#Indiana expungement attorney

[gilberrylaw]

Clear your criminal record with the help of Gil Berry. Offering comprehensive expungement services in Indiana, Gil Berry is here to help you move forward with confidence.

[wilsonandkinsman]

Keep your past criminal activity out of the way. Give a Wilson & Kinsman LLP Indiana expungement lawyer a chance to help you clear your record. Expungement enables you to formally seal your records and remove obstructions of your route. Wilson & Kinsman LLP additionally offers a money-back guarantee on expungement services which is beneficial for you. For more information call us at 574-500-2087. 

[dturnerlegal-blog]

DUI Probation and How It Works

After you have been convicted of DUI, the judge sentences you. Most often, you receive a sentence that means you need to serve a specific amount of time behind bars. For a first offense, this might mean spending time in your county jail for several months. However, if you have more than one DUI on your record, the judge may hand down a harsher sentence. This may mean you are sentenced to prison for at least a year. The judge has some leeway in his sentencing requirements. You may be given probation, which means you remain in your community, but you have to live within certain legal restrictions. You will be assigned to a probation officer. When the judge sentences you to probation, it may last from one year up to five years.

After the judge has sentenced you to probation, you must meet with your probation officer at least once a week. Your probation officer is responsible for helping you stay away from alcohol or drugs. To do this, he asks you several questions about your activities and whether you have had anything alcoholic to drink. He has several ways to determine whether you are telling the truth. One way may mean you have to wear an alcohol monitoring device on your body. Your probation officer can tell you to go to alcohol testing. This means you go to a medical lab where you give the lab technician a sample of your urine.

Your probation officer has several rights that allow him to check on what you are doing. These include showing up unannounced at your home or job. Should you visit a bar, get drunk and then drive, your probation officer can tell the judge you have violated probation. The judge can then end your probation and order you to serve the rest of your sentence behind bars. The judge might have given you limited driving privileges that allow you to drive from your home to your job or school. Any violation of this limitation can also lead to your probation officer informing the judge, which makes the penalties you have to serve more severe. When your probation officer gives you an appointment, you have to be there. If you begin missing appointments, he will come looking for you. Unless you have a very good reason for missing a probation appointment, he can file paperwork to have your probation revoked. While these weekly meetings can be inconvenient, it is to your benefit to show up on time for each appointment.See here now can you violate probation and not go to jail

When the judge gives you probation, this is not saying that you are free of all penalties. The judge can limit your driving privileges and order you to pay fines and court costs. He can also order you to attend and participate in an alcohol evaluation and alcohol counseling. You will be ordered to avoid major traffic and criminal violations. Depending on the state in which you live, you may also be ordered to have an interlock device installed on your car. You must blow into this device every time you have to drive. If you have no alcohol in your system, your car will start, but if you do have a detectable amount of alcohol in your system, your car will not start.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Gov. Eric Holcomb said he won't issue blanket pardons for those with state-level charges of possession of marijuana, despite President Joe Biden's request for Governors to do so.

Biden had announced earlier this month that he is pardoning people with such federal convictions, a move that could help more than 6,500 people across the country, and encouraged governors to follow his lead at the state level.

"The President should work with Congress, not around them, to discuss changes to the law federally, especially if he is requesting governors to overturn the work local prosecutors have done by simply enforcing the law," Holcomb said in a statement. "Until these federal law changes occur, I can’t in good conscience consider issuing blanket pardons for all such offenders."

He added that Indiana already provides an opportunity for those with a simple marijuana possession conviction to apply for an expungement, sealing their records.

"I do agree that many of these offenses should not serve as a life sentence after an individual has served their time," Holcomb said. "Expunged convictions cannot be disclosed to employers, to those who grant licenses, or when seeking housing."

Biden has also directed U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland to review whether marijuana should continue to be classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the most dangerous classification, under federal law. That designation is reserved for drugs with no accepted medical use and with a high potential for abuse, on par with drugs such as heroin and LSD.

If that federal designation changes, Indiana's laws could follow suit. Historically, Holcomb has been opposed to the state legalization of marijuana because of its federal designation as a Schedule 1 drug.

In a sign of some hope for weed proponents, an Indiana legislative committee is studying the health benefits and potential decriminalization of THC products, including Delta 8 and Delta 9, and could make recommendations on potential legislation to pursue at the group's next meeting this week.

[nickitynatnat]

Indianapolis Expungement Attorney

The Law Office Of Jesse K.Sanchez 333 N.Alabama ST.#350-358,Indianapolis,In 46204 (317-721-9858)

Indiana State provides a lot of excellent opportunities for those who seek an Indianapolis expungement. If you were once convicted of a crime in Indianapolis, you might want to look into expungement to get rid of your criminal record and clear your name. In order to obtain an expungement, one must be convicted of a crime and then must not be found guilty of the same crime within a specified period of time. The crime must have been reported to the circuit courts, which are local courts in Indiana, in order for the record to be expunged; however, you must be found guilty in the county where you were convicted and present a signed affidavit attesting to this fact before your record can be expunged.

[stidhamlegalattorney]

Stidham Legal Attorney - Expunge Criminal History

Criminal record fixing or expungement can be an extremely gainful cycle for some people. Fixing your criminal record not only helps you reestablish your privileges but also saves you a great deal of pressure from society. It allows you to discover more employment opportunities and permit you to forget a dreadful past. Nonetheless, not everyone knows about their capacity to meet all requirements for this kind of activity.

In case you are attempting to expunge your record, you need to know which violations are covered under expungement and which wrongdoings will remain on your back. Regardless of whether you need to erase your criminal record with the end goal of employment, housing, or get a license, Stidham Legal Attorney is here to help you. Indiana law allows you to expunge your record once in a lifetime and the best way to approach is with the help of an attorney. Stidham Legal  offers a complete solution to expungement at upfront flat fee pricing and assists you through the process from start to finish.

Adult arrests

You should meet certain rules relying upon the level of the conviction related to the adult arrest. For example, for captures just in which the legal case was excused, or someone was vindicated, you should meet the accompanying prerequisites:

You need to wait for at least a year from the date of the capture

Your capture should not have brought about a conviction

The diversion program should not have been completed

No forthcoming charges should be there

Notwithstanding, for significant lawful offenses that require examiner endorsement, you need to stand by, in any event, a long time from the date of the sentence or 5 years from the closing date of your sentence and have no records in the past 10 years. The record will be set apart as erased, however, it can, in any case, be seen by general society.

Violations you can’t expunge

There are few convictions that You cannot expunge from your criminal record. This is the situation for the absolute most genuine wrongdoings, including sex violations, official unfortunate behavior under Indiana Code § 35-44.1-1-1, murder, or have two violations of a lethal weapon offense.

Before you look for expungement for a genuine crime, you ought to talk with a lawyer to decide whether you are qualified. These sorts of violations are not effortlessly erased, however, for what it's worth up to the court to give the solicitation. Your privileges are best shielded by recruiting legitimate insight to direct you through the interaction.

At Stidham Legal, our clients are our top priority, and we help you determine your eligibility before filing the petition. We realize how troublesome it is to survive with a conviction, particularly on the off chance that you did not perpetrate the wrongdoing and were unfairly captured. We advise you in detail of the process of filing expungement and a timeframe. Contact us today for complete details, and we will help you lead a better life with a better future with expungement.

[infinitetapestry]

Vigo County Expungement Lawyer

The Law Office of Jesse K. Sanchez 333 N Alabama St, Ste #350 Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-721-9858

https://jksanchezlaw.com/vigo-county-expungement-attorney/

An experienced Indiana expungement lawyer will be able to guide you through the process and assist you in filing your criminal expungement request. 

