Category Archives: Abusive Government

The Case for the United States Being Under Martial Law

This is a neat little video that succinctly encapsulates the political and legal climate in the United States at this time. Sure, it is sound bites, some out of context, but regardless, there would be no reasonable justification for some of the statements. The video begs the question, or more appropriately offers the argument for, are we under martial law?

The Constitution lists specific limits on what the government can do with respect to searches and deprivation of liberty. It does not give a detailed process, however, other than to use words or phrases such as “reasonable”, “probable cause”, “due process”… and therefore, the courts and different agencies have been given a pass in defining for themselves what these words mean. In doing so, the penumbra of “terrorism” has been created, precipitated by the events of 9-11, under which guise all activity has been placed in circumventing constitutional protections. It is no longer the rights of individuals which are paramount in justifying a need for government; it is the protection of national security with the individual becoming a bogeyman and danger thereof.

The entity which cloaks itself as a government, but which fails to likewise adhere to limitations which are an inherent part of it, is nothing but a rogue, oppressive, violent, and imperialistic consortium of global interest such as bankers, corporations, and hereditary oligarchy. Families with roots deep in antiquity of modern history along with their counterparts in social control, such as the church, the press, education, and labor hold the reins on much of the power. Having infiltrated government, they now possess the mechanism by which corporations are created and regulated, much to the benefit of the corporation or government themselves, and to the detriment of the people greasing the skids in providing lavish compensation for those at the top cracking the whip and cozying up to government regulators.

“Mr. MkKoy, you are paranoid”, you will say. Where in the annals of history is it recorded that government debates and justifies the killing of its own citizens without constitutional limitations or due process? History is rife with well-documented accounts of tyrannies and despotisms springing forth from what were once prosperous, peaceful nations. Empires collapse, and the United States is no different. Do not be lulled into denial or complacency by the worn relics from a forgotten revolution as being a barrier between power-hungry men and your freedom. Do not think for one moment there exists in the mind of a government official a single synapse recognizing the sanctity of life. Theirs is about preserving and expanding the empire at whatever costs, even to their own. Do not dwell on anachronistic and lofty quotes from noble jurists of a by-gone era to point a finger and say, “See, government servant, the rights of individuals are superior to those of government and natural law reigns supreme!” Do not scramble for your citizens manual or Constitution when met with a battering ram splintering your door followed by laser sites and flash-bang grenades. Do not bemoan the “inconvenience” of a checkpoint when attempting to travel unfettered upon the public rights of way when you need only present papers, blood, or other evidence upon which you may be capriciously and summarily incarcerated.

Even when the machinery of government was new, shortly after the revolution and wet-ink Constitution, the gears uttered squeaks and framework shuddered under the load, often-times at the hands of some of that Constitutions most ardent proponents, as justifications for its violation began to ooze forth; the Whiskey Rebellion and Alien and Sedition Act readily come to mind, two affronts to the platitude of “limited government” from a new-born government exhibiting adolescent petulance towards its fawning parents. When a dissenting voice was raised in opposition citing constitutional protections, the government played dumb and asked, “What does that mean with respect to the Constitution?”, and the answer from the Marbury Court replied, “It means what we say it means.”.

Since that time, Americans have become consumed in hedonistic self-aggrandizement. We revel in the achievements of our predecessors in rebelling against a tyrant and drafting a constitutional house of cards to allay our fears from another tyrant taking power because “We are the People, and this is our Constitution!” We assumed the role of world policeman, arbiter of human rights, judge of atrocities, and judge-jury-executioner of terrorists. We consume on demand, salute without question, and obey out of fear. We are a fattened lamb ready for slaughter, or should I say suicide. We are the world’s bully and a joke to other countries. We are loathed and reviled. I share the sentiment.

I will stop short of calling for the indiscriminate execution of all government officers for the mere fact that it will solve nothing. There are plans afoot to do such things by some groups, to which I will say provide nothing but justifying through self-fulfilling prophecy the government’s need for doing what it does. Blood begets blood, and though fleeting and ephemeral as this existence is, misdirected and wanton taking of life is to emulate and pay homage to the thing we have come to despise; for it is its own milieu. What I will not stop short of calling for is an overt and concerted display of contempt and disobedience for that system. Do not acknowledge any government officer as your friend, compadre’, acquaintance, or representative. Do not stand for the National Anthem. Do not salute the flag. Do not procure licenses, pay taxes, or fill out forms with accurate information. This system is not infallible. As a matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence that it is on the verge of collapse and we are merely seeing its desperate act of self-preservation. Let’s exploit that opportunity to drive the wedge and split it apart. It relies upon, not the captains at the wheel, but the bodies in the galley and engine room to move the machine. Without our help, theirs are but futile commands at the wind.

Disobey, to whatever degree you may. At first, it will seem unsettling and frightening. With regularity it will become liberating and uplifting. Spread disinformation into their databases. Exhibit disrespect and contempt. Resort to your local communities and work within private circles for social issues. Shun people known to be government employees, even in your personal lives. Speak to them about the harm they do and how society considers them pariahs. Urge them to quit or resign, as their days are numbered. Lie, dis-inform, and cause doubt. Their system is only as good as the information we give them to use against us.

We may be under martial law, the United States is a failed experiment and nightmarish blight on mankind, the government may claim the right to kill us indiscriminately… but the system requires people to obey. It requires the sufficient mindset to submit to its edicts. All of this begins with families, children, and an abandonment of reason. When you step back and perceive the system for what it is, a fraud, then you will release your mind from the shackles you willingly placed upon it and see the world as a cosmological respite on a journey we barely have the ability to comprehend. Why spend it in an environment which gnaws at the conscience as being inherently wrong?


FAA Warns Public Against Shooting Guns at Drones

In my opinion, an un-manned aircraft over civilian airspace is already a threat to public safety due to the fact that human decision making has been removed from direct control and observation of the surroundings. Should the camera fail, the device is essentially flying blind and mechanical failure puts it in the realm of an uncontrolled object falling from the sky endangering life and property. Prudence is indeed called for when taking one of these out of the sky, but I believe a plea of necessity would prevail in justifying the destruction of the drone. If the government doesn’t want their drones shot down then don’t fly them.

WASHINGTON (AP) — People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday.

The FAA released a statement in response to questions about an ordinance under consideration in the tiny farming community of Deer Trail, Colo., that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. The administration reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.

In this Jan. 8, 2009, photo provided by the Mesa County, Colo., Sheriff's Department, a small Draganflyer X6 drone is photographed during a test flight in Mesa County, Colo., with a Forward Looking Infer Red payload. People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday, July 19, 2013, in response to a proposed ordinance in a small Colorado town that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. In a statement released in response questions about an ordinance under consideration in the farming community of Deer Trail, the FAA reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.(AP Photo/Mesa County Sheriff's Unmanned Operations Team)

In this Jan. 8, 2009, photo provided by the Mesa County, Colo., Sheriff’s Department, a small Draganflyer X6 drone is photographed during a test flight in Mesa County, Colo., with a Forward Looking Infer Red payload. People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday, July 19, 2013, in response to a proposed ordinance in a small Colorado town that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. In a statement released in response questions about an ordinance under consideration in the farming community of Deer Trail, the FAA reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.(AP Photo/Mesa County Sheriff’s Unmanned Operations Team)

A drone “hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air,” the statement said. “Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane.”

Under the proposed ordinance, Deer Trail would grant hunting permits to shoot drones. The permits would cost $25 each. The town would also encourage drone hunting by awarding $100 to anyone who presents a valid hunting license and identifiable pieces of a drone that has been shot down.

Deer Trail resident Phillip Steel, 48, author of the proposal, said in an interview that he has 28 signatures on a petition — roughly 10 percent of the town’s registered voters. Under Colorado law, that requires local officials to formally consider the proposal at a meeting next month, he said. Town officials would then have the option of adopting the ordinance or putting it on the ballot in an election this fall, he said.

The proposed ordinance is mostly a symbolic protest against small, civilian drones that are coming into use in the United States, Steel said. He acknowledged that it’s unlikely there are any drones in use near Deer Trail.

“I don’t want to live in a surveillance society. I don’t feel like being in a virtual prison,” Steel said. “This is a pre-emptive strike.”

He dismissed the FAA’s warning. “The FAA doesn’t have the power to make a law,” he said.

The FAA is working on regulations to safely integrate drones into the skies over the U.S., where manned aircraft are prevalent. The Congress gave the FAA until 2015 to develop the regulations, but the agency is behind schedule. FAA officials have estimated that once regulations are in place, thousands of drones will be in use across the country for a wide variety of purposes, from helping farmers figure out which crops need watering to tracking sea lions in remote rocky outcroppings to aiding search and rescue missions.

But the Deer Trail proposal is the latest ripple in a spreading backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned aircraft have been introduced in states and cities. Privacy advocates have expressed fear that police will use drones to cheaply and effectively conduct widespread surveillance without warrants.

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drone industry trade group, was concerned enough last year about people threatening to shoot down drones that it issued a statement warning that such comments were “irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful.”

Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the group, expressed similar concerns Friday, saying drones “are being designed to serve the public good….The myriad of important uses will be imperiled if they become targets. … The suggestion that Americans take up arms against unmanned aircraft also endangers citizens on the ground.”

Bradley VanHoose vs Village of Caseyville, Illinois

This information was provided to me by a source who will remain nameless. This involves a Bradley VanHoose’s pursuit of information through Freedom of Information Act requests relating to the City of Caseyville, Illinois. Mr. VanHoose.

Apparently, Mr. Van Hoose is having issues with the City of Caseyville, Illinois over a Freedom of Information Act request. I understand that since that time, the City Attorney, Mr. Duane C. Clarke and others in the Caseyville Police Department have taken steps to intimidate or harass Mr. VanHoose. Mr. VanHoose has stood his ground and filed a number of complaints with various agencies, including the Illinois Registry and Disciplinary Commission. I am posting the following information so others may possibly choose to inquire with the City of Caseyville about its practices and put them on notice that individuals will not be intimidates by such municipal thuggery.

Item 1.

1 March 2012

To: Illinois Attorney Registry and Disciplinary Commission

From: Bradley W. VanHoose

Subject: Duane C. Clarke, Village Attorney, Caseyville, Illinois

To Whom This Shall Concern:

I wish to lodge the following conduct complaint against Duane C. Clarke. Making False statements in a public meeting.

  1. On January 11, 2012 Caseyville, Illinois Municipal Attorney Duane C. Clarke made false statements to the Village Board of Trustees and other citizens present, concerning my legitimate request for public documents. In the enclosed recorded meeting, Mr. Clarke told the Village Board that I was a recurrent requester because I had made 21 requests for public documents in a 21 day period. This statement is false.
  2. In the same public meeting Mr. Clarke also publicly accused me of harassing him on Facebook. This statement is false.
  3. When I addressed the Caseyville Village Board on January 18, Mr. Clarke was hostile and out control. Displaying unprofessional conduct. At one point in the meeting, Mr. Clarke picked up his name plate and dropped it abruptly from the distance of approximately 18 inches making a very loud noise.

I am submitting audio cd’s from both meetings for your agency to review. Mr. Clarke continues to be hostile in an apparent attempt to stop me from seeking financial disclosure information from the Village of Caseyville, where he is currently failing to comply with a directive from the Illinois Attorney General by refusing to turn over a number of checks from the Village Hotel/ Motel tax fund.

I request you review these documents and audio files and take the appropriate action. Mr. Clarke’s conduct is unbecoming someone in the legal profession.


Bradley VanHoose


Belleville, Illinois 62221


Item 2.

17 Oct. 2011 5:26 AM

To: Caseyville Police Chief Roth

From: Bradley VanHoose

Subject: Police Report #4591, Officer Chris Singleton

Chief Roth-

In reading report #4591, I can’t say I am surprised by the false statements made by the accused and his immediate family members. I accept these fallacies as a conceivable part of any discourse between two parties. The “ad-hominem argument form enlisted here is not only entry level, but obvious. The larger concern for myself is the plethora of inaccuracies conveyed by a member of law enforcement. Specifically, Officer Chris Singleton. In several instances, I strongly dispute the statements he presents as fact. For example, I never stated, “Kerry Davis is mad at me, does not like me, or that he tries to intimidate me all the time. Those comments are not only inaccurate, but sound almost “child-like. Having never spoken to Mr. Davis, how could I say such a thing? Moreover, if I had said those things I would have given specific examples to backup my statements. I will say, however, the redness of his face when he saw me the morning of 9/27 did seem to indicate his being upset.

When I came to the Caseyville Police Department on the morning of 9/27, I only asked to make an incident report in order to document what had just occurred. In the voluntary written section of this report, Officer Singleton fails to mention that in addition to filing a conduct complaint against Keri Lin Cary, I also clearly stated I had filed a document request for a number of public records. Further, I see no notes indicating that on September 27, I also made a request to obtain the video surveillance footage from Village Hall between for between 10am and 11 am. I see nothing documented in Officer Singleton’s report indicating I specifically requested that the Caseyville Police obtain video footage from FCB Bank at the corresponding time. While Trustee Davis admits he was photographing me, I felt it should have at least been noted that I made a request. I never made a demand stating, “I wanted something done about Kerry Davis continually harassing me. That statement is completely inaccurate. The only time Trustee Davis ever harassed me was on 9/27, immediately following my second request for documents in as many days. Officer Singleton never notes that I asked it be put into the report that I felt this was an attempt on Trustee Davis’s part to harass and intimidate me. I am bewildered why Officer Singleton would omit these requests and so blatantly misrepresent my statements in his report?

