Industrial Hemp Lawsuit 2007 Timeline

[Respect]

Compiled by Farm & Ranch Guide staff

February 2007 - Producers state Rep. David Monson from Osnabrock and Wayne Hauge from Ray are issued N.D. licenses to grow industrial hemp from the N.D. Department of Agriculture. They also apply for DEA permits to grow industrial hemp. Monson also applies for a license to import live hemp seed. Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson hand-delivers applications to DEA Feb. 13.

March 5 - Johnson writes letter to DEA saying he expects a decision on the applications from DEA in time for spring planting.

April 27 - The N.D. Legislature passes a law where farmers do not have to obtain a DEA permit before growing industrial hemp, declaring a state license is all that is needed.

June 18 - Monson and Hauge file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in an effort to end the DEA's obstruction of commercial hemp farming. The farmers seek a declaration that they cannot be criminally prosecuted for growing industrial hemp under state regulations, now in effect in North Dakota, that ensure cultivated plants have no potential drug value and are grown solely for the production of legal hemp fiber and seed commodities.

July 27 - NDSU sends letter to DEA with facts about industrial hemp and asks the DEA to issue permits to the farmers.


Aug. 20 - DEA files a statement of facts that they won't dispute in the lawsuit and makes a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Sept. 19 - Monson and Hauge attorneys file five affidavits from the two farmers; world reknown scientist Gero Lesom who has done studies on how much THC it takes to induce effects; Randall Fortenberry, Illinois ag economist on markets that are currently out there for industrial hemp and NDSU exhibits.

Sept 19 - Monson and Hauge attorneys file a brief to oppose the DEA's motion to dismiss.


Sept 19 - Monson and Hauge attorneys file motion for summary judgement saying they have “made their case and are ready for the judge's decision.”

Oct. 19 - DEA files an opposition to the motion for summary judgement, maintaining growing hemp is a violation of the Controlled Substances Act and giving the example that it is possible to extract a tiny amount of gold from seaweed so the same could be done with hemp for THC.

Oct. 25 - NDSU, a publicly funded land grant university, files an amicus brief in support of Monson and Hauge.

Oct. 26 - Monson and Hauge attorneys file a response to DEA's opposition to the farmer's motion for summary judgement. DEA files a brief opposing that.

Nov. 14 - Oral arguments to be heard in court in Bismarck, N.D. at 10 a.m.


Source: Farm and Ranch Guide
Copyright: 2007 Farm & Ranch Guide
Contact: mconlon@farmandranchguide.com
Website: Industrial hemp lawsuit 2007 timeline Farm and Ranch Guide: Regional News

[Frog]

Hemp Lawsuit UPDATE: Judge Promises Decision by End of November in Monson v. DEA

BISMARCK, ND (October 29, 2007) — Two North Dakota farmers who filed a lawsuit in June to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the United States were in U.S. District Court on Wednesday, November 14, 2007. The farmers, State Rep. David Monson of Osnabrock and Wayne Hauge of Ray, observed the oral arguments made before Judge Daniel Hovland on their behalf by attorneys Tim Purdon and Joe Sandler.

Judge Hovland stated he had read and re-read the briefs filed by both sides in the landmark case and concluded the hearing by saying, "I promise to make a decision by the end of the month," in regards to the DEA's motion to dismiss. In the meantime, Judge Hovland stayed the farmers' motion for summary judgment, as he felt the motion to dismiss should be dealt with first.

The oral arguments revealed numerous weak points that the DEA is relying on to thwart this landmark case. Their assertion that the farmers didn't have standing because they haven't grown industrial hemp yet was rejected by Judge Hovland when he said 'I am not convinced that the plaintiffs have to expose themselves to prosecution' and reminded Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney Wendy Ertmer, who argued on behalf of the government, that 'this Court has jurisdiction to make a declaratory judgment,' which is what this lawsuit is seeking.

What does all this mean?

Most importantly, the fight to bring back hemp farming is in uncharted waters. There has never been a case like this one. The oral arguments made this week were based on a new set of circumstances made possible by the change of North Dakota's hemp farming law earlier this year. Allowing farmers to get a state-issued license to grow industrial hemp and not be forced to waste their time with the DEA is both rational and legal.

Since Vote Hemp was formed in 2000, we have never been closer to our ultimate goal of bringing back hemp farming in the U.S. Your financial and volunteer support has gotten us where we are now. But your help is still needed to keep the legal fight going, so please make a donation today.

Finally, following the arguments in court, Vote Hemp sponsored a press conference with the farmers. You can watch highlights of the video by clicking here.

About Vote Hemp
Vote Hemp is a national, single-issue, non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for low-THC industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow this agricultural crop. More information about hemp legislation and the crop's many uses may be found on our Web site:

Industrial Hemp Information and Advocacy - Vote Hemp
About the Hemp Industries Association

The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) represents the interests of the hemp industry and encourages the research and development of new hemp products. More information about hemp's many uses and related legislation may be found on our Web site:

HIA: Hemp Industries Association: Industrial Hemp Trade Group, Education & Industry Development

Source: Vote Hemp Alert
Yeah, I'm on a few mailing lists