Introducing "Richard Davis'"Travelling U.S.A. Hemp Museum

We Must All Do Our Share...No Matter The Consequences, To End This Terrible War On America

 Check out Richard Davis' Constitutional Challenge against the State of Arizona and the Federal Government for the Right to possess as property, plant, grow, harvest, sell and consume (as food, medicine, as sacrament recreationally), Cannabis Sativa and its seed and all Extracts therof. Read This Summary of the Upcoming (AUGUST 7th), Trial to be Filmed By the COURT TV NEWS PROGRAM!
 
 

Richard Davis Freedom Fighter, Feb. '95
High Times Magazine 

A few things about Richard Davis
Richard M. Davis Curator of the USA Hemp Museum

Welcome to the FIRST Virtual Traveling Hemp Museum. This page is brought to you by Richard Davis who for the past seven years has toured the USA In his Traveling Hemp Museum, teaching the benefits of Cannabis/ Hemp, as a medicine, as an industrial resource and for private use by adults.
Richard M. Davis is 55 years old, born in Phoenix, Arizona nov.26, 1940, and resides at present in Los Angeles, California. Richard is a US Air Force veteran, who earned a Masters Degree in Biology from California State University at Los Angeles, and attended the School of Public Health at UCLA for four years under a US Public Health Service Fellowship . 

A Chronology of Events

In November of 1995, Davis received information from Arizona NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws),about Judge John R. Barclays ruling in the Peter Wilson case (November 1, 1995), in which the charges against Mr. Wilson for posession of Cannabis were dismissed because he held a Cannabis Dealers License. Judge Barclay ruled that taxing a citizen for a license and stamps, then putting him in Jail for using it was double jeopardy, against the Constitution of the U.S. through the Fourteenth Amendment (Exhibit A). Judge Barclay also stated, "Therefore, all that remains is a very unique argument that brings into question the operation of the government. Have the creation of statutes in Title 42 and Title 13, that appear not to be in conflict, created an abuse if not a confusing paradox when appplied to the facts in this case. 

Mr Davis passed this Arizona NORML information on to other California activists, including three men who had been arrested for HEMP Cultivation and tried before a Jury in Madera County, California. Mr Davis's Hemp Museum was set up just outside the Madera County Courthouse during the trial. The three were aquitted of the charges.
On November 27, 1995, Richard Davis went to Arizona where he joined with the above three Hemp activists. (ie.people involved in ending Cannabis Prohibition.)

On November 28, 1995 Richard Davis went to the Arizona Department of Revenue, filled out the forms, and paid $100.00 for the Cannabis Dealers License (Exhibit B). He also bought Six Hundred and Seventy Six dollars ($676.00) worth of Arizona Cannabis Tax Stamps (Exhibit B). These Luruxy Tax Stamps are similar to Tobacco Tax Stamps in that they are to be affixed to the product when it is sold. The Stamps come in three denominations: gram; ounce; and kilogram. The price of the Red One Gram Stamp is thirty five cents  ($0.35U.S.) The price for the Blue One Ounce Stamp is Ten Dollars ($10.00U.S.). And the price of the One Kilogram Stamp is Three Hundred Fifty ($350.00 U.S.) dollars. Mr Davis purchased the Red and Blue Stamps (Exhibit B).

On Friday, December 5 1995, Davis and other activists holding Cannabis Dealers Licenses, held a press conference in front of the Arizona Department of Revenue, Phoenix Arizona to announce the opening of the R.M.Davis Cannabis Hemp Company (Exhibit B). The State Police Lieutenant in charge told Mr. Davis that he could not set up his Hemp Museum on State Property for the Press Conference. Mr. Davisset up his
Museum in the Street (City Property), and held the Press Conference there. The objective of the Company was to educate the public as to the benefits of Cannabis.

They showed the press and public their licenses, the museum of Cannabis, Hemp Uses and History and their Cannabis Flowers (Buds), packaged in a variety of ways including a "six-pack" of Cannabis cigarettes (joints) and individual flowers (Buds) in Baggies which were stapled to a label. 

All Cannabis Flowers were stamped with the appropriate Arizona Department of Revenue Tax Stamps as required by law. The original label, which had a picture of a historical Kentucky Hempfield on the front, and Hemp Medical and Industrial Information on the back, was shown to the press (Exhibit B). There was no interruption by the police at the press conference. After the press conference was over, the State Police Lieutenant returned to where Davis and Steffens, (a hemp activist), were showing two other policemen, Steffen's Cannabis Dealers License". The Lieutenant said, "These two guys are legal."

