CBIS News -- CBIS Reports on November 30, 2017 TRO Hearing and Next Steps; Hearing on a Preliminary Injunction Arguments Based on Information Disregarded by San Joaquin County
GlobeNewswire•December 4, 2017
IRVINE, CA, Dec. 04, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --
Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTC PINK: CBIS), a U.S. company specializing in the development of cannabinoid-based medicines, is pleased to announce the Honorable Judge Kimberly Mueller, appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, has laid out the next steps for the Plaintiffs, CBIS, et all, to file a preliminary injunction against the San Joaquin County.
One of the more profound facts in this case is the simple fact that the subject Industrial Hemp Grow was already pre-approved and on the 2017 San Joaquin Department of Agriculture list for approved crops and acreage. This was completed and evidenced in documented in filings with the court and with the San Joaquin County Board before they rendered any opinions. This was completed by HRM Farms’ Glen Burgeon, one of the area land owners and one of the expert local agricultural farming authorities, and one of the adjunct faculty members on the (California State Approved) American States University team, and another named plaintiff in the case.
“The ‘no’ TRO decision last Friday from the Honorable Judge Kimberly Mueller, was simple, because to me, she clearly understood our position and but did not have enough information to decide comprehensively on the case in full yet. She was astute and clear, and this is great for us, of course. She gave us a path, with clear instructions, for moving forward and we are taking it. The preliminary injunction allows the plaintiffs to outline the facts and circumstances surrounding their pre-approvals to farm directly from the San Joaquin Department of Agriculture, research exemptions, corporation registration clarity, assets, investments, and drug development programs.
“This is our opportunity to help the judge clearly understand the scope and importance of the educational and drug development work being done by the University group that includes Cannabis Science and its partners, and how it all ties together with the University programs, farming partners, local community educational programs, Native American incentive packages, and entrepreneurial programs for local economic growth and stability. We will clarify how our program is designed to target multiple critical ailments illnesses worldwide. We are working to successfully have activate a preliminary injunction against the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors to stop their malicious actions against the plaintiffs preventing them from continuing to work,” stated Cannabis Science’s President, CEO, and Co-founder, Mr. Raymond C. Dabney.
The preliminary injunction will include each named defendant including the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors for its purported defiant actions circumventing basic civil rights laws, due course action, Federal and State Industrial Hemp Laws and Exemptions, along with a number of other Federal and State laws, rights including purported specious actions during, before, and after the “raid” in order to complete their unmistakably malicious actions against the plaintiffs.
On October 27, 2017, Cannabis Science, Inc. (the "Company"
, along with its partners Winnemucca Shosoni MBS, American States University, Free Spirit Organics NAC and HRM Farms filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against ten San Joaquin County defendants including the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel; District Attorney and the Sheriff and against the federal Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Complaint stems from a search warrant and subsequent seizure executed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff's 26.19-acre plot of land where it was growing industrial hemp. On November 17, 2017, CSI and the rest of the plaintiffs filed seven documents including 45 pages of pleadings, seven declarations, and 150 pages of exhibits asking the Court to issue a temporary restraining order.
Recently, the Plaintiffs learned the DEA was not involved and dismissed it. It had been surprising to discover evidence of DEA involvement at the outset because plaintiffs believed they had been operating with the blessing of the DEA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were pleased to learn that the DEA was not involved with the subject seizure and was apparently unconcerned with the industrial hemp research project.