Lynch Section 538 Motions
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.
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 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
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
February 2, 2017 10:30 am
United States Courthouse
350 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Courtroom 9D, 9th Floor
The Prosecutor in the case tried arguing that Lynch's chance to file a Section 542 motion had expired and the Judge dismissed this claim. The Prosecutor also said that Lynch's Section 542 motion should be combined into his final appeal as opposed to being argued on its own merits.
I'm living in New Mexico now, help me get to Los Angeles, Donate Today. Thank you!
Scan the code to load the Facebook Event page or just click here
A decision in USA vs Charles Lynch is set for February 2, 2017 at 9am in the Downtown Los Angeles Federal Court House. Lynch's Federal Public Defenders filed a Appropriations Act Section 542 motion to end his Federal Prosecution for operating a Medical Marijuana Dispensary in Morro Bay CA. Section 542 prohibits the Goverment from spending money on such prosecutions. The Section expires in April 2017 if not renewed. Prosecutors responded with a request for a delay until late January 2017. Judge Wu set a hearing date of February 2, 2017 9am in Los Angeles CA. Even found a typo in the document "no long with this office".
This request is based on the Attached Declaration of AUSA David Kowal...I am one of the government’s counsel of record in defendant Lynch’s pending appeal and the government’s cross-appeal before the Ninth Circuit, 9th Circuit Docket Nos. 10-50219 and 10-50264...My co-counsel in this matter is no long with this office. Other government counsel who are likely to assist me in responding to the Motion have lengthy pre-planned leave similar to or more lengthy than mine.
Big Thank You to all my supporters. Your help getting me to Los Angeles for this possibly historic hearing is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Charles C. Lynch
Lynch Files Motion to End Federal Prosecution
December 12, 2016: In the ongoing Federal Medical Marijuana Appeal USA vs Charles Lynch, Lynch's Federal Public Defenders filed a motion to end the Federal Prosecution of Lynch based on Approprations Act Section 542. Lynch claims it is a Felony for prosecutors to continue this medical marijuana prosecution based on Section 542 stating:
Even a de minimis expenditure of unauthorized funds violates the plain text of Section 542 and the Anti Deficiency Act, which makes it a felony for federal employees to make or authorize and expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available... It is a violation of constitutional magnitude.
Lynch Files Motion to Release 250k Bail Bond
UPDATE: December 14, 2016
Judge Wu released Charles Lynch's Bail! Today Judge Wu released the Family Farm now owned by my Sister Amanda Garcia. My little brother Pat Lynch posted the Family farm as part of 400k bail to get me out of Federal Detention back in 2007. He later died and left the property to my sister Amanda. A motion years ago released other portions of the bail including 108k posted by my brother Tom Lynch and property valued at 100k belonging to my Step Father Larry Garcia. A big Huuuugge thanks to my family for believing in me through these very difficult past 10 years.
UPDATE: December 12, 2016 Judge Wu has denied Lynch's first motion to have the bond released saying that the Prosecutor must be notified. John Littrell contacted the prosecutor David Kowal who opposed releasing the bond. Littrell quickly refiled the motion noting the Prosecutors felonious opposition to the motion.
December 11, 2016: In the ongoing Federal Medical Marijuana Appeal USA vs Charles Lynch, Lynch has been on released supervision for over 9 years with a Bail of 200k. The 200k bail was posted by Charles Lynch's brother Pat Lynch who later died and in turn left the property to their sister Amanda. The property has been held for almost 10 years. Lynch's Federal Public Attorney John Littrell filed a motion before the District Court of Judge Wu to have the Bond released.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 11/29/2016 at 8:27:53 AM PST and filed on 11/29/2016
Case Name: USA v. Steve McIntosh
Case Number: 15-10117
Docket Text: Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and CARLOS T. BEA): The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Bea have voted to deny the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Silverman has so recommended. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are DENIED.  [15-10117, 15-10122, 15-10127, 15-10132, 15-10137, 15-30098, 15-71158, 15-71174, 15-71179, 15-71225] (AF)
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, Senior District Judge
Mr. Harry M. Drandell, Attorney
Robert R. Fischer, Assistant Federal Public Defender
Mr. Taki V. Flevaris, Attorney
Mr. Jesse Gessin
Mr. Daniel L. Harralson, Attorney
Mr. Peter M. Jones
Mr. Eric V. Kersten, Assistant Federal Public Defender
David M. Miller, Attorney
Honorable Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge
Mr. Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Mr. Douglas Dwight Phelps, Attorney
Kevin P. Rooney, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Ms. Camil Skipper, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phil Telfeyan, Attorney
USDC, San Francisco
Mr. Nicolas Vernon Vieth, Attorney
Richard David Wall, Attorney
Mr. J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Alexandra Wallace Yates, Federal Public Defender
Mr. Marc Jonathan Zilversmit, Attorney
Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief District Judge (daily summary)