AdmindotLaw
@admindotlaw
Followers
2K
Following
2K
Statuses
3K
Appellate lawyer obsessed with administrative law. Knows a lot abt drug policy and even more abt federal controlled substance law.
Beacon, NY
Joined August 2018
Almost fainted when I read this. Prof. Bamzai is my adlaw hero. Had to share.
@admindotlaw @HarvLRev Thanks for reading! Love your blog and commentary. The point you raise will no doubt be the subject of scholarship (perhaps by you?) in a few years. In the meantime, keep us posted. All best wishes.
2
0
21
@JamesPe56100527 Ex parte communications in the formal rulemaking context violate the law, 5 USC 557, and are very, very serious. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
2
0
2
@JamesPe56100527 I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I don’t think those are the only two options (hearing soon or the process is derailed). It’s a long and complex process no matter how you slice it. DEA’s wrongdoing throughout has just made it even more complex.
3
0
3
6 yr old: how do you know that? Me: read a news story abt it. 6 yr old: where did you read it? Me: a newspaper. 6 yr old: there are still newspapers around here? I had no idea.
0
0
6
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus I know for an absolute fact nothing you just is true—unless the “we” you refer to excludes the vast majority of the cannabis industry.
0
0
0
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus And to the extent there is risk (which you haven’t demonstrated), doesn’t it have to be weighed against the risk of letting dea get away with railroading the whole process? Pls: show me your math on that calculus and how it leads to the conclusion that I’m on the wrong side.
1
0
0
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus What was risky abt our strategy? We asked for what the law requires: disclosure of ex parte comms, an investigation of them when there’s credible proof, and that all wrongdoing be made part of the record in these historic proceedings. What risk is there in that?
0
0
0
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus Are you aware that I represent MANY MSOs? Because I do. Among many other engagements, I’ve been and remain co-lead of the legal strategy for ATACH throughout the process.
0
0
1
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus And even if you assume—despite your utter lack of qualification to criticize our legal strategy—that we didn’t play perfect chess, that does not in any way prove that VF or I are opposed to sch iii. My record of support for sch iii is a matter of longstanding public record
1
0
0
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus I didn’t stop it. The judge did. And he did so based on our submission of proof of dea corruption. You blame me for that? What would you have done?
1
0
3
@solsticeSNDL @420Odysseus Why would I litigate against sch III? Given all the ink that Village Farms has spilled championing sch III over the past 2.5 months, the idea that the company opposes the move is absurd.
1
0
2
1
0
0
@stevenbasso @legalweed2023 @420Odysseus Theoretically that’s right. I don’t think the 60-day period applies here. And there may be ways for one of the agencies involved to try to go directly to a final rule. The details would matter here, though. But theoretically it’s possible. Also not there would be judicial review
0
0
5
@stevenbasso @legalweed2023 @420Odysseus All results that were in play before remain in play now (as far as I can tell). Not sure I understand the rest of the q.
1
0
2
@stevenbasso @legalweed2023 @420Odysseus I don't know. When it comes to this stuff, I try really hard not to assume much. And when asked abt my thoughts on a public platform, I try even harder to discipline myself to stick with what I have better than avg reason to believe.
1
0
2
@legalweed2023 @420Odysseus Don't get used to it. I can't keep this up. Sorry! Appreciate your support.
1
0
5