[ericfruits]

Removal Services

Monday, July 27, 2020

The Indiana Supreme Court has imposed a 90 day suspension jointly proposed by the Disciplinary Commission and the respondent 

Respondent was arrested for, and later pled guilty to, OWI. As a result of his refusal to comply with Indiana’s implied consent law at the time of his arrest, and later as a result of his conviction, Respondent’s license was suspended from May 2017 until July 2018. Respondent twice drove while his license was suspended. In addition, Respondent’s criminal probation was revoked after he was found in violation for consuming alcohol.

Separately, in December 2016 Respondent entered into an “of counsel” relationship with a Texas law firm, Eastman Meyler d/b/a WipeRecord, which marketed various “criminal record removal services” and similar services. Under this contractual relationship, Eastman Meyler would generate customer leads, enter into representation agreements, and provide all document preparation and processing, customer service, billing, and client management. Respondent was forbidden from negotiating representation agreements with clients and, in most instances, from communicating with clients at all. Further, Respondent was not expected to attend court hearings and had no control over whether or when a pleading was filed. Respondent’s contracted role was limited to reviewing and signing the documents drafted by Eastman Meyler.

Respondent accepted at least 251 cases from Eastman Meyler between December 2016 and June 2018. One of those involved two particular married “Clients” of Eastman Meyler  nominally represented by Respondent. Clients sought an expungement of two criminal matters in Indiana and indicated their request for relief was time-sensitive due to an immigration matter. Clients paid the full contract price to Eastman Meyler. For the next year, Eastman Meyler personnel inadequately communicated with Clients and dragged their feet on performing the contracted-for work. One year after retaining Eastman Meyler, Clients still had not received resolution to their matters. Respondent never communicated with Clients despite the fact he was their attorney of record.

(Mike Frisch)

https://ift.tt/2WZM9Om

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

https://ift.tt/2WZM9Om

[nickitynatnat]

Indiana Expungement Lawyer

The Law Office Of Jesse K.Sanchez 333 N.Alabama ST.#350-358,Indianapolis,In 46204 (317-721-9858)

An Indiana expungement attorney will review your criminal history, including all the felonies and misdemeanors, to see if you qualify to expunge your record. arrests/fines for crimes that didn't result in any criminal conviction (that doesn't include traffic violations, such as running a red light) cannot be expunged. Misdemeanors may be expunged after one (1) year from the date of arrest or disposition. Indictments, searches, seizures, and other records of criminal activity may also be sealed by the Indiana expungement process. Certain sex offenses that occurred in Indiana within two years before your application for a new driver's license, or if you applied for a new license after this period, may also be sealed.

[baldwinperry]

A felony conviction is one of the worst things to possess on your record. Felony convictions on your record can make it hard to seek out employment. if you've got a felony conviction that's having a negative impact on your life, you ought to ask an Indiana Expungement attorney today and see what your options are. Contact us at The Criminal Defense Team to talk to one of our felony Expungement lawyers today.

[douglasacogan]

Notable exploration of criminal justice structures for "emerging adults"

This morning I received an email altering me to a big new report on an interesting modern topic that is focused on a population and a region especially near to me heart.  Here is the text of the email, which provides a link to the nearly 100-page report and a useful overview of its coverage:

Today, Juvenile Law Center released “Rethinking Justice for Emerging Adults: Spotlight on the Great Lakes Region,” a report on criminal justice reforms for young people between the ages of 18 and 24.  The report, funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation, cites new research which shows that these “emerging adults” share many of the same characteristics as teens in the juvenile justice system, yet they are treated very differently.  Emerging adults also represent a disproportionate share of the justice-involved population, accounting for a third of all criminal arrests nationwide.  They also experience the worst racial disparities in incarceration and arrest rates of any age group.

“Racism permeates our criminal justice system at every stage and available data suggests racial and ethnic disparities are worst for those in the emerging adult population,” said Katrina L. Goodjoint, Staff Attorney at Juvenile Law Center and co-author of the report. “In Illinois, 9.4 Black emerging adults are arrested per every white emerging adult. Eliminating mass incarceration and reducing racial disparities necessarily require reforming the justice system’s punitive treatment of emerging adults.”

Juvenile Law Center’s report highlights the need for a new, developmentally appropriate approach to criminal justice involvement for this population.  The report includes research showing that many areas of the law — from new federal tobacco regulations to extended access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act — already recognize and make accommodations for the developmental characteristics of emerging adulthood.  Justice systems around the country have also begun to do the same.  The report describes some of the new initiatives targeted at this population, including:

raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction

youthful offender statutes

diversion programs, young adult courts, and other specialized criminal justice programs for emerging adults

modifications to mandatory sentences and other harsh penalties

expungement of records

expanded access to supports and services��outside the criminal justice system.

“People do not magically transform from children to adults on their 18th birthdays,” said Karen U. Lindell, Senior Attorney at Juvenile Law Center and one of the report’s authors. “Other areas of the law have long recognized that fact — limiting young adults’ abilities to engage in risky activities, like drinking or purchasing firearms, and offering them additional support, like greater health insurance coverage and special education services.  Yet the criminal justice system is just beginning to acknowledge the distinctive needs and characteristics of emerging adults.”

The report released today focuses on the laws and policies affecting emerging adults in six Great Lakes region states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. For each of these states, the report provides a comprehensive overview of the current legal landscape for emerging adults, including available data on justice-involved emerging adults, relevant criminal and juvenile justice statutes, existing criminal justice programs, and other systems serving emerging adults in the state.  By providing an in-depth analysis of the current legal landscape, this report lays the foundation for meaningful criminal justice reform for emerging adults — both in the Great Lakes region and throughout the country.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247011 https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2020/09/notable-exploration-of-criminal-justice-structures-for-emerging-adults.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[apricotlawdsbio-blog]

State Attorney General

State Attorney General: When You’re Facing Criminal Charges, State AG Can Help

 When You’re Facing Criminal Charges, State AG Can Help

Have you been arrested on a criminal charge? Do you want to know how you should go about clearing your name of all charges? If so, State AG can point you in the right direction. Criminal laws vary state by state, so the consequences of your legal troubles will vary depending on where you live in the U.S.

With that being said, you can utilize our database by clicking on the state that you are interested in seeing legal information about.

You can find out what the legal penalties are for the crime you’ve been charged with, find a lawyer through our attorney directory, learn all about tort laws and how to bring a claim against someone who harmed you, and find all sorts of other legal information you need.

 Learn More About Criminal Laws in Your State

  When you’ve just been charged with a crime, or if you are having a legal issue of any kind, State AG is here to help. The state’s attorney general is responsible for overseeing state laws and representing the state in all legal issues. With that in mind, you can think of State AG as your virtual guide for general attorney information.

Our goal is to provide information and resources regarding different areas where individuals like you have struggled with a legal dispute. Whether you’ve been involved in a serious car accident or have been charged with a crime and are looking for information on what you should do next, State AG is here to help.

What State AG Is All About

Dealing with the legal system in any way can be not only confusing, but also burdensome, as it is sure to interfere with your everyday life. We hope to ease your mind by providing you with the resources and answers you’ve been looking for. If you need contact information for local law enforcement and court houses, you can check out our resources.

If you are interested in learning more about a high-profile legal battle you heard about, we’ve got it covered. State AG strives to provide you with numerous legal resources and information at your disposal.

