50-acre marijuana farm near Sanger raided

Fresno County sheriff's deputies and federal agents raided a giant marijuana plantation near Sanger early Thursday morning, seizing thousands of plants and taking about 50 people into custody.
The pot-growing operation on California Avenue east of McCall Avenue was elaborate, with observation towers and living quarters for workers, plants in various states of growth lined in neatly cultivated rows, and a six-foot cyclone fence topped with barbed wire and covered in plastic sheeting to prevent passers-by from looking inside.
But the pot farm had not escaped the notice of residents or law officers. During the early-morning raid, a passing driver stopped to tell Sanger Police Chief Tom Klose that the farm had been there a long time; the chief reassured him that it was not a secret to police, either.
Sheriff's deputies assisted in November 2010 when agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raided the field, Lt. Rick Ko said. "It had to do with smuggling out of state," Ko said. But he said he could provide no further details because the federal investigation is still ongoing.
All the marijuana plants were pulled off the property last year, but sheriff's officials were not surprised to see a new crop this year, Ko said. "It's a huge problem in Fresno County and in the whole state of California," he said.
Deputies worked 12 hours in 90-plus degree heat Thursday to rip out marijuana plants. Five were treated for heat-related illness and one was hospitalized but is recovering, Ko said. "We'll finish Friday," he said.
Besides sheriff's deputies, DEA agents and U.S. marshals took part in the raid, which began at sunrise as officers surrounded the field and ordered the workers to surrender. Mims said there was no resistance from those who were taken into custody. They were being interviewed to determine what charges they might face.
Just who was in charge of the operation is unclear. Fresno County tax assessor's records list Goon Pattanumotana of Fresno as the owner of the 54-acre parcel, but Pattanumotana said he has leased out the property to several farmers and has no direct oversight of what is grown there.
"I've kind of lost track of what's going on," he said.
Ko said property owners should be responsible for knowing if something illegal is happening on their property. But Sonia De La Rosa, spokeswoman for the Fresno County District Attorney's Office, said responsibility can depend on whether a property owner knew about and took part in illegal activities.
Records show Pattanumotana bought the parcel in 2005 for $1,900,000. It was assessed in 2010 at a value of $2,011,516.
Pattanumotana, a real estate broker and adjunct instructor of economics at Willow International Center, said he bought the land as an investment and rents out parcels to Asian farmers who grow vegetables. He said he made a profit on property that he sold before the real estate crash and invested in the Sanger land for tax purposes. Pattanumotana said he wants to hold onto the parcel until the market comes back. In the meantime, he leases out the land in order to pay about $22,000 a year in property tax. The problem, he said, is that some of his lessees have turned around and leased land to others.

Smoke and taxes revisted in N.Y.

Add this promising news to the list of what’s different in New York. The days of Indian-owned companies selling tax-free cigarettes on non-Indian land are over.

For that, thank the eagerness of the Cuomo administration to finally collect the tax dollars that a state still on precarious fiscal footing sorely needs.

Over the past month, state and federal agents raided off-reservation tobacco shops and stopped vehicles carrying cigarettes that would be sold at them without collecting state sales taxes. The cigarettes and cigars that were seized are worth some $1.2 million in tax revenue. The Cuomo administration now expects to collect some $27 million in such taxes over the next six months.

That partly settles, then, what’s been a frustrating standoff for years. Yes, people can still go on to Indian reservations and buy tax-free smokes. Yes, that costs the state money. Yet the Cuomo administration can make the very compelling argument that its vigorous tax-collection efforts don’t violate Indian sovereignty.

What is a reassurance to New Yorkers exasperated by years of seeing the state’s finances suffer because of a thriving, illegal cigarette sales operation also serves as an warning to those who make money that way.

“This is the first time we’ve seen enforcement of this nature,” says Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy, who sends clear signals about further enforcement of the tax laws.

How far New York has come. Fourteen years ago, attempts to collect sales taxes erupted in such violent protests that the Pataki administration abandoned them. All the while, negotiations between the state and Indian tribes were futile.

Now, though, the Supreme Court has ruled that states can imposes taxes on tobacco sales to non-Indians. The only caveat is that such taxes can’t fall directly on tribal governments.

Indian tribes are mounting what might well be yet another losing legal argument. They’re making a distinction between cigarettes manufactured by the tribes themselves and those made by the big multinational tobacco companies.

The Oneida Nation, for example, is wise enough not to try to stop tax collections from non-Indian cigarette manufacturers and sellers. Yet it says federal law bans taxation of cigarettes made and sold on a reservation.

The state, meanwhile, is willing to negotiate further on the first point. As for the second, Mr. Duffy reiterates that there are no plans to try to collect taxes on sovereign land.

The state is on secure middle ground here. It’s time to reap all that overdue money.

Porsche Design Shisha shows German influence on hookah smoking

Are you an auto-enthusiast that loves some hookah aka Shisha? Well, Porsche has something special for you. Porsche Design is well know for their iconic style inspired by the supercar brand and this time around they are introducing a brand new Shisha.
The Porsche Design Shisha is a part of the company’s Porsche Design World Collection and will be available at Porsche Design stores from the end of July. It will also go on sale at the world famous Harrods department store in London, Knightsbridge.
“The extraordinary Porsche Design Shisha combines high-quality materials such as aluminium, stainless steel and glass with the timeless and unique design approach of the luxury brand,” Porsche said in a statement. “Puristic and stylish at the same time. The Porsche Design Shisha is made in Germany and stands at a height of 55 centimetres. It only shows a discreet branding on the aluminium top of the Shisha and comes with a long flexible tube made out of TecFlex material, which is also used for the classic Porsche Design TecFlex writing tools.”
Porsche Design World Collection also offers a number of other exclusively designed products including chopsticks, a tea and soup set as well as a few fashion items such as a jacket, polo shirt and a silk scarf.

Marijuana Conviction Means No Gun Ownership?

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 bans gun possession by (among others) anyone who “has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession ... in any drug of abuse.” (Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.14 allows the person to petition for relief from this disability after the person’s prison, probation, and parole is up, but any such relief is discretionary with the court, and turns on the judge’s opinion about whether the person “appears likely to continue to” lead “a law-abiding life.”) Paul Stone had been convicted in 2006 of possession of marijuana, “a minor misdemeanor” under § 2925.11. How minor, in the state’s view? It can’t lead to any jail time; the only possible penalty is a fine of up to $150, plus possibly community service of no more than 30 hours. It isn’t even treated as “a criminal record” for purposes of employment or licensing questions about the person’s criminal record. But then in 2010, he was indicted for felony gun possession under &sec; 2923.13, based on the minor misdemeanor.

The trial court dismissed the indictment, holding that § 2923.13 didn’t cover gun possession following minor misdemeanor convictions. But State v. Stone (Ohio Ct. App., decided yesterday) just reversed the dismissal of the indictment, and held that Stone could indeed be prosecuted. The court concluded that the text of &sec; 2923.13 indeed covered even minor misdemeanor convictions. And then it held that Stone lost his Second Amendment rights, because of this minor misdemeanor conviction. Here is the entirety of its Second Amendment analysis:

Appellee [i.e., Stone] also urges this court to affirm the trial court’s dismissal based upon the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which, pursuant to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), 554 U.S. 570, protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm. In advancing this argument, appellee acknowledges that this right is not unconditional and points out that Heller identified various forms of reasonable restrictions a state may place upon a citizen’s ability to have a firearm. Appellee submits, however, the limited list of such restrictions does not include, nor is there obvious historical precedent for, legislation that has the effect of completely abrogating a citizen’s right to bear arms as it pertains to a misdemeanant with no criminal record.

Although appellee sets forth strong policy considerations, which might militate in favor of a legislative shift in this area of criminal law, a careful review of the statutory provisions at play in this case demonstrates that the trial court erred in dismissing the underlying indictment. Our analysis and resolution of the issue is controlled by this court’s recent holding in Gex, supra.