At the end of December, 1995 the R.M. Davis Cannabis Hemp Company proceeded to get a business address at 610 Broadway Road, Tempe Arizona, and to purchase Hemp products from Hemp Manufacturers to outfit the office, until a storefront could be found for their operation.

On December 19, 1995 Davis registered his trade name with the Arizona Department of State and secured a
Transaction Privelege Tax License, which is required by any business in the State of Arizona.

Mr. Davis applied with the city of Tempe, Arizona, for their seperate Transaction Privelege Tax License and was denied. After talking to the planning department and showing them Mr. Davis's State License an appeal
was allowed and filed just before Super Bowl Weekend. The appeal was cancelled on March 26, 1996, without reason (Exhibit C). Further, Mr Davis applied with the city of Tempe for a mobile Merchant Permit. On January 9, 1996. The Police Department denied the application in a letter dated February 23, 1996, without reason (Exhibit C). 

In January 1996 Mr. Davis and his Traveling Hemp Museum, were invited to spend the fourteen (14), days prior to the SuperBowl on the Arizona State University Campus and received a license to sell goods on Campus during that period.The very Colorful ASU sales license issued for the SuperBowl, disappeared after Mr. Davis was arrested and taken into custody. The two weeks of educating at the University saw thousands of students and faculty visiting the Hemp Museum, and articles and pictures appeared in the ASU paper (Exhibit D).

During January, a media spokesperson for the R.M. Davis Cannabis Hemp Company, one of the Madera Three, Ron Kiczenski, did One Hundred Sixty (160) Radio shows around the country by phone, saying legal Cannabis would be included in Informational Packets to be sold at the Superbowl by Licensed Dealers. This hook onto the SuperBowl-Hoopla, gave a huge opening to spread an educational message about Hemp far and wide.

During January, because of the confusion surrounding Judge Barclays ruling, Mr. Davis decided a test case using the license to sell, and not merely posessing Cannabis, was necessary to answer the question of Judge Barclay's,..."abuse if not a confusing paradox."

During January, the R.M. Davis Cannabis Hemp Company continued creating new packaging, and selling their Informational packets to Adults over eighteen (18) years of age, as was required by the Luxury Tax Law, and as stated on all packaging.Sales were conducted at various locations on private Property. No complaints were made of the activities during that time.

Three (3), days prior to the SuperBowl (January 27,1996), the University was closed due to the SuperBowl Festivities and Mr. Davis moved the Hemp Museum to University Avenue, still on the ASU Campus. It was this day that Detective T. Dickerson #11410 of the Tempe Police, stated that he made an undercover purchase of a three (3) gram baggie, stamped with three (3)State of Arizona Cannabis Tax Stamps.( See Exhibit E). On Saturday, January 27, 1996 the day prior to the SuperBowl, Mr. Davis again set up the Hemp Museum on University Avenue on the ASU Campus.
Also on this day, Officers Millen #11482 and Dickerson #11410 of the Tempe Police, stated that they each purchased one gram of Cannabis at twenty ($20.00) dollars each. Both Officers were in plain clothes. (Exhibit E)

About 1:00 PM, officers from the city of Tempe arrested Mr. Davis on the charge of Three (3) counts of Sale of Cannabis and one (1) count of posession for sale. Mr. Davis was handcuffed, and taken to the Tempe City Jail and booked.

Mr. Davis's truck which housed his museum, the museum being setup at the time, along with personal items were confiscated. Meanwhile the Activists who had been present, got word to Davis's attorney,Michael Walz, that Mr. Davis had been arrested. 

On January 27, 1996, the same day, about 7:00 PM Davis was moved to Madison Street Jail in Phoenix, Arizona. That same night Mr. Walz visited Davis in Jail and told Davis he had seen his file and it was tagged to hold Mr. Davis for 24 hours.

On January 28, 1996, SuperBowl Sunday, Mr. Davis appeared with Mr. Walz in front of a Bail Judge and Mr. Davis was released on his own recognizance, without Bail. Also the Bail Judge made Mr. Davis promise not to return to the SuperBowl as a condition of his release. Mr Davis complied with his request and did not return to the SuperBowl. Although many other persons were openly selling Cannabis at the SuperBowl, no other arrests were made for sales of Cannabis of which we are aware.

On February 28, 1996, the preliminary hearing that was scheduled for Mr. Davis was scratched with no reason given. Mr Davis was told that no immediate plans were in effect to arraign him but that the Statute of Limitations was Seven (7) years, and that he might receive a summons during that time. 

