FREE-Secure-24/7 Access To Your Transcripts and Exhibits

Posts Tagged ‘legal ruling’

Canada’s Legalization Of Marijuana Will Have Implications Across The Border

Posted on: October 29th, 2018 by Sfl Media No Comments

On Oct.17, Canada became the second country in the world to legalize marijuana. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any rules or laws that apply to marijuana smokers, The Washington Post reported.

Canadian law allows people 18 and older to buy marijuana, but some provinces have set a minimum age of 19 to match the drinking age, and Quebec has announced its intentions to raise it to 21.

The new federal law sets a 30-gram limit on how much marijuana people can buy or possess in public. That’s equivalent to about one ounce. In addition, some cities have specific rules that apply to where you can consume your legal lmarijuana.

The legal sale of pot is limited to fresh buds, oil, plants and seeds. Edibles are not available for legal purchase although you can cook and consume them in someone’s home.

Driving under the influence of drugs is illegal, with different penalties in different provinces.

You cannot bring marijuana legally purchased in Canada back into the United States, even if you are bringing it into a U.S. state where marijuana has been legalized. It will be considered both possession and drug smuggling.

Although medical cannabis is legal in 46 states, marijuana is still an illegal substance under federal law. The federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This act does distinguish between medical and recreational use of cannabis. Marijuana laws are used to prosecute people who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of cannabis, according to Americans for Safe Access.

Under federal law, cannabis is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin.. Under the CSA, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means the federal government considers it to be highly addictive and that it has no medical value.

Although doctors can’t “prescribe” cannabis for medical use under federal law, they can “recommend” its use under the First Amendment, ASA said.

Poor Californians Win Right To Court Reporters

Posted on: July 16th, 2018 by Sfl Media No Comments
court reporter

The California Supreme Court has ruled everyone is entitled to a court reporter in that state.

The California Supreme Court has enshrined the right to a private court reporter in civil cases, whether they can afford one or not.

Judges on the court ruled unanimously that everyone is entitled to a verbatim record of their proceeding. The ruling is a reaction to cost-cutting in San Diego County that deprived some civil litigants of the services of a court reporter.

According to Courthouse News Service:

“By precluding an indigent litigant from obtaining the attendance of an official court reporter (to which the litigant would be entitled without payment of a fee), while at the same time preserving the right of financially able litigants to obtain an officially recognized pro tempore court reporter, the challenged court policy creates the type of restriction of meaningful access to the civil judicial process that the relevant California in forma pauperis precedents and legislative policy render impermissible,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote. “Accordingly, we conclude that the court policy in question is invalid as applied to plaintiff and other fee waiver recipients, and that an official court reporter, or other valid means to create an official verbatim record for purposes of appeal, must generally be made available to in forma pauperis litigants upon request.”

The ruling acknowledges the importance of a verbatim record from a qualified court reporter in such issues as appeals.

Michael Shipley, who argued the case before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Barry Jameson, a prison inmate who brought the suit, said, “I practice in state court all the time for nonindigent litigants and we’re all sensitive to the fact that the courts don’t have unlimited amounts of money. But the court was clear that the solution to that problem cannot exist to deny access to justice for poor litigants. Access to justice is a huge civil rights issue and we had 40 different organizations that either filed or joined amicus briefs because this issue was affecting in a negative way all kinds of people’s rights to petition the government for redress of their grievances.”