Days of Federal Prosecution

Civil War Against CCL Began March 31, 2007. That was
ago and still counting

Etrade Closing Lynch IRA

ccl .420th centETrade closing Lynch's IRA because he was "arrested for selling marijuana"

Lynch Loses Appeal in 9th Circuit

9th Circuit Court BuildingLynch loses in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but wins a McIntosh hearing September 13, 2018

Lynch Files Supreme Court Certiorari

Supreme CourtFree Federal Public Defenders file Supreme Court Certiorari

Lynch Files Section 538 Motion

rickray 001 42x42Charles Lynch files Section 538 motion to end case based on new 2015 Spending Bill

Rorahbacher-Farr Letter to Inspector General

Letter to Inspector GeneralCongressmen Sam Farr and Dana Rorabacher write letter to Inspector General

Lynch Section 538 Motions

Section 542 Notice and Request for McIntosh Relief

USA vs Lynch Request for McIntosh Relief March 3, 2017

Free Federal Public Defenders filed Section 542 Notice and Request for McIntosh Relief based on Appropriations Act Section 542 Motion to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in USA vs Lynch, an ongoing Ten Year Federal Medical Marijuana Prosecution in Californa.

In their amici curiae brief, U.S. Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA), the lead authors of Section 542, explained that the rider was intended to apply to cases like Mr. Lynch’s—and to this case in particular. Specifically, they wrote that the purpose of their amendment was stopping federal prosecutions “like the one pending . . . against Charles Lynch.” Dkt. No. 103, at 8. Referring to this case, the Congressmen cautioned that “[p]ermitting the DOJ to spend more federal funds to prosecute one of the very cases Congress intended for the DOJ to cease prosecuting defeats the purpose of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment entirely.” Id. at 11

Money Slinging Marijuana hating Federal Prosecutor David Kowal is expected to file his felonious frantic reply by March 16, 2017. But my Deputy Federal Public Defenders have some news for him:

In addition, if the government’s continued spending on this case is unlawful, the Court should not ignore that fact and allow further expenditures on appeal. The concern is not solely unauthorized waste of taxpayer funds—although that interest is weighty. The government’s failure to comply with Congress’s directive violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7, and the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341 et seq., 1511 et seq., implicating constitutional rights and potential criminal liability for the government. See McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1175 (“[I]f DOJ were spending money in violation of § 542, it would be drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause.”); 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A) (making it a felony for federal employees to “make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation”); see also id. §§ 1350, 1517(a), 1519.

Click the 'Request for Relief' button to read the 253 pages of work by Federal Public Defenders. At the cost of an appellate attorney these days that cost could be up to and beyond $253,000 just for this one motion not to mention the millions spent prosecuting and defending Lynch. Lynch has Free Federal Public Defenders and your donation is greatly appreciated. Freedom Fighting is not a paid position. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch

Don't miss the latest CCL updates. Lets get Social with it!

Donate today!