On February 28, 1996, Michael Walz attorney for Mr. Davis filed a motion with the Tempe Justice Court, to get the Museum Truck back. The motion was denied by Judge Ore, of the Tempe Justice Court.

In March of 1996, Davis along with people who used Cannabis as a medicine, and other activists, participated in a hearing by the Arizona State Senate, Government Rules Committee, on the Luxury Tax Law and the Cannabis Dealers License.After hearing the views of these participants who asked to keep the License in effect, the committee recommended to the Senate that they repeal the License, due to the confusion it presented.

In April, 1996, the Senate decided to take no action on the existing law.

On March 15, 1996, notice was given to the Mesa Tribune about the impending forfeiture of the Museum Truck and twenty eight hundred ($2800.00 U.S.) in cash. Davis had been waiting to hear about how to retrieve his Truck . He had provided as requested by the authorities, two (2) addresses, one in Tempe, and one in Los Angeles, California, where he could receive his mail. The notice was sent to his home in Mendicino County which he had not visited and therefore had no prior knowledge of this notice until his attorney informed him of it.

On April 30, 1996, a notice of pending forfeiture was issued by the Tempe Assistant State Attorney, Cliff Mattice. 

On May 14, 1996, a motion was filed by Michael Walz, attorney for Mr. Davis, to return the Property to Mr. Davis. The motion was taken under advisement by the Tempe Courts who have failed to rule on it.

Through his attorney Mr. Walz, Mr. Davis received a summons to appear in Justice Court for a preliminary hearing on August 14, 1996.

On August 14, 1996, Davis traveled from Los Angeles to Tempe to appear in Tempe Justice court for a preliminary hearing. Mr.Davis waived the right to the hearing and was given an arraignment date in Superior Court on August 23, 1996.

On August 23, 1996, Davis again travelled from Los Angeles to Phoenix, and appeared in Superior Court where he was arraigned and pleaded Not-Guilty. Mr. Davis was given a date of November 7, 1996,to appear in Superior Court for a Jury Trial.

In October, 1996, Mr Walz filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Mr. Davis on the grounds that Mr Davis had a Cannabis Dealers License and had complied with the Luxury Tax Code. Mr. Walz maintains thatMr. Davis's compliance with the rules for getting a Dealers License for selling Informational packets containing Cannabis as well as paying the taxes as required in the Luxury tax code and therefore is immune from prosecution.

On November 22, 1996, Mr. Davis appeared in Superior Court in Arizona again concerning the Museum truck and his Confiscated $2800.00 in Cash. Mr. Davis was able at this time to get the Museum truck returned to him but obstensibly forfeited the $2800.00 dollars Cash that was in the van at the time of his arrest. (We wonder what really happened to the $2800.00). He must appear back in Superior Court again on December 20, 1996 and a trial is scheduled, maybe, sometime around the end of January 1997.

Title 42 of the Luxury Tax Code, states that a "dealer"is not immune from prosecution under Title 13. However , under Title 42, "dealer" means any person in this state who manufactures, produces, ships , transports or imports into this state or in any manner acquires or posesses Cannabis or a controlled substance upon which the taxes have not been paid as required by the article. Therefore, as Mr. Davis paid the taxes on the Cannabis items he sold , he is NOT then a "DEALER" and therefore should not be subject to prosecution under this code 42. Mr Walz maintains that Mr. Davis followed the rules and is therefore, a Law Abiding Citizen. 

On Friday, December 20, Richard Davis returned to Arizona and appeared before the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Brian Ishikawa who heard oral arguments on the State's motions to strike defenses and witnesses. The State, represented by Prosecutor David Flader, seeks to suppress evidence that Mr. Davis complied with the luxury tax law (A.R.S.42-1203.01) making him an Arizona licensed cannabis dealer. The state also seeks to suppress witnesses to affirmatively testify to Mr. Davis's character for truthfulness.

Mr. Walz, attorney for Mr. Davis, stated that in the event that the state will stipulate that everything that Mr. Davis says on the witness stand is true, the defendant will forego evidence of his truthful character. Judge Ishikawa said he would take these motions under advisement and issue his decisions prior to the firm trial date of January 27,1997. This is exactly one year from the date of Mr. Davis's arrest at the SUPERBOWL. 

On February 11, 1997, a court progress hearing was held in Judge Ishikawas' Superior Courtroom in Mesa, Arizona. The judge has not ruled on the motions, (mentioned above). Michael Walz, attorney for Richard Davis, reported that a new court date was set for April 15, 1997 --tax day.
As we expected the judge is no longer interested in dismissing this case. However, it is hoped that if the judgment does go against Richard, an appeal WILL be in order. Regardless of the judges rulings... Mr. Davis hopes to obtain a victory with a jury trial.

On February 13, 1997, Judge Ishikawa ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy ground, the state's motion to strike defenses and witness, and the state's motion to admit other acts of evidence. The court ruled against all defenses of the defendant citing that payment of taxes to conduct a business is not a punitive sanction. It ordered that since the state is prosecuting these cases under Title 13, not Title 42 (see above description in chronology) whether the defendant is a "dealer" is not applicable to any prosecution for the possession of marijuana for sale and/or sale of marijuana under title 13. 

Additionally, the fact that the defendant obtained a "license" from the Department of Revenue cannot be invoked as a shield from prosecution under title 13. Also, the state was granted the motion to strike the affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel, and the affirmative defense of character for truthfulness.
 

The judge will not allow the lawyer to show this evidence, Richard wants to try to case himself so he can bring this up under his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Our Prayers Are With You Richard(And they call this Justice?) Richard has a court date on May 29 for a trial. It will probably be postponed until June 6 (if then). Arizona legislature has reversed proposition 200 pending fda approval of cannabis (the legislature can overturn a ballot measure there wheras they cannot in California.) The Judge is clearly not in favor of helping Richard, and the way they will get the facts out about the license is "lawyerize," and by inserting the information when they can, and being warned by the judge if they are in contempt of court. Another alternative is for Richard to tell his story or try his case himself.

On May 29, Richard returned to Arizona for the trial which was once again postponed. At this time, Richard told Judge Ishikawa that he intended to offer his own defense. Mr. Flader had offered Mr. Davis a penalty of probation if he were to plead guilty to possession of Cannabis for sale. Mr. Walz told Mr. Flader that this was the worst thing to offer Richard. Richard wants to present his story to a jury. The Judge asked Richard if he were sure he could act as his own attorney and asked him to return the following Thursday, June 5 to give a progress report. On June 5, after beginning to prepare his own defense, based on his constitutional rights that he had done nothing that was a crime and that he was therefore innocent, he returned to Mesa Arizona. At this time, due to obligations during June and July for all three parties, the judge, the assistant district attorney, and the defendent, the trial was postponed until July 16. All motions and evidence must be submitted 20 days prior to this date. Mr. Davis is researching and preparing his own defense. He has been offered assistance by Chris Clay, who has just completed a lenghty constitutional challege to the cannabis laws in Canada, and his attorney, Alan Young.

On June 24, David Flader caller Richard, who is now acting as his own attorney, to comment on his motion Re: the constitutional challenge. He said it was very thorough. Flader has 10 days to answer Richard, then Richard has 8 days to reply. Flader suggested the trial would be delayed again. However, Richard has to appear on July 16, 1997, even if the trial is postponed.
On July 9, David Flader phoned Richard to say that Court TV called him to ask if the trial would be on the 16th. Flader said no and the date would be in August sometime.

On July 10, David Flader phoned Richard to obtain a list of the evidence to be presented about the museum to be put into evidence, This motion, to allow evidence present at time of this arrest, was made earlier by Mr. Davis. On July 16, Mr. Davis appeared before Judge Ishikawa in Superior Court in Mesa, Arizona. Temperature was a record 114 degrees. The Judge requested that David Flader, the prosecutor, respond to Mr. Davis's motion to dismiss all charges on constitutional grounds. (i.e see constitutional challenge), by July 23. Mr. Davis has until July 31 to reply to Mr. Flader's response.
Mr. Flader pointed out to the court that Court TV was interested in covering the event and requested a trial date from the court. Judge Ishikawa set Aug. 6 to hear oral arguments on the constitutional challenge between Flader and Davis, who is acting as his own attorney assisted by Phoenix attorney Michael Walz. Jury selection is set to begin August 7.

On July 23, David Flader, Prosecutor, faxed Davis his response to the Constitutional Challenge. Flader concluded that Davis had no constitutional right to sell or possess cannabis for sale. See document.

On July 31, Davis replied to Fladers' response, repeating his contention that there is an inalienable right to farm that is infringed upon by all cannabis prohibition laws. Davis cited the extreme safety of cannabis, referring to the ruling by the late Francis L. Young, Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Drug Enforcement Administration. See document.

