Lynch Section 538 Motions

rickray 001 200x200.fw

USA vs LYNCH

October 2020 Court re-schedules McIntosh hearing in USA vs Lynch for April 2021. In 2020 Lynch's case was stalled by the Corona Virus Outbreak. The McIntosh hearing will determine if Lynch was following State Law 14 years ago. The McIntosh hearing is now scheduled for April 1, 2021.

April 2, 2020 Federal Prosecutors schedule McIntosh hearing in USA vs Lynch. In 2019 Lynch took his arguments to Supreme court which paused the Section 531 Arguments. Lynch lost at the Supreme Court but won a McIntosh Hearing. The McIntosh hearing will determine if Lynch was following State Law 13 years ago. The McIntosh hearing is scheduled for March 2020 through August 2020.

March 3, 2017 Free Federal Public Defenders file Notice and Request for a McIntosh Remand or Relief to end ongoing 10 year Federal Medical Marijuana Prosecution of Charles Lynch.

Appropriations Action Section 538 of 2015 was renumbered to Appropriations Act Section 542 in 2016. The Section expires in April 2017 if not renewed. The rider was renewed in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The 2020 version is numbered Section 531.

February 24, 2015 Charles Lynch filed Appropriations Act, 2015 Section 538 Motion to end his prosecution for operating a medical marijuana dispensary in 2006. The series of Government and Lynch motions follows with most recent first.

SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

McIntosh Hearing Delay 2

April 23, 2019 Feds Ask for Extension

Feds ask for 2nd Extension preparing State Trial for Lynch in Federal Court

Feds are planning on putting Lynch on trial in Federal Court determine whether he was following state law 12 years ago when he ran his dispensary in Morro Bay California. This is the so called McIntosh hearing based on the Spending Appropriations Rider 2015-2019.

hereby stipulate to the following in support of a joint motion for a two-week continuance of the dates for preliminary briefing in this matter.

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

McIntosh Hearing Delay 1

April 8, 2019 Feds Ask for Extension

Feds ask for Extension preparing State Trial for Lynch in Federal Court

Feds are planning on putting Lynch on trial in Federal Court determine whether he was following state law 12 years ago when he ran his dispensary in Morro Bay California. This is the so called McIntosh hearing based on the Spending Appropriations Rider 2015-2019.

Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The parties shall file their opening simultaneous briefs (limited to 20 pages) on April 25, 2019. Simultaneous responsive briefs (limited to 7 pages) will be filed on May 16, 2019. The hearing shall be continued from May 20, 2019 to June 3, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2019 Hon. George Wu

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

Lynch Wins McIntosh Hearing

September 13, 2018 9th Circuit Lynch wins McIntosh Hearing

After 10 years on appeal the 9th Circuit finally made a decision in USA vs Lynch. The Good News Lynch won a McIntosh hearing which says Federal Government cannot spend money to overthrow state medical marijuana laws. The Rider has been on the books since 2015. This year it is known as the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2019 Division C Section 537. The Bad news, even McIntosh himself has not won his arguments which are still ongoing.

The panel did not need to reach the question of whether a congressional appropriations rider (enacted following the filing of this appeal), which this court has interpreted to prohibit the federal prosecution of persons for activities compliant with state medical marijuana laws, operates to annul a properly obtained conviction. The panel explained that a genuine dispute exists as to whether Lynch’s activities were actually legal under California state law, and therefore remanded to the district court for a factual determination as to state-law compliance.

Lynch has also filed to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Visit the Appeal and Supreme Court pages for the latest updates.

Lynch Section 542 Motion Denied

USA vs Lynch 9th Circuit Denies Section 542 Motion June 16, 2017

9th Circuit Denies Lynch Section 542 argument without prejudice. Lynch will now have to make his Section 542 arguments in his final Brief due July 17 2017, ten years to the day after Lynch was arrested on July 17, 2007.

Lynch’s Notice (Docket Entry No. [137]) is denied without prejudice to renewing the arguments in the third cross-appeal brief. No motions for reconsideration of this denial will be entertained. Lynch’s third brief on cross-appeal is due within 30 days of the date of this order.

Click the 'Motion Denied' button to read the 9th Circuit's string of decisions on previous filing and the Section 542. Thank you for your support :( Charles C. Lynch


Lynch Final Section 542 Reply

USA vs Lynch Lynch Files Final Section 542 Motion April 24, 2017

Free Federal Public Defenders file Lynch's oversized (38 pages) Section 542 motion reply and at the same time file Request to File the Oversized reply.

And the government’s proposal flips the presumption of innocence on its head. Criminal defendants, of course, are innocent until proven guilty. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Mr. Lynch is entitled to a presumption that he complied with California law unless and until the government proves otherwise.

The Reply is 38 pages and there is a 10 page max so a request to file the oversized brief is included. The 9th Circuit hasn't replied to any of the requests for extensions lately...

Click the 'Final Reply' button to read Lynch's Final Section 542 reply. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch


Lynch Motion for Final Extension

USA vs Lynch Federal Public Defefenders Files Final Extension to Respond April 21, 2017

Free Federal Public Defenders file for a final one day extension to reply to Government's opposition to Lynch's Section 542 motion.


Lynch Motion for Extension

USA vs Lynch Federal Public Defefenders Files Extension to Respond April 3, 2017

Free Federal Public Defenders file for extension to reply to Government's opposition to Lynch's Section 542 motion.


Government Final 542 Opposition

USA vs Lynch Government Files Final Section 542 Opposition March 23, 2017

Federal Prosecutors file oversized (27 pages) opposition to Lynch's Section 542 motion and at the same time file request to file the oversized reply.

For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion should be denied, and this Court should order that defendant third brief on cross-appeal be filed without further delay.

Federal Prosecutors file oversized response opposing Lynch's Section 542 Motion. The response is 27 pages and there is a 20 page max so a request to file the oversized brief is included. The 9th Circuit hasn't replied to any of the requests for extensions...

Click the 'Government 542 Opposition' button to read the Government's Final oppositin to Lynch's Section 542 motion. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch


Government Request for Extension to Respond

USA vs Lynch Government Request for Exentsion March 16, 2017

Government Prosecutors file an entension request to file a response to Lynch's Section 542 motion.

I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California...Additional time is also needed because of the size and nature of defendant’s Motion. Defendant’s Motion consists of an oversized 27-page brief, presents multiple issues, and includes two volumes of exhibits.

Click the 'Request for Relief' button to read the request. Thank you for your support! Charles C. Lynch


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!

News