff Adachi. The DA and
SFPD were officially neutral.
SFPD narcotics chief Capt. Tim Hettrich surprised the committee by stating that the proposed ordinance was in line with the SFPD's existing policy. Ammiano had incorporated some amendments proposed by the SFPD, such as a clause exempting sales "within view" of public property from the lowest priority provision.
Nonetheless, the measure attracted significant opposition from neighborhood groups, notably the Fair Oaks association, who argued that it would attract large-scale growers and dealers. Advocates of the ordinance argued that no such thing had happened in Oakland or other cities with similar "lowest priority" ordinances.
Opponents also complained that the ordinance had been rushed to committee without adequate opportunity for their input. The ordinance had originally been scheduled last week but was delayed on account of illness by Ammiano and re-scheduled for a special committee meeting, in which Ammiano was appointed to serve as a temporary substitute for regular committee member Sup. Bevan Dufty, who could not attend.
Committee member Fiona Ma (who will shortly be moving to the state assembly) announced that she was voting against the ordinance because she was concerned about the irregular process. Committee Chairman McGoldrick joined Ammiano in voting in favor. Ma's no vote came as a surprise, evidently reflecting pressure from the neighborhood groups.
Ammiano noted that Fair Oaks had been "very bruised" in the debate over medical cannabis dispensaries. Many of the Fair Oaks spokesmen professed support for legalization, but said that it could only be done at a national, not local, level.
Dale Gieringer CANORML
San Francisco, CA Nov 13, 2006 -- Supervisor's Tom Ammiano's ordinance to make marijuana lowest enforcement priority in S.F.was approved 2-1 by the Board of Supervisors' City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee. The measure will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors tomorrow, Tues. Nov. 14th.
Ammiano called the measure "a question of priorities plain and simple," noting that the Bush Administration had made marijuana top priority, and that San Francisco should set its own policy.
The ordinance was supported by a coalition of drug reform & marijuana groups, plus SF public defender Jeff Adachi. The DA and
SFPD were officially neutral.
SFPD narcotics chief Capt. Tim Hettrich surprised the committee by stating that the proposed ordinance was in line with the SFPD's existing policy. Ammiano had incorporated some amendments proposed by the SFPD, such as a clause exempting sales "within view" of public property from the lowest priority provision.
Nonetheless, the measure attracted significant opposition from neighborhood groups, notably the Fair Oaks association, who argued that it would attract large-scale growers and dealers. Advocates of the ordinance argued that no such thing had happened in Oakland or other cities with similar "lowest priority" ordinances.
Opponents also complained that the ordinance had been rushed to committee without adequate opportunity for their input. The ordinance had originally been scheduled last week but was delayed on account of illness by Ammiano and re-scheduled for a special committee meeting, in which Ammiano was appointed to serve as a temporary substitute for regular committee member Sup. Bevan Dufty, who could not attend.
Committee member Fiona Ma (who will shortly be moving to the state assembly) announced that she was voting against the ordinance because she was concerned about the irregular process. Committee Chairman McGoldrick joined Ammiano in voting in favor. Ma's no vote came as a surprise, evidently reflecting pressure from the neighborhood groups.
Ammiano noted that Fair Oaks had been "very bruised" in the debate over medical cannabis dispensaries. Many of the Fair Oaks spokesmen professed support for legalization, but said that it could only be done at a national, not local, level.
