Or is it his Sixties name?

Of particular note was this passage of the opinion:

Defendant also points to a statement by Ben LaBolt, Obama campaign spokesman, that: "Voters and legislators in the states ... have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice-through he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulations like other drugs." LaBolt also indicated that Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.

In addition, Defendant relies on certain statements by U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. During a press conference on February 24, 2009, in response to a question whether raids of medical marijuana clubs established under state law represented American policy going forward, Holder stated, "No, what the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American Policy." On March 19, 2009, Holder explained that the Justice Department had no plans to prosecute pot dispensaries that were operating legally under state laws.

Defendant's reliance on the above-quoted statements is problematic for several reasons. First of all, as pointed out by the Government, Defendant does not state that he personally read or heard these statements prior to engaging in the conduct that forms the basis of this criminal case. Furthermore, the comments by then-candidate Obama and his campaign spokesman cannot be deemed representations of the federal government regarding drug-prosecution policy.

Although Holder was Attorney General when he made the statements at issue, his statements do not constitute affirmative representations that Defendant would not be prosecuted under federal law. Holder's comment that "what [Obama] said during the campaign is now American Policy" is vague and provides no real guidance as to what the so-called "American Policy" is. Similarly, Holder's statement that the Justice Department "had no plans" to prosecute pot dispensaries that were operating legally under state laws was a loose statement that left open the possibility the Justice Department could change its "plans" or could choose to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries on a case-by-case basis.

SNIP

Defendant contends that his prosecution is in direct conflict with U.S. Department of Justice Policy, specifically, a Department of Justice Memorandum dated October 19, 2009 ("Memorandum"). Defendant argues that the Memorandum reaffirmed the federal policy of not prosecuting individuals who are in compliance with state law.

SNIP

According to the Memorandum, an individual is not insulated from prosecution under the CSA just because he ostensibly complies with California law. Federal prosecuting authorities are free to investigate or prosecute individuals if, in their judgment, there is reason to believe that state law is being invoked to mask the illegal production or distribution of marijuana. Based on the evidence in this case, federal authorities apparently concluded that Defendant is operating a commercial enterprise that unlawfully sells marijuana for profit and determined that prosecution would be appropriate. The fact that Defendant disputes that his collective was a business run for profit does not preclude federal authorities from drawing their own conclusions and choosing to prosecute this case.

Even if Defendant's prosecution were contrary to the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, dismissal of the Indictment would not be warranted. Defendant has not pointed to any authority for dismissing an indictment because it is contrary to internal Department of Justice guidelines. See United States v. McInnis, 601 F.2d 1319, 1323 (5th Cir.1979) (refusing to dismiss an indictment based on a policy set forth in an internal guideline of the Department of Justice). Indeed, the Memorandum specifies that it is not intended "to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter .... Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion." ...

The Feds burst in.
They see plants.
They burn them.
The neighbors gather around - downwind.

It reminds me of those old movies depicting the prohibition era when the Feds burst into a warehouse and start shooting people who are brewing beer. Then they hack the kegs with their hatchets. Beer flows on the floor - a symbol of an American triumph over evil.