Here Are Some Topics You’ll Find on State AG

At State AG our purpose is to provide informational resources for numerous areas of law including the following:

§  Motor vehicle accidents

§  Divorce

§  Workers compensation

§  Whistleblowing

§  Child custody and support

§  Social security disability

§  Employment discrimination

§  Tax law

§  Bankruptcy

§  Surrogacy

§  Criminal charges

§  Maritime injuries

§  Defective products

§  Spousal support

§  Stockbroker misconduct

§  Premises liability

  Justice for Delores & Alicia: Executing Bill J. Benefiel

 The death penalty is a controversial topic across the United States, but for states that do allow for capital punishment, executions continue to occur. Some would argue that these executions are both necessary and a form of justice—as would be the case for the execution of Bill J. Benefiel.

Benefiel was sentenced to death on November 3, 1988, for the murder of Delores Wells. But there is more to the story than what happened to Delores in the Benefiel house of horrors.

 The Horrors of Benefiel House

 Terre Haute, Indiana: Alicia Elmore, a 17-year-old high school senior, was kidnapped only two blocks from her home by Benefiel. He held her captive for approximately four months where he continually raped and sodomized her, beat her, chained her to a bed, and super-glued her eyelids shut.

A little over three months into her captivity, she discovered Delores Wells, a 19-year-old girl who, as it turns out, had also been kidnapped by Benefiel and held captive for 12 days before killing her. Benefiel killed Delores after beating and raping her by inserting super glue into her nostrils. He pinched her nostrils shut and she later died of asphyxiation.

 He was represented by a defense attorney (such as this criminal defense lawyer in Nashville) and used a not guilty by reason of insanity defense, which was not successful as the jury found him both competent and guilty of the murder of Delores Wells and sentenced him to death.

 Death by Lethal Injection

 Benefiel was executed on April 21st, 2005, at 12:35am by lethal injection. He spent the day watching television and was visited only by his attorney. His final meal consisted of four pints of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, a large pizza, an Italian beef sandwich, twelve cans of soda, and an apple pie.

 As a death row inmate of Indiana State Prison, he was asked if he had any final words, to which he replied, “No, let’s get this over with. Let’s do it.” Dolores Well’s mother, Marge Hagan, went to the prison for the execution but was not there to witness it. Hagan said, “He was there for her last breath, and I want to be there for his. I want to be as close as I can and know for sure this monster is gone and he will never, ever again hurt anyone else ever again.”

  New York Marijuana Laws

 As marijuana reform continues to happen across the United States, despite the fact that marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, New York State has taken steps to make marijuana available to those who are interested in using it for medicinal and recreational uses in recent years. 

 Continue reading to learn more about New York’s medical marijuana laws and the most recent decriminalization if marijuana possession that was put into effect in the summer months of 2019.

 Medical Marijuana Laws in NY

  For nearly five years, New York has been a place where patients with serious medical conditions could legally consume and purchase marijuana products. However, the ability to actually go to a medical marijuana dispensary in NY wasn’t a possibility until more than 18 months later. 

 These days, if a patient has been prescribed medical marijuana, they can go to any medical marijuana dispensary to purchase various types of marijuana products without any legal ramifications. It should be noted that New York medical marijuana laws prohibit marijuana users to consume their marijuana products through smoking.

 2019 Decriminalization and Recreational Use

 Though the state made efforts to make weed legal for recreational use in 2019, they were not successful. The state was able to decriminalize the possession of marijuana and is on track to legalize marijuana entirely in the coming years, though.

 Lawmakers have discussed age requirements (21 years +) for the purchase of recreational marijuana and have stated that once marijuana is legalized, users will need to adhere to the same non-smoking policies as those who smoke cigarettes. This means they will not be able to smoke in public places without facing a fine.

When marijuana became officially decriminalized in June 2019, anyone in possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana can only be fined, but not arrested for possession. 

 As part of the law, all minor marijuana convictions, meaning those that consist of individuals convicted of having 25 grams or less of marijuana on their person, have since been immediately expunged. This means that those whose criminal records have previously reflected criminal convictions will no longer have this looming over them when they consent to a background check.

New York still has a long way to go when it comes to marijuana reform, but with legislators listening to what the people want, backed with scientific evidence of the benefits of marijuana use for select individuals, it is only a matter of time before New York legalizes marijuana for recreational use as well.

   Penalties for Drug Crimes in Illinois

 Being arrested and charged with a crime involving drugs can have a lasting impact on your life, no matter what drug is involved or where you live in the U.S. 

However, with a number of states decriminalizing marijuana, and even psychoactive mushrooms in some cities, it is easy to be confused in some instances with what the penalties for a drug crime are, especially considering the fact that these previously mentioned drugs and countless others are still federally recognized as being illegal. 

 After receiving several write-in requests from Illinois residents, we’re going to go over the consequences of a drug crime conviction in Illinois, specifically so these individuals, and anyone else in the area, can have a better understanding of what penalties are associated with Illinois drug crimes.

 Misdemeanors

 Illinois has some of the most strict laws when it comes to drug crimes, and most types of drug crimes are considered felonies, as opposed to misdemeanors. Generally speaking, if you have been charged with a misdemeanor drug crime, it most likely has to do with marijuana possession. 

First time offenders in possession of less than 30 grams of weed will face a maximum of one year in jail and fines of up to $2,500, a class A misdemeanor. Those with less than 10 grams in their possession will be subject to six months in jail and fines not to exceed $1,500, class B or C misdemeanors. Every other type of possession charge that involves another drug is considered a felony.

 Felonies

 The sale, manufacture, or cultivation of any drug is subject to a felony charge. Often, “the type of drug, whether you were selling it, trafficking it, or growing it, and how much is on your person will all have an impact on which class of felony you’ll be charged with,” says one Chicago drug lawyer. 

For example, the intent to “traffic” even as little as one gram of cocaine could result in a Class 1 felony charge, which is punishable by a maximum of 15 years in prison, and fines of as much as $25,000. 

 Life After Conviction

 In addition to dealing with the legal consequences that come with a drug crime conviction, you’ll also have to deal with the impact the conviction has had on your life. Many convicted felons are unable to find a good job, affordable housing, or be approved for student loans, not to mention the damage that was likely done to your personal and professional reputation. 

In any case, understanding the devastating effects a drug crime conviction can have on your life should give you pause if you have a relationship with drugs, in any type of way.

  The Brooklyn “Dollar Van” High Speed Chase

 A December 2018 police chase in Brooklyn has since gone viral after video footage in the so-called “dollar van” was shared by passengers. Dollar vans will typically operate illegally in NYC, but in some cases, they are regulated by the city. Interestingly, in this case, it is unknown whether this particular dollar van is illegitimate. 

 Passengers traveling on the van began panicking after the driver ran a red light and almost hit a pedestrian, right in front of a New York City sheriff’s deputy! There were several elderly passengers on the van, as well as an infant that was being cradled by her mother throughout the chase. The dollar van proceeded to make wild turns, nearly hitting a parked red car while traveling the wrong way down a one way street. 

 But, the story gets even more interesting. Eventually, when the man pulled over, he hopped out of the van and took off running. As police continued after him on foot, a passenger in the dollar van saw an opportunity to grab a large wad of cash that was, presumably, the driver’s. She then is seen on the video giving one passenger some of the money while another pleads with her to leave the money alone. She then claims that she knows the driver and he is her brother. 

 Despite the high speed chase and pursuit of the suspect on foot, the police have so far been unable to apprehend him, close to six months later. One traffic ticket attorney in NYC said, “If he is caught, he will surely face criminal charges for his actions including possible jail time, have his license suspended or revoked, and face other severe legal ramifications.” It doesn’t appear that the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and he did not communicate with the passengers pleading with him to slow down and pull over. 

