Pot Crusader Marc Emery Jailed in Canada Pending Extradition

By Phillip S. Smith, Drug War Chronicle. Posted October 2, 2009.

Canadian “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery turned himself in to Canadian authorities Monday and is in custody in Vancouver pending extradition to the United States. The Canadian Justice Minister is expected to sign extradition papers within a matter of weeks, and then Emery will be driven to the border, handed over to US authorities, shackled, and sent to a federal detention center in the Seattle area. Shortly after that, Emery is set to plead guilty to a single count of marijuana distribution, with an expected sentence of five years in a US federal prison.

Emery and two employees of his cannabis seed selling business, Greg Rainey and Michelle Williams, were arrested in July 2005 by Canadian police honoring a US arrest warrant charging the trio with marijuana distribution and conspiracy for selling seeds to customers in the US. They faced decades or even life in prison under draconian US federal marijuana laws. Earlier this year, Rainey and Williams accepted a plea bargain in which they pleaded guilty to a single count and were sentenced to probation in Canada.

With his employees’ legal situation resolved, Emery then cut his own deal. But that doesn’t mean he’s changed his ways. At a press conference outside the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver Monday just before he turned himself in, Emery was in typical “Prince of Pot” form.

“I’m disappointed in my government, but very proud of my ‘Overgrow the Government’ revolution,” Emery told supporters. “This terrible, insidious prohibition has been propped up by Liberal and Conservative governments for 45 years. It’s a public policy with no public benefit, and it has caused so much misery, heartbreak, and torment for so many Canadians.”

Emery urged supporters to lobby the Canadian Justice Ministry to not sign his extradition order — something that is admittedly unlikely — or, barring that, to make the government pay at the polls in the next election. “And if they do sign they must be punished in the next election,” he said.

In the event that he is imprisoned in the US, Emery is urging supporters to demand that he be returned to Canada to serve his sentence. “I would be out on the streets in a year from now if I am transferred back to Canada as a first-time nonviolent offender in the Canadian system,” he told the crowd.

Emery showed no remorse — in fact, quite the opposite. “I’m proud of everything I’ve done; I only regret that I wasn’t able to do more,” Emery continued. “I did sell those seeds so people would overgrow the government, and I gave away $4 million that kick-started a worldwide movement. I’m the ‘Prince of Pot’ for a good reason. And there is no victim here; there are no dead people in my revolution.”

“Plant the seeds of freedom. Overgrow the government, everyone,” Emery yelled as he was led away by sheriffs.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, Emery carved out a niche for himself as a cannabis entrepreneur and legalization advocate in Vancouver, but his activism extends back to his native Ontario, where, as a libertarian bookseller, he brought cases against Canadian censorship laws that then blocked magazines such as High Times from being sold in the country. After moving to Vancouver, Emery set up the Cannabis Culture shop, Cannabis Culture magazine, and the Marc Emery Seed Company.

A constant gadfly to law enforcement and drug warrior politicians on both sides of the border, Emery’s mouth, his money, and his commitment to the cause enabled him to become one of the most well-known voices worldwide for ending pot prohibition. Emery founded the BC Marijuana Party and crisscrossed Canada to spread the word about “Overgrowing the Government,” and profits from his seed sales help fund drug reform groups and activists in both Canada and the US.

That didn’t win him any friends with the DEA or US federal prosecutors, who indicted him on marijuana distribution charges after busting some American growers who had obtained their seeds from him. Then DEA head Karen Tandy crowed over his arrest, describing it as a blow to the legalization movement, but then quickly backtracked in the face of accusations that his arrest was politically motivated.

While Emery is behind bars awaiting extradition to the US, his friends and supporters are mobilizing. Their immediate objectives are three-fold: to urge the Justice Minister to refuse to sign the extradition papers, to urge the US sentencing judge to give him a short or non-custodial sentence, and, in the event he is sentenced to prison time in the US, to urge the Canadian Public Safety Minister to approve his transfer to a Canadian prison.

To that end, supporters have set up a web site, No Extradition, with instructions on how to contact the relevant authorities. They are also planning vigils at Emery’s current BC jail digs and a demonstration in Seattle when he arrives there for sentencing.

“We’re planning it right this second,” Seattle Hempfest executive director Vivian McPeak said Thursday. “It’s kind of difficult without having a date certain, but we’re trying to get it so we’re ready to go when it happens. There will probably be a rally at the federal courthouse,” he added, noting that protest information would be posted on the Hempfest web site after tomorrow.

“This is terrible,” said Jeremiah Vandemeer, an editor at Emery’s Cannabis Culture magazine, which recently switched from print to an all online format. “It is an affront to Canadian sovereignty that Marc will be handed over to the US government and its prison system. If he committed any crime, he should have been prosecuted here in Canada.”

