To some this Oakland story is a big deal but to others, not. Still, the fact is that certain people connected with the Oakland "University of Cannabis" are now pushing a video showing Oakland Councilmember Desley Brooks (District 6, Central East Oakland) getting a "Diploma of Certified Seedling," from the Oakland-based institution called UniCann is interesting. Especially since Councilmember Brooks got (earned?) the degree last year in June.
Oh, and what's the University all about? Well, according to its website, the chancellor is none other than former Oakland City Councilmember Vice Mayor Leo Bazile. According to search results, Bazille started teaching "Marijuana University" just over a year ago and is featured in this video from the website:
But three Twitter accounts - @GroMaster, @M24Cabbage, and @calpotnews - have posted two video links featuring Councilmember Brooks on March 1st and March 4th. The first video shows Brooks receiving a diploma from a man named Dhar Mann. The Unicann website reports this person to be the founder of Cannabis University; he's also the founder of the marijuana supply store WeGrow. The same organization who's business has been hampered by the Federal Department of Justice's crack down on attempts to promote the production, use and legalization of pot, particularly in Oakland.
In other words, pot farms are illegal.
Here's Brooks getting her diploma from Dhar Mann:
That's the video currently being pushed by GroMasters on Twitter. The other video, tweeted by calpotnews, shows Councilmember Brooks talking about her new redesign of the ordinance that, if passed by the Oakland City Council, would permit the legal cultivation and sale of marijuana in Oakland, even as California voters rejected Prop 19 last November, which would have made such effort legal in California.
Now, even with a warning letter from U.S Attorney Melinda Haag, that said "individuals who elect to operate 'industrial cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facilities' will be doing so in violation of federal law," and that the Justice Department was "carefully considering civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who seek to set up industrial marijuana growing warehouses."
Which by extension means Brooks could be identified by the Feds as an accessory to such efforts.
Here's the video where Brooks explains her new ordinance and says that the Oakland City Attorney's office is blocking a legal review:
Brooks claim that Oakland City Attorney John Russo's blocking review of her ordinance is really not the case at all, because it implies that Russo wasn't in support of the legalization of the use of pot, and that he contacted the Federal Government on his own, without City Council direction.
First, here's my video from last year, where Russo wanted the public to know of his support for Prop 19, which, if passed would have paved the way for Oakland's pot growing efforts (a video with over 4,000 views as of this writing):
Obviously, Russo had a reason to be compelled not to steer the City of Oakland to the point where some Oakland Councilmembers seem bent on placing it as of this writing: as working to flout Federal law. The reason was Prop 19's election loss.
Brooks and Mayor Jean Quan have said to some media types they can't get Russo to review the new ordinance and that he contacted the Federal Government on his own.
But The Bay Citizen reports otherwise, quoting Russo as stating "The City Attorney wrote to the US Attorney’s office at the direction of the City Council. The Council directed this office to get specificity about the concerns of federal officials and this letter is the result.
It looks like the Oakland Council - or some of them - are trying to throw Russo under the bus. Any claim that Russo contacted the Feds on his own is obviously playing tricks with the truth, but this blogger's question isn't "Why?"
It's this:
With an unemployment rate near 20 percent and people trying to find jobs, what the hell is the Oakland City Council, or at least Councilmembers Kaplan, Brooks, and Mayor Quan, doing spending so much time and energy on an effort the Federal Government has issues with, even to the point of trying to work against their own lawyer? If the persons investing in the establishment of pot farms need to take their money where there is, as Scott Hawkins, who worked as a consultant to medical cannabis pioneer Richard Lee, put it "Right now Oakland is far too visible for this kind of investment. Investors don't want to risk their capital in this situation unless things can get worked out between the city council and the Department of Justice and the city attorney's office."
Not to mention public opinion. If the public were behind the legalization of pot, this blog post would not have seen the light of day. But Prop 19 lost and people need jobs. It seems like the City of Oakland is more concerned with growing weed than growing jobs, and that's the saddest news of all.
Ah...Next to the fact that Russo's fired his client, the City of Oakland, and has sought employment as Alameda's next City Manager.
