Pages

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Covington & Burling is not just another law office


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.”

“John G. Laylin, a senior partner who specializes in international work matter-of-factly illustrated this point to me one morning during a casual conversation. First, Laylin showed me a glass bowel, half filled with rocks the size of golf balls and covered with water. “This is something I am spending half my time on, right now” Laylin said. “These nodules are rich in cobalt, nickel and copper. A client of mine found them in fifteen thousand feet of water, in the middle of the ocean. Now the law on mining of deep sea resources is very vague. These nodules are found in high concentrations in a certain area; in other areas, nearby, they are nonexistent. My client has spent millions of dollars locating them.”

Laylin handed me a photograph album with pictures of the nodules littering the ocean floor, taken with deep-sea exploration equipment. “What we want is exclusivity,” he said

For a law firm powerful enough to cajole the United States into drafting an international treaty, requesting legislation from Congress is a routine exercise, even if a time-consuming one. Under a bill drafted by Laylin in 1971, any person subject to a United States jurisdiction would be required to obtain a Federal license before doing any undersea mining work. Reciprocal protection would be given other nations passing similar legislation.” In other words, no claim-jumping. “No state can by itself establish a rule or principle of international law,” Laylin wrote in a draft paper on sea-bed law, “but any state can sow seeds which can grow into a ‘general practice accepted as law.’”

And this is what Laylin is doing- on behalf of a fee paying Covington and Burling client, but in an undertaking bearing the imprimatur of both the United States government (which is to say, all of us) and the American Bar Association. Such is the stuff of big time Washington Law.


C&B- Bottleneck or Facilitator?

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/bottleneck-or-facilitator.html

Covington & Burling & Big Tobacco


Tobacco industry

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 thttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifo 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

Bottleneck or Facilitator?

I have to ask this, because of political dynamics expressed by the Drug Policy Foundation/Drug Policy Alliance's short-selling of 'Harm Reduction' and its lack of coverage of the Coca issue, and the larger issue of the right to plants.

What about Covington & Burling, with background in Food and Drugs, and its bro bono program assigning an attorney listed as a food and drug specialist "primary responsibility for advising the [Drug Policy] Foundation"- Marialuisa S. Gallozzi - when we see there IS the potential, yet it is not being realised?





Covington & Burling's Continuing Involvement with Drug Policy

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/covington-burlings-continuing.html

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Dana Beal Letter to DEA's Leonhart About Ibogaine

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dana-beal/new-version-letter-to-michele-leonhart/309370972412958

To DEA Director Leonhart,

This is to let you know of public and Congressional interest in expanded research into ibogaine and its analogs, not only for treatment of addiction but for its broad spectrum antibiotic, antiviral, anti-tumor effects.

The placement of ibogaine in Schedule I discourages research, not just because of the stigma, but because of the immense practical roadblocks it puts in the way of researchers. Right now a research group at New York University that is investigating the synthetic ibogaine analog 18-MC will probably break off their work when the time comes to investigate the parent compound. It took Rockefeller University nine months just to obtain less than a gram of ibogaine.

Couldn’t you find a Schedule for ibogaine a little less restrictive than Schedule I?

Ibogaine has no abuse potential, and great potential for treatment of a number of indications that we have no good medicines for right now, including multiple scherosis, chemo-resistant cancer, parkinsons, and bipolar/binge behaviors. Clinics using ibogaine are springing up all over the world because it works so much better for abolition of narcotic withdrawal as well as craving for psycho-stimulants.

In 2005–6 ibogaine was found to express a growth factor—glia-derived-neurotropic-factor (GDNF)—that not only regenerates dopamine neurons suppressed by drugs of abuse, but back-signals to the cell nuclei to express more GDNF, establishing a benign, self-sustaining loop that obviates the need for artificial elevation of dopamine levels and persists without administration of additional ibogaine. This explains reported ibogaine efficacy against meth-amphetamine and crack cocaine — drugs against which we have no effective pharmaco-therapies right now.

Very simply, ibogaine doesn’t fall under the plain definition of Schedule I —“no accepted medical value, high potential for abuse, no safe use in treatment.” Because of aversive side-effects, it cannot be abused.

First, animals can not be trained to self-administer Ibogaine. Second, it has Sigma-two effects like thorazine or prolyxin; no one is diverting their anti-psychotic drugs to the black market. Third, if you escalate dosages (as someone binging on cocaine would) you get semi-paralysis, nausea and vomiting. Finally, if you try to do small doses daily, after about 14 days you have to quit due to insomnia and lack of concentration.

What is the statutory basis for scheduling Ibogaine in the absence of “high potential for abuse?”

Before we hold hearings, we need the outcome of more clinical research. You can help by taking the initiative and lifting the roadblock imposed by the Schedule I status of ibogaine.

All we are asking for here is some fairness, so the American people don’t have to wait another 20 years for effective treatment for addiction.

Beware The Schedule 2 Trap

to make Cannabis as 'legal' as cocaine hci

have been talking about this for sometime now. Watch, read, be ready to act. This is deliberate and well orchestrated.

Everything will hinge on state and Federal drug scheduling. Currently, cannabis is listed as a Schedule I drug in every state but Oregon, where it is a Schedule 2. Colorado relies on Federal Scheduling (Schedule 1). That's right, even states with a medical cannabis program list cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug (no medical value)

Expect that the Federal Government will re-Schedule cannabis nationally to a Schedule 2 before the elections in November 2012. DO NOT BE DECEIVED. THIS IS NOT A VICTORY. IT'S A SNARE to formally hand cannabis into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and formally shut out access to the natural plant.

Cannabis users and patients will ONLY be free from arrest if cannabis is removed ENTIRELY from EVERY state Drug Schedule. Plan your legislative attempts and protests accordingly.

see: http://www.medicalcannabisjournal.net/submissions/archive/2010/irs-ruling-against-harborside-no-surprise-by-mark-pedersen-on-thursday-october-6-2011-at-1221pm

Monday, October 24, 2011

Legalize Coca Leaf U.S. White House Petition

Created October 24, 2011

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/legalize-coca-leaf-teas-and-beverages-opposed-continually-ensuring-its-perversion-concentrated/85CFl1Zy

Legalize Coca Leaf, teas and beverages, as opposed to continually ensuring its perversion into concentrated cocaine

End the post 1906-1914 disparate treatment for Coca and dilute cocaine that ensures its perversion into problematic concentrated forms of cocaine, while denying the many benefits of Coca Leaf.

Created: Oct 24, 2011
Issues: Agriculture, Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Trade

Prohibitionist Chickenshits

From Time 4 Hemp's Capser Leitch:

I have tried to get opponents of re-legalizing Marijuana ....as well as other opponents of re-legalizing marijuana. The most recent was an invitation to Judy Cushing, who was speaking on the local news about how awful marijuana is. She stated it was bad for the brain; destructive to health; and was the root cause of crime. She is the president and CEO of http://www.orpartnership.org and seemed to be dedicated to outlawing marijua - and since she was seeking the attention of the media, the below exchange occurred between her people and me (no, she wouldn't even take the time to address my request herself - lol)...please feel free to share this with everyone you feel would enjoy it!

ATTN: Judy Cushing, please be a guest on my LIVE radio show, it's called 'Time 4 Hemp - LIVE' and it airs every M-F from 10-11a.m. on http://www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com and has a listening audience of over a million people around the world. Past guests include Congressman Barney Frank; Sen. Mike Gravel; Gov. Gary Johnson; Ethan Nadelmann (founder of the Drug Policy Alliance); Keith Stroup (founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws); and David Boaz (founder of the CATO Institute).

After seeing you on the local news (I live in Portland) I thought it would be of benefit to my audience to hear why it is you and your organization feel that marijuana is destructive to the community and to the individual who uses it.

You struck me as an excellent voice of opposition to address this issue and help to give a balance viewpoint of this topic on the show.

If you or someone from http://www.orpartnership.org were to agree to be a guest on the show, I would want to have Paul Stanford as a co-host on that segment to allow for a well-rounded discussion. Paul also lives in Portland.

To learn more about me you can Google my name or the name of the series as well as visit my website http://www.Time4Hemp.com and to learn more about Paul Stanford, you can visit http://www.HEMP.org or Google his name.

If, for some reason, you would rather have a different co-host for this segment, I can arrange to have Ethan Nadelmann or Keith Stroup as the co-host instead.

I look forward to your reply and hope you find joy in your day.


Sincerely,

Casper Leitch
Host/Creator: Time 4 Hemp



Dear Mr. Leitch,

Thank you for inviting Judy Cushing to appear on your program. However Oregon Partnership is declining your invitation.

Sincerely

Tom Parker
Communications Director
Oregon Partnership
5100 SW Macadam Avenue Suite 400
Portland, OR 97239-3854

Main: 503.244.5211
Direct 971.244.1375
Cell: 503.890.7473

www.orpartnership.org

"Oregon Partnership - Preventing substance abuse and suicide."

Military Helpline: 1-888-457-4838 www.MilitaryHelpline.org


Dear Tom Parker;

OK - I'm not surprised since it is impossible to defend your position and to attempt to do so would only make you look foolish. The message you bring to the public is one that can only be presented WITH OUT an opposing viewpoint. With that said, I will be airing sound bites from past remarks you've made on radio and television and quoting statements you've posted on your website to allow my guests to discuss the messages you are bringing to the public. Do keep in mind that I did offer you the chance to appear in person on my program to represent yourselves and the inept propaganda that you attempt to present as facts.

It the 20-years that I've done this series, no one has ever come on to the show to dispute what I present which is: Prohibition is a failure. Medical Marijuana needs to be available to those who need it. The 50,000 different products that can be made from this plant would create jobs and generate a strong tax base. We can free ourselves from being dependent on foreign oil by growing hemp for fuel. It's silly to arrest people for touching a plant. Instead of making taxpayers cover the cost of arresting and jailing people for touching a plant, we need to regulate the plant and let it produce a tax revenue for this country to pay it's debts.

I've invited the Attorney General of the United States, of the state of Washington, the state of Oregon and the state of California to be a guest on the show - and they don't have the courage to be a guest - I really didn't think anyone in your organization truly had the backbone to come on the show either....but, I did want to give you the chance to be on the show before I and my guests began to dispel the false information you continue to present as facts.

Should you be able to find anyone who can defend you point of view on this topic and wish to have them on my show, keep in mind that I'm on the air 5-days a week and I will definitely be able to find a spot for them.

My invitation will be extended to you publicly today on my show, and - every now and then, my guests and I will take a quote from your site or one of your members who have recently spoken AT the press and discuss it. (Notice I said, "...spoken AT the press..." - that's because you refuse to DISCUSS with the press you point of view. You are only willing to have a sit-down interview with people who just say "YES - that's wonderful" to everything you say....but then again, your point of view on this topic has no true grounding in facts.)

Most sincerely,

Casper Leitch