I had never had as much as a conversation with Mr. Davis prior to this incident. As I stated previously, initially I had only asked to file an incident report, but after giving it some thought, when I returned to retrieve a copy of the police report, I officially requested that the case be forwarded to the St. Clair County States Attorney for consideration of charges. (I ask you to review all phone messages I left for Officer Singleton) I followed this up with an email to you.

It remains my contention that Trustee Davis took the actions he did in an attempt too harass and intimidate me. The attempt took place immediately after I had filed a Freedom of Information Request with the Village. There is no doubt that this incident was an obvious effort to prevent me from seeking public documents. The documents I’m currently requesting do involve a fishing dock and its expenses, (as well as possible open bid violations), my requests also include Caseyville’s hotel/motel tax fund and committee. This committee lists Trustee Davis and Carrol Davis as members. Carrol Davis being listed as committee secretary. (See Freedom of Information tab, page 5, of Official Village of Caseyville website).

Currently, I am being illegally denied access to those documents through the Village’s intentional misuse of a state statute. Attached please find the memo I submitted to The Village Board of Trustees, Mayor, and Village Clerk on 12 October 2011. In addition, I have a complaint on file with The Illinois Attorney General to have these public documents released, along with a few other related issues, including but not limited to, harassment of a private citizen(me) by a public official(Trustee Kerry Davis), while seeking public documents.

I am hesitant to even acknowledge the baseless, non-relevant statements made by the wife and daughter of the accused, however I do categorically deny any wrongdoing whatsoever and emphatically maintain that I have never remotely threatened his wife or daughter. For one, that kind of behavior would be inconsistent with the kind of person I am, and second how could I possibly gain anything, including public support in doing so? There has been public discourse over public policy in a very public news forum, to that I agree. But I have never come close to violating any civil or criminal law in my very public dissent over this or any other matter. The appropriate legal actions I take here should clearly indicate that I’m proceeding according to the law. I find the convenient timing of these baseless allegations to be biased, unfounded and very consistent with those who stand accused of wrongdoing. I request the statements of Carrol Davis and Keri Lin Cary be stricken from this record permanently as they are without cause or merit and completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

These facts remain. Kerry Davis admits he stopped behind my vehicle and began photographing me immediately following my request for public documents. The documents in question were directly related to things within his pervue as a public official. Other than my request for documents, Trustee Davis was completely unprovoked and had no justifiable reason whatsoever to take this course of action. While after the fact, his wife and daughter came up to make unsolicited statements to supposedly justify his actions, not one of their baseless allegations was presented prior to this incident nor do I feel any of their statements relevant in this case.

The argument Davis makes that he was attempting to get a picture of my vehicle so his wife and daughter could more easily identify me is clearly nonsense and illogical. I find it nothing more than a feeble attempt to somehow justify his illegal and unethical actions.

By her own account, Mrs. Davis alleges, that she witnessed me glaring at her on the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. Of course I did no such thing, but in making this statement Mrs. Davis indicates she has knowledge of what my vehicle looks like and clearly contradicts herself by maintaining she needs her husband to photograph myself and my vehicle. In addition, I have cut the grass next to Village Hall at St. Stephens Church for over five years. (without incident I might add) I park my vehicle in the same place, in plain sight every time I am there. I have little doubt Keri Cary has not seen me and my vehicle at the church countless times. On occasion I have even come into Village Hall and used the public restroom. In doing so, I have walked past Ms. Cary a number of times as her office is the first one you pass when you enter the building. I sat right next to her at Long Street Bar and Restaurant for an hour on election night just last April. Neither Carrol Davis nor Keri Lin Davis Cary were present during, or witness to what occurred on 9/27/2011.

To pose a question: With the political influence the Davis family obviously wields in Caseyville, would it not be safe to say that if my conduct were half as bad as they allege, wouldn’t it have been much easier for one or all of them to simply come to the Village Police Dept. and file a complaint? They did not. Instead, as Trustee Davis admits in his own statement, he was trying to hunt me down and take pictures of my vehicle. Trustee Davis even say he recognized me while at Village Hall. Why secretly photograph me from afar? Why did Trustee Davis wait until I left to take my picture when he could have easily walked outside and photographed my vehicle without incident or my knowing? Instead Trustee Davis carefully timed his departure to coincide with mine. He wanted to be sure I saw him photographing me as to purposely try to intimidate me. His actions would probably not been so disturbing or meaningful, except for the fact that I had just requested some public documents that may conceivably be directly contrary to his interests. I didn’t think Mr. Davis would be happy I made requests for these documents, but I never expected him to harass me right there on the parking lot of Village Hall as I was leaving.

The reason this public discourse continues to be the same as it began, a lack of public disclosure and transparency in public spending. The details continue to remain murky around the contracting procedures and the actual costs to residents to build this fishing dock. Mr. Davis has, on several occasions provided what I believe to be false and incomplete information which is the primary reason I seek these public documents. Which in turn, leads us to the only real source of conflict between myself and Trustee Davis. In contrast, when I requested similar information from the St. Clair County Park Grants Dept., my request was satisfied in three days. My request from Caseyville remains unfilled now for three weeks. That Caseyville is fighting this information request, only lends itself to the notion that they have something to hide.

If the Davis family wishes to make pointless distractions out of any and everything, I can’t stop them. But I intend to see it through to obtaining documents to which I have a legal right under the law. I am also puzzled why Leonard or Dale Black were even mentioned this matter? Neither was present during this incident or involved in any way.

Pursuant to our conversation today, I wish to rescind my request for a meeting with Officer Singleton and yourself. I have no reason to believe much will be accomplished by having a “He said, “He said dispute. While citing absolutely no wrongdoing on your part Chief Roth, it’s my genuine feeling that outside influences are possibly at work here and see no reason to waste my time or yours.

The primary objective for me is public interest and public disclosure. I request this letter to be submitted along with these attachments to the St. Clair County Prosecutor for consideration of charges, I make no other demands. While I feel this case has merit, I will stand by the decision they render as to whether they prosecute or do not prosecute in this cause.

In the meantime, I will not be deterred or distracted from my intended objective of obtaining public documents to hopefully achieve some public disclosure.

This report, presented by Officer Chris Singleton, is full of omissions, inaccuracies, and errors. It is my contention that it will not give The St. Clair County States Attorney a clear, unbiased accounting of what REALLY occurred at Caseyville Village Hall on Sept. 27, 2011.

At the moment, I must admit, I find myself profoundly disappointed in someone I previously viewed as a very capable, credible young police officer. Perhaps time will prove me wrong? I genuinely hope, in the end, that be the case.

In a free country, no citizen should be afraid to walk into any public building and request a public document. Therein lies the main reason I wish to seek criminal charges against Caseyville Village Trustee Kerry G. Davis. Regardless of what Mr. Kelly decides, it is my sincerest hope that my actions here will make this public official think twice before ever again harassing a private citizen who is merely exercising his or her rights, with due diligence and passion, within the boundaries of the law.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brad VanHoose

Item 3.