If Russo goes out, it sends a message to the nation that Oakland's not the place for a competent lawyer to work. Think about it. Mayor Quan has said she wants an appointed lawyer under control of (presumably) the Mayor and the City Council. So, in this "pot case," the Mayor and Council would expect that person to guide them into a position of violating Federal and State laws? That's not what a good lawyer will do; apparently Oakland doesn't want one of those.
Stay tuned.
Oh, and what's the University all about? Well, according to its website, the chancellor is none other than former Oakland City Councilmember Vice Mayor Leo Bazile. According to search results, Bazille started teaching "Marijuana University" just over a year ago and is featured in this video from the website:
But three Twitter accounts - @GroMaster, @M24Cabbage, and @calpotnews - have posted two video links featuring Councilmember Brooks on March 1st and March 4th. The first video shows Brooks receiving a diploma from a man named Dhar Mann. The Unicann website reports this person to be the founder of Cannabis University; he's also the founder of the marijuana supply store WeGrow. The same organization who's business has been hampered by the Federal Department of Justice's crack down on attempts to promote the production, use and legalization of pot, particularly in Oakland.
In other words, pot farms are illegal.
Here's Brooks getting her diploma from Dhar Mann:
Now, even with a warning letter from U.S Attorney Melinda Haag, that said "individuals who elect to operate 'industrial cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facilities' will be doing so in violation of federal law," and that the Justice Department was "carefully considering civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who seek to set up industrial marijuana growing warehouses."
Which by extension means Brooks could be identified by the Feds as an accessory to such efforts.
Here's the video where Brooks explains her new ordinance and says that the Oakland City Attorney's office is blocking a legal review:
Brooks claim that Oakland City Attorney John Russo's blocking review of her ordinance is really not the case at all, because it implies that Russo wasn't in support of the legalization of the use of pot, and that he contacted the Federal Government on his own, without City Council direction.
First, here's my video from last year, where Russo wanted the public to know of his support for Prop 19, which, if passed would have paved the way for Oakland's pot growing efforts (a video with over 4,000 views as of this writing):
Obviously, Russo had a reason to be compelled not to steer the City of Oakland to the point where some Oakland Councilmembers seem bent on placing it as of this writing: as working to flout Federal law. The reason was Prop 19's election loss.
Brooks and Mayor Jean Quan have said to some media types they can't get Russo to review the new ordinance and that he contacted the Federal Government on his own.
But The Bay Citizen reports otherwise, quoting Russo as stating "The City Attorney wrote to the US Attorney’s office at the direction of the City Council. The Council directed this office to get specificity about the concerns of federal officials and this letter is the result.
It looks like the Oakland Council - or some of them - are trying to throw Russo under the bus. Any claim that Russo contacted the Feds on his own is obviously playing tricks with the truth, but this blogger's question isn't "Why?"
It's this:
With an unemployment rate near 20 percent and people trying to find jobs, what the hell is the Oakland City Council, or at least Councilmembers Kaplan, Brooks, and Mayor Quan, doing spending so much time and energy on an effort the Federal Government has issues with, even to the point of trying to work against their own lawyer? If the persons investing in the establishment of pot farms need to take their money where there is, as Scott Hawkins, who worked as a consultant to medical cannabis pioneer Richard Lee, put it "Right now Oakland is far too visible for this kind of investment. Investors don't want to risk their capital in this situation unless things can get worked out between the city council and the Department of Justice and the city attorney's office."
Not to mention public opinion. If the public were behind the legalization of pot, this blog post would not have seen the light of day. But Prop 19 lost and people need jobs. It seems like the City of Oakland is more concerned with growing weed than growing jobs, and that's the saddest news of all.
Ah...Next to the fact that Russo's fired his client, the City of Oakland, and has sought employment as Alameda's next City Manager.
If Russo goes out, it sends a message to the nation that Oakland's not the place for a competent lawyer to work. Think about it. Mayor Quan has said she wants an appointed lawyer under control of (presumably) the Mayor and the City Council. So, in this "pot case," the Mayor and Council would expect that person to guide them into a position of violating Federal and State laws? That's not what a good lawyer will do; apparently Oakland doesn't want one of those.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment