Bud Life logo image

Bringing you the stories of smokers and smugglers.

Google logo

Search WWW     Search Bud Life
Home | Quick Hits | Growin' Our Own | Pipeline | Bare Your Buds | Head Sounds | Happy Trails | Dictionary for Heads | Cream of the Crop Reviews | Comments | Submit Your Stories | Merchandise | Score | Advertise | Grassroots | Previous Editions

Quick Hits (page 5)


Federal Judge Denies Pot Guru a New Trial

By: David Kravets (The Associated Press)

imageSAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge rejected a bid for a new trial from convicted marijuana grower Ed Rosenthal, finding no basis for his claims of jury bias.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer upheld Rosenthal's highly publicized conviction in February. He now faces spending the rest of his life in prison when he's sentenced June 4. The maximum sentence is 85 years.

Rosenthal said he would appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and would ask Breyer to stay his sentence pending a decision.

Rosenthal, 58, was portrayed as a major drug manufacturer at trial. The jury concluded that he was growing more than 100 pot plants, conspired to cultivate marijuana and maintained an Oakland warehouse for a growing operation.

Rosenthal says he was growing medical marijuana under a 1996 law approved by California voters, and was deputized by the city of Oakland to carry out the task. But Breyer prohibited Rosenthal's jury from hearing evidence of that sort, and he explained his reasoning Friday.

"Since the Civil War this country has recognized that whatever the views of local governments, such views do not control the enforcement of federal law,'' Breyer wrote.

Rosenthal also claimed at least two jurors incorrectly believed they had no choice but to convict him. One juror informed the judge after the trial that she had consulted with an attorney during the trial on whether she could vote for acquittal even though the evidence clearly established Rosenthal violated federal drug manufacturing laws.

Breyer wrote it was "rank speculation'' that two jurors voted to convict on the advice of the attorney.


Growin' Our Own (page 5)


Working for the DEA

By: Anonymous

imageThe DEA stands for Drug Enforcement Administration, and is a federal enforcement agency, under the President. I worked for the DEA and participated in many investigations and drug busts. DEA employment applications favor military and law enforcement background types. The DEA is like a big spy agency, shrouded in secrecy, and uses many hi-tech toys like GPS, distant sound receivers, hidden cameras [even in trees and bushes], informants, and other supposedly legal tools like search warrants. We worked closely with the Assistant US Attorneys or AUSA, as we called them. Our cases had to be prosecuted by these attorneys so we had to make a case that would pass their criteria for getting search warrants and busts that would lead to convictions and asset forfeitures.

I was formerly with Army Intelligence and had experience in South American Intelligence. I speak Spanish which was rare for most DEA Agents. In South America we intercepted radio and phone transmissions, followed planes and suspected drug lords and terrorists. My military intelligence background was perfect to move me into a DEA job. I was quickly accepted into the DEA after a thorough background check. I worked out of Atlanta, Georgia and worked undercover in blue jeans with my long hair and beard. I looked like a typical biker. It was still hard to infiltrate drug groups and consort with purported drug dealers. However there were small time dealers who would readily sell me crack, cocaine, and grass. These desperate street dealers were a start for me and my training. In a scrape they would squeal. Let me tell you that DEA agents don't go around passing out business cards while they work a case or group of druggies. A good cover can mean life or death for a DEA agent. Regardless of what you might believe, a DEA agent can't take any drugs, and can be tested at any time on a minute's notice. So no drugs are taken and this can tip off a seller when you don't partake in testing the stuff. I always figured that if my life was on the line I would violate policy and take a taste of cocaine or something else. My life is worth more than the DEA job.

Information gathering about drug shipments, names of dealers and their backgrounds is the basic work for an agent. Moving up to the bigger connection is the goal, but we didn't leave many small time dealers behind. On the street or with credible informant information is where we started an investigation. Informants helped and sometimes they helped too much. We followed more bad leads than good ones. Informants had to sign up on DEA forms every 90 days and they were re-checked to see about their recent activities. We liked clean informants, not the street druggies who were trying to squeal their way out of trouble. Often times respectable citizens ran across verifiable information and would contact us. These were the informants we wanted. We would get phone calls to the office and walk-ins. We would take these "cold" potential informants into a sealed, bugged interrogation room and debrief them about what information they had. If the information was verified, and their background checked out, we would formally sign them up. Other times we would request further information before we got involved with an informant. We had some people who had a grudge and we had to be alert for these types as the DEA doesn't want to be used for dead end vendettas. We didn't want to get information on respectable law abiding citizens. From my experience in the agency, the DEA operates on a professional level, checking out the information it receives. Use of prior and proven informants is different, as once you have proved yourself you are part of the team. Upon receiving information an agent contacts the AUSA and goes over the matter and gets direction for investigating the case. The AUSA would tell us how to verify a case and what additional information they needed to get a search warrant. If there are not any grounds to obtain a search warrant the informant and the agent will try to get the information the AUSA needs. I want to tell you that we never tried to compel an informant to get information, this was all voluntary. Mostly the informants would work for the DEA form 103, called "drop the dime." This form was to protect the informant and to provide for the payment of the 10% reward for value of drugs and money confiscated. Although signed, this form was never released to an informant. It was basically all done on trust, and we always paid the reward. I never saw anybody manufacture the facts meeting the AUSA requirements. Sometimes the AUSA would want to meet and debrief the informant in our offices. We never asked an informant to risk their lives, but we could tell them that if they wanted to do something they had that right. This was with the caveat that if we were not kept in the loop and some drug buy happened the informant could go down as a co-conspirator. Everything had to be approved in advance by us. For example, one time we had an informant who we got a call about. The call was from U.S. Customs at the California border. Our informant on a few cases got busted for smuggling 20 kilos of cocaine. We checked and found no prior authorization and no investigation that would allow this informant to be smuggling the coke. Result was that he was convicted.

We never gave our business cards and cell phone numbers out to informants. They had to call into the main office. The exception was if we were on a stake out and ready to move in. For these we gave pager numbers and would call back the informant for minute by minute information. Nothing, and especially phone numbers, would ever be written down. Memory only was the rule. A DEA business card could get somebody killed. I never gave out a single business card in my 12 years with the DEA. My life and home were all secret. One time I discovered that I was on an internet information service that listed my home address. Through an investigation we discovered that junk mail had released this information. We corrected this and got my info off the internet. This could have resulted in the elimination of me and my family.

Investigations in Mexico were very difficult. We didn't want to go into Mexico and didn't want to risk our informants" lives. We advised informants to get the Mexicans to come over into the states for dug deals. Ask the Mexicans to deliver and we could cover the deal from here. Buying in Mexico and having the informant deliver in the states is a waste of time. Only if the Mexicans came into our jurisdiction did we take an interest.

Anyway there was one time when we executed a search warrant on an informant's (CI -for confidential informant) information we did end up in the wringer. We involved the local sheriff and were on a bust for 40 kilos of cocaine. Instead of getting cocaine we moved too soon and got the buy money. The money had been counted by the informant and a few others. The informant said there was $540,000 which had been counted by machine and by hand three times. However the sheriff found the money and brought it out. When the count was done there was only $300,000. This resulted in an internal affairs investigation with accusations that never reached the court. It was hell as we could only explain that the Sheriff found and produced the cash. We were all suspected of dividing the cash and I didn't like the accusations. The sheriff was defiant that there was only $300,000 and no witnesses were there when he hit the loot. I swear that we didn't divide any cash with the sheriff, and the CI was determined to be a liar on the exact amount of cash. Anyway, about a year after the investigation I decided to try another line of work and dropped out of the DEA.

For you that will never know the internal workings of the DEA, I want to tell you that it is a secret and efficient spy agency.


Pipeline (page 5)


Help Ed Rosenthal and Help Change the Law

By: Virginia Resner

imageAs you may know, Ed Rosenthal was convicted in federal court on felony charges connected with providing medical marijuana to patients in the San Francisco Bay Area. We are writing to you for two reasons. The first is that you have a relationship of some sort with Ed. You know that he can be difficult and exasperating, but he has a fine sense of humor, is personable, generous and helpful, and uses his many talents with the community in mind.

The second reason for this letter is that there is a good chance you have strong feelings about the marijuana laws and would like to see these blots on justice removed from the books. Ed's case is a terrific opportunity to help change the law.

Green Aid, the non-profit organization helping to fund Ed's case, believes this case is breaking new ground in changing the marijuana laws. Ed's sentencing date is June 4th, which marks the beginning of his appeals. We hope that you will consider sponsoring Green Aid's efforts at this critical time.

Ed's trial and subsequent conviction are disturbing in their implications for "justice." Within hours of leaving the court, eight of the jurors found out the rest of the story and recanted their decision. Truly upset at how they have been used by the criminal justice system, these jurors are now actively involved in the issue.

On several fronts, this case has set exciting precedents. It has placed the hypocrisy of the laws on the front page of respected newspapers and in other media. Extensive coverage of the case has invigorated public discussion about medical marijuana and increased pressure on politician's to take the issue seriously.

Legal issues raised by Ed's trial continue to reverberate through society and the government. Last month, The Truth in Trials Act (HR 1717) was introduced with bi-partisan support into the U.S. House of Representatives. This act will allow a medical defense in federal cases when the state allows the use of medical marijuana. California Congressmen Sam Farr, a Democrat, and Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative Republican, cosponsored HR 1717.

The appeals process in Ed's case will bring several constitutional and legal issues before the Ninth Circuit Court. The outcome of these appeals is guaranteed to have wide-reaching implications for the future of medical marijuana cases particularly, and for the marijuana laws more generally.

Ed is uniquely suited to carry the marijuana issue forward. He is an eloquent advocate, and the facts of his case combined with his willingness to speak out on the issue have ensured a thorough airing in the court of public opinion. You can help Ed make an impact on the law and reach the attention of the media.

Join with us today to keep the momentum going. Support Green Aid's efforts to keep Ed and other providers and patients out of prison. Help Green Aid continue in its mission. Make a contribution today and help to make irrational marijuana policy a thing of the past.

Thank you.

[Ed. Note: Virginia Resner is President of the Board of Green Aid.]


Dakota Joseph Arts
American Indian Art
P.O. Box 981
Auberry, California 93602


KeNa Productions. For all your website needs. Emphasizing fast load times, usability, browser compatibility, standards compliance and high quality graphics.


The Whipping Post. Not for the politically correct. Riveting commentary to engage, enrage, enlighten and inflame.



Disclaimer | Privacy policy | Home
© 2002 - 2003 Bud Life. All rights reserved.