6 March 2012

To: Mark Green , Public Safety, Southwestern Illinois College

From: Bradley W. VanHoose

Subject: Grievance; Pursuant to Unauthorized Release of Personal Information

Dear Mr. Green:

On October 6, 2011, at 8:32 am , my class schedule and student identification number were released to Caseyville, Illinois Police. This was done without cause and without my knowledge or consent. Caseyville Police have never questioned me nor shown cause to indicate I was ever involved in any criminal activity. I feel my safety and the safety of my home were put into jeopardy as a result of this matter. I submit this grievance in order to lodge formal complaint against Southwestern Illinois College and Public Safety Officer, Christie Stennett.


Bradley VanHoose

Cc: H.O. Brownback, Mike Fleming

Item 4.

Determination by the Attorney General demanding the City of Caseyville to release the requested documents to Mr. VanHoose under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, and to refrain from treating Mr. VanHoose as a “recurrent requester”.

Attorney General Determination 3 February 2012 Matthew Rogina

Item 5.

Report from the Caseyville Police Department Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #139 citing essentially a vote of no-confidence in Chief Roth of the Caseyville Police Department, and citing therein a number of acts of abuse and malfeasance by the Chief. I’m sure that any of the information alleged by the Fraternal Order of Police can be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Caseyville Police Report Union

Item 6.

Copy of letter from the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission acknowledging its receipt of Mr. VanHoose’s request for an investigation into Caseyville Village Attorney, Duane C. Clark.

Related stories in local news:


Contact information for the officials involved: (All addresses/phone numbers may not be current)

Caseyville Village Attorney
Duane C. Clarke
Age 41
(618) 654-3735

(618) 654-3735,+Highland,+IL&ie=UTF-8&ei=Pk2yT5ONMNPfggeJ9ZGhCQ&oi=mode_link&cd=3&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

(618) 651-3434,+Highland,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8875ddc48c1bf7c9:0x62dd267dbbde7245,1260+Mercantile+Dr,+Highland,+IL+62249&gl=us&ei=dk2yT462CYifgwffk-nvAw&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

(618) 654-3735,+Highland,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8875de7f907e8719:0xcf70a6360b18078c,2121+St+Raphael+Ct,+Highland,+IL+62249&gl=us&ei=l02yT-nzD8baggfu-_CcCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

(618) 654-3735,+Belleville,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87d8a9048a1514d1:0x641c976839266fca,312+Warrensburg+Dr,+Belleville,+IL+62223&gl=us&ei=sk2yT6ilB4O0gwfY-7WiCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA


Caseyville Trustee
Age 59
(618) 344-2009,+Caseyville,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87d8aadea0bea9cf:0x91b07a8a0a8d2cc3,26+Weinel+Ct,+Caseyville,+IL+62232&gl=us&ei=x02yT6DfKM70ggfQ17XICQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

(618) 344-8788,305+W+Washington+St,+Caseyville,+IL+62232&gl=us&ei=602yT8-FIcz2gAeprd3MBw&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA


South­west­ern Illi­nois Col­lege Public Safety Officer
Age 36
103 ELLIOT ST #1
(618) 346-8496,103+Elliot+St,+Collinsville,+IL+62234&gl=us&ei=FU6yT6fzCMX9ggeKsqi2CQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA

COLLINSVILLE, IL 62234,1101+Quatto+Hill+Dr,+Collinsville,+IL+62234&gl=us&ei=Mk6yT-H4As2RgQfm5cDNCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

TROY, IL 62294
(618) 346-8496,+Troy,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8875fc788f1a3711:0xf0a061e6b80b8b82,406+Riggin+Rd,+Troy,+IL+62294&gl=us&ei=Tk6yT9eABsWggwfYkf2nCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

COLLINSVILLE, IL 62234,723+Vandalia+St,+Collinsville,+IL+62234&gl=us&ei=cU6yT5OwB474ggeLkeW0CQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CEoQ8gEwAA

2500 CARLYLE AVENUE (This is SWIC College where Stennett works)
(618) 235-2700

COLLINSVILLE, IL 62234,612+N+Combs+Ave,+Collinsville,+IL+62234&gl=us&ei=lU6yT8CUFs7ggge-xtW_Cw&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA


Caseyville Police Chief
Age 55
618) 397-0000,+Fairview+Heights,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87d8aa5efd5ce055:0x2b6ea145aceca968,9704+Avalon+Dr,+Fairview+Heights,+IL+62208&gl=us&ei=rk6yT-_4J4mBgwe6n_SuCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA

(618) 398-2888,+Fairview+Heights,+IL&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87d8aa7d82069337:0x965d5a23556ed791,503+Pleasant+Ridge+Rd,+Fairview+Heights,+IL+62208&gl=us&ei=xE6yT-T0F4XTgQf58djBCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA

SOUTH BELOIT, IL 61080,+beliot+il+61080&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8808a1157e4880cb:0xf5c319bd24d1abb7,531+Northwestern+Ave,+South+Beloit,+IL+61080&gl=us&ei=706yT6f6JsjTgQeE49G-CQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CDAQ8gEwAA

(618) 398-2888,101+E+Ofallon+Dr,+Caseyville,+IL+62232&gl=us&ei=D0-yT5DaFMGagwe6uLyyCQ&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA


UPDATE 7/27/12

Congratulations to Bradley VanHoose on having his disorderly conduct charges dropped by Brendan Kelly, State’s Attorney. I’m sure it is not that kelly found no probable cause to prosecute since disorderly conduct is an ambiguous offense that is often abused by police as a retaliatory option. The accusations by Chief Rogh as to twhat constituted the offense, as VanHoose upsetting him, are ridiculous. Regardless, Brad is not being charged, and that is a good thing. I hope he maintains his pursuit of corruption in Caseyville and beyond.

From the story:

VanHoose was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct. Those charges were dismissed by St. Clair County State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly, who told a reporter the charges were dismissed for legal reasons and “for circumstances related to other ongoing investigations.

“SWIC officers arrested VanHoose as he sat in the college’s library studying for a test on April 10 after he passed a printed copy of a news story relating to Caseyville Police Chief J.D. Roth through the security window. That, according to the charge, was conduct “to cause alarm to” a SWIC police dispatcher.

Tagged , , , , , ,

United States Government Owns the Patent on Cannabis Cures

Submitted by Geeksneek on Mon, 12/27/2010 – 23:10

For those of you who still have any doubts as to the miraculous
healing powers of cannabis and THC Oil or do not believe that there
is an ongoing international effort dead set on keeping this free and
100% organic medicine, along with all organic foods, supplements, and
natural medicines from a diseased and dying global population… I
am about to BLOW YOUR MINDS……

On October 7, 2003 The United States Government as represented
by the Department of Health and Human Services was granted a
U.S. Patent (#6630507) on any and all uses and applications
of: Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.

Link to cannabis patent on USPTO Website.

with any and all combinations of the beneficial compounds found in
cannabinoids. As you read through this document you will discover
beyond any doubt whatsoever that cannabis has a tremendous variety
of medicinal values and applications specific and provable enough
to be granted a U.S. Patent, yet the Judicial [legislative] Branch
of our government continues to classify cannabis as a Schedule 1
Controlled Substance.