 The lack of information about this case, considering all of its unique elements, is intriguing. Why is the status of the dollar van’s regulation still being called into question? Did the woman taking the money actually know the driver, and as her brother? Was she brought in for questioning? What happened to the van itself? And most importantly, who is this mysterious, dangerous driver? The answers to these questions should be carefully investigated in order to determine this individual’s identity so he can be apprehended. 

[fullspectrum-cbd-oil]

Trump, Democrats to Address Criminal Justice Reforms at South Carolina Forum

Republican President Donald Trump and his top Democratic rivals for the White House in November 2020 will take part in a forum on criminal justice reform at a historically black South Carolina college this weekend.

The forum, at Benedict College, in Columbia, is aimed at tackling the next steps in reforming the U.S. criminal justice system after Trump last year signed bipartisan legislation that instituted a number of changes, including easing harsh minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

Trump is addressing the forum as a keynote speaker on Friday, when the topic is, “The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform.” Former Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and seven other Democratic contenders will present their criminal justice plans over the weekend.

Here is a look at the criminal justice platforms for the highest polling Democrats in the 18-candidate field, as well as Trump’s record during his first term in office.

Donald Trump

The Republican president signed into law the First Step Act, which reduced mandatory minimum sentences, required officials to try to place inmates in prisons near family, expanded drug treatment programs for prisoners and parolees, and allowed some federal prisoners to finish their sentences early with good behavior.

The measure expanded a 2010 law that reduced higher penalties for possession of crack cocaine, used more by the poor and minorities, than for powder cocaine, used more by the wealthy and middle class. It also expanded programs to help at-risk youth and banned the use of restraints for prisoners who are pregnant or post-partum.

At the behest of celebrity Kim Kardashian West, Trump commuted the sentence of Alice Johnson, who had spent 21 years behind bars for a non-violent drug offense.

Joe Biden

Biden, who served as vice president under former U.S. President Barack Obama, has proposed eliminating prison sentences for drug use, decriminalizing marijuana and eliminating sentencing disparities for offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine. He also would eliminate the death penalty. He would end mandatory sentencing that takes discretion away from judges, eliminate private prisons and end the federal system of cash bail, under which defendants who cannot afford to pay must await trial in jail.

Biden also has pledged to reform the juvenile justice system, including keeping youths from being incarcerated with adults. He would end incarceration for children who drink or engage in other behaviors that would be legal if they were older, such as truancy or curfew violations. He would work to eliminate barriers for felons re-entering society from prison, including restrictions on allowing them to receive food stamps, educational Pell grants and housing support.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, says the criminal justice system is harshly punitive, locks up too many people and is stacked against the poor and disadvantaged, as well as against African-Americans and Latinos.

She has called for increasing social services that help young people stay out of prison, decriminalizing truancy and relying on counselors and teachers rather than police officers in schools. Warren has vowed to push to repeal the 1994 crime bill, which imposed harsh sentences on major and minor crimes alike and removed much of the discretion judges have in deciding who should be incarcerated and for how long.

She would legalize marijuana at the federal level and erase past convictions for the drug. Like several other Democrats, she would eliminate the differences in sentencing for powder versus crack cocaine. Warren would eliminate the cash bail system, under which defendants who are affluent enough to afford bail do not have to remain in jail pending their trials.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, would push to enact numerous progressive reforms of the criminal justice system, including banning for-profit prisons, abolishing the death penalty and tightening rules and penalties for police misconduct.

He would end the system of requiring cash bail for defendants to avoid jail before they are convicted, a system he believes leads to locking up the poor at greater rates than the wealthy. Sanders’ “justice and safety” plan would also end so-called “three strikes and you’re out” laws, which mandate life sentences for people convicted of more than two felonies, even if the third crime is a relatively minor offense.

Sanders says he will change the way police officers are deployed and trained, bringing in social workers or conflict negotiators to defuse potentially dangerous situations and mandating criminal charges against officers who engage in misconduct that results in a violation of someone’s civil rights.

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, would end prison sentences for drug possession and expand diversion programs aimed at keeping people with mental health and drug problems out of the criminal justice system.

Buttigieg has pledged to eliminate racial inequities in jails and prisons, and improve rehabilitation services. He would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, which take discretion from judges in imposing prison terms, and establish a clemency commission to commute sentences of people the commission believes have been incarcerated for too long.

Along with his Democratic rivals, Buttigieg would eliminate private prisons and end the system of cash bail. He also opposes imprisoning people or suspending their drivers licenses for failing to pay fines and court costs.

Kamala Harris

Harris, a U.S. senator from California, would restrict the legal use of deadly force by police, end the incarceration of juveniles in adult prisons and legalize marijuana at the federal level.

Her proposals are part of a criminal justice platform that Harris says must hold wrongdoers accountable without veering toward what she calls an unjust system of mass incarceration and arrest that has harmed communities of color and the poor. Harris, a former district attorney and state attorney general, has pledged to end the use of private prisons and seek to improve efforts to rehabilitate violent offenders.

Harris favors restricting the use of deadly force by police officers by allowing them to shoot subjects only when “necessary,” rather than allowing it when “reasonable,” the current standard in many states.

Andrew Yang

Yang, a businessman, would end the use of for-profit prisons. He would review sentencing laws to bring prison terms in line with what data shows are effective. He also would realign drug policy so that treatment is emphasized rather than punishment.

Yang has vowed to investigate racial disparities in the criminal justice system and to better fund programs aimed at reducing recidivism and aiding re-entry to society for people who have completed their terms.

Beto O’Rourke

The former congressman from Texas believes the country’s current criminal justice system is “built on structural racism,” leading people of color to be disproportionately incarcerated. The roots of mass incarceration can be found in an economy that leaves black families poorer, less likely to have good medical coverage and more broadly disadvantaged than whites, O’Rourke says.

Like most of his Democratic rivals, O’Rourke says as president he would decriminalize marijuana, end the system of cash bail and ban the use of private and for-profit prison systems. He would increase funding for public defenders, the lawyers who provide legal services for people who cannot afford to defend themselves when accused of crimes. O’Rourke has also promised to improve rehabilitation and re-entry programs for people who have been incarcerated.

Amy Klobuchar

Klobuchar, a U.S. senator from Minnesota, has built her criminal justice proposals around a call for a stronger system of granting clemency for people who have been convicted of crimes. Pointing to inmates who were sentenced to life terms for first-time drug offenses and others who were unfairly incarcerated, she says she would create a clemency advisory board and a position of adviser in the White House on criminal justice issues.

Klobuchar, a former prosecutor, would also further reform the system of requiring mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences were encoded in law as part of “tough-on crime” efforts in the 1980s and 1990s. They are believed to have resulted in a ballooning of the U.S. prison population and had a disproportionate effect on defendants of color. Klobuchar also has called for reforming the cash bail system.

Cory Booker

Booker, a U.S. senator from New Jersey, would extend clemency to inmates convicted of non-violent drug offenses, continuing an effort to shorten such sentences that he began as a lawmaker. Booker also would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level and expunge the records of people convicted of cannabis-related crimes.

He would end mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. He would eliminate sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, noting that harsher sentences for crack cocaine disproportionately affect defendants of color.

Like many of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Booker has decried the War on Drugs, saying it has led the United States to incarcerate more of its people than any other nation and has particularly harmed minority and disadvantaged communities. Booker, who is African-American, would ban employers from asking whether job-seekers had ever been arrested as an initial question on an employment application.

