Comments for Epis Testifies On Marijuana Sale: at http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com , comment 1 to 57 out of 20 comments http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:28:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-76 I think a crucial problem of understanding here is that this article is about one hearing only. It gives some context as background, but the focus is this particular hearing. If the issue of prosecutorial misconduct got less attention than Brenda would like, this is not an inaccuracy. It is merely a reflection of the fact that this is a focus piece, not a comprehensive article about the case in general. If I write a comprehensive article, the prosecutorial misconduct claims will certainly get detailed treatment. Until then, however, my articles will be reports on specific hearings, as indicated by their titles. I have never suggested that there is snitching going on in secret, and I think such an interpretation of my article is far-fetched. I made no speculations about whether the defense wanted attendees at the evidentiary or sentencing hearings, so it\'s puzzling to be accused of this. It\'s unclear to me when I acquired an obligation to call Bonnie and Dave, but I nonetheless dispute the relevance of the request. Even though Bryan claims that I said he snitched on these people, Bonnie was never brought up in the article or even alluded to. I have never published an article that connected Bryan and Bonnie in any way. As far as Dave goes, Bryan gave him a passing mention on the stand, but it was nothing more than that. The person whose illegal activities Bryan testified about in this hearing was Keith Dusek, and that\'s what I reported about. (As such, it seems perfectly accurate to say in a subtitle that some names were brought up and some were not.) If Bryan reads into this anything about Bonnie, it\'s purely imaginary on his part. The testimony Bryan gave detailed a sale of marijuana between Keith Dusek and Dennis Peron, and this is what I reported on. I stand by that. Of course, if given a statement originating from either of these individuals, I would be happy to include it. Otherwise, I reject the notion that I have some moral or journalistic duty to contact people who were not part of my story simply so that they can \"ream me\" or \"tear me a new one\" on behalf of their angry friend. That\'s a contrived obligation. I can see that Brenda has a number of issues with language I used in the article, and I am glad she\'s airing her side of things. However, I do view most of these as style issues. I refuse to accept that my use of the term \"intentionally misconstrued\" is somehow less accurate than the word \"lied.\" In fact, I believe my term is stronger and bolder, as it implies intent. Unless it is more effectively demonstrated to me why I should use Brenda\'s language over my own in this instance, I will keep my term. Her claims are being referenced here, but she is not being directly quoted, and I may use my own characterizations of the language as long as it keeps with the meaning of what was said. In my view, \"intentionally misconstrued\" and \"lied\" are close enough to qualify for this kind of usage. I will also keep the sentence Brenda found so offensive: \"If Epis had meant for the spreadsheets to apply to Chico, which was never solidly shown, it was no more than an overly optimistic daydream.\" I don\'t know how she is getting a different interpretation from these words, but I am saying here that it was never demonstrated that the spreadsheet(s) applied to Chico. Brenda is making a non-existent argument on this point, based on her misinterpretation. Also, taking issue with a phrase like \"no more than an overly optimistic daydream\" is a bit absurd. These words could be attributed to Bryan, who has characterized his figures as fantastical, but they could also be my interpretation of the figures. Beyond that, these terms match up perfectly with what the two law enforcement officers (Redmond and Mancini) said on the stand about the exhibit in question. Is it really inaccurate to say that numbers chosen randomly or out of the blue are not part of a daydream? This is getting into the intent aspect of fantasy, and that\'s far too abstract. I would urge Brenda to also be more accurate in her wording. Multiple times in her long comment, she outright states that all the evidence was destroyed. This is unusual to me, given that she was quick to ask me to clarify in my article that all of the evidence had NOT been destroyed. I was happy to make that distinction at her request, and now I am puzzled by her characterization once again. I will also be glad to clarify that there was only one growsite (Chico) and two alleged plans for dispensaries elsewhere (Newhall and Silicon Valley). One problem, I believe, is the word \"collective,\" since it can be used to refer to a grow or to a dispensary. Certainly there could be some confusion there, depending upon how it\'s interpreted. I will make an effort to be more specific with these distinctions. The issue of whether the word \"spreadsheets\" should be plural is also ambiguous. Given that the document in question is over 15 pages, I did always think of them as \"sheets.\" Since there is so much riding on whether there was or was not more than one spreadsheet document, however, I am willing to consider the value of a semantic change. As I understand it, the prosecutor says there is more than one spreadsheet -- the one referred to as the Silicon Valley proposal and the one referred to as the Newhall proposal. The defense says that the Newhall proposal contains a part of the Silicon Valley proposal that was gutted and then fed other figures. Whether these changes make it a new and different spreadsheet is, I believe, a matter of interpretation. As for the issue about \"small portions\" of the spreadsheets, I was referring to Bryan\'s claim that the prosecutor extracted and used only one page out of a much longer document. (He referred to it as 17 pages long, and a single page out of these documents is, in my view, a small portion.) When I refer to spreadsheets emerging from history, what I had in mind was Brenda\'s unearthing of the full documentation of these exhibits once she came onto the case. I never meant to suggest that spreadsheets were irrelevant to the case up until recently -- of course not, as they played an enormous role in making a case for the conspiracy charge. I believe the rest of my descriptions in the background of the case support and demonstrate this fact. Finally, I dispute the charge that I have stirred up a fake controversy. I believe these issues need to be addressed by and amongst members of the community. As Brenda indicates, Bonnie and Dave didn\'t want their names given to federal prosecutors and to be called to testify at trial. Since they suffered less than Bryan, however, Brenda believes that this justifies what these two witnesses went through. Brenda wrote of Bonnie and Dave: \"Would they have preferred not to have their names given to federal prosecutors in connection with Bryan\'s trial? Yes, but what a minor imposition this was on them in contrast to suffering over 2 years of incarceration in federal prison -- and facing the balance of a ten year sentence -- as the only one punished for this conduct.\" In her view, giving names is justified under certain conditions, and I think that it\'s important to examine those conditions, as I discussed before in this thread. There\'s nothing immoral or irresponsible in posing that question, and I found it highly relevant to Epis\'s recent hearing. That\'s all. - Vanessa Nelson Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:45:34 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-246 I think a crucial problem of understanding here is that this article is about one hearing only. It gives some context as background, but the focus is this particular hearing. If the issue of prosecutorial misconduct got less attention than Brenda would like, this is not an inaccuracy. It is merely a reflection of the fact that this is a focus piece, not a comprehensive article about the case in general. If I write a comprehensive article, the prosecutorial misconduct claims will certainly get detailed treatment. Until then, however, my articles will be reports on specific hearings, as indicated by their titles. I have never suggested that there is snitching going on in secret, and I think such an interpretation of my article is far-fetched. I made no speculations about whether the defense wanted attendees at the evidentiary or sentencing hearings, so it\'s puzzling to be accused of this. It\'s unclear to me when I acquired an obligation to call Bonnie and Dave, but I nonetheless dispute the relevance of the request. Even though Bryan claims that I said he snitched on these people, Bonnie was never brought up in the article or even alluded to. I have never published an article that connected Bryan and Bonnie in any way. As far as Dave goes, Bryan gave him a passing mention on the stand, but it was nothing more than that. The person whose illegal activities Bryan testified about in this hearing was Keith Dusek, and that\'s what I reported about. (As such, it seems perfectly accurate to say in a subtitle that some names were brought up and some were not.) If Bryan reads into this anything about Bonnie, it\'s purely imaginary on his part. The testimony Bryan gave detailed a sale of marijuana between Keith Dusek and Dennis Peron, and this is what I reported on. I stand by that. Of course, if given a statement originating from either of these individuals, I would be happy to include it. Otherwise, I reject the notion that I have some moral or journalistic duty to contact people who were not part of my story simply so that they can \"ream me\" or \"tear me a new one\" on behalf of their angry friend. That\'s a contrived obligation. I can see that Brenda has a number of issues with language I used in the article, and I am glad she\'s airing her side of things. However, I do view most of these as style issues. I refuse to accept that my use of the term \"intentionally misconstrued\" is somehow less accurate than the word \"lied.\" In fact, I believe my term is stronger and bolder, as it implies intent. Unless it is more effectively demonstrated to me why I should use Brenda\'s language over my own in this instance, I will keep my term. Her claims are being referenced here, but she is not being directly quoted, and I may use my own characterizations of the language as long as it keeps with the meaning of what was said. In my view, \"intentionally misconstrued\" and \"lied\" are close enough to qualify for this kind of usage. I will also keep the sentence Brenda found so offensive: \"If Epis had meant for the spreadsheets to apply to Chico, which was never solidly shown, it was no more than an overly optimistic daydream.\" I don\'t know how she is getting a different interpretation from these words, but I am saying here that it was never demonstrated that the spreadsheet(s) applied to Chico. Brenda is making a non-existent argument on this point, based on her misinterpretation. Also, taking issue with a phrase like \"no more than an overly optimistic daydream\" is a bit absurd. These words could be attributed to Bryan, who has characterized his figures as fantastical, but they could also be my interpretation of the figures. Beyond that, these terms match up perfectly with what the two law enforcement officers (Redmond and Mancini) said on the stand about the exhibit in question. Is it really inaccurate to say that numbers chosen randomly or out of the blue are not part of a daydream? This is getting into the intent aspect of fantasy, and that\'s far too abstract. I would urge Brenda to also be more accurate in her wording. Multiple times in her long comment, she outright states that all the evidence was destroyed. This is unusual to me, given that she was quick to ask me to clarify in my article that all of the evidence had NOT been destroyed. I was happy to make that distinction at her request, and now I am puzzled by her characterization once again. I will also be glad to clarify that there was only one growsite (Chico) and two alleged plans for dispensaries elsewhere (Newhall and Silicon Valley). One problem, I believe, is the word \"collective,\" since it can be used to refer to a grow or to a dispensary. Certainly there could be some confusion there, depending upon how it\'s interpreted. I will make an effort to be more specific with these distinctions. The issue of whether the word \"spreadsheets\" should be plural is also ambiguous. Given that the document in question is over 15 pages, I did always think of them as \"sheets.\" Since there is so much riding on whether there was or was not more than one spreadsheet document, however, I am willing to consider the value of a semantic change. As I understand it, the prosecutor says there is more than one spreadsheet -- the one referred to as the Silicon Valley proposal and the one referred to as the Newhall proposal. The defense says that the Newhall proposal contains a part of the Silicon Valley proposal that was gutted and then fed other figures. Whether these changes make it a new and different spreadsheet is, I believe, a matter of interpretation. As for the issue about \"small portions\" of the spreadsheets, I was referring to Bryan\'s claim that the prosecutor extracted and used only one page out of a much longer document. (He referred to it as 17 pages long, and a single page out of these documents is, in my view, a small portion.) When I refer to spreadsheets emerging from history, what I had in mind was Brenda\'s unearthing of the full documentation of these exhibits once she came onto the case. I never meant to suggest that spreadsheets were irrelevant to the case up until recently -- of course not, as they played an enormous role in making a case for the conspiracy charge. I believe the rest of my descriptions in the background of the case support and demonstrate this fact. Finally, I dispute the charge that I have stirred up a fake controversy. I believe these issues need to be addressed by and amongst members of the community. As Brenda indicates, Bonnie and Dave didn\'t want their names given to federal prosecutors and to be called to testify at trial. Since they suffered less than Bryan, however, Brenda believes that this justifies what these two witnesses went through. Brenda wrote of Bonnie and Dave: \"Would they have preferred not to have their names given to federal prosecutors in connection with Bryan\'s trial? Yes, but what a minor imposition this was on them in contrast to suffering over 2 years of incarceration in federal prison -- and facing the balance of a ten year sentence -- as the only one punished for this conduct.\" In her view, giving names is justified under certain conditions, and I think that it\'s important to examine those conditions, as I discussed before in this thread. There\'s nothing immoral or irresponsible in posing that question, and I found it highly relevant to Epis\'s recent hearing. That\'s all. - Vanessa Nelson Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:45:34 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-410 I think a crucial problem of understanding here is that this article is about one hearing only. It gives some context as background, but the focus is this particular hearing. If the issue of prosecutorial misconduct got less attention than Brenda would like, this is not an inaccuracy. It is merely a reflection of the fact that this is a focus piece, not a comprehensive article about the case in general. If I write a comprehensive article, the prosecutorial misconduct claims will certainly get detailed treatment. Until then, however, my articles will be reports on specific hearings, as indicated by their titles. I have never suggested that there is snitching going on in secret, and I think such an interpretation of my article is far-fetched. I made no speculations about whether the defense wanted attendees at the evidentiary or sentencing hearings, so it\'s puzzling to be accused of this. It\'s unclear to me when I acquired an obligation to call Bonnie and Dave, but I nonetheless dispute the relevance of the request. Even though Bryan claims that I said he snitched on these people, Bonnie was never brought up in the article or even alluded to. I have never published an article that connected Bryan and Bonnie in any way. As far as Dave goes, Bryan gave him a passing mention on the stand, but it was nothing more than that. The person whose illegal activities Bryan testified about in this hearing was Keith Dusek, and that\'s what I reported about. (As such, it seems perfectly accurate to say in a subtitle that some names were brought up and some were not.) If Bryan reads into this anything about Bonnie, it\'s purely imaginary on his part. The testimony Bryan gave detailed a sale of marijuana between Keith Dusek and Dennis Peron, and this is what I reported on. I stand by that. Of course, if given a statement originating from either of these individuals, I would be happy to include it. Otherwise, I reject the notion that I have some moral or journalistic duty to contact people who were not part of my story simply so that they can \"ream me\" or \"tear me a new one\" on behalf of their angry friend. That\'s a contrived obligation. I can see that Brenda has a number of issues with language I used in the article, and I am glad she\'s airing her side of things. However, I do view most of these as style issues. I refuse to accept that my use of the term \"intentionally misconstrued\" is somehow less accurate than the word \"lied.\" In fact, I believe my term is stronger and bolder, as it implies intent. Unless it is more effectively demonstrated to me why I should use Brenda\'s language over my own in this instance, I will keep my term. Her claims are being referenced here, but she is not being directly quoted, and I may use my own characterizations of the language as long as it keeps with the meaning of what was said. In my view, \"intentionally misconstrued\" and \"lied\" are close enough to qualify for this kind of usage. I will also keep the sentence Brenda found so offensive: \"If Epis had meant for the spreadsheets to apply to Chico, which was never solidly shown, it was no more than an overly optimistic daydream.\" I don\'t know how she is getting a different interpretation from these words, but I am saying here that it was never demonstrated that the spreadsheet(s) applied to Chico. Brenda is making a non-existent argument on this point, based on her misinterpretation. Also, taking issue with a phrase like \"no more than an overly optimistic daydream\" is a bit absurd. These words could be attributed to Bryan, who has characterized his figures as fantastical, but they could also be my interpretation of the figures. Beyond that, these terms match up perfectly with what the two law enforcement officers (Redmond and Mancini) said on the stand about the exhibit in question. Is it really inaccurate to say that numbers chosen randomly or out of the blue are not part of a daydream? This is getting into the intent aspect of fantasy, and that\'s far too abstract. I would urge Brenda to also be more accurate in her wording. Multiple times in her long comment, she outright states that all the evidence was destroyed. This is unusual to me, given that she was quick to ask me to clarify in my article that all of the evidence had NOT been destroyed. I was happy to make that distinction at her request, and now I am puzzled by her characterization once again. I will also be glad to clarify that there was only one growsite (Chico) and two alleged plans for dispensaries elsewhere (Newhall and Silicon Valley). One problem, I believe, is the word \"collective,\" since it can be used to refer to a grow or to a dispensary. Certainly there could be some confusion there, depending upon how it\'s interpreted. I will make an effort to be more specific with these distinctions. The issue of whether the word \"spreadsheets\" should be plural is also ambiguous. Given that the document in question is over 15 pages, I did always think of them as \"sheets.\" Since there is so much riding on whether there was or was not more than one spreadsheet document, however, I am willing to consider the value of a semantic change. As I understand it, the prosecutor says there is more than one spreadsheet -- the one referred to as the Silicon Valley proposal and the one referred to as the Newhall proposal. The defense says that the Newhall proposal contains a part of the Silicon Valley proposal that was gutted and then fed other figures. Whether these changes make it a new and different spreadsheet is, I believe, a matter of interpretation. As for the issue about \"small portions\" of the spreadsheets, I was referring to Bryan\'s claim that the prosecutor extracted and used only one page out of a much longer document. (He referred to it as 17 pages long, and a single page out of these documents is, in my view, a small portion.) When I refer to spreadsheets emerging from history, what I had in mind was Brenda\'s unearthing of the full documentation of these exhibits once she came onto the case. I never meant to suggest that spreadsheets were irrelevant to the case up until recently -- of course not, as they played an enormous role in making a case for the conspiracy charge. I believe the rest of my descriptions in the background of the case support and demonstrate this fact. Finally, I dispute the charge that I have stirred up a fake controversy. I believe these issues need to be addressed by and amongst members of the community. As Brenda indicates, Bonnie and Dave didn\'t want their names given to federal prosecutors and to be called to testify at trial. Since they suffered less than Bryan, however, Brenda believes that this justifies what these two witnesses went through. Brenda wrote of Bonnie and Dave: \"Would they have preferred not to have their names given to federal prosecutors in connection with Bryan\'s trial? Yes, but what a minor imposition this was on them in contrast to suffering over 2 years of incarceration in federal prison -- and facing the balance of a ten year sentence -- as the only one punished for this conduct.\" In her view, giving names is justified under certain conditions, and I think that it\'s important to examine those conditions, as I discussed before in this thread. There\'s nothing immoral or irresponsible in posing that question, and I found it highly relevant to Epis\'s recent hearing. That\'s all. - Vanessa Nelson Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:45:34 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-75 Hi Brenda, Thank you for your comments. We will review them meticulously, and will gladly make any clarifications where it is called for. I am very sorry that you consider the piece to be, \"dangerously inflammatory and unfair.\" We seek to be fair, and I personally, and respectfully disagree that the writing is dangerously inflammatory. An unbiased reader commented, \"It sounds like Vanessa tentatively concluded Bryan did not cross the line.\" It appears as if you and Bryan are suggesting that it is wrong to say that Bryan even did anything remotely resembling snitching - presumably because of the emotional nature of the word \"snitch.\" We have repeated over and over, WE ARE NOT CALLING BRYAN EPIS A SNITCH! Please allow me to direct your attention to the END of Vanessa\'s sentence, \"Public reaction is likely to be mixed, but it certainly makes a great deal of difference that the statute of limitations has already passed on these crimes.\" Isn\'t that the defense\'s position that exonerates Bryan? We are well aware of your theory that an empty courtroom is more beneficial to Bryan\'s case than one containing medical marijuana advocates. You believe that Judge Damrell punishes Bryan with harsher rulings when there is a crowd gathered to witness the proceedings. I do not recall when Judge Damrell, \"overtly expressed his dislike of Bryan\'s having supporters in the audience,\" as you state. Could you please direct me to the Judge\'s statements that disparage Bryan\'s supporters in the courtroom? Drug War Chronicle sent out a special announcement prior to Bryan\'s sentencing hearing, urging advocates to attend the hearing. Was this done against the wishes of Bryan\'s defense? If you honestly wanted people not to come, many folks clearly did not get the message. You say, \"Bryan and I were not there to put on a media show..\" and I think I know what you mean by that. But, then again, Bryan courted media with his flamboyant speech. Many of his statements seemed targeted more towards the News & Review than the 9th circuit. Not that there\'s anything wrong with that, but I believe that Vanessa is the only reporter that covered all of Bryan\'s speech, not just a small portion of it. I\'m sorry you view Vanessa\'s reporting as, \"poo-poo[ing] the prosecutorial misconduct.\" We know that this case is far from over, and are very excited about your prospects for appeal, based on prosecutorial misconduct. Vanessa reported about what happened at THAT HEARING, and prosecutorial misconduct did not come up much at the hearing in question. As I stated before, we are hopeful that Bryan is able to remain free on bail, pending appeal. Since you have already okay\'ed Vanessa\'s most recent article, I trust that you are satisfied with how Vanessa covered your charges of fake evidence - used by the prosecution - in this case. When you get into whether there is one spreadsheet or a number of spreadsheets, I think you are getting into marginally relevant semantical issues, when it comes to our readers. Clearly there are multiple COPIES of spreadsheets, and which party - the defense or the prosecution - created and/or manipulated the documents is highly contentious. You take issue with the statement: \"According to Epis, the documents were like a mathematical contemplation of starting grows elsewhere in California -- Silicon Valley and Newhall, specifically.\" Again it seems semantics are getting in the way, here. Would it be more accurate to switch the word, \"grows,\" with the word, \"dispensaries?\" You also dislike the statement, \"If Epis had meant for the spreadsheets to apply to Chico, which was never solidly shown, it was no more than an overly optimistic daydream.\" Considering that the sentence starts with the word, \"If,\" I don\'t think there\'s anything you can say that is factually incorrect about that sentence. You say, \"This was not an \"overly optimistic daydream\" as you portray it -- it was purely random numbers that had nothing to do with anything, that Bryan plugged into the Silicon Valley proposal spreadsheet just to test the spreadsheet formulas to make sure they were working.\" I think this is a very important lesson - don\'t keep records that can be used against you in court! The presence of the word, \"if,\" properly qualifies the sentence as a \"maybe, maybe not\" situation. Vanessa points out that the evidence did not prove that the spreadsheet[s] applied to Chico. And Vanessa describes the theoretical situation as, \"no more than an overly optimistic daydream...\" quite different than, \"an overly optimistic daydream.\" Thank you for pointing out that Tony Serra attempted, unsuccessfully, to enter the spreadsheet[s] into evidence earlier in the trial. That seems to lend credence to Vanessa\'s colorful characterization of the spreadsheet[s] as, \"emerging from ancient history with a new significance.\" I really appreciate you presenting your views, Brenda. You can rest assured that all of your comments will be painstakingly processed, evaluated, and may be incorporated into future reports, and/or revisions of past reports. Thanks again, Brenda. - Peter Gabriel Keyes Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:52:39 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-245 Hi Brenda, Thank you for your comments. We will review them meticulously, and will gladly make any clarifications where it is called for. I am very sorry that you consider the piece to be, \"dangerously inflammatory and unfair.\" We seek to be fair, and I personally, and respectfully disagree that the writing is dangerously inflammatory. An unbiased reader commented, \"It sounds like Vanessa tentatively concluded Bryan did not cross the line.\" It appears as if you and Bryan are suggesting that it is wrong to say that Bryan even did anything remotely resembling snitching - presumably because of the emotional nature of the word \"snitch.\" We have repeated over and over, WE ARE NOT CALLING BRYAN EPIS A SNITCH! Please allow me to direct your attention to the END of Vanessa\'s sentence, \"Public reaction is likely to be mixed, but it certainly makes a great deal of difference that the statute of limitations has already passed on these crimes.\" Isn\'t that the defense\'s position that exonerates Bryan? We are well aware of your theory that an empty courtroom is more beneficial to Bryan\'s case than one containing medical marijuana advocates. You believe that Judge Damrell punishes Bryan with harsher rulings when there is a crowd gathered to witness the proceedings. I do not recall when Judge Damrell, \"overtly expressed his dislike of Bryan\'s having supporters in the audience,\" as you state. Could you please direct me to the Judge\'s statements that disparage Bryan\'s supporters in the courtroom? Drug War Chronicle sent out a special announcement prior to Bryan\'s sentencing hearing, urging advocates to attend the hearing. Was this done against the wishes of Bryan\'s defense? If you honestly wanted people not to come, many folks clearly did not get the message. You say, \"Bryan and I were not there to put on a media show..\" and I think I know what you mean by that. But, then again, Bryan courted media with his flamboyant speech. Many of his statements seemed targeted more towards the News & Review than the 9th circuit. Not that there\'s anything wrong with that, but I believe that Vanessa is the only reporter that covered all of Bryan\'s speech, not just a small portion of it. I\'m sorry you view Vanessa\'s reporting as, \"poo-poo[ing] the prosecutorial misconduct.\" We know that this case is far from over, and are very excited about your prospects for appeal, based on prosecutorial misconduct. Vanessa reported about what happened at THAT HEARING, and prosecutorial misconduct did not come up much at the hearing in question. As I stated before, we are hopeful that Bryan is able to remain free on bail, pending appeal. Since you have already okay\'ed Vanessa\'s most recent article, I trust that you are satisfied with how Vanessa covered your charges of fake evidence - used by the prosecution - in this case. When you get into whether there is one spreadsheet or a number of spreadsheets, I think you are getting into marginally relevant semantical issues, when it comes to our readers. Clearly there are multiple COPIES of spreadsheets, and which party - the defense or the prosecution - created and/or manipulated the documents is highly contentious. You take issue with the statement: \"According to Epis, the documents were like a mathematical contemplation of starting grows elsewhere in California -- Silicon Valley and Newhall, specifically.\" Again it seems semantics are getting in the way, here. Would it be more accurate to switch the word, \"grows,\" with the word, \"dispensaries?\" You also dislike the statement, \"If Epis had meant for the spreadsheets to apply to Chico, which was never solidly shown, it was no more than an overly optimistic daydream.\" Considering that the sentence starts with the word, \"If,\" I don\'t think there\'s anything you can say that is factually incorrect about that sentence. You say, \"This was not an \"overly optimistic daydream\" as you portray it -- it was purely random numbers that had nothing to do with anything, that Bryan plugged into the Silicon Valley proposal spreadsheet just to test the spreadsheet formulas to make sure they were working.\" I think this is a very important lesson - don\'t keep records that can be used against you in court! The presence of the word, \"if,\" properly qualifies the sentence as a \"maybe, maybe not\" situation. Vanessa points out that the evidence did not prove that the spreadsheet[s] applied to Chico. And Vanessa describes the theoretical situation as, \"no more than an overly optimistic daydream...\" quite different than, \"an overly optimistic daydream.\" Thank you for pointing out that Tony Serra attempted, unsuccessfully, to enter the spreadsheet[s] into evidence earlier in the trial. That seems to lend credence to Vanessa\'s colorful characterization of the spreadsheet[s] as, \"emerging from ancient history with a new significance.\" I really appreciate you presenting your views, Brenda. You can rest assured that all of your comments will be painstakingly processed, evaluated, and may be incorporated into future reports, and/or revisions of past reports. Thanks again, Brenda. - Peter Gabriel Keyes Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:52:39 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-409 Hi Brenda, Thank you for your comments. We will review them meticulously, and will gladly make any clarifications where it is called for. I am very sorry that you consider the piece to be, \"dangerously inflammatory and unfair.\" We seek to be fair, and I personally, and respectfully disagree that the writing is dangerously inflammatory. An unbiased reader commented, \"It sounds like Vanessa tentatively concluded Bryan did not cross the line.\" It appears as if you and Bryan are suggesting that it is wrong to say that Bryan even did anything remotely resembling snitching - presumably because of the emotional nature of the word \"snitch.\" We have repeated over and over, WE ARE NOT CALLING BRYAN EPIS A SNITCH! Please allow me to direct your attention to the END of Vanessa\'s sentence, \"Public reaction is likely to be mixed, but it certainly makes a great deal of difference that the statute of limitations has already passed on these crimes.\" Isn\'t that the defense\'s position that exonerates Bryan? We are well aware of your theory that an empty courtroom is more beneficial to Bryan\'s case than one containing medical marijuana advocates. You believe that Judge Damrell punishes Bryan with harsher rulings when there is a crowd gathered to witness the proceedings. I do not recall when Judge Damrell, \"overtly expressed his dislike of Bryan\'s having supporters in the audience,\" as you state. Could you please direct me to the Judge\'s statements that disparage Bryan\'s supporters in the courtroom? Drug War Chronicle sent out a special announcement prior to Bryan\'s sentencing hearing, urging advocates to attend the hearing. Was this done against the wishes of Bryan\'s defense? If you honestly wanted people not to come, many folks clearly did not get the message. You say, \"Bryan and I were not there to put on a media show..\" and I think I know what you mean by that. But, then again, Bryan courted media with his flamboyant speech. Many of his statements seemed targeted more towards the News & Review than the 9th circuit. Not that there\'s anything wrong with that, but I believe that Vanessa is the only reporter that covered all of Bryan\'s speech, not just a small portion of it. I\'m sorry you view Vanessa\'s reporting as, \"poo-poo[ing] the prosecutorial misconduct.\" We know that this case is far from over, and are very excited about your prospects for appeal, based on prosecutorial misconduct. Vanessa reported about what happened at THAT HEARING, and prosecutorial misconduct did not come up much at the hearing in question. As I stated before, we are hopeful that Bryan is able to remain free on bail, pending appeal. Since you have already okay\'ed Vanessa\'s most recent article, I trust that you are satisfied with how Vanessa covered your charges of fake evidence - used by the prosecution - in this case. When you get into whether there is one spreadsheet or a number of spreadsheets, I think you are getting into marginally relevant semantical issues, when it comes to our readers. Clearly there are multiple COPIES of spreadsheets, and which party - the defense or the prosecution - created and/or manipulated the documents is highly contentious. You take issue with the statement: \"According to Epis, the documents were like a mathematical contemplation of starting grows elsewhere in California -- Silicon Valley and Newhall, specifically.\" Again it seems semantics are getting in the way, here. Would it be more accurate to switch the word, \"grows,\" with the word, \"dispensaries?\" You also dislike the statement, \"If Epis had meant for the spreadsheets to apply to Chico, which was never solidly shown, it was no more than an overly optimistic daydream.\" Considering that the sentence starts with the word, \"If,\" I don\'t think there\'s anything you can say that is factually incorrect about that sentence. You say, \"This was not an \"overly optimistic daydream\" as you portray it -- it was purely random numbers that had nothing to do with anything, that Bryan plugged into the Silicon Valley proposal spreadsheet just to test the spreadsheet formulas to make sure they were working.\" I think this is a very important lesson - don\'t keep records that can be used against you in court! The presence of the word, \"if,\" properly qualifies the sentence as a \"maybe, maybe not\" situation. Vanessa points out that the evidence did not prove that the spreadsheet[s] applied to Chico. And Vanessa describes the theoretical situation as, \"no more than an overly optimistic daydream...\" quite different than, \"an overly optimistic daydream.\" Thank you for pointing out that Tony Serra attempted, unsuccessfully, to enter the spreadsheet[s] into evidence earlier in the trial. That seems to lend credence to Vanessa\'s colorful characterization of the spreadsheet[s] as, \"emerging from ancient history with a new significance.\" I really appreciate you presenting your views, Brenda. You can rest assured that all of your comments will be painstakingly processed, evaluated, and may be incorporated into future reports, and/or revisions of past reports. Thanks again, Brenda. - Peter Gabriel Keyes Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:52:39 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-74 I noticed that Tim hasn\'t reponded to Brenda\'s last comment. Her last comment was after actually reading this outrageously poor story. The one Tim just responded to, was Brenda commenting on the Resentencing story, NOT this story. I have a feeling that Dale looked at just the resentencing story as well, and not this story. There is no valid reply to Brenda\'s last commentary, as it sets the record straight. Simply put, it is you who are damaging and dividing, by paying people to write propaganda. - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:06:52 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-244 I noticed that Tim hasn\'t reponded to Brenda\'s last comment. Her last comment was after actually reading this outrageously poor story. The one Tim just responded to, was Brenda commenting on the Resentencing story, NOT this story. I have a feeling that Dale looked at just the resentencing story as well, and not this story. There is no valid reply to Brenda\'s last commentary, as it sets the record straight. Simply put, it is you who are damaging and dividing, by paying people to write propaganda. - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:06:52 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-408 I noticed that Tim hasn\'t reponded to Brenda\'s last comment. Her last comment was after actually reading this outrageously poor story. The one Tim just responded to, was Brenda commenting on the Resentencing story, NOT this story. I have a feeling that Dale looked at just the resentencing story as well, and not this story. There is no valid reply to Brenda\'s last commentary, as it sets the record straight. Simply put, it is you who are damaging and dividing, by paying people to write propaganda. - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:06:52 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-73 For clarity, following is the letter I sent to Brenda and to which she responded in the comment above. Dear Brenda, My name is Tim Castleman, I am the author of the email you responded to. Let me begin by expressing my admiration of your outstanding defense of Bryan. I have attached a picture of you that I took when we went to lunch, Vanessa said it was a good shot and perhaps it will be useful to you. I have responded to your note below, inline. On 9/22/07, Brenda Grantland wrote: >> Vanessa & Bryan - >> This dispute has already gotten too far out of hand. We need to call a halt to it right now. These are both excellent points, I wholeheartedly agree. >> I just read over your article today and it\'s fine the way you have edited it. Thanks for quickly correcting it. I don\'t know which article you read, but the one about his sentencing hearing titled: \"Bryan Epis Given 10-Year Sentence Once Again\" is NOT the article in question and it is NOT an edited version of it either. The article Bryan has posted his comments on is titled \"Epis Testifies On Marijuana Sale: Some names given, some withheld\" and it is still published here: ( http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/content/view/144/114/) As far as I know the only editing that has been done relates to the spreadsheet evidence, as you requested. If there are any factual errors, please help me discover them. >> I hope you understand why Bryan was so upset about language in an earlier version of the article suggesting that he snitched out others. A number of years ago Todd McCormick falsely accused Lynn and Judy Osburn of snitching him out, and because of the publishing power of the internet, those harmful statements caused a lot of damage to their reputations. Once a rumor like that gets into the rumor mill it can never be retracted. Thank you for for this astute observation and for sharing my feeling on this important issue. We are definitely on the same page about the damage that can be associated with even unfounded accusations. Due to his stature in the medical cannabis community, we are especially concerned by the bold accusations made by Bryan. We can agree that it is easy to see how outright accusations of working for the government and aiding the prosecution is damaging to our reputation. >> We can\'t stop you from reporting on Bryan\'s case but we really hope that in the future you will try harder to be accurate before publishing the story. If you have any questions or uncertainties, ask me first. We have a strong dedication to the truth and we are always delighted to work with you to insure the facts are presented in the best possible light, we are grateful for your help. >> Also, just to set the record straight, Dale Gieringer did not make any comment at all about your article when he called me. He just asked me if I had seen it, and forwarded it to me. Thank you for confirming this about Dale, and please note that it is Bryan who brought this inaccuracy to the open forum in his comments on the website. I sincerely hope he will set the record straight just as publicly as he marred it. >> When I read it I realized that you had just set in motion some ugly fodder for the rumor mill -- whether you meant to or not -- and I immediately called Bryan so that he could take a look at it. The purpose of Vanessa\'s legitimate, thought provoking question about Bryan\'s testimony in federal court is to stimulate an important discussion in the medical cannabis community exploring what exactly constitutes \"snitching\". It is our position that this is much more than \'ugly fodder for the rumor mill\'. We strongly believe that this timely, relevant discussion helps to fulfill our mission to educate patients and caregivers to help them avoid prosecution and stay out of jail. >> I am very sorry that Dale got pulled into this because he had nothing to do with it. Thank you, I agree and it is very unfortunate Bryan\'s comments have hurt so many good people that do so much good for the medical marijuana community. I look forward to your leadership and guidance to help mitigate the damage while also allowing Bryan to save face. Sincerely, Tim Castleman MMA Administrator - Tim Castleman Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:53:23 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-243 For clarity, following is the letter I sent to Brenda and to which she responded in the comment above. Dear Brenda, My name is Tim Castleman, I am the author of the email you responded to. Let me begin by expressing my admiration of your outstanding defense of Bryan. I have attached a picture of you that I took when we went to lunch, Vanessa said it was a good shot and perhaps it will be useful to you. I have responded to your note below, inline. On 9/22/07, Brenda Grantland wrote: >> Vanessa & Bryan - >> This dispute has already gotten too far out of hand. We need to call a halt to it right now. These are both excellent points, I wholeheartedly agree. >> I just read over your article today and it\'s fine the way you have edited it. Thanks for quickly correcting it. I don\'t know which article you read, but the one about his sentencing hearing titled: \"Bryan Epis Given 10-Year Sentence Once Again\" is NOT the article in question and it is NOT an edited version of it either. The article Bryan has posted his comments on is titled \"Epis Testifies On Marijuana Sale: Some names given, some withheld\" and it is still published here: ( http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/content/view/144/114/) As far as I know the only editing that has been done relates to the spreadsheet evidence, as you requested. If there are any factual errors, please help me discover them. >> I hope you understand why Bryan was so upset about language in an earlier version of the article suggesting that he snitched out others. A number of years ago Todd McCormick falsely accused Lynn and Judy Osburn of snitching him out, and because of the publishing power of the internet, those harmful statements caused a lot of damage to their reputations. Once a rumor like that gets into the rumor mill it can never be retracted. Thank you for for this astute observation and for sharing my feeling on this important issue. We are definitely on the same page about the damage that can be associated with even unfounded accusations. Due to his stature in the medical cannabis community, we are especially concerned by the bold accusations made by Bryan. We can agree that it is easy to see how outright accusations of working for the government and aiding the prosecution is damaging to our reputation. >> We can\'t stop you from reporting on Bryan\'s case but we really hope that in the future you will try harder to be accurate before publishing the story. If you have any questions or uncertainties, ask me first. We have a strong dedication to the truth and we are always delighted to work with you to insure the facts are presented in the best possible light, we are grateful for your help. >> Also, just to set the record straight, Dale Gieringer did not make any comment at all about your article when he called me. He just asked me if I had seen it, and forwarded it to me. Thank you for confirming this about Dale, and please note that it is Bryan who brought this inaccuracy to the open forum in his comments on the website. I sincerely hope he will set the record straight just as publicly as he marred it. >> When I read it I realized that you had just set in motion some ugly fodder for the rumor mill -- whether you meant to or not -- and I immediately called Bryan so that he could take a look at it. The purpose of Vanessa\'s legitimate, thought provoking question about Bryan\'s testimony in federal court is to stimulate an important discussion in the medical cannabis community exploring what exactly constitutes \"snitching\". It is our position that this is much more than \'ugly fodder for the rumor mill\'. We strongly believe that this timely, relevant discussion helps to fulfill our mission to educate patients and caregivers to help them avoid prosecution and stay out of jail. >> I am very sorry that Dale got pulled into this because he had nothing to do with it. Thank you, I agree and it is very unfortunate Bryan\'s comments have hurt so many good people that do so much good for the medical marijuana community. I look forward to your leadership and guidance to help mitigate the damage while also allowing Bryan to save face. Sincerely, Tim Castleman MMA Administrator - Tim Castleman Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:53:23 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-407 For clarity, following is the letter I sent to Brenda and to which she responded in the comment above. Dear Brenda, My name is Tim Castleman, I am the author of the email you responded to. Let me begin by expressing my admiration of your outstanding defense of Bryan. I have attached a picture of you that I took when we went to lunch, Vanessa said it was a good shot and perhaps it will be useful to you. I have responded to your note below, inline. On 9/22/07, Brenda Grantland wrote: >> Vanessa & Bryan - >> This dispute has already gotten too far out of hand. We need to call a halt to it right now. These are both excellent points, I wholeheartedly agree. >> I just read over your article today and it\'s fine the way you have edited it. Thanks for quickly correcting it. I don\'t know which article you read, but the one about his sentencing hearing titled: \"Bryan Epis Given 10-Year Sentence Once Again\" is NOT the article in question and it is NOT an edited version of it either. The article Bryan has posted his comments on is titled \"Epis Testifies On Marijuana Sale: Some names given, some withheld\" and it is still published here: ( http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/content/view/144/114/) As far as I know the only editing that has been done relates to the spreadsheet evidence, as you requested. If there are any factual errors, please help me discover them. >> I hope you understand why Bryan was so upset about language in an earlier version of the article suggesting that he snitched out others. A number of years ago Todd McCormick falsely accused Lynn and Judy Osburn of snitching him out, and because of the publishing power of the internet, those harmful statements caused a lot of damage to their reputations. Once a rumor like that gets into the rumor mill it can never be retracted. Thank you for for this astute observation and for sharing my feeling on this important issue. We are definitely on the same page about the damage that can be associated with even unfounded accusations. Due to his stature in the medical cannabis community, we are especially concerned by the bold accusations made by Bryan. We can agree that it is easy to see how outright accusations of working for the government and aiding the prosecution is damaging to our reputation. >> We can\'t stop you from reporting on Bryan\'s case but we really hope that in the future you will try harder to be accurate before publishing the story. If you have any questions or uncertainties, ask me first. We have a strong dedication to the truth and we are always delighted to work with you to insure the facts are presented in the best possible light, we are grateful for your help. >> Also, just to set the record straight, Dale Gieringer did not make any comment at all about your article when he called me. He just asked me if I had seen it, and forwarded it to me. Thank you for confirming this about Dale, and please note that it is Bryan who brought this inaccuracy to the open forum in his comments on the website. I sincerely hope he will set the record straight just as publicly as he marred it. >> When I read it I realized that you had just set in motion some ugly fodder for the rumor mill -- whether you meant to or not -- and I immediately called Bryan so that he could take a look at it. The purpose of Vanessa\'s legitimate, thought provoking question about Bryan\'s testimony in federal court is to stimulate an important discussion in the medical cannabis community exploring what exactly constitutes \"snitching\". It is our position that this is much more than \'ugly fodder for the rumor mill\'. We strongly believe that this timely, relevant discussion helps to fulfill our mission to educate patients and caregivers to help them avoid prosecution and stay out of jail. >> I am very sorry that Dale got pulled into this because he had nothing to do with it. Thank you, I agree and it is very unfortunate Bryan\'s comments have hurt so many good people that do so much good for the medical marijuana community. I look forward to your leadership and guidance to help mitigate the damage while also allowing Bryan to save face. Sincerely, Tim Castleman MMA Administrator - Tim Castleman Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:53:23 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-72 Hello again, Bryan, Calling Vanessa, \"despicable,\" is not productive. Ad hominem personal attacks are discouraged on most forums, these included. Court reporting is what we do. 501 I Street is a Building for the People of the United States of America. You may not tell us we cannot go there. I still wish the best for you, Bryan, despite these escalating personal attacks. \"This dispute has already gotten too far out of hand. We need to call a halt to it right now.\" - Brenda Grantland - Peter Gabriel Keyes Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:33:16 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-242 Hello again, Bryan, Calling Vanessa, \"despicable,\" is not productive. Ad hominem personal attacks are discouraged on most forums, these included. Court reporting is what we do. 501 I Street is a Building for the People of the United States of America. You may not tell us we cannot go there. I still wish the best for you, Bryan, despite these escalating personal attacks. \"This dispute has already gotten too far out of hand. We need to call a halt to it right now.\" - Brenda Grantland - Peter Gabriel Keyes Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:33:16 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-406 Hello again, Bryan, Calling Vanessa, \"despicable,\" is not productive. Ad hominem personal attacks are discouraged on most forums, these included. Court reporting is what we do. 501 I Street is a Building for the People of the United States of America. You may not tell us we cannot go there. I still wish the best for you, Bryan, despite these escalating personal attacks. \"This dispute has already gotten too far out of hand. We need to call a halt to it right now.\" - Brenda Grantland - Peter Gabriel Keyes Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:33:16 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-71 The only thing I wrote in all my replies so far was that I later found to be inaccurate was the part about Dale Gieringer (sorry I spelled his name wrong earlier) mentioned this \"story\" to my attorney because he \"knew facts Vanessa didn\'t have her facts straight\". I just assumed this from the original voice mail I got.\" Dale didn\'t say this to her. He just pointed out that there was a story written about me on this site. But there are two recent stories. Did he see this one, or the other one about my resentencing? That I don\'t know as of this time. - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:42:03 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-241 The only thing I wrote in all my replies so far was that I later found to be inaccurate was the part about Dale Gieringer (sorry I spelled his name wrong earlier) mentioned this \"story\" to my attorney because he \"knew facts Vanessa didn\'t have her facts straight\". I just assumed this from the original voice mail I got.