Cannabis Hemp Academy - Online Medical Marijuana Courses

Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Newsletter

Silver Surfer Vaporizers

Colorado 420 Cannabis Activists

Cannabis Hemp Academy

Peter Loyd Weber Marijuana Law

Westword Marijuana Blogs

Cannabis Science

Danyel Joffe Medical Marijuana












Cannabis Therapy Institute: Medical Marijuana in Colorado

Colorado Cannabis Medical Marijuana Business Directory

Cannabis Hemp Academy - Online Medical Marijuana Courses

Online Shop: Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Information

Cannabis Trade Council

4.20 Money Bomb

Colorado 420 Coalition - Marijuana Legalization




Home | Cannabis Classes | THC-DUI Bills
Web Shop | Cannabis Business Directory
Cannabis Law Library | Medical Research
Patients | Policymakers | Contact Colo. State Legislature
Donations and Sponsorships | About Us

Upcoming Marijuana/Cannabis Training Classes

Cannabis Hemp Academy - Online Medical Marijuana Classes

Signup on our email list to be informed of all upcoming classes.
We have Colorado medical marijuana legal compliance training classes regularly.
Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Newsletter

Colorado Marijuana and Medical Marijuana Classes

Bookmark and Share

Marijuana Tax Fifth Amendment Hearing

UPDATE (8/22/14): Denver District Court Honorable Judge John Warren IV denied the request for a preliminary injunction on a technicality, but said the case had merit enough to move forward. The judge says the issues are "fascinating" and that he is "looking forward" to hearing the rest of the case at trial. On to the next step! Read John Ingold's coverage at the Denver Post

ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE: There will be a preliminary injunction hearing in Denver District Court on Friday in a lawsuit brought by marijuana civil rights activists seeking to protect their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Plaintiffs will argue in front of The Honorable Judge John Madden IV that payment of marijuana taxes violates a citizen's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law.


Date: Friday, August 22, 2014
Time: 9am to 12noon
Location: Denver District Court (Old Building)
1437 Bannock St.
Denver, Colorado
Courtroom #203: The Honorable Judge John Madden IV

Note: Please dress nicely and maintain quiet in the courtroom. Bring a photo ID with, as you may have to show it to get through courthouse security.

Attorney Robert J. Corry, Jr. filed the lawsuit on June 9, 2014 seeking to permanently end Colorado's marijuana taxes, on the grounds that payment of the taxes forces citizens to incriminate themselves as criminals under federal law.

The complaint was filed on behalf of an unnamed licensed medical and retail marijuana center, the "No Over Taxation" issue committee (which campaigned against Proposition AA, the marijuana tax issue approved by Colorado voters in 2013) and several individuals, including Kathleen Chippi, Larisa Bolivar, Miguel Lopez and William Chengelis.

Corry is seeking unspecified damages and a refund of all tax monies collected by the state.

If successful, Corry's lawsuit could be the basis for overturning ALL regulations regarding marijuana licensing and registration in Colorado on the same grounds. As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, states cannot require people to give any information about themselves in order to distribute or purchase marijuana. ANY and ALL requirements to identify oneself would result in a "real and appreciable" risk of self-incrimination, and would require a citizen to implicate himself in federal crimes.

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:

Corry cites a 1973 Colorado Supreme Court case (People vs. Duleff) that overturned a man's conviction for "selling marijuana without a license" because compliance with the licensing requirement would have required that person to violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and reveal a violation of federal law. Corry writes, "The Colorado Supreme Court held specifically that the Fifth Amendment prohibits state licensing requirements that force a person to reveal a violation of federal law."

From the Duleff decision, Corry quotes the Colo. Sup. Ct.:
"The Fifth Amendment prohibits licensing requirements from being used as a means of discovering past or present criminal activity which is subject to prosecution by calling attention to the licensee and his activities....There is no doubt that the information which Duleff would have been required to disclose would have been useful to the investigation of his activities, would have substantially increased the risk of prosecution, and may well have been a direct admission of guilt under federal law. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from such compulsory, incriminating disclosures and provides a complete defense to prosecution." -- Colorado Supreme Court (1973)

Corry also cites a 1969 US Supreme Court case (Timothy Leary v. United States) in which the the highest court in the country overturned Leary's marijuana possession conviction and ruled that the federal Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was illegal, due to the fact that a person seeking a tax stamp and complying with the law would be forced to incriminate himself, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Corry writes, "Marijuana-specific taxes require plaintiffs and any other person paying said taxes to incriminate themselves as committing multiple violations of federal law, including but not limited to, participating in, aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit a 'continuing criminal enterprise' and 'money laundering.' These illegally-collected taxes are ultimately laundered by the State of Colorado through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, which also participates knowingly in the continuing criminal enterprise." Item 67, Corry complaint filed 6/9/14.