Tulsi Gabbard

Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, vows to reform the U.S. criminal justice system by seeking alternatives to incarceration, legalizing marijuana and banning private prisons, positions that are similar to those held by the leading Democratic candidates.

She has current laws, noting that the United States locks up people for smoking marijuana but did not bring criminal charges against Purdue Pharma, which makes the opioid drug OxyContin at the center of the deadly U.S. opioid epidemic.

Tom Steyer

Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager and political activist, reflects the views of most progressive Democrats on criminal justice. He decries the prison system as racist and promises to work to eliminate private prisons, end cash bail and reduce the prison population.

He supports better training to reduce police brutality and more funding for public defenders. Steyer also has vowed to improve rehabilitation and workforce readiness programs for those in prison so they can better integrate into society once they are released. He supports the legalization of marijuana.

Julian Castro

Castro, a former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, and secretary of Housing and Urban Development under former President Barack Obama, would legalize marijuana and expunge the records of those previously convicted of using the drug. He would end the death penalty and make it no longer a crime to enter the United States by crossing its border without permission.

In his “People First Policing Plan,” Castro says he would “end over-aggressive policing and combat racially discriminatory policing,” in part by banning the use of deadly force unless there is an imminent threat to human life.

Castro would end the use of private prisons. He would raise the age to be considered a juvenile offender from 18 to 21 and develop community programs aimed at preventing young people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place. He would eliminate the use of mandatory minimum sentencing, returning discretion to judges.

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Dan Grebler)

from IJR https://ift.tt/368yeZl via IFTTT

[maxwellyjordan]

Relist Watch

John Elwood reviews first Monday’s relists.

The beginning of October Term 2019 finds the Supreme Court once again mired in controversy about basic workplace protections. While the world may be losing its collective mind about important issues, I get to focus on the calming mundanity of compiling relists for the ninth straight term — beginning in such a distant past that I hyphenated the then-unfamiliar term “Re-list.”

We have a dozen relists out of the long conference — down from last year’s 17 relists, but twice the modest number from that conference during October Term 2017. The high number of relists may have something to do with the low number of grants out of the long conference — just five, consolidated into three arguments. On that note: Once again this year I will be subjecting you to my version of phrenology, namely the pseudo-science of tracking the distribution dates of the successful cases from the long conference. Two years ago I postulated, based on three terms’ statistics, that successful petitions were disproportionately distributed later in the summer, which I grandiosely called (using a phrase that already has another meaning) “The September Effect.” Although last term’s long-conference grants didn’t cooperate, this year’s sure did: All five grants were distributed during the second week of September. And as you’ll see below, the long-conference relists this year (unlike last term’s) also tended to be distributed later — the sole June or early July distribution had been previously distributed in April.

Because of the large number of relists, and the press of paying work, my case summaries will be fairly, well, summary. We begin with something it seems odd to have this early in a brand-new term: returning relists. Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019, involving whether a state may constitutionally require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion, was relisted three times last spring and is back to clock its fourth relist.

The second returning case will be familiar to Supreme Court-watchers: Gundy v. United States, 17-6086, in which the court decided last term (by a splintered 4-1-3 vote) that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the attorney general in 34 U.S.C. Section 20913(d) does not violate the constitutional nondelegation doctrine. Gundy has sought rehearing, arguing that his challenge may have fallen short only because Justice Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been seated at the time of argument and did not participate in the case. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch concluded that SORNA violated the nondelegation doctrine, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law satisfied current doctrine, but said, “If a majority of this Court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort.” Gundy is hoping Kavanaugh will be the fifth vote to grant him relief. It’s very unusual for a rehearing petition to be relisted, but it seems unlikely that Gundy will get relief unless the court calls for a response from the United States. After all, Supreme Court Rule 44 provides that, “[i]n the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response.”

Department of Homeland Security v. Ibrahim, 18-1509, involves Rahinah Ibrahim’s long-running litigation — the statement of facts in the government’s petition runs 18 pages — over her erroneous presence on the government’s “No Fly List.” After years of litigation and repeated trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, a federal district court held that Ibrahim, a citizen of Malaysia then in a Stanford Ph.D. program, had her due process rights violated when her name was “brief[ly] and inadvertent[ly] place[d] on the No Fly List,” and ordered equitable relief. The district court then awarded Ibrahim some attorney’s fees as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, but denied additional fees on the ground that the government had not acted in bad faith. The en banc 9th Circuit held by an 8-3 vote that the district court had clearly erred in finding that the government had not engaged in bad-faith conduct, pointing to a series of considerations it concluded would “support a bad faith finding.” The government seeks review.

In the old days of paper filings, the court clerk in Cook County, Illinois, made newly filed paper complaints available to reporters as they were filed. After electronic filing started, the clerk’s office would print out hard copies and make them available. But in 2015, the clerk stopped that practice, so reporters could not access complaints until they were posted online, usually later on the day of filing but sometimes not until the next business day. A news service brought suit in federal court, arguing that the clerk’s actions violated the First Amendment by denying the reporters prompt access to court documents. The clerk argued that the court should abstain under Younger v. Harris. The district court declined to abstain. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit disagreed, writing:

[I]n our court and apparently in the Supreme Court, as well, the clerks’ offices undertake certain administrative processing before a filing is made publicly available, giving our practices a similarity to the practices in state court challenged in this case. That fact would make it unusual, and perhaps even hypocritical, for us to order a state court clerk to provide such instant access on the basis of the same Constitution that applies to federal courts. Adhering to the principles of equity, comity, and federalism, we conclude that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over this case.

In Courthouse News Service v. Brown, 18-1203, the news service seeks to revisit that decision, arguing that the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 9th Circuits have reached contrary conclusions.

On the criminal side, two cases present the question of what showing a prisoner must make before he is entitled to habeas relief because of the risk that his Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement might have been imposed under the act’s residual clause, which the Supreme Court held was unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Levert v. United States, 18-1276, and Ziglar v. United States, 18-9343, ask whether a prisoner is entitled to relief when the record is silent as to whether he may have been sentenced based on the residual clause or whether he bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he was sentenced based solely on the residual clause.

If the facts of Isom v. Arkansas, 18-9517, appeared in a Law and Order script, it would be sent back for rewrite on the ground of implausibility. Sam Pope, as an elected prosecutor in Arkansas, brought burglary and theft charges against Kenneth Isom three times in just over a year; Isom was acquitted of two charges and found guilty of a third. After Isom was released on parole, Pope unsuccessfully asked the governor to rescind Isom’s parole and return Isom to prison. Pope later presided as the judge at Isom’s murder case, at which Isom was convicted and sentenced to death. Pope, denying calls for his recusal, then presided over the coram nobis proceedings in which Isom argued he was entitled to relief because of Brady v. Maryland violations. When the Arkansas Supreme Court denied relief, one dissenting justice argued that the record reflects “special animus that … Pope held towards Mr. Isom.” Before the Supreme Court, Isom argues that Pope’s significant adversarial history toward him created an unconstitutional risk of bias under the due process clause that required Pope’s recusal.