On August 4, Flader entered another motion to dismiss the possession of marijuana charge "in the interests of
justice," giving no explanation. See document.

On August 6, Davis appeared before Judge Ishikawa for oral arguments on the Constitutional Challenge. (It was 104 degrees in Arizona). Davis said "I stand by my motion and my reply." Flader made no objection. Davis gave additional supporting comments on his motion.

Judge Ishikawa who stated he had read all motions, replies, and attachments, including Judge Young's rulings, said he would rule on the Constitutional Challenge on Friday. Ishikawa granted Flader's motion to dismiss count 4 on the possession of cannabis for sale without prejudice. Without prejudice means that the State can file this charge on Davis for the next seven years. The Judge asked Davis to provide the Court with a list of questions the Defense would ask during jury selection.

Note. Proposition 215 in California, and Proposition 200 in Arizona were passed by voters in November , 1996. These laws greatly changed the existing cannabis laws somewhat, making cannabis available for medicine in some cases. Several months ago, in 1997, the Legislature in Arizona overturned this mandate by voters. Mesa, Arizona, where the trial is being held, was one of the few precincts that did not support the initiative.

On August 11, 1997, a motion hearing was held in the Mesa Courtroom of Judge Brian Ishikawa. The prosecutor David Flader presented his motion in limine (see document) which stated that Mr. Davis was to be
precluded from presenting any physical evidence or testimony relating to the tax license, the tax stamps, and double jeopardy. He was granted these motions under Rule 403, A.R.S.,which says the Judge can decide what evidence is relevant. (See document, rule 403) Mr. Davis asked for a continuance as so much of his defense of education, as well as other defenses had been disallowed. He said he needed time to confer with Mr. Flader and to prepare in order to do justice to a defense. He was not prepared to go to trial the next day. Judge Ishikawa denied the motion for a continuance. Court TV, represented by Jane Okrasinski , reporter and an attorney, herself, and a crew, was present. 

Mr. Flader presented his motion to preclude the above mentioned physical evidence. He stated that he had met with Mr. Davis in the examining room, and upon questioning him about the evidence, realized that he should preclude it.
He further asked the judge to allow him to question Mr. Davis to decide on the level of his expertise. Mr. Davis replied that he had already spoken quite openly to Mr. Flader about the exhibits in his museum and the properties of Cannabis already and did not wish to be further questioned without the jury present.
Mr. Davis' response and supplemental response to the State's Motion in Limine are included (see documents). 
 
 

Mr. Flader spoke of the sincerity of Mr. Davis in his beliefs and stated that the Court was no place to decide on the merits of marijuana. This was for the legislature. He also read from the back of some educational material given to him by Mr. Davis in answer to his request to educate himself. He referred to the F.I.J.A., Fully Informed Jury Rights Amendment. Flader stated that this right which allows juries to decide a verdict of not guillty if the law is a bad law did not hold in Arizona, where "they followed the law." Mr. Flader also said Mr. Davis acting as his own attorney and an expert witness was something for which he could not find a precedent. "We are operating in a gray area here," Mr. Flader said. He further stated that Mr. Davis acting pro per, with Mr. Walz as his assistant attorney was a "hybrid," for which he found no precedent. 

Davis said he could not present a defense in the interests of justice going to trial the next day. He said, I stand naked before you, my defenses precluded. The Prosecutor has left me with 5 grams of cannabis flowers, without the pamphlet to which they were attached, without the stamps, and without my reason for being in Arizona. We came here to educate. "I educated Mr. Flader in the examining room, and earlier in a telephone conversation, he said he did not know about the right of U.S. citizens in Alaska to smoke and grow Cannabis in the privacy of their home. Your Honor, Mr. Flader has made our case that we were here to educate," said Davis.
Mr. Walz told the Judge that since he had been only last week been granted the right to receive remuneration by Mr. Davis, he had not worked on the case. And, he had to go away for a few days. Judge Ishikawa, reminding himself that the trial was to start last week, and had been postponed due to a personal conflict of his own, decided to grant a continuance until Tuesday, August 19, 1997. 

Court TV will cover the trial in a pooling arrangement with other media. 

If you are interested in Contributing Ideas for the Hemp Museum or Financial Support "NO MATTER HOW LITTLE" to help with Mr Davis's ongoing Legal Expenses, and his Traveling Teaching Hemp Museum, you may fax Mr. Davis at 602-254-9310, or leave a message, or fax Mr. Walz at 602-254-9310. 
 

 

Comments to the WebMaster: James Dawson [email protected]