In fact, Emery has been prosecuted in Canada for his seed sales, back in 1998. In that case, he was fined $2,000, with not a day of jail time. Since then, the Canadian government had been happy to ignore his seed sales and accept his tax payments from his seed business.

“It’s terrible to see my friend and boss put behind bars for something in which there are no victims,” said Vandemeer. “It’s difficult, but we’re getting through it, and we all have that extra resolve to work that much harder to get him back home.”

Emery’s young wife, Jodie, will be playing a key role, both in keeping Cannabis Culture and the Cannabis Culture Shop going and in waging the campaign to win his release. “Our campaign is about Free Marc Emery, but this is really about freeing everybody in prison for cannabis,” she said Wednesday.

“There is a lot of pressure up here, and different political actors are starting to voice their support,” she said. “There is all sorts of activism, and it’s just starting. We will start holding vigils outside his prison beginning Saturday and going on every day after that. We’re having postcards made today that people can send to flood the ministers with mail. I’m hearing that the Minister of Justice’s office is being flooded with phone calls, and people are pledging that they will call every day.”

But while Jodie Emery the cannabis activist is planning the campaign, Jodie Emery the figuratively widowed wife is feeling the pain. “It’s horribly rough,” she said. “During the day, I can keep busy. It’s only when I get home and I’m alone and I realize that he’s gone that it really hits me. I cry a lot,” she confessed. “Even if you think Marc is a loudmouth or got what was coming to him, think of what it does to the people who love him.”

Sensitized by her experiences, Jodie Emery is broadening her activism. “This has motivated me to start speaking up for the families of prisoners,” she said. “There are hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders in prison right now, nameless and faceless except to their loved ones. I want to speak up for all the drug war widows. We want to put faces and names to the people suffering endlessly year after year.”

The historical record will show that Marc and Jodie Emery know how to wage a campaign of agitation. Now, the question is whether they can use those skills to raise awareness not just of the injustice done to Emery, but to all the rest of the drug war incarcerated.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/143062/pot_crusader_marc_emery_jailed_in_canada_pending_extradition_to_us?page=entire

Caught on tape: Cop assaults 15-year-old special needs student

By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, October 8th, 2009 — 8:18 pm

For the offense of not having his shirt tucked in, 15-year-old special needs student Marshawn Pitts was slammed into a wall of lockers and pounded repeatedly in the face by a police officer who broke the boy’s nose and bloodied his mouth.

The Dolton, Illinois teen told a local CBS affiliate that the officer was cursing at him as he complied with the order to tuck in his shirt. Then, “it was just like, boom!” he said.

The assault, which took place in May, was recorded on a security camera at the Chicago suburb’s Academy for Learning.

“The academy is a high school for special-needs students who are emotionally disturbed or struggle with behavioral disorders,” noted Chicago Breaking News. “Marshawn was a student there because he suffered brain injuries when he was hit by a car years ago, [family attorney Edward] Manzke said.”

During the recording, the officer stoops down and places a cup of coffee on the floor, then threw the teen into the lockers before pummeling him and pinning him to the floor in a maneuver known as the “face-down take-down.”

“Zena Naiditch of Equip for Equality, a legal advocacy group that fights for the rights of people with disabilities, looked at the video and said the type of physical restraint used by the officer has killed students,” CBS News reported.

Naiditch added that the hold can be lethal because those trapped by it are left unable to breathe. CBS noted that seven states currently prohibit officers from using the “face-down take-down.”

The officer has not been identified, but due to the filmed evidence of the assault he has been terminated from the force.

Manzke told WBBM News Radio 780 that Marshawn has since transferred to a new school and the family is planning to file a lawsuit.

This video is from CBS 2 in Chicago, broadcast Oct. 7, 2009.

6 Year Old Facing 45 Days of “Reform School”

Written by Selwyn Duke

Tuesday, 13 October 2009 00:51

Our authorities may not be able to track down Osama bin laden, but never fear, they’re keeping us safe from budding little terrorists such as first grader Zachary Christie. Caught red-handed, the Newark, Delaware, six-year-old was suspended from his school and may face 45 days in reform school for violating the Christina School District’s “zero tolerance” policy on weapons. His offense?

Bringing a camping utensil set to school.
The “weapon” in question is a “hobo tool” the first grader had received after recently joining the Cub Scouts; it contains a fork, spoon, and knife. Zachary was so excited about his new acquisition — as any normal boy would be — that he brought it to school to use during lunch period. School officials then suspended him, saying they have no choice because the district’s code of conduct prohibits the possession of knives “regardless of the possessor’s intent.”