In Gex, this court determined that a defendant’s conviction for having a weapon while under disability was supported by sufficient evidence even though the disability was occasioned by minor misdemeanor marijuana possession.... Applying Gex to the case at bar, it is undisputed that appellee was previously convicted of minor misdemeanor marijuana possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a drug abuse offense. Appellee’s previous conviction, therefore, constitutes a disability prohibiting him from acquiring, having, carrying, or using a firearm or dangerous ordnance. Because there is nothing in the record indicating appellee was relieved from the disability via the mechanism set forth under R.C. 2923.14, he could be charged, as a matter of law, with having a weapon under a disability. We therefore hold the state’s position is well-taken ....

As a postscript, we again emphasize that appellee’s arguments would be better directed at the General Assembly than the judiciary. Although he claims otherwise, accepting appellee’s position would essentially eliminate the plain language of R.C. 2925.01(G)(1) as it relates to the disability statute — an outcome we must obviously avoid in construing statutes. Read plainly, even though R.C. 2925.11(D) does not create a criminal record, minor misdemeanor possession is still a conviction which is premised upon a statutorily-designated drug abuse offense; to wit, marijuana possession. Both appellee and the trial court are correct that the legislature has demonstrated an intent to lessen the impact of such convictions. Still, until the General Assembly specifically excludes an R.C. 2925.11 minor misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction from the purview of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) or R.C. 2925.01(G)(1), it will remain a “drug abuse offense” and consequently a “disability” for purposes of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3).

But nothing in the Stone court’s analysis actually dealt with Stone’s argument that § 2923.13 violates the Second Amendment in this sort of case, and Gex, the precedent that the court relied on, didn’t even discuss the Second Amendment. So while Stone specifically made a constitutional argument to the court, the court seems to have rejected the argument simply on the grounds that Stone’s conduct is covered by the statute — without at all considering the possibility that the statute in this case violates the Constitution. (The court doesn’t say that Stone’s argument is somehow unpreserved because he didn’t raise the Second Amendment question below, so I take it that either Stone did make the argument, or that in Ohio courts the prevailing party below may defend the judgment below on any ground reasonably raised by the record.)

So it seems that the court is concluding that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect people who have even a minor misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction — not a felony, not a violent misdemeanor, not even a misdemeanor that could yield any time at all in jail, and not anything that involves a finding that the defendant is an illegal drug user right now — without at all explaining why this should indeed be so. Strikes me as pretty hard to defend; or am I missing something here?

Teen admits to one, denies second theft of synthetic marijuana

A 17-year-old boy who has denied stealing synthetic marijuana by slipping down the chimney of Chops Leather Shop admitted to a separate breaking and entering offense Monday.

The teenager, of Newark, pleaded admit to one count of breaking and entering, the equivalent of a fifth-degree felony, for stealing 167 packets of synthetic marijuana -- called K2, posh or spice -- and alcohol from the Stop Mart, 413 Mount Vernon Road, on June 19.

The teen threw a rock at a window of the Stop Mart then kicked it until he and a 13-year-old friend could enter, he told Licking County Juvenile Court Judge Robert Hoover.

Newark police responded to an alarm at Stop Mart and found the boys near the creek along Buckingham Street. The younger boy ran away, but the 17-year-old stayed to speak with the officer, according to police reports.

On June 14 or June 15, the 17-year-old is suspected of breaking into Chops Leather Shop, 201 W. Main St., to steal synthetic marijuana and other items. He entered the building through the chimney then let two others in, Hoover said.

He was charged with one count of breaking and entering, the equivalent of a fifth-degree felony. He pleaded deny to that offense Friday.

The other two children have not been charged, Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Lia Meehan said.

Synthetic marijuana can cause seizures, hallucinations, nausea and elevated blood pressure, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, which temporarily banned several chemicals used to produce the substance.