How can they possibly say that cannabis has no medicinal qualities
while at the same time they hold a patent that describes in great
detail so many of the proven medicinal qualities that actually DO
exist in cannabis?

There has been an ongoing effort to eliminate this ridiculous
classification by a wide variety of activists and organizations
for decades now but to date… the government holds all
the cards and rules with a closed mind and an iron fist.

The Abstract of the patent reads as follows:
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant
properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism.

(The NMDA receptor is one of two kinds of receptors activated by
glutimates). This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the
treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation associated
diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and auto-immune
diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application
as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage
following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the
treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease,
Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.

Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil (mis-spelled in
document – should read cannabidiol), are particularly advantageous to
use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive
cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present
invention. A particular disclosed class of cannbinoids useful as
neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (1) wherein the R group
is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub3,
and COCH.sub3. ##STR1##

In other words, it is useful to separate the natural components
and use higher concentrations of the beneficial compounds found in
cannabis (the R group) to act as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
within the human body. Cannabidiol is designed and being engineered
to provide all the benefits of organic cannabis without the
psychoactive “high” associated with the drug. This will allow them
to continue patenting their product while demonizing cannabis in
the media and courts and keeping this pure and natural medicine
illegal and unavailable.

Be sure to take the time to scroll down and read through this
patent and you will discover what a miracle plant cannabis really
is. You will be asking yourself… “What can’t it do?” as application
after application is described in great detail about the medicinal
properties and natural treatment potentials of cannabis. Ask
yourselves “Why are multinational corporations allowed to continually
market dangerous and untested poisons, toxins and industrial waste
products described as food additives and incorporate them into our
processed food supply while you and I face arrest and incarceration
for simply growing and selling organic foods and medicines?”

I have been healing people and their pets for over two years now
using organic nutrients combined with THC Oil and the results are
miraculous. Screw the FDA… CANNABIS CURES CANCER!

Run from the cure:


Vitamin Cannabis:

Assorted videos (select play all)

Cannabinoid Research:

Text from the Patent Office Website:
United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##
Inventors: Hampson; Aidan J. (Irvine, CA), Axelrod; Julius (Rockville, MD), Grimaldi; Maurizio (Bethesda, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

Appl. No.: 09/674,028
Filed: February 2, 2001
PCT Filed: April 21, 1999
PCT No.: PCT/US99/08769
PCT Pub. No.: WO99/53917
PCT Pub. Date: October 28, 1999


Current U.S. Class: 514/454
Current International Class: A61K 31/35 (20060101); A61K 031/35 ()
Field of Search: 514/454


References Cited [Referenced By]


U.S. Patent Documents

2304669 December 1942 Adams
4876276 October 1989 Mechoulam et al.
5227537 July 1993 Stoss et al.
5284867 February 1994 Kloog et al.
5434295 July 1995 Mechoulam et al.
5462946 October 1995 Mitchell et al.
5512270 April 1996 Ghio et al.
5521215 May 1996 Mechoulam et al.
5538993 July 1996 Mechoulam et al.
5635530 June 1997 Mechoulam et al.
5696109 December 1997 Malfroy-Camine et al.
6410588 June 2002 Feldmann et al.

Foreign Patent Documents

427518 May., 1991 EP
576357 Dec., 1993 EP
656354 Jun., 1995 EP
658546 Jun., 1995 EP
WO9305031 Mar., 1993 WO
WO9412667 Jun., 1994 WO
WO9612485 May., 1996 WO
WO9618600 Jun., 1996 WO
WO9719063 May., 1997 WO
99/53917 Oct., 1999 WO

Other References
Windholz et al., The Merck Index, Tenth Edition (1983) p. 241, abstract No. 1723.* .
Mechoulam et al., “A Total Synthesis of d1-.DELTA..sup.1 -Tetrahydrocannabinol, the Active Constituent of Hashish.sup.1,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, 87:14:3273-3275 (1965). .
Mechoulam et al., “Chemical Basis of Hashish Activity,” Science, 18:611-612 (1970). .
Ottersen et al., “The Crystal and Molecular Structure of Cannabidiol,” Acta Chem. Scand. B 31, 9:807-812 (1977). .
Cunha et al., “Chronic Administration of Cannabidiol to Healthy Volunteers and Epileptic Patients.sup.1,” Pharmacology, 21:175-185 (1980). .
Consroe et al., “Acute and Chronic Antiepileptic Drug Effects in Audiogenic Seizure-Susceptible Rats,” Experimental Neurology, Academic Press Inc., 70:626-637 (1980). .
Turkanis et al., “Electrophysiologic Properties of the Cannabinoids,” J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21:449S-463S (1981). .
Carlini et al., “Hypnotic and Antielpileptic Effects of Cannabidiol,” J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21:417S-427S (1981). .
Karler et al., “The Cannabinoids as Potential Antiepileptics,” J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21:437S-448S (1981). .
Consroe et al., “Antiepileptic Potential of Cannabidiol Analgos,” J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21:428S-436S (1981). .
Colasanti et al., “Ocular Hypotension, Ocular Toxicity,a nd Neurotoxicity in Response to Marihuana Extract and Cannabidiol,” Gen Pharm., Pergamon Press Ltd., 15(6):479-484 (1984). .
Colasanti et al., “Intraocular Pressure, Ocular Toxicity and Neurotoxicity after Administration of Cannabinol or Cannabigerol,” Exp. Eye Res., Academic Press Inc., 39:251-259 (1984). .
Volfe et al., “Cannabinoids Block Release of Serotonin from Platelets Induced by Plasma frm Migraine Patients,” Int. J. Clin. Pharm. Res., Bioscience Ediprint Inc., 4:243-246 (1985). .
Agurell et al., “Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of .DELTA..sup.1 -Tetrahydrocannabinol and Other Cannabinoids with Emphasis on Man*,” Pharmacological Reviews, 38(1):21-43 (1986). .
Karler et al., “Different Cannabinoids Exhibit Different Pharmacological and Toxicological Properties,”NIDA Res. Monogr., 79:96-107 (1987). .
Samara et al., “Pharmacokinetics of Cannabidiol in Dogs,” Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 16(3):469-472 (1988). .
Choi, “Glutamate Neurotoxicity and Diseases of the Nervous System,” Neuron, Cell Press, 1:623-634 (1988). .
Eshhar et al., “Neuroprotective and Antioxidant Activities of HU-211, A Novel NMDA Receptor Antagonist,” European Journal of Pharmacology, 283:19-29 (1995). .
Skaper et al., “The ALIAmide Palmitoylethanolamide and Cannabinoids, but not Anandamide, are Protective in a Delayed Postglutamate Paradigm of Excitotoxic Death in Cerebellar Granule Neurons,” Neurobiology, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93:3984-3989 (1996). .
Alonso et al., “Simple Synthesis of 5-Substituted Resorcinols: A Revisited Family of Interesting Bioactive Molecules,” J. Org. Chem., American Chemical Society, 62(2):417-421 (1997). .
Combes et al. “A Simple Synthesis of the Natural 2,5-Dialkylresorcinol Free Radical Scavenger Antioxidant: Resorstation,” Synthetic Communications, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 27(21):3769-3778 (1997). .
Shohami et al., “Oxidative Stress in Closed-Head Injury: Brain Antioxidant Capacity as an Indicator of Functional Outcome,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 17(10):1007-1019 (1997). .
Zurier et al., “Dimethylheptyl-THC-11 OIC Acid,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, 41(1):163-170 (1998). .
Hampson et al., “Dual Effects of Anandamide on NMDA Receptor-Mediated Responses and Neurotransmission,” Journal of Neurochemistry, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 70(2):671-676 (1998). .
Hampson et al., “Cannabidiol and (-).DELTA..sup.9 -tetrahydrocannabiono are Neuroprotective Antioxidants,” Medical Sciences, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 8268-8273 (1998)..