Unfortunately, little Zachary’s story is a common one today, with well-meaning students being subjected to disproportionate punishment across the nation in the name of zero tolerance. Writing about Zachary’s case in the New York Times, Ian Urbina provides one of these other examples, that of a third-grade girl who “was expelled for a year because her grandmother had sent a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it. The teacher called the principal — but not before using the knife to cut and serve the cake.”

I wonder what punishment was visited on the teacher, who actually used this dangerous weapon — hence becoming the “trigger man” — before fingering the little lass who simply provided it.

Yet, if this doesn’t push your outrage button, try the following on for size: a 12-year-old named Bruce Cruz was once suspended from school for fashioning a gun out of paper. Then there was a nine-year-old named Mark Polansky who was suspended for simply having a paper cutout of a pistol. And Polansky must have been a good kid, too. He didn’t even try to jump bail.

If that’s not enough for you, 13-year-old Paul Mosteller was suspended for simply drawing a gun on a piece of paper. It’s a good thing it wasn’t a knife — those paper cuts can be murder.

Yet it’s not only imaginary weapons that can bring punishment, but also imaginary sex. For instance, there was the case of six-year-old Johnathan Prevette, who was suspended for “sexual harassment” for giving a classmate a little peck on the cheek. Unluckily for him, I suppose, the classmate was a girl. Otherwise he could have claimed minority status and complained of intolerance.

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/education/2078-six-year-old-suspended-for-bringing-cub-scout-tool-to-school>

WWASPS Having Trouble in Mexico Again

Sunset Bay Academy Proud of Long and Successful History
Academy Staff is Excited about Growth of their Teen Programs

Rosarito, B.C., Mexico (PRWEB) October 14, 2009 — When Sunset Bay Academy, an at risk youth program, was founded as Oceanside Teen Center in July 2008 the academy sub-contracted the services of the Worldwide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP) using their seminar model, marketing infrastructure, and billing services.

Sunset Bay Academy needed the support of such services since they were new in establishing a therapeutic boarding school in Rosarito, B.C., Mexico. They did not have name recognition in United States to access the Therapeutic Boarding School Industry and associated themselves with WWASP for their external services.

Sunset Bay Academy hired bilingual psychologists to implement the most important aspect of the behavioral health model. Their skills and expertise as therapists have created the greatest impact in providing a critical support system for both the students and parents working towards restoring and healing their families and counseling teens. In addition, Sunset Bay Academy’s Program Director and Medical Director live on the school grounds and are accessible 24/7. Each psychologist was carefully selected for their credentials, professional history, and most important, for their passion in working with youth and families.

Sunset Bay Academy developed its program and was very clear that it would adhere to professional ethical standards setting it apart from other international boarding schools. Given the climate of abuse that had plagued WWASP schools, Sunset Bay Academy delineated the parameters of their business relationship as a subcontractor of their existing services only.

Sunset Bay Academy would never acquiesce to “bend the rules a little”, physically discipline, or engage in unethical practices with their teens nor would it develop and design a mediocre program to appease WWASP’s appetite to increase their revenues. During this time, WWASP revealed their disturbing unethical billing practices with our parents by making it clear that they felt entitled to a larger stake in the program and expected Sunset Bay Academy to model its program as a WWASP school.

Sunset Bay Academy severed all business ties with WWASP and terminated their services in April 2009. Their immediate response was to harass all Sunset Bay Academy parents with horrifying emails, letters and phone calls scaring them into thinking that SBA was no longer operating and offered the parents free transportation to move their children to one of their schools.

This tactic caused incredible fear and turmoil among parents. It completely backfired and set the stage for greater trust and an unwavering bond to be established SBA’s parents and teens. They handled the transition with great care and ease with the amazing support of all their parents and changed their name to Sunset Bay Academy.

Justices debate life sentences for juveniles

Court was asked whether some sentences for juveniles are “cruel and unusual”

One appeal is from man who was convicted of raping woman when he was 13

Only a few states prohibit sentencing minors to life without a chance for parole

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
November 9, 2009 6:50 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court wrestled in often emotional terms Monday over whether sentencing juvenile criminals to life in prison without parole is “cruel and unusual” punishment, especially when their crime is not murder.

The justices appeared divided over how to treat two separate appeals, one involving a 13-year-old rapist and the other a 17-year-old violent home-invasion robber.

“You can imagine someone who is a month short of his 18th birthday, and you are saying that, no matter what this person does — commits the most horrible series of non-homicide offenses that you can imagine, a whole series of brutal rapes, assaults — that person must at some point be made eligible for parole. That’s your argument?” a skeptical Justice Samuel Alito asked a lawyer for one of the prisoners.

Justice Stephen Breyer offered a different example.

“The confusion and uncertainty about the moral responsibility of a 13-year-old is such that it is a cruel thing to do, to remove from that individual his entire life” with such a sentence, he said. “You see, we are at the extreme” in that example.