By contrast, if the facts of Guerin v. Fowler, 18-1545, appeared in a Law and Order script, it would be sent back on the ground that it was way too dull. And also probably because it doesn’t involve any crime. The director of the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems argues that the 9th Circuit erred in holding that pensioners have a right to accrue interest on a daily basis, and also argues that an injunction to transfer money to compensate them was an award of money damages barred by the 11th Amendment. So although the case may involve meaty legal issues, it’s not exactly ready for prime time.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act prevents a prisoner from filing or appealing a federal civil action in forma pauperis (which allows the prisoner to pay filing fees over time) if they have filed three or more federal civil actions or appeals that were dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim for relief under applicable law. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 18-8369, involves a narrow question about which there is an acknowledged circuit split: whether dismissals under Heck v. Humphrey, which bars civil suits about convictions that have not been reversed, expunged or declared invalid, count as “strikes” under the PLRA. Colorado state prisoner Arthur Lomax filed the petition pro se, but experienced D.C. appellate counsel arrived in time to file the reply brief.

Swaney v. Lopez, 18-1162, is yet another case on the Supreme Court’s qualified-immunity docket. The case involves claims that correctional officers are liable for disregarding two prisoners’ medical symptoms. The 9th Circuit denied qualified immunity to the officers, saying they clearly violated established law by denying medical care to prisoners exhibiting serious symptoms of pain or disease. The officers seek review, arguing that there is a circuit split on whether the facts alleged constitute deliberate indifference.

Last of all, both Terry v. Oklahoma, 18-8801, and McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18-9526, present another question familiar to Supreme Court-watchers: Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. Section 1151(a). The court heard argument on that issue last term in Sharp v. Murphy, but did not resolve it. Late last term, the court ordered Murphy restored to the calendar for reargument, which has not yet been scheduled. [Disclosure: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Murphy.]

That’s all for this week. We’ll be back next week, hopefully with a shorter list. Thanks to me for compiling the cases because of a glitch at work.

Returning Relists

Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019 Issue: Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion. (relisted after the May 9, May 16, May 23 and October 1 conferences)

Gundy v. United States, 17-6086 Issue: Whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Attorney General in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine. (relisted after the October 1 conference)

New Relists

Swaney v. Lopez, 18-1162 Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when a divided panel of that court denied qualified immunity to correctional officers notwithstanding the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 7th Circuits’ authority making clear that the correctional officers’ conduct did not violate prisoners’ constitutional rights, and absent any contrary authority clearly establishing otherwise. (distributed during the fourth week of July; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Courthouse News Service v. Brown, 18-1203 Issue: Whether Younger v. Harris and its progeny permit federal courts to abstain, on the basis of general principles of comity and federalism, from hearing First Amendment challenges that seek access to state court filings. (distributed during the third week of April and, after a response was called for and received, the second week of June; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Levert v. United States, 18-1276 Issue: Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant pursuing a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is entitled to relief under a retroactive constitutional decision invalidating a federal statutory provision, when the record is silent as to whether the district court based its original judgment on that provision or another provision of the same statute. (distributed during the fourth week of July; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Department of Homeland Security v. Ibrahim, 18-1509 Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in vacating the district court’s finding of no bad faith in the government’s conduct in this novel litigation brought by a foreign national living outside the United States, asserting a due process right to challenge her presence on the No Fly List and other government lists and databases. (distributed during the fourth week of August; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Guerin v. Fowler, 18-1545 Issues: (1) Whether, if a state’s statutorily created pension system allows government employees to transfer their accumulated pension contributions into a different pension plan, the employees have a constitutional right to a particular method for calculating interest on the contributions at the time of transfer; and (2) whether the 11th Amendment provides a state immunity from a claim in federal court for money damages, when the claim is framed as a request for an injunction ordering the state to provide compensation to plaintiffs. (distributed during the second week of September; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 18-8369 Issue: Whether prior Heck v. Humphrey dismissals without prejudice are strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (distributed during the third week of July; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Terry v. Oklahoma, 18-8801 Issue: Whether the boundaries established in the Treaty of February 23, 1867, for the eight tribes within the former Indian Territory of northeastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C § 1151(a). (distributed during the fourth week of August; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Ziglar v. United States, 18-9343 Issue: Whether the court of appeals correctly affirmed the denial of Joe Ziglar’s motion to vacate his sentence based on Johnson v. United States, when the district court found that Ziglar had failed to show that he was sentenced under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, which was invalidated in Johnson, as opposed to the ACCA’s still-valid enumerated-offenses clause. (distributed during the first week of September; relisted after the October 1 conference)

Isom v. Arkansas, 18-9517 Issue: Whether Sam Pope and Kenneth Isom’s significant adversarial history created an unconstitutional risk of bias under the due process clause when Pope later sat as the trial judge in Isom’s unrelated coram nobis hearing. (distributed during the fourth week of August; relisted after the October 1 conference)

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18-9526 Issue: Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. (distributed during the first week of September; relisted after the October 1 conference)

The post Relist Watch appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/relist-watch-150/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[blockheadbrands]

There Are 420 Days Left Until The 2020 Presidential Election

Adam Drury of High Times Reports:

Nine Democratic presidential candidates have qualified for the third debate. With 420 days until election night, here’s your rundown of where they stand on the issue of cannabis.

If you’re counting down the 2020 presidential election, today marks an important milestone on the campaign trail, with 420 days left until it’s time to cast your ballot. And if, like many Americans, you’re making marijuana policy reform a priority next year, as in finally making marijuana legal across the United States, you probably want to know where each presidential candidate stands on the issue of cannabis.

Under pressure from voters and progressive rivals with strong records of supporting marijuana legalization, many Democratic presidential candidates are revising their past views on cannabis. Some are evolving so quickly it can be tough to keep up. So with 420 days left until the 2020 presidential election, here’s a snapshot of where all the top contenders currently stand.

Cannabis is a Defining Issue for Democratic Presidential Candidates

On the issue of cannabis reform, the Democratic party has moved decisively to the left, with most top candidates calling for full nationwide legalization. But there are some holdouts who favor decriminalization over legalization, and a few who have been relatively quiet on the cannabis question.

Bernie Sanders: Bernie is 420’s Best Friend

Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has the most progressive and pro-cannabis presidential platform of any of the 2020 candidates. Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, wants to legalize marijuana nationwide. He wants to erase marijuana convictions. And he wants cannabis businesses to be able to finally work with federally-insured banks.

Sen. Sanders, indisputably one of the top three contenders for the Democratic nomination for president, even has an A+ rating from NORML, going back to 2015. For years, Sanders has sponsored a number of cannabis reform bills, including the Marijuana Justice Act, during his tenure in the Senate.

Sanders’ 420-friendly campaign platform isn’t just about weed. His strong stance on cannabis legalization is part of a broader criminal justice reform plan to end the war on drugs, invest in drug treatment centers and support medical cannabis research. And yes, Sanders has inhaled.

Elizabeth Warren: Evolving on Marijuana

In the press, on social media and in her public appearances, Massachusetts Senator and 2020 Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has stated she supports cannabis legalization. Some of her strongest comments in favor of legalizing cannabis nationwide came in April during a CNN town hall.

But on Warren’s campaign website, the word “marijuana” appears only once, in a paragraph on criminal justice reform. Criminal justice reform “means comprehensive sentencing reform and rewriting our laws to decriminalize marijuana,” Warren’s website reads. Legalization and decriminalization are two completely different policies, and it’s so far unclear which approach a President Warren would adopt.

Under pressure from progressive rivals and a voter base largely in favor of legal cannabis, Warren has tried to make her past record on marijuana reform look stronger than it is. Prior to 2016, Warren opposed general legalization and hesitantly expressed openness to legal medical cannabis. Recently, however, her views on cannabis seem to have shifted. But Warren doesn’t have the record or the consistency that Sanders has on the marijuana issue, despite her public statements.

