 Alright everyone, next speaker up is Michael Hiller. He's an attorney based in Manhattan. Is that accurate? That is accurate. And he does a lot of work in cannabis, but really he does a lot of work in a lot of fields and a lot of his very interesting as I found out. But today he's going to talk about the lawsuit regarding federal legalization. That's right. So without further ado. Thanks, I think I better use it. It's just off. Okay. Check it, is it? Yeah. Hey guys, how you doing? I'm Michael Hiller and I'm here to talk about the lawsuit we brought against Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department to decriminalize cannabis across the United States. Thank you. Just a little bit of background about me. I was a constitutional law professor for eight years and I'm now principal of Hiller PC. We represent the cannabis industry throughout the United States and it's our desire and goal to legalize cannabis and make it available to whoever wants it. In order to talk about the lawsuit, we have to go back up a little bit in time to 1970. In 1970, the Nixon administration drafted and then pushed through Congress legislation, the controlled substances act, which criminalized cannabis and pushed it into Schedule 1 of a five schedule framework which essentially made it illegal to possess, use, sell or distribute cannabis. And it renders possession sale distribution of cannabis a felony with a five year minimum prison term. And that law still exists today. Not only does the law exist but the scheduling and classification of cannabis still exists today, not withstanding everything you've heard or read about cannabis. So what are we talking about? How is it illegal and federally when in fact in state law there are now 30 states that have some form of legalization program. Medical marijuana is available in 30 states throughout the United States and just to give you a sense of perspective here, over 200 million Americans today live in a state where there's some form of legalized cannabis. And of those 30 states, there are 10, I'm sorry, there are nine where cannabis is legal not only for medical use but for any use, adult use, recreational use. And for those of you who are curious, Nevada is one of them so I know what we're all doing tonight, party at my house. So what's interesting about this is how is it that cannabis is illegal on the federal level but there are 30 states, with over 200 million Americans living in states where cannabis is legal for medical purposes. And over 90 million Americans, including the 40 million who live in California, which is the fifth largest economy in the world, how is it legal for recreational use there? That doesn't make any sense. And if you think about it over the course of America's history, there's the federal government and then there's state governments, right? And the way it works under our Constitution is if something is illegal under federal law, state law can't make it legal. That's something called the supremacy clause and the federal government has enforced the supremacy clause consistently for over 200 years. But clearly that's not what they're doing now. So why aren't they doing it now? Well, let's just back this up for a second and talk about what the federal government is doing because it's illegal under federal law. It's legal under 30 state laws. How is that possible? Well, the federal government, the Congress specifically enacted legislation beginning in 2014, which are basically funding riders to every piece of appropriations legislation. What that is being done, what's being done is Congress has defunded the Justice Department from prosecuting any claims against state legal medical marijuana use in states where it's legal. So that means that even though the Justice Department may want to enforce the controlled substances act, it simply lacks the funds with which to do so. And so what that basically means is that even though the federal government has made it illegal, they can't enforce the law. So what does that really mean in real life? You're thinking to yourself, well, if that's the case, I don't have to worry about cannabis because if I live in a state where it's legal, I don't have to worry about it. The problem you have is that it can change on a dime. Right now the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, feel free to hiss if you'd like. Jeff Sessions, thank you very much. Jeff Sessions has made it clear from the very moment he took his oath of office that it's his desire to ban cannabis across the United States. And why does he want to do that? Because he says that he used to like the KKK until he found out they smoked weed. That's a direct quote from 1986. He actually said that. In addition, Jeff Sessions has also said that good people don't smoke marijuana. From his perspective, everybody who smokes weed is a pothead, druggy, reformatness is going to go out and kill the world. Clearly, Jeff Sessions doesn't know what he's talking about, but what else is new? So the big problem is that they could switch this anytime they want because these funding writers last only a year. So 2014, 15, 16, and 17, it was renewed on time every year. In 2018, they waited two weeks. So for two weeks, believe it or not, every cannabis program in the United States was actually at risk. And think about this. What does that mean for people who have cannabis businesses? How many people