The Supreme Court’s rulings are expected by late spring.

One of the appeals is from Joe Sullivan, now 33, serving a life term without the possibility of parole in a Florida prison while confined to a wheelchair. He was sentenced for the rape of an elderly woman, committed when he was 13.

Sullivan’s lawyers say he is one of only two people in the world who was tried as an adult at such a young age and sentenced to “die in prison” for a non-homicide.

The other appeal came from Terrance Graham, who was 17 when he took part in a violent home-invasion robbery while on parole for another felony.

In 2005, the high court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile murderers.

Child legal advocates say many states lack adequate resources to handle young inmates given long sentences, including a lack of proper jailhouse counseling. Few studies have been conducted on the psychological and penological effects of young defendants facing life in prison, said the Equal Justice Institute, which is representing Sullivan.

The justices’ comments during the two-hour session fell along predictable conservative/liberal lines.

“To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel,” said Sullivan’s lawyer, Bryan Stevenson. “It can’t be reconciled with what we know about the nature of children, about the character of children. It cannot be reconciled with our standards of decency.”

“It doesn’t make it any crueler to him,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “I don’t see why it’s any crueler to an adolescent than it is to — what — where do you want to draw the line? At 21?”

Stevenson also argued that there is a racial component, claiming that the majority of “juvenile lifers” are minorities. Sullivan and Graham are black.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that in the case of Graham, the 17-year-old defendant, even the prosecutor did not recommend life without parole. And the justice said Graham had pursued his education and was compliant with some conditions of his parole before committing his second felony.

“It does suggest some hope for him,” Sotomayor said.

“Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope but an adult does not?” Justice Anthony Kennedy asked. His vote could be crucial in these cases, but he expressed concerns about the views presented by both sides.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg echoed the concerns of many juvenile justice advocates.

“Unlike an adult, because of the immaturity, you can’t really judge a teenager at the point of sentencing,” she said. “It’s only after a period of time has gone by, and you see: Has this person overcome those youthful disabilities?”

A lawyer for Florida argued that states should have the discretion they have long been given to decide how harshly young criminals should be prosecuted. Sexual battery remains a crime punishable by life imprisonment in Florida.

Alito continued to focus on the crimes committed and less on the age of the defendant.

“Some of the actual cases in which this sentence has been imposed in Florida involve factual situations that are so horrible that I couldn’t have imagined them if I hadn’t actually seen them,” he said of some juvenile offenders. “Raping an 8-year-old girl and burying her alive; are you familiar with that case? Raping a woman in front of her 12-year-old son.”

Alito is a former U.S. attorney in New Jersey who prosecuted federal crimes in his home state in the late 1980s.

Escambia County Circuit Judge Nicholas Geeker, who sentenced Sullivan, said at the time, “I am going to try to send him away for as long as I can. He is beyond help. The juvenile system has been utterly incapable of doing anything with Mr. Sullivan.”

Sullivan, who had a lengthy juvenile record, denies that he committed the attack.

A study by the nonprofit Equal Justice Initiative found that eight prisoners are currently serving life terms for crimes committed at age 13, all in the United States.

The Justice Department reports that no 13-year-old has been given life without parole for non-homicides in a decade. Although about 1,000 people younger than 15 are arrested on suspicion of rape every year, none has been given life without parole since Sullivan.

Only a few states — including Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon — prohibit sentencing minors to life without a chance for parole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

There was a dispute in court Monday over how many juvenile offenders are serving life without parole. Some estimates run at more than 2,500, mostly for murder. Sullivan’s lawyer said 111 committed non-homicides, 77 in Florida alone. Pennsylvania has the highest total number of juvenile lifers.

Alito pointed out that those studies were not peer-reviewed and are disputed by many states, as well as victims’ rights groups, as too high.

Chief Justice John Roberts may have anticipated a divided court on these cases. He repeatedly sought a compromise of sorts to resolve the dispute, using a form of judicial discretion known as “proportional review.”

“Wouldn’t it make sense to incorporate the consideration of the juvenile status into the proportionality review? So that if you do have a case where it’s the 17-year-old who is one week shy of his 18th birthday, and it is the most grievous crime spree you can imagine, you can determine that in that case life without parole may not be disproportionate,” Roberts said. “But you would argue that these are the facts here — if it’s a less grievous crime and there is, for example, a younger defendant involved, then in that case maybe it is disproportionate. Why — why doesn’t that seem more sensitive? It avoids all of the line-drawing problems we have been discussing.”

The thrust of Sullivan and Graham’s argument before the high court is not that they are innocent or that they seek freedom now but that they deserve to someday make a case before the state parole board.

The cases are Sullivan v. Florida (08-7621) and Graham v. Florida (08-7412).

Source: