Pages

Showing posts with label Covington and Burling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Covington and Burling. Show all posts

Saturday, October 2, 2021

Deleted Wiki Covington & Burling - Tobacco Industry Information

 Information removed from the wikipedia article on the Washington D.C. regulatory powerhouse corporate law firm Covington & Burling, founded 1919.

Something to give pause to the idea of that law firm's connections with organizations as MPP, the DPF/DPA and others

Philip Morris & Tobacco Institute

Covington & Burling represented tobacco interests for decades, instrumental in the founding of, and serving as counsel to, the Tobacco Institute, established in 1958.[8] The institute attacked scientific studies, although more by casting doubt on them rather than by rebutting them directly. It also lobbied Congress, although initially at a low level.[9] The institute also served as corporate affairs consultants to the Philip Morris group of companies, according to a 1993 internal budget review document which indicated the firm was paid $280,000 to "serve as general counsel to the Consumer Products Company Tort Coalition, agree the legal objectives with member company litigators, draft legislation and amendments, prepare lobby papers and testimony for legislative committees and administer the coalition's budget."[10]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) brought suit against multiple Tobacco companies and trade associations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and after a lengthy trial, on August 17, 2006, the Judge issued a 1,683 page opinion (449 F.Supp.2d 1, D.D.C. 2006) finding the tobacco companies liable.[11] The court found "As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO." The court issued a harsh rebuke: "over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as 'replacement smokers,' about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, they suppressed research, they destroyed documents, they manipulated the use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction, they distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting, and they abused the legal system in order to achieve their goal – to make money with little, if any, regard for individual illness and suffering, soaring health costs, or the integrity of the legal system."[12]

But the Court also directly addressed the law firm Covington & Burling specifically: "Covington & Burling was counsel for the Tobacco Institute and was also described as counsel for the 'industry'. ... An attorney from Covington & Burling attended every meeting of the Committee ... also cleared press releases issued by the Tobacco Institute. ... Covington & Burling, became the guiding strategists for the Enterprise and were deeply involved in implementation of those strategies once adopted."[13] Along with two other firms, which helped create the Tobacco Institute in 1958, and served the industry for the next 50 years came this condemnation:

"Finally, a word must be said about the role of lawyers in this fifty-year history of deceiving smokers, potential smokers, and the American public about the hazards of smoking and second-hand smoke, and the addictiveness of nicotine. At every stage, lawyers played an absolutely central role in the creation and perpetuation of the Enterprise and the implementation of its fraudulent schemes. They devised and coordinated both national and international strategy; they directed scientists as to what research they should and should not undertake; they vetted scientific research papers and reports as well as public relations materials to ensure that the interests of the Enterprise would be protected; they identified 'friendly' scientific witnesses, subsidized them with grants from the Center for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research, paid them enormous fees, and often hid the relationship between those witnesses and the industry; and they devised and carried out document destruction policies and took shelter behind baseless assertions of the attorney-client privilege. What a sad and disquieting chapter in the history of an honorable and often courageous profession."[14]

The defendants filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On May 22, 2009, the three-judge panel unanimously upheld Judge Kessler's decision finding the tobacco companies liable. The court upheld most of the ordered remedies, but denied additional remedies sought by public health interveners and the Department of Justice (566 F.3d 1095, 2009).[15]

During the $280 billion U.S. federal lawsuit against big tobacco, Covington & Burling partner John Rupp, a former lawyer with the industry-funded Tobacco Institute, testified that "the industry sought out scientists and paid them to make an 'objective appraisal' of whether secondhand smoke was harmful to non-smokers, a move they hoped would dispel the 'extreme views' of some anti-smoking activists." He "said the scientists, who came from prestigious institutions such as Georgetown University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst, did not consider themselves to be working 'on behalf' of cigarette makers even though they were being paid by the industry." Rupp said, "We were paying them to share their views in forums where they would be usefully presented," according to Reuters.[16]

Saturday, November 14, 2015

DPF Denied 1997 Opium-Coca Panel


a re-post from 1997 about the Drug Policy Foundation's denial of a proposed panel on Opium and Coca for their conference that year in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) was the predecessor organization to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), that was created in 2000 with the DPF's merger with the Lindesmith Institute that was headed by Ethan Nadelmann- current DPA Executive Director.   The President of the DPA's Board of Directors, Ira Glasser meanwhile served on the Board of Directors of the DPF.  The DPA had been founded by Kevin Zeese from the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML), with Dr. Arnold S. Trebach of American University in 1986, who had left the organization in 1997.
The Drug Policy Foundation, and the Drug Policy Alliance have been advised through the bro bono program of Covington & Burling, Washington D.C.'s leading corporate food, pharmaceutical and Tobacco industry law firm founded by an instrumental figure in establishing the 1914 Harrison Act, since at least 1988; and since about 1993 or 1994 started receiving funding from George Soros.
---

DPF SAYS NO TO HOGSHIRE/OPIUM & COCA PANEL?

*From a recent -- May 25th 1997 -- article from The New York Times, regarding the legal persecution of Jim Hogshire, author of the book "Opium for the Masses"

"To opponents of the drug war, the case showed how drug policy could clash with other American values. 'The guy was being persecuted because of the fact that he wrote a book,' said Arnold Trebach, founder of the Drug Policy Foundation, a Washington D.C. group that seeks alternatives to the drug war. 'A book! In America! Have we totally lost our sense of who we are?'"

Indeed, have we totally lost our sense of who we are?!?! Like others, I was heartened to hear Dr. Trebach's words of support for Hogshire, and applauded his efforts at educating the public.

Inspired by professor Trebach's words of support for "controversial" approaches to solving the problem of the Drug War, I made this formal proposal to the DPF for a panel at this year's annual conference. I thought the subject would have been of intense interest to both activists and scholars involved in drug war politics. Along with Coca leaf, Opium was outlawed by the so-called Harrison "Tax" Act of 1914, which aimed at the issue of "habit-forming" drugs, banned the citizen's right to purchase or possess Opium and Coca, or any of their various components like morphine or refined cocaine. This prohibition effectively stopped the trade in the plant products, while making the trade in potent white powder derivatives - heroin and cocaine hydrochloride -- immensely profitable. With the dominance of the latter modes of "hard" drugs, we need independent scholar working to enlighten the public about the uses of natural plant versions of the now illicit drugs- in short a look at how drugs are more likely to be consumed WITHOUT the twentieth century drug war, particularly that substance called "God's Own Medicine" -- opium. Professor Trebach's 1982 book, The Heroin Solution, suggests the need to talk seriously about opiates, particularly their use in pain control and patients' access to relief. My panel would give D.P.F. conference attendees just this forum to hear about the therapeutic potential of the PLANTS targeted by twentieth century "drug" prohibition, giving us the chance to avoid the canard of "hard drugs" and focus on a realistic approach to drugs and drug use.

--- Below is my Proposal ---------

PLENARY PANEL/WORKSHOP PROPOSAL

Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca, etc:
Popular, Pre-prohibition Uses of Natural Plants
Perverted by Drug Prohibition into today's "Hard" Drug Plague

11th International Conference on Drug Policy Reform,
October 15-18, 1997
Douglas A. Willinger, moderator
Submitted to the Drug Policy Foundation. Speakers that it is proposed that the Drug Policy Foundation formally
invite:

Jim Hogshire, author, Opium for the Masses
Dr. Andrew T. Weil, author Chocolate to Morphine
Dr. Lester Grinspoon
Cynthia Cotts, writer, National Law Journal
Dr. Ronald K. Siegel, UCLA, author Intoxication (1989)
Michael Montagne, Boston College of Pharmacology
Dr. John Morgan

"Hard" drugs - e.g. "heroin" and "cocaine" -- have evoked great fears, leading people to advocate or acquiesce to more repressive and expensive drug laws and drug law enforcement, as if these molecules were necessarily pernicious. Yet prior to prohibition, opiates and cocaine were widely used as safely as aspirin and caffeine are now. Because we are so conditioned to react to the powder forms of these drugs, we forget that these more direct modes of ingestion -- sniffing, smoking and injecting -- were formerly a relatively rare phenomenon. Prior to the twentieth century's "war on drugs," most people using these drugs took them in dilute form, whether as raw plant material, or plant preparation of comparable potency. Such plants and their popular preparations, were widely recognized medicinal agents, worldwide. These substances have long and positive histories predating their criminalization by U.S. federal statute via the 1914 Harrison "Tax" Act and successive laws, and were used throughout the medical community as effective, cheap, and safe treatments for a variety of ailments. Opium poppies have been taken medicinally for thousands of years, taken topically, smoked (and even brewed as a tea, as suggested in Hogshire's "Opium for the Masses.") "Cocaine" -- or more accurately, Coca just had many uses. The Extra Pharmacopoeia (the British counterpart to the U.S. Pharmacopoeia) cited Coca as a "nervine and muscular tonic, preventing waste of tissue, appeasing hunger and thirst, relieving fatigue, and aiding free respiration ... useful in various diseases of the digestive and respiratory organs.... " Meanwhile, the Wine of Coca, , became the most widely praised plant preparation of the time. ’s creator, Angelo Mariani was hailed by Pope Leo XIII as a "benefactor of humanity" for making Coca available around the world- after 40 years of Coca wine distribution." All of this of course, prior to prohibition. Any honest program of harm reduction in drug use must go beyond the narrow-minded discussion of today's "hard drug problems": heroin and cocaine hydrochloride, to look at Opium and Coca, to reveal the drug war's most intense effects upon drug abuse -- shifting markets to the infinitely more dangerous concentrated substances, while the natural forms are virtually forgotten.
--- My proposed panel would fill this serious void in the conference. NONE of the other panels allow a direct venue for either Opium or Coca although I am convinced many people -- including Dr. Trebach -- would be interested in hearing about these subjects. Jim Hogshire could do double duty and speak about his legal difficulties on the panel, The First Amendment – The Next Target of the War on Drugs.

Besides Hogshire, this proposed panel has a good list of speakers of interest to the conference attendees. Dr. Lester Grinspoon would make an excellent speaker about both Opium and Coca. So would Cynthia Cotts, drug reporter for a number of publication now on the staff of the National Law Journal; as well as Dr. Ronald K. Siegel of UCLA, who has long researched the psychotropic plants, and gave a good presentation at my 1995 DPF conference panel COCA '95: A Necessary Drug Policy Alternative From Abroad, that I moderated on October 21, 1995 in Santa Monica. Dr. Andrew Weil would certainly make an interesting presentation.

Given his background, I find it incomprehensible the DPF has not featured him as a conference speaker in seven years! All of my proposed speakers have indicated their interest in appearing on DPF panels, so the problem isn't lack of suitable material or interesting speakers. And I doubt the problem is lack of intellectual curiosity by Trebach and other DPF members.

So how come the DPF doesn't seem to be able to walk the walk -- after all, it certainly talks the talk!

Just who makes the decisions regarding conference panels?


Maybe Arnold Trebach doesn't know what his underlings are doing with his organization, which seems to be playing it so cautiously it's hard to distinguish between them and some of the drug warriors. Did this panel proposal: Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca, etc -- Popular, Pre-prohibition Uses of Natural Plants Perverted by Drug Prohibition just slip between the cracks amidst DPF staff changes? If the cause is political fear of "controversial", non-establishment ideas on promoting and end to Drug War mayhem, I am not alone in thinking that kind of compromise is fatal -- and should be fatal -- to any movement that pretends to advocate for people's rights. What if civil rights workers of the 1950s and 1960s had, rather than challenge segregation as wrong (and stick to their guns) instead chosen to meekly apologize for the color of their skins and an oppressive government policy? Does anyone out there have any advice about how can we get through to the right people within the D.P.F. [main phone 202 537 5005; fax 202 537 3007, web site with chat rooms and forum boards,http://www.dpf.org], for them to recognize the very fallacy of NOT pointing out how twentieth century prohibition is morally WRONG, and thus the need to attack the very dogma of the State Party line that [certain] drugs are evil? As the D.P.F., after all, was initially founded to help educate the public about the issues of drug policy, it would be a shame for it to lose its sense of what it was.

Douglas A. Willinger
Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca, etc:
Popular, Pre-prohibition Uses of
Natural Plants Perverted by Drug Prohibition
Into today's "Hard" Drug Plague

                                                                                  ---

This is all a pity.


The Drug Policy Foundation that was founded by Zeese and Trebach had done a relatively good job during the organization's early years, into the early 1990s- something I can attest to having attended all of their major conferences since 1989.

But starting in 1993 they have become increasingly timid with a tunnel vision focus more upon drugs in their more dangerous feared forms rather than the broad context of how such drugs - namely opiates and cocaine -- became perverted by prohibition, nor the potential benefits of the banned substances, as well as the rippling effects of the market distortion created by the 20th century "progressive" policies as the drug war.

To wit: where are the DPA panels spotlighting the use of Cannabis Oil to treat-cure cancer?

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2015/11/nadelmann-ignores-economic-reasons.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2015/07/drug-policy-alliance-covington-burling.html



Monday, October 26, 2015

Eric Holder Suggested As Speaker for DPA Conference

for the Drug Policy Alliance Panel Proposal 
for the International Drug Policy Reform Conference;
November 18-21, 2015:

Crystal Gateway Marriott
1700 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202



Eric Holder Esq.
Covington & Burling
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
                                                                                                                                October 12,  2015
Dear Mr. Eric Holder;

I would like to propose you as a speaker to be invited by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) for their upcoming International Drug Policy Reform Conference to be held at the Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, in Arlington, VA 22202, November 18-21, 2015.

I am a long time drug policy activist-historian who has attended the international conferences of the DPA , and those of its predecessor organization, the Drug Policy Foundation, since 1989.

I was a panelist at the DPF conference panels on cocaine in 1991 and 1992, the moderator of their 1995 conference panel  COCA 95 A Necessary Drug Policy Alternative from Abroad, and the author of papers on the topic of prohibition’s effects on cocaine usage, published in the DPF conference compendiums in 1990, 1991 and 1992.  These papers and the 1995 panel are viewable at my blog ‘Freedom of Medicine and Diet’.   

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/


I suggest that you might be made a part of a panel that I have proposed for this November 18-21 conference ‘Covington & Burling and Drug Policy’- please see attached proposal.

                                                                                                   Best Regards
                                                                                                   Douglas A. Willinger
                                                                                                   Freedom of Medicine and Diet
                                                                                                   8 Bretton Ridge
                                                                                                   Mt. Kisco, New York  10549
Cc: Marialuisa S. Gallozzi Esq. Covington & Burling
Drug Policy Alliance
Ethan Nadelmann
Ira Glasser

Friday, August 28, 2015

Eric Holder Returns to Covington & Burling

the man who had the power to re-schedule drugs under the CSA
returns to his law firm Covington & Burling



https://www.cov.com/en/news/2015/07/former-us-attorney-general-eric-holder-returns-to-covington

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Returns to Covington

7/6/2015
WASHINGTON, DC, July 6, 2015 — Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is returning to Covington as a partner after more than six years of service as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
Mr. Holder will be resident in the firm’s Washington office and focus on complex investigations and litigation matters, including matters that are international in scope and raise significant regulatory enforcement issues and substantial reputational concerns.

“It is a source of great pride to welcome Eric back to the firm after his distinguished service as attorney general,” said Timothy Hester, chair of the firm’s management committee. “Eric’s entire private practice career has been as a Covington partner, and we look forward to the role he will again play as a colleague, leader, client adviser and advocate.”

Mr. Holder is the third longest serving attorney general in U.S. history and the first African American to hold the office. As a member of President Obama’s cabinet and head of the Department of Justice, he oversaw the government’s efforts to address many critically important issues arising at the intersection of law and public policy, including national security investigations and prosecutions; landmark antitrust, environmental, fraud, and tax cases; the defense of voting rights and marriage equality; and reform of the federal criminal justice system. In 2014, Time magazine named Mr. Holder to its list of 100 Most Influential People, stating that he “worked tirelessly to ensure equal justice.”

Mr. Holder’s service as attorney general marks the most recent chapter in a remarkable career in public service. Prior to joining Covington in 2001, he served during the Clinton Administration as Deputy Attorney General and United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Earlier, Mr. Holder served as Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, having been appointed by President Reagan in 1988. Before becoming a judge, he served for many years as a public corruption prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which he had joined in 1976 upon his graduation from Columbia Law School.

Mr. Holder was a partner at Covington from 2001 until February 2009, when President Obama appointed and the Senate confirmed him as the nation’s 82nd Attorney General.

“Returning to Covington is like coming home. I couldn’t be happier to rejoin the firm and to have the opportunity once again to work with its exceptional lawyers and staff, for whom I have such high regard,” Mr. Holder said. “I am returning to Covington for the same reasons that drew me to the firm in the first place—its commitment to excellence in the service of clients, a collaborative and team-oriented culture, and a dedication to pro bono and public service.”

---

https://www.cov.com/en/biographies/h/eric-holder

Eric Holder advises clients on complex investigations and litigation matters, including those that are international in scope and involve significant regulatory enforcement issues and substantial reputational concerns. Mr. Holder, who was a partner at Covington from 2001 to 2009, rejoined the firm after serving for six years as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States.

Before his service as Attorney General, Mr. Holder maintained a wide-ranging investigations and litigation practice at Covington. Among numerous significant engagements, he led the firm’s representation of a major multi-national agricultural company in related civil, criminal, and investigative matters; acted as counsel to a special investigative committee of the board of directors of a Fortune 50 technology company; successfully tried a complex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a leading financial services company; and represented several life sciences companies in litigation and investigations.

Mr. Holder served as Attorney General from February 2009 to April 2015. As the third longest serving Attorney General in U.S. history and the first African American to hold that office, Mr. Holder is an internationally recognized leader across a broad range of regulatory enforcement, criminal justice, and national security issues. In 2014, Time magazine named Mr. Holder to its list of 100 Most Influential People, noting that he had “worked tirelessly to ensure equal justice.”

Including his tenure as Attorney General, Mr. Holder has served in government for more than thirty years, having been appointed to various positions requiring U.S. Senate confirmation by Presidents Obama, Clinton and Reagan.

Previous Experience

  • Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (2009-2015)
  • Partner, Covington & Burling (2001-2009)
  • Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (1997-2001)
  • U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia (1993-1997)
  • Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia (1988-1993)
  • Trial Attorney, Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division (1976-1988)


James Harry Covington Sold Out Medical Freedom
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/jh-covington-upheld-harrison-narcotic.html

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Drug Policy Alliance - Covington & Burling 2015 Panel Proposal Invite Letter






http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2015/06/covington-burling-and-drug-policy.html



Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10001
                                                                                    June 30, 2015

Dear Drug Policy Alliance:

Enclosed is a suggested panel proposal for our Drug Policy Alliance International Drug Policy Conference this November 18-21, 2015 at the Crystal Gateway Marriott at 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 “Covington & Burling And Drug Policy Reform”.

 Covington & Burling has a long and fascinating involvement in policy regarding drugs and other consumables.  The firms’ founder James Harry Covington was present as a congressman in deliberations regarding amendments to the 1906 Pure Foods and Drugs Act that lead to the crafting of the 1914 Harrison ‘Narcotics’ Act.  He subsequently became a judge who upheld the Harrison Act’s regulatory delegation of power to the U.S Department of Treasury regarding the supposed limits of ‘professional medical practice’ – a set of actions betraying medical freedom of choice.   He co-founded this firm in 1919, with its first client being the Grocery Manufacturers Association; since, Covington & Burling has been perhaps the single largest legal representative of pharmaceutical and tobacco interests.  As such, Covington & Burling’s involvement with the drug policy movement naturally raises eyebrows. 

Proposed invited speakers include the Covington & Burling pro bono program’s Marialuisa S. Gallozzi, in 1988 “assigned primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation”, a partner in the insurance coverage and food and drug practices. ... [who]… provides food and drug advice to manufacturers of medical devices, over-the-counter drugs, and dietary supplement, and author of a landmark paper on ‘“The (U.S.) Food Industry’s View About the Development of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Industrials” (GMO tobacco plants for growing patentable molecule pharmaceuticals) presented at the 2004 USDA conference panel “Perils and Pitfalls of GMOs”;  and  Joshua Greenburg , formerly with Covington & Burling and now with Womble Carlyle, also of Washington, D.C., who worked on Gonzales v Raich while he was working at Covington & Burling.

A panel as this would be invaluable opportunity for an exchange hopefully leading to an improvement with new and different initiatives to end the drug war.

I suggest holding this panel about the Covington & Burling involvement in drug policy/reform, along with my other longstanding panel proposals for such upon Coca; Tinctures of Opium, Wines Of Coca, Natural Plant Based Drugs Perverted by Prohibition; and the History of the Drug War.

I also suggest a panel to be held on the Therapeutic Benefits of Cannabis Oil and Ibogaine.

Such panels would go far to provide a fuller understanding of the general context of the drug war, specifically how it creates its very problems that its supporters use as its justification.  Such would go beyond the lamentable trend to simply focus upon such problems as somehow intrinsic with the drugs themselves (without regard to forms and the dynamics of pharmacokinetics), for the sake of more and more of the same narrow medicalization and bureaucratization being presented as somehow the only ‘solutions’ worthy of discussion.   

As if we can always hold panels on methadone, and crack, but neither Ibogaine, Opium, nor Coca.


                                                                                    Douglas A. Willinger
                                                                                    Freedom of Medicine and Diet
                                                                                  

Cc: Marialuisa S. Gallozzi Esq. Covington & Burling
      Joshua Greenburg, Esq. Womble Carlyle


Monday, June 22, 2015

Covington & Burling and Drug Policy Reform & Creation


Drug Policy Alliance Panel Proposal 
for the International Drug Policy Reform Conference;
November 18-21, 2015:

Crystal Gateway Marriott
1700 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202

Covington & Burling and Drug Policy

James Harry Covington

The Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling has long been involved with the drug policy movement.  As mentioned by Dr. Arnold S. Trebach, co founder of the Drug Policy Foundation in his 1986 book The Great American Drug War at page 327:
"... Mr Hutchins made urgent calls for assistance around the country, including one to Kevin Zeese of NORML in Washington.  Mr. Zeese contacted one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, Covington & Burling of Washington, D.C.  Lawyers David B. Isbell and Michael G. Michaelson, who is also a medical doctor, entered the case pro bono on behalf of Joe Hutchins, arguing in their first memorandum of law filed in November 1985 the the defense of medical necessity should be heard.  A judge issued another stay of the case and the case is now on appeal."
Commonwealth v Hutchins was an early medical marijuanna case:
http://cannabisnews.com/news/23/thread23642.shtml

Joseph Hutchins, was a forty-eight year old Navy veteran who suffered from scleroderma and Raynaud’s phenomenon.131 In addition to causing other physical ailments, these diseases had an especially severe effect on Hutchins’ gastrointestinal tract.132 Hutchins found that smoking marijuana alleviated many of his symptoms including: nausea; loss of appetite; difficulty in eating, drinking or swallowing; loss of mobility of the esophagus; spasticity; hypertension; and anxiety.133 Unable to secure a legal supply of marijuana, Hutchins was eventually arrested for cultivating and possessing two pounds of marijuana with the intent to distribute.134 The court determined that a threshold question in such cases is whether the harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law significantly outweighs the harm that reasonably could result from the court’s acceptance of necessity as an excuse.135 Only when the circumstances favor excusing the defendant, will the court then inquire into the elements of the defense.136 The court held that the harm to the defendant did not [*PG719]outweigh the potential harm to the public as a result of the negative impact on drug enforcement efforts, and thus, there was no error in denying the right to present the medical necessity defense.137



Covington & Burling has been directly involved with drug policy reform organizations through their pro bono program since at least 1988. It was then when the firm selected an attorney that they hired in 1987, and who is subsequently listed as insurance, food additive and pharmaceutical industry specialist, to advise the Drug Policy Alliance’s predecessor organization, the Drug Policy Foundation, and at Covington since.
While the Drug Policy Foundation has outstanding counsel in Kevin Zeese, the leading Washington law firm Covington and Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to corporate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington and Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”
In 2005 the firm’s web site (Health page) would note their long standing involvement with drug policy reform organizations.
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html
Commonwealth v. Hutchins. We represent Mr. Hutchins and the interests of similarly situated patients for whom the medical use of marijuana is necessary, in a variety of state and national initiatives aimed at decriminalizing such use. We work closely with the Drug Policy Foundation, the Marijuana Policy Project and sympathetic members of Congress and selected state legislatures. American Civil Liberties Union - Drug Policy Litigation Project. We were asked to assist the ACLU in preparing a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency in support of an application by a professor at the University of Massachusetts for registration to manufacture or distribute controlled substances for the purposes of a scientific study on medical marijuana. Specifically, they requested that we opine on the consistency of the application with the United States' treaty requirements pursuant to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. We have continued to provide advice on related aspects of this matter.
And as noted at the web site Raw Story in a post dated September 2011:
"The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) has received free legal representation in a lawsuit against the DEA over a license to grow marijuana for federally regulated research.
The D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling LLP, one of the foremost law firms representing the pharmaceutical industry, has offered pro-bono legal representation to the research group to appeal the DEA’s August 15 final order in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. MAPS estimated the law firm saved them $175,000 in legal costs.

The DEA rejected University of Massachusetts professor Lyle Craker request to obtain a license to grow marijuana to study its potential medical uses, claiming that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can be the only one to supply marijuana for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated research."

Covington & Burling was involved with the landmark Raich v Gonzalez case via at least one of its attorneys, Joshua Greenburg

This work follows a long history of involvement with food and drug policy, going back to its founding in 1919 when it took its first client the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and went on to become arguably the largest and most important legal representative of the food, pharmaceuticals and tobacco-cigarette industry. As the firm describes itself:
The founders of Covington & Burling foresaw the pervasive effects of the forthcoming era of federal legislation, regulation, and taxation. In 1919, they sought to create a firm in the nation's capital that could advise and represent corporations located anywhere in the nation or the world on a wide range of legal issues. Today our Washington office has over 300 lawyers representing clients according to the highest standards and fulfilling the firm's strong commitment to public service. Our lawyers are supported by nearly 100 paralegals and by information management specialists in the library, and in the litigation and practice support, and technology departments.

http://www.covingtonandburling.com/offices/washington/description.html
The firm was founded by James Harry Covington, a law professor at Georgetown University Law, had served as a federal judge who upheld the Harrison ‘narcotics’ Act of 1914, after serving as a US Congressman who was present at the Congressional deliberations regarding amending the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act that led to the creation of the 1914 Harrison Act. That case would uphold the Harrison Act’s delegation of regulatory authority to the U.S. Treasury Department to define what constituted ‘professional medical practice’- effectively giving that entity the authority to practice medicine without a license.

The firm is described as "...not just another law office..."
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/covington-burling-is-not-just-another.html
From “The Super-Lawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firm” 
by Joseph C. Goulden; chapter 1: “Covington & Burling: Pinnacle of Power” pp 21-22

“… Covington and Burling is not just another law office. It is, in fact, Washington’s oldest, largest and probably best national law firm. At one time or another, it has performed legal services for most blue-chip corporations in America. Unlike many forms, Covington and Burling doesn’t list representative clients in Martindale and Hubbell, the quasi-official legal directory. But, estimates one partner, “We’ve done things for, I’d say, twenty percent of the companies on Fortune’s list of the five hundred top corporations.” GM, AT&T, DuPont, CBS, American Airlines- you get the idea. Because of he diversity of talent afforded by the sheer size, Covington and Burling is perhaps the only law firm in Washington that can assign a specialist to handle any problem a client has before the Federal government, from defending a criminal antitrust case to obtaining an arms export license or convincing the Food and Drug Administration of the safety of a patent medicine or fancy new combination drug. Covington and Burling lawyers possess that special confidence that comes from expertise and power, and think in commensurately grand terms.”
Covington & Burling is not simply a leader in representing food and pharmaceutical interests, but also the Tobacco-cigarette industry.
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/tobacco-industry-httpwww.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Covington_%26_Burling

Covington & Burling also served as "corporate affairs consultants" to the Philip Morris group of companies, according to a 1993 internal budget review document which indicated the firm was paid $280,000 to "serve as general counsel fo the Consumer Products Company Tort Coalition, agree the legal objectives with member company litigators, draft legislation and amendments, prepare lobby papers and testimony for legislative committees and administer the coalition's budget". [6]

Covington & Burling was involved in organizing Philip Morris' Whitecoat Project, designed to help obscure the health effects of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