Joe Biden: Drug War Architect

Joe Biden, whom many polls indicate is leading the pack of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, has carved out a unique position on cannabis. According to Biden’s official campaign website, his platform would decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior cannabis use convictions. Biden’s platform also calls for legalizing cannabis for medical purposes and giving states leeway to set their own laws regarding recreational use. Biden would also reclassify cannabis as a Schedule II controlled substance, which would make it much easier for researchers to study.

Despite these views, however, marijuana policy reform advocates aren’t lining up behind Biden. And they’re pointing to his record as the reason why not. For decades, Biden has stood sharply opposed to marijuana legalization. He once tried to pass a bill criminalizing raves. Marijuana policy experts also broadly recognize Biden as the architect of the modern war on drugs. Some even consider Biden more out of step on cannabis than President Trump.

Kamala Harris: From Cop to Marijuana Justice Co-Sponsor

In recent years, Kamala Harris’ stance on marijuana has evolved significantly. In fact, it was as recently as 2018 that the U.S. Senator from California came out in favor of federal cannabis legalization and comprehensive expungement. Most recently, Harris signed on to the MORE Act, a huge bill that would legalize marijuana and allocate federal funds to support entrepreneurs of color in the cannabis industry.

But like other 2020 presidential hopefuls, Harris has been pushed left from rivals with more progressive platforms. And her record on cannabis is anything but 420-friendly. In fact, that record came under attack in a viral moment from the first debate when Tulsi Gabbard zoomed in on the thousands of people Harris locked up for minor cannabis offenses when she was California attorney general. In the past, Harris has adopted much of the lock-em-up mentality of the war on drugs. Now, as a candidate for president, her views have completely reversed.

Pete Buttigieg: Banned Synthetic Cannabinoids

Pete Buttigieg is mayor of South Bend, Indiana and polling just behind Harris at about 5 percent among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. But unlike many of his rivals in the field, Buttigieg has yet to outline a clear stance on cannabis. Mayor Pete likes to tell a story about a close call with police when he was smoking a joint during his Harvard days, and he connects that tale to statements about privilege and racial disparities in drug enforcement.

Indeed, Buttigieg views reforming failed drug policies as a social justice issue. His public statements and social media posts all appear to support marijuana reform, including legalization. But in terms of direct policy proposals, Buttigieg comes up empty, both as a mayor and a presidential candidate. Buttigieg’s campaign website doesn’t mention marijuana. And as South Bend mayor, he signed no legislation dealing with cannabis (but he did sign a bill banning the sale of synthetic cannabinoids).

Andrew Yang: “I Don’t Love Marijuana”

Andrew Yang has distinguished his campaign platform with a call for universal basic income. But his views on cannabis line up with other candidates who want to end the war on drugs and legalize cannabis. Yang’s official campaign website proposes a three-point marijuana reform policy package.

First, Yang says he will support the full legalization of marijuana at the federal level and remove it from the controlled substances list. Second, Yang’s platform calls for expunging federal marijuana use or possession offenses. And third, Yang wants to identify non-violent drug offenders for probation and even early release.

Adopting a more personal note, Yang says he doesn’t love marijuana and prefers people don’t use it heavily. But he still thinks the current criminalization of cannabis is “stupid and racist” and believes the only path is to proceed with full legalization.

Cory Booker: All About Restorative Justice

Since 2017, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has been the chief proponent of the Marijuana Justice Act, a comprehensive reform bill that would legalize cannabis nationwide, expunge criminal records and invest in communities impacted most by the war on drugs. In his public appearances, Booker emphasizes the need not just to legalize cannabis but to also repair and rebuild the damage caused by criminalizing it.

But on Cory Booker’s official 2020 campaign website, you won’t find any mention of legalizing marijuana. Instead, Booker’s criminal justice platform calls for decriminalizing marijuana, expunging records and restoring justice to individuals and communities that have been devastated by the drug war. Booker hasn’t clearly addressed the discrepancy between his public support for legalization and his website’s call for decriminalization. In the past, when Booker hasn’t supported marijuana bills, it has been because they haven’t been strong enough on restorative justice.

Beto O’Rourke: Long-Time Legalization Supporter

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke‘s official campaign platform calls for the federal government to end its prohibition on cannabis. But it doesn’t clarify whether that prohibition should end with decriminalization or full legalization. In an email sent to supporters of his 2020 presidential bid, however, O’Rourke called for federal cannabis legalization as part of a package of sweeping criminal justice reforms.

Like other justice Democrats, O’Rourke is framing marijuana legalization as a way to reduce mass incarceration. It’s a way of presenting the issue that connected strongly with Texas voters, winning O’Rourke election to El Paso City Council and bringing him close to flipping Ted Cruz’ senate seat blue. O’Rourke has a record of consistently supporting progressive drug policy and cannabis legalization.

Julián Castro: Legalize Then Expunge

On the campaign trail, Julián Castro has consistently expressed support for progressive marijuana through the lens of criminal justice reform. Instead of drawing attention to legalization alone, Castro has stressed the need for criminal record expungement and responsible regulation. On other occasions, Castro has been more direct, tweeting after one town hall “Legalize it. Then expunge the records of folks who are in prison for marijuana use.” Typically, expungements apply to people who have already served their sentences, and Castro hasn’t clarified whether he supports amnesty for marijuana offenses or simply misspoke.

Despite public statements and social media posts calling for legalization, Castro’s official campaign website doesn’t outline a definite stance on cannabis policy. So it’s unclear exactly what Castro would pursue at the federal level as president.

Castro has just one federal drug policy action on his record. In 2014, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for President Barack Obama, Castro released a memo reminding owners of federal housing facilities that they are required to deny entry to anyone using marijuana, even if they do so legally under state law, such as for medical reasons.

420 Days Until the Most Important Vote of 2020

United States voters’ growing consensus on the issue of marijuana legalization means cannabis could be a make or break issue for the 2020 primaries. Marijuana policy is front and center in the national conversation, and shifts in federal drug laws will shape and define the legal cannabis industry and our criminal justice system for years to come.

TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE ON HIGH TIMES, CLICK HERE.

https://hightimes.com/news/there-are-420-days-left-until-the-2020-presidential-election/

[weedconsortium2]

If you’re counting down the 2020 presidential election, today marks an important milestone on the campaign trail, with 420 days left until it’s time to cast your ballot. And if, like many Americans, you’re making marijuana policy reform a priority next year, as in finally making marijuana legal across the United States, you probably want to know where each presidential candidate stands on the issue of cannabis.

Under pressure from voters and progressive rivals with strong records of supporting marijuana legalization, many Democratic presidential candidates are revising their past views on cannabis. Some are evolving so quickly it can be tough to keep up. So with 420 days left until the 2020 presidential election, here’s a snapshot of where all the top contenders currently stand.

Cannabis is a Defining Issue for Democratic Presidential Candidates

On the issue of cannabis reform, the Democratic party has moved decisively to the left, with most top candidates calling for full nationwide legalization. But there are some holdouts who favor decriminalization over legalization, and a few who have been relatively quiet on the cannabis question.

Bernie Sanders: Bernie is 420’s Best Friend

Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has the most progressive and pro-cannabis presidential platform of any of the 2020 candidates. Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, wants to legalize marijuana nationwide. He wants to erase marijuana convictions. And he wants cannabis businesses to be able to finally work with federally-insured banks.

Sen. Sanders, indisputably one of the top three contenders for the Democratic nomination for president, even has an A+ rating from NORML, going back to 2015. For years, Sanders has sponsored a number of cannabis reform bills, including the Marijuana Justice Act, during his tenure in the Senate.