On Friday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed a bill that will ban the sale and possession of synthetic marijuana. It goes into effect 90 days after Friday.

The 17-year-old boy was living in an abandoned building on Mound Court without the permission of the owner when the offenses occurred. He did not want to live with his mother in Newark and was kicked out of his grandparents' house in Coshocton County.

He has a warrant from Muskingum County, where he was found delinquent of gross sexual imposition in a separate case.

The teenager was sent to juvenile detention to await disposition for the Stop Mart break-in, Hoover said.

Three await trial in Green Bay in marijuana-growing case

All but three defendants have pleaded guilty in a federal case against 12 men accused of clear-cutting public forestland to grow marijuana.

Two more defendants pleaded guilty late last week, which means only three defendants are awaiting scheduled jury trials in U.S. District Court in Green Bay.

Raul Juvenal Avila-Rodriguez and Jesus DelaTorre-Avila entered pleas last week. They are scheduled for sentencing Oct. 19. DelaTorre-Avila had been scheduled for trial that was to begin Monday.

Also scheduled for sentencing Oct. 19 are Gustavo Barragon-Mendoza, Armando Adame-Alvarado and Jose Luis Sandoval-Mendoza.

Javier Navarro-Zaragoza is scheduled for sentencing Sept. 7, Jorge Omar Perez-Hipolito for Sept. 12, Salvador Montez-Canchola for Sept. 20 and Uriel Perez-Alijandres for Sept. 26.

Genaro Avila-Rodriguez and Adalbarto Valencia are scheduled for jury trial Sept. 12.

Bernabe Nunez-Guzman, the only suspect from Green Bay and the man regarded by authorities as the organizer of the pot-growing operation, is scheduled for trial Nov. 7.

The criminal complaints do not spell out the roles of the other defendants in the operation.

Only Nunez-Guzman and Valencia were legally in the United States, lawyers in the case have said.

Authorities say the suspects lived in the forest while growing the marijuana, although nine of them were arrested at a home that Nunez-Guzman owned on the western edge of the Oneida Indian Reservation, just east of Seymour, where they dried and prepared the harvested marijuana plants, authorities say.

At all of the sites, the pot growers had hacked down mature trees about 3 feet from the ground.

Marijuana that was planted amid the stumps has been harvested or hauled away by law enforcement agents.

Authorities learned of the grow operations when a hiker came upon one of them in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Authorities put the site under surveillance and learned of the other sites as well as the house the suspects were using near Seymour and a storage garage near Bonduel. Investigators seized weapons, thousands of dollars and hundreds of pounds of dried or drying marijuana.

Confidential informants identified Nunez-Guzman, the former owner of a Green Bay flooring company, as the boss of the operation, according to the criminal complaint. Informants also identified defendant Raul Avila-Rodriguez as the supervisor for the marijuana-drying operations within the Seymour home, which was owned by Nunez-Guzman, the complaint says.

Smoking taking a huge toll on the Irish economy, says Minister

Smoking is costing the Irish economy €365m a year, says Minister of State for Health Róisín Shortall, according to the Irish Times.

Currently, 29 percent of the Irish population smokes, and if that number does not go down, it will cost health services more than €23 billion over the next decade.

“That would pay the entire cost of running our health services for almost two years,” the Minister told the Dáil.

Ms Shortall was introducing the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill, legislation to allow graphic pictorial and text warnings on cigarette packets to illustrate the health consequences of smoking.
Smoking was the “greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in Ireland”, killing more than 5,700 people a year, she said.

The bill would make it obligatory for cigarette and tobacco packets to carry one of 14 images illustrating the health consequences of smoking.

The Minister stressed full color-picture based health warnings on tobacco products.

“Pictorial health warnings on tobacco products make them less attractive and target smokers by providing them with information on tobacco-related health risks," she said.

International research indicates that “smokers are more likely to remember a health consequence of smoking, when smoking, if they have seen a picture."