Corry concludes, "It is illegal for government to retain tax monies illegally collected in violation of the constitution, so all amounts must be returned, and all records related to previous tax payments, destroyed."

Corry asks the Court to:
"Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or permanent injunction ordering the Defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, to cease and desist from enforcement of the marijuana tax statutes, to cease and desist from any further collection, deposit, or laundering of the marijuana taxes, for a full refund of marijuana tax monies paid by any person or entity, and for destruction of all tax records and identifying information after full refunds are made."

"The state can't have it both ways. If it's illegal under federal law, you cannot collect taxes on it," says Kathleen Chippi, a plaintiff and member of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project. "We have another case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court now, Coats v. Dish Network, where Colorado Attorney General John Suthers argues that medical marijuana patients can be fired from their jobs for using medical marijuana off-duty, even though it is legal under state law. Suthers argues in the Coats case that, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, patients have no rights."

"Yet Suthers and Hickenlooper, as kingpins in their continuing criminal enterprise, happily collect and spend the marijuana taxes, even though they were collected in spite of multiple clear violations of federal law," Chippi concludes.

Read Boulder Weekly article on Federal Preemption issues and the Coats v.
Dish Lawsuit (5/22/14):


Click here to read the complaint
No Over Taxation, et al, v. Hickenlooper, et al

People v. Duleff (Colorado Supreme Court case)

US v. Leary (US Supreme Court case)

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project

Denver 420 Rally

Law Firm of Robert J. Corry, Jr.


Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Therapy Institute
Phone: 877-420-4205
Email: info(@)

ACTION ALERT: March 28, 2014

Colorado Proposes Caregiver Limits - Patients Will Suffer

Edibles and extracts supplied by caregivers would be eliminated.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is having a "Town Hall" meeting on Friday, March 28 in Denver to discuss "proposed legislation" to limit patient and caregiver rights. The CDPHE has refused to supply CTI with a copy of the "proposed legislation", but the agenda for the meeting indicates that they want to limit caregivers to cultivating 6
plants. If passed, this legislation would restrict caregivers' ability to provide edible cannabis or cannabis extracts like Rick Simpson Oil, used as a cancer-fighting medicine.

Pot Caregiver Crackdown Rekindled in Colorado

Friday, March 28, 2014
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Old Supreme Court Chambers
State Capitol Building (2nd Floor)
200 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80203

Also on the agenda for this meeting will be:
- Limit caregivers to 6 plants per patient
- Limit caregivers to 5 patients: This is already in statute, but CDPHE can make exceptions. It is unclear why this needs to be re-addressed.
- overview of the CDPHE's failed state audit last year
- CDPHE's new policy on medical necessity review: CDPHE has refused to provide CTI with an advanced copy of this "new policy"

Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Constitution (popularly known as Amendment 20), states that a caregiver can supply a patient with whatever amount of medicine is "medically necessary" to treat their condition. A 6 plant limit per caregiver would abrogate this Constitutional right.

Proponents of a "caregiver crackdown" claim that there are caregivers all over the state selling cannabis openly for profit for multiple patients. If this were true, there are already statutes in Colorado that limit caregivers to no more than 5 patients each and prohibit caregivers from
making a profit on their medicine. These laws were part of the HB1284-era of laws supported by dispensaries in 2010 and 2011, which eliminated 90% of the caregivers in Colorado. If there are any caregivers breaking the law, they can be prosecuted right now, so there is no need for new laws.

Amendment 20 contemplated a compassionate system of medical marijuana distribution where the patients would be protected from criminal prosecution, and the medicine would be supplied by caregivers. This system worked without problems from 2000 until 2009, when the government crackdown began.

With the passage of House Bill 1284 in 2010, the government gutted the caregiver model for medicinal cannabis distribution, even though this was the system approved by voters. They forced patients to shop in Medical Marijuana Centers (which are not caregivers and therefore not protected by the Constitution). MMCs did not have the same quality and variety that caregivers provided, so patients suffered.