During the $280 billion U.S. federal lawsuit against Big Tobacco, Covington & Burling partner John Rupp, a former lawyer with the industry-funded Tobacco Institute, testified that "the industry sought out scientists and paid them to make an 'objective appraisal' of whether secondhand smoke was harmful to non-smokers, a move they hoped would dispel the 'extreme views' of some anti-smoking activists." He said "the scientists, who came from prestigious institutions such as Georgetown University and the University of Massachusetts, did not consider themselves to be working 'on behalf' of cigarette makers even though they were being paid by the industry." Rupp said, "We were paying them to share their views in forums where they would be usefully presented," according to Reuters. [7]

Partners in Covington & Burling include, but are not limited to, Keith Teel, Allan Topol and John Rupp, who have knowledge of lobbying tactics employed in Texas by the tobacco industry. The "push poll" conducted January 20-25, 1996, regarding Attorney General Dan Morales, was commissioned by Covington & Burling, and funded by Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Teel was a member of the tobacco industry delegation who met with Attorney General Dan Morales in February, 1996 in an attempt to prevent the filing of the state's lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recoup Medicaid costs for treating sick smokers. Teel has knowledge of the tobacco industry's tactics employed in Texas, including the use of "push polls" to intimidate or control public officials' actions.

Allan Topol of C&B attended a meeting of the Research Directors of Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris, and Liggett & Myers at Liggett & Myers Operations Center in Durham, NC on May 24, 1968. The objective of the meeting was to determine the variation and the amounts of Federal Trace Commission (FTC)-determined tar exposure which various groups of the population encounter when smoking various cigarettes. He attended the December 7, 1967, meeting at the Research Triangle Institute regarding individual's smoke exposure. He has knowledge of smokers' "compensation" techniques and the inaccuracies of the FTC method for measuring tar/nicotine exposure to smokers. Mr. Topol has knowledge regarding nicotine addiction, nicotine manipulation and disease/cancer causation. Covington & Burling were Counsel to the Tobacco Institute and Lorillard Counsel for Tobacco Sales. (PMI's Introduction to Privileged Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996)

Covington & Burling & Big Tobacco - 1964

Covington & Burling & Big Tobacco - 1987
Naturally thus, the participation of Covington & Burling in the drug policy reform-legalization movement is potentially quite eyebrow raising- and deserves spotlighting via a panel as here proposed.

Speakers:
- Attorneys with the pro bono program with groups as the Drug Policy Foundation-Drug Policy Alliance.

- Attorneys who have worked upon various cases such as Raich v, Gonzales.

These would include:


- Marialuisa Gallozzi, the C&B attorney in 1988 “assigned primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation”; a partner in the insurance coverage and food and drug practices. ... [who]… provides food and drug advice to manufacturers of medical devices, over-the-counter drugs, and dietary supplement;, author of a landmark paper on ‘“The (U.S.) Food Industry’s View About the Development of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Industrials” (GMO tobacco plants for growing patentable molecule pharmaceuticals) presented at the 2004 USDA conference panel “Perils and Pitfalls of GMOs”; She is described as as a “rising star ... an intellectually strong negotiator and adviser with excellent judgment.” [who is] “really making a name for herself”; who worked on shepherding the regulatory process for various food additives, including that by 3M during the early 1990s; cited as a Charles F.C. Ruff Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year (2004).   In 2014 she was cited by Business Insurance magazine as a "Woman to Watch".  The firm hired her in 1987, where she works to this very day.

- Joshua Greenburg , formerly with Covington & Burling and now with Womble Carlyle, also of Washington, D.C. . According to Angela Raich’s web site, Greenburg “ practices focuses on products-liability and appellate litigation. Before joining Covington and Burling, Josh clerked for Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 2001 to 2002”.

According to the web site of Womble Carlyle, Greenburg:
Achieved favorable outcome in case involving Commerce Clause challenge to application of Controlled Substances Act to patient’s medical use of home-grown marijuana on physician’s recommendation, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005), and Due Process Clause and medical necessity challenges on remand, Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007). - See more at: http://www.wcsr.com/Professionals/Lawyer-Bios/Joshua-D-Greenberg#sthash.rIqTHmJs.dpuf
A panel as this would be invaluable not only for spotlighting the Covington & Burling role in drug policy, but as well present an opportunity for an exchange hopefully leading to an improvement with new and different initiatives to end the drug war as a logical way to address the the karma of the firm's co-founder's involvement in assisting in bringing about prohibition during the early 1900s.


http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/jh-covington-upheld-harrison-narcotic.html