Sanders’ 420-friendly campaign platform isn’t just about weed. His strong stance on cannabis legalization is part of a broader criminal justice reform plan to end the war on drugs, invest in drug treatment centers and support medical cannabis research. And yes, Sanders has inhaled.

Elizabeth Warren: Evolving on Marijuana

In the press, on social media and in her public appearances, Massachusetts Senator and 2020 Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has stated she supports cannabis legalization. Some of her strongest comments in favor of legalizing cannabis nationwide came in April during a CNN town hall.

But on Warren’s campaign website, the word “marijuana” appears only once, in a paragraph on criminal justice reform. Criminal justice reform “means comprehensive sentencing reform and rewriting our laws to decriminalize marijuana,” Warren’s website reads. Legalization and decriminalization are two completely different policies, and it’s so far unclear which approach a President Warren would adopt.

Under pressure from progressive rivals and a voter base largely in favor of legal cannabis, Warren has tried to make her past record on marijuana reform look stronger than it is. Prior to 2016, Warren opposed general legalization and hesitantly expressed openness to legal medical cannabis. Recently, however, her views on cannabis seem to have shifted. But Warren doesn’t have the record or the consistency that Sanders has on the marijuana issue, despite her public statements.

Joe Biden: Drug War Architect

Joe Biden, whom many polls indicate is leading the pack of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, has carved out a unique position on cannabis. According to Biden’s official campaign website, his platform would decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior cannabis use convictions. Biden’s platform also calls for legalizing cannabis for medical purposes and giving states leeway to set their own laws regarding recreational use. Biden would also reclassify cannabis as a Schedule II controlled substance, which would make it much easier for researchers to study.

Despite these views, however, marijuana policy reform advocates aren’t lining up behind Biden. And they’re pointing to his record as the reason why not. For decades, Biden has stood sharply opposed to marijuana legalization. He once tried to pass a bill criminalizing raves. Marijuana policy experts also broadly recognize Biden as the architect of the modern war on drugs. Some even consider Biden more out of step on cannabis than President Trump.

Kamala Harris: From Cop to Marijuana Justice Co-Sponsor

In recent years, Kamala Harris’ stance on marijuana has evolved significantly. In fact, it was as recently as 2018 that the U.S. Senator from California came out in favor of federal cannabis legalization and comprehensive expungement. Most recently, Harris signed on to the MORE Act, a huge bill that would legalize marijuana and allocate federal funds to support entrepreneurs of color in the cannabis industry.

But like other 2020 presidential hopefuls, Harris has been pushed left from rivals with more progressive platforms. And her record on cannabis is anything but 420-friendly. In fact, that record came under attack in a viral moment from the first debate when Tulsi Gabbard zoomed in on the thousands of people Harris locked up for minor cannabis offenses when she was California attorney general. In the past, Harris has adopted much of the lock-em-up mentality of the war on drugs. Now, as a candidate for president, her views have completely reversed.

Pete Buttigieg: Banned Synthetic Cannabinoids

Pete Buttigieg is mayor of South Bend, Indiana and polling just behind Harris at about 5 percent among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. But unlike many of his rivals in the field, Buttigieg has yet to outline a clear stance on cannabis. Mayor Pete likes to tell a story about a close call with police when he was smoking a joint during his Harvard days, and he connects that tale to statements about privilege and racial disparities in drug enforcement.

Indeed, Buttigieg views reforming failed drug policies as a social justice issue. His public statements and social media posts all appear to support marijuana reform, including legalization. But in terms of direct policy proposals, Buttigieg comes up empty, both as a mayor and a presidential candidate. Buttigieg’s campaign website doesn’t mention marijuana. And as South Bend mayor, he signed no legislation dealing with cannabis (but he did sign a bill banning the sale of synthetic cannabinoids).

Andrew Yang: “I Don’t Love Marijuana”

Andrew Yang has distinguished his campaign platform with a call for universal basic income. But his views on cannabis line up with other candidates who want to end the war on drugs and legalize cannabis. Yang’s official campaign website proposes a three-point marijuana reform policy package.

First, Yang says he will support the full legalization of marijuana at the federal level and remove it from the controlled substances list. Second, Yang’s platform calls for expunging federal marijuana use or possession offenses. And third, Yang wants to identify non-violent drug offenders for probation and even early release.

Adopting a more personal note, Yang says he doesn’t love marijuana and prefers people don’t use it heavily. But he still thinks the current criminalization of cannabis is “stupid and racist” and believes the only path is to proceed with full legalization.

Cory Booker: All About Restorative Justice

Since 2017, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has been the chief proponent of the Marijuana Justice Act, a comprehensive reform bill that would legalize cannabis nationwide, expunge criminal records and invest in communities impacted most by the war on drugs. In his public appearances, Booker emphasizes the need not just to legalize cannabis but to also repair and rebuild the damage caused by criminalizing it.

But on Cory Booker’s official 2020 campaign website, you won’t find any mention of legalizing marijuana. Instead, Booker’s criminal justice platform calls for decriminalizing marijuana, expunging records and restoring justice to individuals and communities that have been devastated by the drug war. Booker hasn’t clearly addressed the discrepancy between his public support for legalization and his website’s call for decriminalization. In the past, when Booker hasn’t supported marijuana bills, it has been because they haven’t been strong enough on restorative justice.

Beto O’Rourke: Long-Time Legalization Supporter

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke‘s official campaign platform calls for the federal government to end its prohibition on cannabis. But it doesn’t clarify whether that prohibition should end with decriminalization or full legalization. In an email sent to supporters of his 2020 presidential bid, however, O’Rourke called for federal cannabis legalization as part of a package of sweeping criminal justice reforms.

Like other justice Democrats, O’Rourke is framing marijuana legalization as a way to reduce mass incarceration. It’s a way of presenting the issue that connected strongly with Texas voters, winning O’Rourke election to El Paso City Council and bringing him close to flipping Ted Cruz’ senate seat blue. O’Rourke has a record of consistently supporting progressive drug policy and cannabis legalization.

Julián Castro: Legalize Then Expunge

On the campaign trail, Julián Castro has consistently expressed support for progressive marijuana through the lens of criminal justice reform. Instead of drawing attention to legalization alone, Castro has stressed the need for criminal record expungement and responsible regulation. On other occasions, Castro has been more direct, tweeting after one town hall “Legalize it. Then expunge the records of folks who are in prison for marijuana use.” Typically, expungements apply to people who have already served their sentences, and Castro hasn’t clarified whether he supports amnesty for marijuana offenses or simply misspoke.

Despite public statements and social media posts calling for legalization, Castro’s official campaign website doesn’t outline a definite stance on cannabis policy. So it’s unclear exactly what Castro would pursue at the federal level as president.

Castro has just one federal drug policy action on his record. In 2014, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for President Barack Obama, Castro released a memo reminding owners of federal housing facilities that they are required to deny entry to anyone using marijuana, even if they do so legally under state law, such as for medical reasons.

420 Days Until the Most Important Vote of 2020

United States voters’ growing consensus on the issue of marijuana legalization means cannabis could be a make or break issue for the 2020 primaries. Marijuana policy is front and center in the national conversation, and shifts in federal drug laws will shape and define the legal cannabis industry and our criminal justice system for years to come.

The post There Are 420 Days Left Until The 2020 Presidential Election appeared first on High Times.

The post There Are 420 Days Left Until The 2020 Presidential Election appeared first on CBD Oil Vape Liquid Spray - Cbd Pain Relief Capsules - Weed Consortium.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/32BjXBM via IFTTT