Primary Examiner: Weddington; Kevin E.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP


Parent Case Text


This application is a 371 of PCT/US99/08769 filed Apr. 21, 1999, which claims benefit of No. 60/082,589 filed Apr. 21, 1998, which claims benefit of No. 60/095,993 filed Aug. 10, 1998.



We claim:

1. A method of treating diseases caused by oxidative stress, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid that has substantially no binding to the NMDA receptor to a subject who has a disease caused by oxidative stress.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is nonpsychoactive.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid has a volume of distribution of 10 L/kg or more.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is not an antagonist at the NMDA receptor.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR22##

where R is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, carboxyl, alkoxy, aryl, aryloxy, arylalkyl, halo or amino.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein R is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, carboxyl or alkoxy.

7. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR23##

where A is cyclohexyl, substituted or unsubstituted aryl, or ##STR24## but not a pinene; R.sub.1 is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, or substituted or unsubstituted carboxyl; R.sub.2 is H, lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, or alkoxy; R.sub.3 is of H, lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, or substituted or unsubstituted carboxyl; R.sub.4 is H, hydroxyl, or lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl; and R.sub.5 is H, hydroxyl, or lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein R.sub.1 is lower alkyl, COOH or COCH.sub.3 ; R.sub.2 is unsubstituted C.sub.1 -C.sub.5 alkyl, hydroxyl, methoxy or ethoxy; R.sub.3 is H, unsubstituted C.sub.1 -C.sub.3 alkyl, or COCH.sub.3 ; R.sub.4 is hydroxyl, pentyl, heptyl, or diemthylheptyl; and R.sub.5 is hydroxyl or methyl.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR25##

where R.sub.1, R.sub.2 and R.sub.3 are independently H, CH.sub.3, or COCH.sub.3.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR26##

where: a) R.sub.1 =R.sub.2 =R.sub.3 =H; b) R.sub.1 =R.sub.3 =H, R.sub.2 =CH.sub.3 ; c) R.sub.1 =R.sub.2 =CH.sub.3, R.sub.3 =H; d) R.sub.1 =R.sub.2 =COCH.sub.3, R.sub.3 =H; or e) R.sub.1 =H, R.sub.2 =R.sub.3 =COCH.sub.3.

11. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR27##

where R.sub.19 is H, lower alkyl, lower alcohol, or carboxyl; R.sub.20 is H or OH; and R.sub.21 -R.sub.25 are independently H or OH.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein R.sub.19 is H, CH.sub.3, CH.sub.2 OH, or COOH, and R.sub.20 -R.sub.24 are independently H or OH.

13. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR28##

where R.sub.19 and R.sub.20 are H, and R.sub.26 is alkyl.

14. The method of claim 10, wherein the cannabinoid is cannabidiol.

15. A method of treating an ischemic or neurodegenerative disease in the central nervous system of a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid, where the cannabinoid is ##STR29##

where R is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, carboxyl, alkoxy, aryl, aryloxy, arylalkyl, halo or amino.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the cannabinoid is not a psychoactive cannabinoid.

17. The method of claim 15 where the ischemic or neurodegenerative disease is an ischemic infarct, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and human immunodeficiency virus dementia, Down’s syndrome, or heart disease.

18. A method of treating a disease with a cannabinoid that has substantially no binding to the NMDA receptor, comprising determining whether the disease is caused by oxidative stress, and if the disease is caused by oxidative stress, administering the cannabinoid in a therapeutically effective antioxidant amount.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein the cannabinoid has a volume of distribution of at least 1.5 L/kg and substantially no activity at the cannabinoid receptor.

20. The method of claim 19, wherein the cannabinoid has a volume of distribution of at least 10 L/kg.

21. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid selectively inhibits an enzyme activity of 5- and 15-lipoxygenase more than an enzyme activity of 12-lipoxygenase.

22. A method of treating a neurodegenerative or ischemic disease in the central nervous system of a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound selected from any of the compounds of claims 9 through 13.

23. The method of claim 22 where the compound is cannabidiol.

24. The method of claim 22, wherein the ischemic or neurodegenerative disease is an ischemic infarct, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and human immunodeficiency virus dementia, Down’s syndrome, or heart disease.

25. The method of claim 24 wherein the disease is an ischemic infarct.

26. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is not an antagonist at the AMPA receptor.



The present invention concerns pharmaceutical compounds and compositions that are useful as tissue protectants, such as neuroprotectants and cardioprotectants. The compounds and compositions may be used, for example, in the treatment of acute ischemic neurological insults or chronic neurodegenerative diseases.


Permanent injury to the central nervous system (CNS) occurs in a variety of medical conditions, and has been the subject of intense scientific scrutiny in recent years. It is known that the brain has high metabolic requirements, and that it can suffer permanent neurologic damage if deprived of sufficient oxygen (hypoxia) for even a few minutes. In the absence of oxygen (anoxia), mitochondrial production of ATP cannot meet the metabolic requirements of the brain, and tissue damage occurs. This process is exacerbated by neuronal release of the neurotransmitter glutamate, which stimulates NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate), AMPA (.alpha.-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionate) and kainate receptors. Activation of these receptors initiates calcium influx into the neurons, and production of reactive oxygen species, which are potent toxins that damage important cellular structures such as membranes, DNA and enzymes.

The brain has many redundant blood supplies, which means that its tissue is seldom completely deprived of oxygen, even during acute ischemic events caused by thromboembolic events or trauma. A combination of the injury of hypoxia with the added insult of glutamate toxicity is therefore believed to be ultimately responsible for cellular death. Hence if the additive insult of glutamate toxicity can be alleviated, neurological damage could also be lessened. Anti-oxidants and anti-inflammatory agents have been proposed to reduce damage, but they often have poor access to structures such as the brain (which are protected by the blood brain barrier).