\" Dale didn\'t say this to her. He just pointed out that there was a story written about me on this site. But there are two recent stories. Did he see this one, or the other one about my resentencing? That I don\'t know as of this time. - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:42:03 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-405 The only thing I wrote in all my replies so far was that I later found to be inaccurate was the part about Dale Gieringer (sorry I spelled his name wrong earlier) mentioned this \"story\" to my attorney because he \"knew facts Vanessa didn\'t have her facts straight\". I just assumed this from the original voice mail I got.\" Dale didn\'t say this to her. He just pointed out that there was a story written about me on this site. But there are two recent stories. Did he see this one, or the other one about my resentencing? That I don\'t know as of this time. - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:42:03 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-70 This is in response to \"Bryan, once again you are the one that has got it wrong. I have investigated your claims and found them without merit. Your private email threats and vulgarity are inexcusable. You owe Vanessa an apology.\" Tim, I already know that you are Peter\'s and Vanessa\'s cronie. If they told you to jump off a bridge, you wouldn\'t hesitate for a millisecond. I\'ve already heard it from people in Sacramento who you are and where you stand, so you\'re not fooling me about your so-called investigation, They know who you really are. I didn\'t believe it at first. I was naive, but now I know too. You all thrive on worming your way in, and then disrupting, and dividing people who are legitimate. Read my attorney\'s last response. She sets the record straight. Her command of the English language is superior to any of yours, so obviously you won\'t be able to respond with anything meaningful. You\'ll probably come back saying she\'s physically threatened all of you as well! I didn\'t threaten anyone. All I said to Vanessa is that if she called the people that \"upon a subjective determination\" I snitched on, that they would tell her off like she DESERVES. One of the things Dave said was is that if Vanessa called him, he would \"tear her a new one\". That is with words, DUH, not physically, DUH, but it is interesting how you all like to convolute the truth to provoke more controversy. Bonnie interestingly, and independently, and without knowledge of what Dave said, \"It\'s pretty f*&cked up. I\'m going to ream her if she calls me\" (almost the same language). That is with words, DUH. Apparently telling Vanessa the truth, that she is a despicable one-sided so-called representative of the \"media\", is transformed into a physical threat. Yes to someone who can\'t think, but who responds irrelevantly. These are the people I (upon a subjective determination) snitched on. So why does she not want to talk to them now? Because none of you care what the truth is, but only how you can appease the people who pay you. I dare (oh another \"physical\" threat) any of you to talk to them. Why don\'t you introduce yourselves, and give a full background of who you are so you can say you\'re not up to your usual distorting of the truth. At least Bonnie will be at the Norml convention. Dave wants to go too. Go up to them and tell them who you are (since you all refuse to call them). They\'ll let you \"have it\" (with words, DUH, but the truth to you is all of a sudden convoluted into a physical threat). Apparently to all of you, telling you all the truth, that you\'re all pathetic liars who can\'t write as a real reporter does, is a \"threat.\" Of course Vanessa won\'t talk to the people I (subjectively) snitched on. You guys don\'t want the truth to be told. If you could think, instead of talk out of you know where, (oh another threat) you could respond with relevance. I\'ve asked my attorney to not talk with any of you from now on with regard to my case, at least after this shirade is over. I\'ve instructed you three to stay away from me, and to stay away from any further hearings of mine, and to not approach me if you see me. If you are on the side of medical marijuana activists, and not the other side, then none of you will come to the hearing on October 22nd. We\'ll see where you stand at that time. Bryan Epis You - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:31:22 +0100 http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/court-reports/bryan-epis/144.html#comment-240 This is in response to \"Bryan, once again you are the one that has got it wrong. I have investigated your claims and found them without merit. Your private email threats and vulgarity are inexcusable. You owe Vanessa an apology.\" Tim, I already know that you are Peter\'s and Vanessa\'s cronie. If they told you to jump off a bridge, you wouldn\'t hesitate for a millisecond. I\'ve already heard it from people in Sacramento who you are and where you stand, so you\'re not fooling me about your so-called investigation, They know who you really are. I didn\'t believe it at first. I was naive, but now I know too. You all thrive on worming your way in, and then disrupting, and dividing people who are legitimate. Read my attorney\'s last response. She sets the record straight. Her command of the English language is superior to any of yours, so obviously you won\'t be able to respond with anything meaningful. You\'ll probably come back saying she\'s physically threatened all of you as well! I didn\'t threaten anyone. All I said to Vanessa is that if she called the people that \"upon a subjective determination\" I snitched on, that they would tell her off like she DESERVES. One of the things Dave said was is that if Vanessa called him, he would \"tear her a new one\". That is with words, DUH, not physically, DUH, but it is interesting how you all like to convolute the truth to provoke more controversy. Bonnie interestingly, and independently, and without knowledge of what Dave said, \"It\'s pretty f*&cked up. I\'m going to ream her if she calls me\" (almost the same language). That is with words, DUH. Apparently telling Vanessa the truth, that she is a despicable one-sided so-called representative of the \"media\", is transformed into a physical threat. Yes to someone who can\'t think, but who responds irrelevantly. These are the people I (upon a subjective determination) snitched on. So why does she not want to talk to them now? Because none of you care what the truth is, but only how you can appease the people who pay you. I dare (oh another \"physical\" threat) any of you to talk to them. Why don\'t you introduce yourselves, and give a full background of who you are so you can say you\'re not up to your usual distorting of the truth. At least Bonnie will be at the Norml convention. Dave wants to go too. Go up to them and tell them who you are (since you all refuse to call them). They\'ll let you \"have it\" (with words, DUH, but the truth to you is all of a sudden convoluted into a physical threat). Apparently to all of you, telling you all the truth, that you\'re all pathetic liars who can\'t write as a real reporter does, is a \"threat.\" Of course Vanessa won\'t talk to the people I (subjectively) snitched on. You guys don\'t want the truth to be told. If you could think, instead of talk out of you know where, (oh another threat) you could respond with relevance. I\'ve asked my attorney to not talk with any of you from now on with regard to my case, at least after this shirade is over. I\'ve instructed you three to stay away from me, and to stay away from any further hearings of mine, and to not approach me if you see me. If you are on the side of medical marijuana activists, and not the other side, then none of you will come to the hearing on October 22nd. We\'ll see where you stand at that time. Bryan Epis You - Bryan Epis Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:31:22 +0100