In short, a grotesque miscarriage of justice will only get much worse.

However, the federal prosecution of B. E. Smith is also one of those things that gets "curiouser and curiouser" -- to use a phrase appropriately from Alice In Wonderland.

It would seem to have been the worst possible case from the federal government’s perspective. Smith is a Vietnam veteran, suffering from post-traumatic stress. He has no criminal record, and he was completely open about his growing. He had even discussed it with local law enforcement – who chose to do nothing, because of California’s Prop 215.

He also had the "advice of counsel" that what he was doing was legal, which raised another possible defense.

And -- he had fewer than 100 plants, while the Feds claim that they almost never prosecute cases involving less than 200 plants, unless they are on Federal property, such as a National Forest.

Unfortunately, none of this mattered, because a bigoted judge would not allow his attorneys to put on a defense, other than character witnesses, including actor/activist Woody Harrelson, which at least got a little publicity for the case.

However, while the defense wanted to raise a number of issues important to the medical marijuana controversy, perhaps the most important question was raised and suppressed even before the trial began:
Why B.E. Smith?

There is a Federal law that forbids the selective prosecution of someone based on that person’s exercise of a constitutional right, so before the trial began the defense filed a motion to force the Federal government to hand over the documentation on their decision to prosecute.

The motion was granted by a U.S. Magistrate.

However, when the government appealed the disclosure motion, it went to U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. -- who would later preside over the trial and deny virtually all of the defense’s motions.

At that point, the White House invoked "Executive Privilege" to keep the actual decision-making process a secret.

This is the same "Executive Privilege" unsuccessfully used in the Watergate and Zippergate scandals. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled against the White House in those cases. Of course, suppressing medical marijuana seems to be much more important than the Constitution, so the Court may let them get away with it this time.

While Smith’s lawyers will do their job and pursue the legal questions about the decision to prosecute, there are political questions here that should be of interest to everyone.

There is a reason for the law against selective prosecutions. It is a very dangerous practice.

Consider another blatant example of selective prosecution, the Todd McCormick case. (San Francisco attorney David Michael is on both defense teams.)

In the McCormick case, the Federal government’s key witnesses include people who are large scale buyers, sellers and growers of medical marijuana. They are allowed to stay in business while McCormick, Peter McWilliams, and others are being prosecuted.
See
Applications By California Groups To Grow Marijuana For The Feds
Show How Weird Things Really Are – See The Punch Line at The End

Moreover, the government does not allege any sales by the defendants, but alleges that they "intended" to sell to the government’s witnesses, who are still in business buying and selling – and growing – medical marijuana.

I have no idea how the government is going to handle such an odd case, but it certainly raises more serious questions about the decision to prosecute.

Remember, the Drug Czar’s address is at the White House, and the decision to authorize and then subvert the IOM Report was made at that level. But how high in the White House? Did the President take part in this decision?

It seems impossible in the Smith case and very improbable in the McCormick case that these decisions were not political.

But who made these decisions and why?

Did Clinton decide on prosecuting B. E. Smith and Todd McCormick?

Whether Clinton was personally involved is important, but the fact that political decisions are leading to prosecutions of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, the sick dying and disabled, proves that the medical marijuana issue is hitting some very sensitive nerves.

Why?

That is something that everyone needs to know. The Smith and McCormick cases offer us important opportunities to discover and understand what is really going on here.