Given the importance of the NMDA, AMPA and kainate receptors in the mechanism of injury, research efforts have focused on using antagonists to these receptors to interfere with the receptor mediated calcium influx that ultimately leads to cellular death and tissue necrosis. In vitro studies using cultured neurons have demonstrated that glutamate receptor antagonists reduce neurotoxicity, but NMDA and AMPA/kainate receptor antagonists have different effects. Antagonists to NMDAr prevent neurotoxicity if present during the glutamate exposure period, but are less effective if added after glutamate is removed. In contrast, AMPA/kainate receptor antagonists are not as effective as NMDA antagonists during the glutamate exposure period, but are more effective following glutamate exposure.

Some of the research on these antagonists has focused on cannabinoids, a subset of which have been found to be NMDA receptor antagonists. U.S. Pat. No. 5,538,993 (3S,4S-delta-6-tetrahydrocannabinol-7-oic acids), U.S. Pat. No. 5,521,215 (sterospecific (+) THC enantiomers), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,284,867 (dimethylheptyl benzopyrans) have reported that these cannabinoids are effective NMDA receptor blockers. U.S. Pat. No. 5,434,295 discloses that the 1,1 dimethylheptyl (DMH) homolog of [3R,4R]-7-hydroxy-.DELTA..sup.6 THC (known as HU-210) is a superpotent cannabinoid receptor agonist with cannabinomimetic activity two orders of magnitude greater than the natural .DELTA..sup.9 THC. The HU-210 dimethylheptyl cannabinoid, has severe side effects, including fatigue, thirst, headache, and hypotension. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 60:1433-1457 (1971). Subjects who received this synthetic cannabinoid with a dimethylheptyl group experienced marked psychomotor retardation, and were unwilling or incapable of assuming an erect position.

In contrast to HU-210, the (-)(3R,4R) THC-DMH enantiomer (known as HU-211) displays low affinity to the cannabinoid receptors, but retains NMDA receptor antagonist neuroprotective activity. ##STR2##

THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is another of the cannabinoids that has been shown to be neuroprotective in cell cultures, but this protection was believed to be mediated by interaction at the cannabinoid receptor, and so would be accompanied by undesired psychotropic side effects. ##STR3##

Although it has been unclear whether cannabimimetic activity plays a role in neuroprotection against glutamate induced neurological injury, the teaching in this field has clearly been that a cannabinoid must at least be an antagonist at the NMDA receptor to have neuroprotective effect. Hence cannabidiol (2-[3-methyl-6-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-1,3-benzenedi ol or CBD), a cannabinoid devoid of psychoactive effect (Pharm. Rev. 38:21-43, 1986), has not been considered useful as a neuroprotectant. Cannabidiol has been studied as an antiepileptic (Carlini et al., J. Clin. Pharmacol. 21:417S-427S, 1981; Karler et al., J. Clin. Pharmacol. 21:437S-448S, 1981, Consroe et al., J. Clin Phannacol. 21:428S-436S, 1981), and has been found to lower intraocular pressure (Colasanti et al, Exp. Eye Res. 39:251-259, 1984 and Gen. Pharmac. 15:479-484, 1984). ##STR4##

No signs of toxicity or serious side effects have been observed following chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers (Cunha et al., Pharmacology 21:175-185, 1980), even in large acute doses of 700 mg/day (Consroe et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 40:701-708, 1991) but cannabidiol is inactive at the NMDA receptor. Hence in spite of its potential use in treating glaucoma and seizures, cannabidiol has not been considered a neuroprotective agent that could be used to prevent glutamate induced damage in the central nervous system.


It is an object of this invention to provide a new class of antioxidant drugs, that have particular application as neuroprotectants, although they are generally useful in the treatment of many oxidation associated diseases.

Yet another object of the invention is to provide a subset of such drugs that can be substantially free of psychoactive or psychotoxic effects, are substantially non-toxic even at very high doses, and have good tissue penetration, for example crossing the blood brain barrier.

It has surprisingly been found that cannabidiol and other cannabinoids can function as neuroprotectants, even though they lack NMDA receptor antagonist activity. This discovery was made possible because of the inventor’s recognition of a previously unanticipated antioxidant property of the cannabinoids in general (and cannabidiol in particular) that functions completely independently of antagonism at the NMDA, AMPA and kainate receptors. Hence the present invention includes methods of preventing or treating diseases caused by oxidative stress, such as neuronal hypoxia, by administering a prophylactic or therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid to a subject who has a disease caused by oxidative stress.

The cannabinoid may be a cannabinoid other than THC, HU-210, or other potent cannabinoid receptor agonists. The cannabinoid may also be other than HU-211 or any other NMDA receptor antagonist that has previously been reported. A potent cannabinoid receptor agonist is one that has an EC.sub.50 at the cannabinoid receptor of 50 nM or less, but in more particular embodiments 190 nM or 250 nM or less. In disclosed embodiments the cannabinoid is not psychoactive, and is not psychotoxic even at high doses. In some particularly disclosed embodiments, the cannabinoid is selected from the group: ##STR5##

where A is aryl, and particularly ##STR6##

but not a pinene such as: ##STR7##

and the R.sub.1 -R.sub.5 groups are each independently selected from the groups of hydrogen, lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted carboxyl, substituted or unsubstituted alkoxy, substituted or unsubstituted alcohol, and substituted or unsubstituted ethers, and R.sub.6 -R.sub.7 are H or methyl. In particular embodiments, there are no nitrogens in the rings, and/or no amino substitutions on the rings.

In other embodiments, the cannabinoid is one of the following: ##STR8##

where there can be 0 to 3 double bonds on the A ring, as indicated by the optional double bonds indicated by dashed lines on the A ring. The C ring is aromatic, and the B ring can be a pyran. Particular embodiments are dibenzo pyrans and cyclohexenyl benzenediols. Particular embodiments of the cannabinoids of the present invention may also be highly lipid soluble, and in particular embodiments can be dissolved in an aqueous solution only sparingly (for example 10 mg/ml or less). The octanol/water partition ratio at neutral pH in useful embodiments is 5000 or greater, for example 6000 or greater. This high lipid solubility enhances penetration of the drug into the CNS, as reflected by its volume of distribution (V.sub.d) of 1.5 L/kg or more, for example 3.5 L/kg, 7 L/kg, or ideally 10 L/kg or more, for example at least 20 L/kg. Particular embodiments may also be highly water soluble derivatives that are able to penetrate the CNS, for example carboxyl derivatives.

R.sub.7-18 are independently selected from the group of H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, especially lower alkyl, for example unsubstituted C.sub.1 -C.sub.3 alkyl, hydroxyl, alkoxy, especially lower alkoxy such as methoxy or ethoxy, substituted or unsubstituted alcohol, and unsubstituted or substituted carboxyl, for example COOH or COCH.sub.3. In other embodiments R.sub.7-18 can also be substituted or unsubstituted amino, and halogen.