have a cannabis business now? Just one. Guys, get out there. So the thing about investing in cannabis businesses is if you've poured a lot of capital into a cannabis business, and all of a sudden the United States government decides to revoke the funding writers, then the United States government can start prosecuting you for selling cannabis or distributing it. And not only just selling and distributing cannabis, but think about the ancillary businesses, right, security, lab testing, extraction, all of those businesses, you threw tons of money in, you'll lose it. So that's why it was really critical for us to go out and file a lawsuit against Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department and the DEA to stop them from prosecuting people from cannabis to stop them from changing their minds. And there's something else to consider. Let's go back to the map. Now just take a look for a second example at Colorado. Let's say you lived in Colorado and you wanted to go to the East Coast. How could you do it? Now your first thought is I jump on a plane, but you can't. Why? Because the rule about the federal government not enforcing cannabis only applies in states where it's legal and you're acting in conformity with state law. So if you get on an airplane, which is regulated by the FAA, the federal government, and they catch you with cannabis, you can be prosecuted under the CSA with a five-year minimum. It's for real. In addition, let's say, okay, I want to take a plane, I'll take a train. Trains are federally regulated too. Okay, even federal roads are regulated. So you go on state roads. Okay, now we're going to take a state road, no problem. Try to make your way from Colorado to the East Coast. You can't do it. You're going to have to go through Missouri a little bit, and you're really taking a risk there. In Missouri, they'll prosecute the heck out of you. So there really is no way to go. So I represent people all across the United States who can't leave their home states because some of them need cannabis to live. And they have to have it on them like an EpiPen. Like if you're allergic to peanuts and you need to have an EpiPen, I have clients who need cannabis on them at all times because they have epileptic conditions which require cannabis to relieve their symptoms. And if they don't, they could die. So we needed to file a lawsuit against Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department to get them to change their minds. Because Lord knows that's the only way to do it. Why? Well, because in the United States government, they simply don't have it together. I'm looking at my next slide and it looks like it's incomplete. Okay, I'm sorry guys. There we go. All right, so let me back up for a second. So the United States government has the law about cannabis and we've got to do something about it. So what we did was we sued on five grounds. The first one was that the controlled substances act and the designation of cannabis is so irrational that it violates the Constitution. Now you would think that the Constitution would prohibit Congress from passing stupid laws, but it actually doesn't. Congress can pass ill-conceived laws, poorly drafted laws, laws that don't represent good public policy. But what they cannot do is they can pass a law that simply makes no sense. And one of our arguments, our principle argument is the laws governing cannabis make no sense. And I'll talk about that in a minute. The second claim we have is that cannabis, and you heard this from the prior presentation if you were here, the laws against cannabis are rooted in racism and discrimination and efforts to suppress people's political and civil rights. In addition, the laws against cannabis, believe it or not, deprive you of your free speech, your right to travel, and your rights under the Commerce Clause. So let's unpack that first. How is it that cannabis, the laws governing cannabis, are so irrational that they violate the Constitution? Well, to be regulated the way cannabis is, it has to be regulated in what's called Schedule 1. The Controlled Substances Act has five schedules, and the first schedule is the one that's the most serious, it's the one where they have the drugs that are supposedly the most dangerous. Which drugs are on Schedule 1? Ecstasy, heroin, cannabis. Now, as you can imagine, you think of heroin, you think of cannabis, you think very different drugs, right? You take heroin, you're instantly addicted, it changes your life forever the first time you take it. Cannabis, of course not, it's ridiculous. But just think for a second what you need to have in order to be a Schedule 1 drug. When you see the three Schedule 1 requirements, you're going to think, oh, heroin, that makes sense. Cannabis? Not so much. So these are the three requirements. Number one, cannabis has to be subject to high levels of abuse, which the government says is co-extensive with addiction, physical addiction. Think heroin, of course. It has to have no medical benefits whatsoever. Cannabis has to have no medical benefits whatsoever. And lastly, it has to be so dangerous that any use, even under strict medical supervision, causes extreme danger to the person using it. So you look at this and you think, how could cannabis be on that list? Because it has to be all three. How could Congress have placed this on the list? There's your answer. There are a bunch of clowns. I mean, the Congress should never have put this on the list. Cannabis doesn't belong on the list. And so we recognized very early on when we started studying the issue that the last thing we're going to do is try to go to Congress and try to get them to change it. So we went to court and we filed an action which is entitled Washington versus Sessions. Washington is Marvin Washington, former Super Bowl champion of the Denver Broncos. He was also a player on the Jetson. He made the wise decision to leave that team so he wanted to go to one that wins. I'm from New York, by the way. Full disclosure. That's why I know. So we also represent a number of other people who desperately need cannabis to live. Alexis Bortel, who suffers from intractable epilepsy, a little boy named Jagger Cot, who suffers from lead disease, the Cannabis Cultural Association, and Jose Bellin. And for those of you who are at the last presentation, the prior speakers held up a magazine that said Weed Newsweek. The story is actually about Jose Bellin. He's an Iraq War veteran. All of his buddies were killed right in front of him. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder, wanted to kill himself. And amazingly, once he started cannabis, all of his symptoms went away. So we filed the lawsuit and we argued, again, that cannabis makes no sense. The laws make no sense to criminalize cannabis. So let's go back to those three requirements and I'll show you how it doesn't make sense. I want for today, just focus on number two it has to have no medical benefits whatsoever and it has to be so dangerous it can't be used even under strict medical supervision. Okay, so here's reveal number one. The United States government owns a medical patent on medical cannabis. Let me say that again. The United States government since 2002 has held a medical marijuana cannabis patent. Can you fucking believe that? It's mind-boggling. Now to get a patent in the United States you have to show that it has some utility. That it has actually works. So the United States government did that. The United States government represented to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that cannabis helps treat Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, HIV induced dementia, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory diseases. And not only that, after that the United States government went to the World Intellectual Properties Organization and got an international patent and then licensed medical marijuana all over the world. That's right, you can actually get American-made marijuana overseas but you can't get it here. Well actually you can a little bit. I'll talk to you about that in a second. But the point is, let's go back for a second to that number two. Has no medical application whatsoever. You gotta be kidding me. They have one that says it does have medical application and it's the United States government. And if that's where all I had, I think it'd be enough but I have more. And I think it's a good question. Would you believe that beginning in 1976 the United States government started growing and distributing cannabis and distributing it to patients all over the country? Pursuant to the Investigational New Drug Program, the United States government actually distributes 30 to 40,000 joints worth of cannabis every year. And if you want to see where the United States government gets its grow, go to the University of Mississippi. That is the federal government's stash at the University of Mississippi. The governments grow there. And so you think to yourself, wait a second, how can the government say it has no medical benefits whatsoever, but they are distributing cannabis to patients through this Investigational New Drug Program? You got me if you know the answer to that question. But I'll take you one step further. In order to be part of the Investigational New Drug Program, number one, the FDA has to believe that there is no reasonable base to conclude. In order for the FDA to include it, there must be some evidence, a reasonable base to conclude that the drug is effective, and also that including it in the drug program will not harm people. Well, if the government believes that cannabis is not going to harm people, it actually could have some medical benefit, well then why is it a Schedule I drug, which is supposedly has no medical applications whatsoever, and is too dangerous in medical treatment, even under strict medical supervision. And by the way, so that you all know, there's no medical supervision in the Investigational New Drug Program. They simply send out the weed, that's the way it works. And if that weren't enough, I'm telling you, it's crazy. In 1988 there was a huge dispute between advocates in support of medical cannabis and the federal government. They started a lawsuit and a study was generated in 1988, 30 years ago, and at the end of that study, here's what the results were. Marijuana has a currently accepted medical use and treatment in the United States. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious to find otherwise. 1988, 30 years ago, they found this, that it's currently accepted in medical use. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. Now you might say, well, who commissioned the study? Was it some pot lover? Was it some pot supportive scientist? Administrative law judge Francis Young. The United States government has a judge who made this finding during a contested proceeding. And if that weren't enough, if it weren't enough that the United States government has a federal patent, a medical marijuana patent has its own stash pursuant to which it distributes 30,000 to 40,000 joints worth of weed every year after growing it at its stash operation in the University of Mississippi. And if it weren't enough that there weren't this study, how about this? On June 26th of this year, the United States government approved the first medical cannabis drug through the federal drug administration, the Food and Drug Administration. This is actually a press release from the U.S. FDA. And you know what it's for the treatment of? It's for epileptic seizures, children. So you think to yourself, oh my God, they're going to be saving kids. Well in my lawsuit when we brought this action you know what the defense was from the federal government? Marijuana should be classified as a schedule one substance because it might be abused by or cause harm to minors. So the first FDA drug, cannabis drug, was approved to help minors meanwhile they're saying that it could kill minors. Again, it simply makes no sense and this is literally the tip of the iceberg. If I had two hours I can give you a lot more, but there's a lot of other evidence here. There's the Schaefer Commission report. The Schaefer Commission report was commissioned by the Nix administration and Governor Schaefer was the law and order governor from Pennsylvania. He was going to come in, he was Nixon's buddy and he was going to find that cannabis was too dangerous to distribute. Unfortunately for President Nixon Schaefer came back and said we think we should decriminalize cannabis. In addition there's something called the Coal Memorand where the United States government for five years specifically instructed U.S. attorneys not to prosecute cannabis users and businesses because they felt that it was better to use their time and resources elsewhere. The Audde Memorand was an extension of the Coal Memorand. The United States Surgeon General in 2014 announced on national television that cannabis constitutes an effective drug for the treatment of disease. The DEA was forced to remove language from its website that cannabis is a gateway drug. What happened was some really smart lawyer came up and said, that wasn't me by the way, some really smart lawyer came up and said you know what that violates the Internet the information quality act which requires that all government websites include truthful information and it was not true that cannabis was a gateway drug. They sued and they got everything removed. In addition even though the investigation of new drug program is not supervised by the federal government Missoula University came up with a study and confirmed that every single person who took medical cannabis distributed by the federal government pursuant to the investigation of the new drug program started in 1976, everyone got better. Every single person got better. I talked to you about the funding writers, the United States government has defunded the Justice Department. Congress allowed the District of Columbia to legalize cannabis. Now the thing about that is that Congress actually had the power to stop it from happening but Congress specifically chose not to do so as a recreational cannabis program. So you might think to yourself well when did this happen? Is this all recent? How did cannabis how did people start using cannabis and when did people start thinking about it in the United States? You'll never believe who one of the most prominent hemp farmers in the history of the United States is. George Washington was a hemp farmer and he talks in his diaries and correspondence about how much he enjoyed smoking his sweet hemp. Sweet hemp was what colonists and pre-constitutional Americans used to call weed. Sweet hemp. Not just him, Thomas Jefferson was a very successful hemp farmer. James Madison actually said that sweet hemp was how the framers was one of the things he used to inspire him to draft the Constitution and it's not just those presidents, lots of presidents smoked pot. And don't believe Bill Clinton, he inhaled. And Barack Obama said that he inhaled. Barack Obama said he inhaled. You know why? Because that was the point. Jimmy Carter smoked weed. George W. Bush smoked weed. And don't believe anything you hear. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and the guy who's in the White House now. They've all smoked weed. And you know what? They've all lived to tell about it. And I can tell you that when you look at a cannabis in the United States I mean we should go back a little bit further. In 1860 the United States actually published something called the pharmacopia. For those of you who are old enough there used to be something called the physician's desk reference. Basically it was a list of all accepted medications that had been recognized by the medical establishment. Would you believe that cannabis was in there? Cannabis was there, talked about menstrual cramps, migraine headaches, insomnia, digestive disorders. And then in the 20th century cannabis was expanded to be used. Are you ready for this? For treatment of asthma. Now even today if you speak to a pulmonologist and you ask a pulmonologist about whether or not cannabis can help with asthma most of them will say it does work but they don't know why. I'm convinced it's the anti-inflammatory qualities of cannabis because asthma is an inflammatory reaction in the pulmonary system but regardless the point is that you actually used to use cannabis to treat asthma. In 1942 during World War II the United States government started publishing handbooks which were listed hemp for victory. They were encouraging farmers to grow hemp. In 1944 the LaGuardia Commission actually was commissioned to again show that cannabis was really dangerous and that it was a gateway drug. This is the report that came out and again this is a consistent theme. Every time they try to commission a study to show that cannabis is dangerous they come up with the opposite result. Smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the world. The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking. Marijuana is not a determining factor in the commission of major crimes. The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded. Every time they look at the issue they know it's a lie. How did they come up with the most recent version of their lie? Well, again, let's go back to 1970 in the Nixon administration. If you look back at your history you'll remember that at the time we were in a state of crisis, right? The Vietnam War was raging. The 60s were still raging. Nixon was really an establishment politician facing a cultural transformative shift in American society. So he saw certain groups as enemies of his administration. And the thing, the common element between the two, between those groups and between the groups that were against him was cannabis. So, what do we know? John Ehrlichman was Counsel and Assistant to President Nixon and this is what he said on the record. You want to know what this was really all about? Nixon had two enemies, the anti-war left and the black people. We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black. But by getting the public to associate the hippies and marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. John Ehrlichman, the Chief Counsel to the President of the United States, acknowledged that the war on drugs was a lie. And it's not just John Ehrlichman. H.R. Haldeman contemporariously reported all that information in his diary. You guys probably know this guy, he's on CNN from time to time. Roger Stone, he's a big friend of Donald Trump's. I actually met Roger Stone. He was a witness in our case. He provided us with an affidavit and Roger Stone was at ground zero for the war on drugs because he met with Miles Ambrose and discussed America's drug policy in 1971. And Miles Ambrose disclosed to him that the entire point of criminalizing cannabis was to suppress the rights of African-Americans and those against the war. This is the fight. We are talking about a law that is purely rooted in racism and it's having effects today because today, as I mentioned earlier a lot of people, thousands of people who need an administration of cannabis to live and they are fighting this war which was started again out of racism. And unfortunately the poster child for the current position on cannabis is this guy. First it starts with marijuana next thing you know they'll be listening to Lindy Hoppin dancing with the colored folk. This is the face of the anti-canabis movement. Now under the controlled substance act the way it works is the attorney general actually can de-schedule cannabis. There's no way that he's going to do it obviously. And so we actually thought should we try to lobby the attorney general to get him to change it? Well of course not because I mean he's so narrow minded and bigoted it's impossible to get him to agree to anything that would be in any way open-minded about cannabis. So we knew we couldn't go that route. So what we did was we filed our lawsuit. And as I emphasized you today the principal claim in the lawsuit is that the laws governing cannabis simply make no sense. I'm going to go back to the beginning just briefly to show you those three requirements. Again all three requirements must be met. Is it rational in any sense of the word that there's no medical applications whatsoever in the United States for cannabis? When the United States government has a patent on it? Of course not. Is it too dangerous for medical treatment even under strict medical supervision when the United States government is growing cannabis and distributing it to patients all over the country for the last 42 years? Of course not. We need a judicial solution because the legislative solution simply isn't possible. And the fact of the matter is that the courts have to step in when Congress acts unconstitutionally which is exactly what we have here today. The United States government is acting unconstitutionally. So in just wrapping up what I would say to you guys I get a lot of questions when I speak about the lawsuit. What can we do next? How can we make it so that we can all make a difference? The first thing I would say is keep the pressure on. If you're on social media and you're comfortable talking about cannabis talk about today's talk. And by the way Google some of the things we talked about if you're a little bit skeptical or you want to block and copy in a couple of those articles put them in. You can find that patent on the internet. You can find all the evidence of the government's program in Mississippi, the Missoula study, the Schaefer commission report. You can get all that information online. So first of all I would say try to do it and if you're not a Facebook person, Twitter, Instagram, however you can do it. The second thing is we are going to be arguing this case sometime between September of this year and the end of the year December 31st. If any of you are in New York come to the argument. It's in the second circuit courthouse at 40 Center Street in Manhattan. Show up because it's really important that the judiciary sees how important this is to all of us because when it comes down to it, when people ask me if this is a lawsuit about weed I always say the same thing. It's not a lawsuit about weed. It's a civil rights case because Congress shouldn't be imposing laws on us that are irrational and they shouldn't be imposing laws on us that are rooted in racism and bigotry. The government shouldn't be enforcing laws which prevent people from traveling because remember if you are someone who relies on cannabis to live and you live, let's say, in Colorado you can't go to Washington, D.C. and advocate to your public officials and say listen, I'm living proof that cannabis works and so as a result, believe it or not the only voices that the people in D.C. get to hear are those who are against cannabis because those who show up are concerned about being stigmatized or some of them don't know at all. So it encroaches on your rights to free speech, your rights to travel and it violates the Commerce Clause because the last thing that anyone who was drafting the Constitution was thinking was that in some way a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. could control whether or not somebody wants to sit in their room and light up a joint. There's no way that the Constitution was intended to have that reach from the federal government. Anyway I'm available to answer any questions you might have but thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to speaking with you. I'm glad to take questions if you have them or otherwise we can just go to the panel. What's that? I wish he's never going to show up but I've invited him several times he never accepts the invitation. The lawyers we're arguing up against are lawyers from the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office and the only way I get Jeff Sessions in a room and I'll tell you there's one way actually and that is if he shows up for his deposition leave me all your information I'll invite all you guys to come. It's going to be a lot of fun because I can't wait to ask him questions about all this stuff. It'd be remarkable to hear him try to answer them. So when that day comes I'll let you know Bill and distribute the list. Yes. That's a great question. And really it's a significant dispute in the cannabis industry because there are companies, green companies that are actually patenting strains of cannabis. So the answer to your question is the way you extract the THC from the plant creates a particular strain the terpenes you put in put in a particular strain. There are different ways to harvest cannabis and to use and to develop it so that it adds a certain man-made component to it. So you cannot patent water that you find in a spring but if you do something to the water it's different than you can patented. And so the government has patented cannabis both at the federal level and also as I said internationally and there are other companies that have done the same. Yeah, but if you add let's say the stomach cure put some pimples in the water and make a patent. You're not really patenting the water you're patenting the compact. Or the process. This is also a big problem with Monsanto. You say, oh well they can patent a strain. Well still that's a natural plant created by Mother Earth and Creator God. It's not something like the corn made by Monsanto. I mean I'm Native American we've been making strains of plants for 40,000 years before Monsanto was doing it. I mean we have a thousand varieties of corn and you know different types of potatoes that we make on natural things. And if you ask Native American, did you make that potato? They'll tell you Mother Earth made that potato. Well as I said, I have to tell you that what you're raising, the issue you're raising is something that's a hotbed legal issue in the cannabis world because there are companies right now in California in particular that are patenting products and it's a really contentious issue because some people take the position that you take, which is you can't patent something that's growing naturally and their response has consistently been we're doing something different to it. So what I would say to you is I would follow it on the internet, because this is an issue that's going to develop over time. There's been no final determination on it by the Supreme Court but I'm looking forward to hearing about it because it's an interesting issue. But that plan, even if it's a different string, it's still a plant, it's really a living thing. But then again, we get into the genome thing. It seems like we're getting patents on everything and so pretty soon we won't even know around itself. Yeah, I hear you. Yes? Yes. So there is a treaty in 2005 for the Supreme Court case, Gonzalez-Bissray. Yes. I'm sure you're familiar with that because the Supreme Court decides that the Congress can prohibit you from growing something in your home for personal use, because it affects interstate commorts in theory. So do you think this would affect the outcome of your case and do you plan anything about it? So we have actually asked the courts to overrule Gonzalez-Bissray, but let's be clear about the scope of Gonzalez. The Gonzalez-Bissray case stands for the proposition that the United States Congress has the power to regulate the growth and harvesting of cannabis even if it occurs entirely within a single state. Now, under our Constitution, Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce, commerce between the United States and other countries, and commerce between the United States and Native American tribes. Congress is not supposed to have the power to regulate commerce that occurs entirely within a single state. And in 1942, there was a case called the Harvesting of Wheat, which involved the harvesting of wheat. Some guy was growing wheat on his own farm and the federal government was saying, listen, we have a wheat program, and if everybody starts growing wheat on their own farm, it's going to depress the price of wheat, which is going to hurt our war effort. They convinced the United States Supreme Court to say, yep, that's true, you can actually, Congress has the power to reach into a single farm and regulate it. And on the basis of that Wicked case, if we can regulate a single farm, we can obviously regulate what goes on within a single state. I can tell you that right now the composition of the Supreme Court is likely not to support that decision anymore. There are four conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and there may very well be a fifth one soon. And I can tell you, those five Supreme Court justices are very unlikely to support Gonzalez vs. Raich. So we have strategically decided to not only sue on the basis of the two process clause equal protection, the racism and the irrationality issues, but also on the commerce issue, because we know that when we get to the Supreme Court we will have at least four judges who are going to look at the Gonzalez vs. Raich case and the commerce clause case and say, you know what, Congress didn't have the right in the first instance to regulate cannabis back in 1970, so therefore the whole statute is unconstitutional, and then we're done. Yes. Thank you. The Supreme Court will approve the Supreme Court's consent. They will appeal. Absolutely. And what I can tell you about it is I look forward to it. I really do. I want this case to go to the Supreme Court because I do want us to win it. Yes. Well, there are two things. Our goal is to have the controlled substances act declared unconstitutional. And once that happens, well, we have limited as to the designation of cannabis. And we want to have it available to everybody. Sorry, for those of you who are interested in that. So, but we are asking for the law governing cannabis to be declared unconstitutional. And once it's declared unconstitutional, that means that it's not like the court says, okay, we'll make it Schedule 2 or Schedule 3. No, it's completely off the chart, which means it's completely decriminalized. And if Congress wants to change that, I will say this and I know I'm running long on time. I'll just say, you okay? I tell you this, we have the midterm elections coming up in November and there have been more than a few whispers that the Republicans who are concerned about losing their majority in the House of Representatives are thinking of changing their perspective on cannabis. For those of you who will remember, John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, Republican, Conservative Republican, is now a member of a green company, a cannabis company, a member of the Board of Directors. His partner William Weld is a Republican from Massachusetts, former Governor of Massachusetts also joined the same company as a member of the Board of Directors. As soon as that happened, Chuck Schumer from New York, Senator from New York, so we're for it too, a way to come to the party late. But the point is that I do see the real possibility of movement in the United States Congress or from the Justice Department we can see Donald Trump overruling Jeff Sessions and saying you know what? You need to decriminalize it. And then he could become the hero of the cannabis movement and he will be looking for Republicans to be supported. I could urge you that once he makes that decision, don't vote for him. That's a whole other story. Take our win and let's keep it, right? Take our win, let's keep it. But the other thing I'll tell you is that New Jersey is about to become the 10th recreational cannabis state in the United States. And once that happens I can tell you right now New York is not going to be far behind. Because I'm a New Yorker we lost the Giants we lost the Jets to New Jersey we're sure as hell not going to lose cannabis to New Jersey also. Keep an eye out for New York it's going to be, I bet you it's on the ballot in 2020 and New York State which has the 8th largest economy in the world will become a recreational cannabis state which means we'll have the 5th largest economy in the world in California and the 8th largest economy in the world in New York recreational cannabis states at that point it's over. The United States of America will be a decriminalized society so one way or the other look out for some exciting news in the next 18 months I do see it happening. Thank you very much