Now with the passage of Amendment 64 (recreational marijuana), the government wants to shut down the medical program altogether and force patients to shop in A64-stores, where cannabis is highly taxed to fund law enforcement, government propaganda campaigns and some school construction. MMCs are not subject to the A64 40%+ additional taxes, so patients can find less expensive medicine there.

According to the Denver Post, the CDPHE meeting on Friday may be being held as a "last-minute attempt to placate lawmakers, not a genuine attempt to listen to caregivers."

Indeed, there is evidence of this. The CDPHE's "Town Hall" Meeting is set from 1pm to 4pm, with the 1:30pm to 3:30pm time slot allocated exclusively for public comment. So, clearly, the main purpose of this meeting is for public comment. However, the CDPHE has done everything they can to make sure attendance at, or even knowledge of, this meeting is as minimal as
- CDPHE announced the meeting on their website on Monday afternoon, giving only 4 days notice
- CDHPE scheduled the meeting for Friday afternoon, probably the worst time of the week if you want to maximize attendance
- CDPHE claims that they sent an email to all those on the email notification list, but people who are known to be on the list received no such email
- CDPHE refused to send an email to the 200,000+ active and inactive patients and caregivers on the Registry, with no explanation why.
- CDPHE deceptively named the meeting a "Town Hall" meeting, indicating a local city or town was having a discussion, not that a statewide body was meeting to discuss a statewide issue.
- CDPHE refused to give CTI a copy of the "proposed legislation" that was to be discussed at that meeting
- No member of the General Assembly will be in attendance at the meeting, only CDPHE employees. If the purpose of the meeting is "proposed legislation", why are no legislators going to attend?

If you would like to attend the meeting, you are certainly encouraged to voice your opinion in person. But since no one from the General Assembly will even be in attendance to hear your concerns and the CDPHE has no authority to propose bills or enact statutes of their own, who will you be talking to? CTI will be there to report on what happened at the meeting.

We do encourage you to send an email and have all your friends send an
email. It is VERY IMPORTANT that the General Assembly hear your concerns.



Dear General Assembly:

Please do not enact any laws that restrict the amount of cannabis that a caregiver is allowed to grow. Many patients need more than 6 plants because their medical condition requires therapies (like edibles), which are produced with more raw material than 6 plants can produce. Under A20, a patient is allowed to have whatever amounts are "medically necessary". A restriction on caregivers' cultivation will deny patients this Constitutional right.

There is currently no evidence of any widespread problem with caregivers growing too much medicine. If there were, law enforcement has adequate tools now to investigate and prosecute caregivers. As you know, caregivers are already limited to 5 patients and are not allowed to make a profit, so if there is any problem, it can be addressed with current laws.

The intent of A20 was to allow a compassionate system of medical marijuana distribution where the patients would be protected from criminal prosecution, and the medicine would be supplied by caregivers. This system worked without problems from 2000 until 2009, when Medical Marijuana Centers were established and caregivers were restricted. Many patients don't like to shop at MMCs because of privacy concerns or because only their caregiver can supply them with the exact type of medicine they need. MMCs are not part of A20. Caregivers are. Please don't restrict patient choice any further than you already have.

PS -- I did NOT get notice of this proposed law from the CDHPE. I heard about the issue through a patient advocacy group. Please tell the CDPHE to do a better job of contacting patients and caregivers about issues that affect them.


Your name


CDPHE and Board of Health,,,,,,,

Colorado Senate

Colorado House of Representatives

CDPHE has set up a place to post your comments online.



Public Service Announcement of the
Cannabis Trade Council

Department of Revenue MITS System Illegally Accesses Confidential Patient Registry

Marijuana Inventory Tracking System (MITS) Contains Confidential Information

Patients say, "Get your MITS off my meds!"


Health Department Aids DOR in Patient Tracking

Click here for more information

Colorado A64 Marijuana and A20 Medical Marijuana News

Online Shop: Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Information

Sign up on CTI's email list for updates:
Colorado Cannabis Marijuana Newsletter

PREVIOUS CTI POSTS (2011 - 2013)

PREVIOUS CTI POSTS (2009 - 2011)



Cannabis Therapy Institute
Phone: 877-420-4205