The cannabinoid has substantially no binding to the NMDAr (for example an IC.sub.50 greater than or equal to 5 .mu.M or 10 .mu.M), has substantially no psychoactive activity mediated by the cannabinoid receptor (for example an IC.sub.50 at the cannabinoid receptor of greater than or equal to 300 nM, for example greater than 1 .mu.M and a K.sub.i greater than 250 nM, especially 500-1000 nM, for example greater than 1000 nM), and antioxidant activity, as demonstratable by the Fenton reaction or cyclic voltametry.

In other particular embodiments, the cannabinoids are one of the following: ##STR9##

where R.sub.19 is substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, such as lower alkyl (for example methyl), lower alcohol (such as methyl alcohol) or carboxyl (such as carboxylic acid) and oxygen (as in .dbd.O); R.sub.20 is hydrogen or hydroxy; R.sub.21 is hydrogen, hydroxy, or methoxy; R.sub.22 is hydrogen or hydroxy; R.sub.23 is hydrogen or hydroxy; R.sub.24 is hydrogen or hydroxy; R.sub.25 is hydrogen or hydroxy; and R.sub.26 is substituted or unsubstituted alkyl (for example n-methyl alkyl), substituted or unsubstituted alcohol, or substituted or unsubstituted carboxy.

In yet other embodiments of the invention, the cannabinoids are ##STR10##

wherein numbering conventions for each of the ring positions are shown, and R.sub.27, R.sub.28 and R.sub.29 are independently selected from the group consisting of H, unsubstituted lower alkyl such as CH.sub.3, and carboxyl such as COCH.sub.3. Particular examples of nonpsychoactive cannabinoids that fall within this definition are cannabidiol and ##STR11##

and other structural analogs of cannabidiol.

In more particular embodiments, the cannabinoid is used to prevent or treat an ischemic or neurodegenerative disease in the central nervous system of a subject, by administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid to protect against oxidative injury to the central nervous system. The cannabinoid may be any of the compounds set forth above, or more specifically ##STR12##

wherein R.sub.27, R.sub.28 and R.sub.29 are independently selected from the group consisting of H, lower alkyl such as CH.sub.3, and carboxyl such as COCH.sub.3, and particularly wherein a) R.sub.27 =R.sub.28 =R.sub.29 =H b) R.sub.27 =R.sub.29 =H; R.sub.28 =CH.sub.3 c) R.sub.27 =R.sub.28 =CH.sub.3 ; R.sub.29 =H d) R.sub.27 =R.sub.28 =COCH.sub.3 ; R.sub.29 =H e) R.sub.27 =H; R.sub.28 =R.sub.29 =COCH.sub.3

When R.sub.27 =R.sub.28 =R.sub.29 =H, then the compound is cannabidiol. When R.sub.27 =R.sub.29 =H and R.sub.28 =CH.sub.3, the compound is CBD monomethyl ether. When R.sub.27 =R.sub.28 =CH.sub.3 and R.sub.29 =H, the compound is CBD dimethyl ether. When R.sub.27 =R.sub.28 =COCH.sub.3 and R.sub.29 =H, the compound is CBD diacetate. When R.sub.27 =H and R.sub.28 =R.sub.29 =COCH.sub.3, the compound is CBD monoacetate. The ischemic or neurodegenerative disease may be, for example, an ischemic infarct, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Down’s syndrome, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) dementia, myocardial infarction, or treatment and prevention of intraoperative or perioperative hypoxic insults that can leave persistent neurological deficits following open heart surgery requiring heart/lung bypass machines, such as coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG).

The invention also includes an assay for selecting a cannabinoid to use in treating a neurological disease by determining whether the cannabinoid is an antioxidant. Once it has been determined that the cannabinoid is an antioxidant, an antioxidant effective amount of the cannabinoid is administered to treat the neurological disease, such as a vascular ischemic event in the central nervous system, for example the type caused by a neurovascular thromboembolism. Similarly, the method of the present invention includes determining whether a disease is caused by oxidative stress, and if the disease is caused by oxidative stress, administering the cannabinoid in a therapeutically effective antioxidant amount.

The invention also includes identifying and administering antioxidant and neuroprotective compounds (such as cannabidiol) which selectively inhibit the enzyme activity of both 5- and 15-lipoxygenase more than the enzyme activity of 12-lipoxygenase. In addition, such compounds posses low NMDA antagonist activity and low cannabinoid receptor activity. Assays for selecting compounds with the desired effect on lipoxygenase enzymes, and methods for using identified compounds to treat neurological or ischemic diseases are also provided. Such diseases may include a vascular ischemic event in the central nervous system, for example a thromboembolism in the brain, or a vascular ischemic event in the myocardium. Useful administration of the compounds involves administration both during and after an ischemic injury.

These and other objects of the invention will be understood more clearly by reference to the following detailed description and drawings.


FIG. 1A is a graph showing NMDA induced cellular damage in a neuron (as measured by LDH release) in cells that were exposed to glutamate for 10 minutes, which demonstrates that increasing concentrations of cannabidiol in the cell culture protects against cellular damage.

FIG. 1B is a graph similar to FIG. 1A, but showing that AMPA/kainate receptor mediated damage (induced by glutamate and the AMPA/kainate receptor potentiating agents cyclothiazide or concanavalin A) is also reduced in a concentration dependent manner by the presence of cannabidiol in the culture medium.

FIG. 2A is a bar graph showing cellular damage (as measured by LDH release) in the presence of glutamate alone (100 .mu.M Glu), and in the presence of glutamate and 5 .mu.M cannabidiol (CBD) or 5 .mu.M THC, and demonstrates that CBD and THC were similarly protective.

FIG. 2B is a bar graph similar to FIG. 2A, but showing the cellular damage assessed in the presence of the cannabinoid receptor antagonist SR 141716A (SR), which was not found to alter the neuroprotective effect of CBD (5 .mu.M) or THC (5 .mu.M), indicating the effect is not a typical cannabinoid effect mediated by the cannabinoid receptor.

FIG. 3 is a graph showing the reduction oxidation potentials determined by cyclic voltametry for some natural and synthetic cannabinoids, the antioxidant BHT, and the non-cannabinoid anandamide (arachidonyl ethanolamide) which is a ligand for the cannabinoid receptor. The voltage at which initial peaks occur is an indication of antioxidant activity.

FIG. 4 is a graph that demonstrates the antioxidant properties of BHT, CBD and THC, by plotting the fluorescence of a fluorescent dye against concentrations of these substances, where declining fluorescence is an indication of greater antioxidant activity.

FIG. 5A is a graph illustrating decreased t-butyl peroxide induced toxicity (as measured by LDH release) in the presence of increasing concentrations of cannabidiol, demonstrating that cannabidiol is an effective antioxidant in living cells.

FIG. 5B is a bar graph comparing the antioxidant activity of several antioxidants against glutamate induced toxicity in neurons, showing that CBD has superior antioxidant activity.

FIG. 6A is a graph showing the effect of CBD (as measured by the change in absorbance at 234 nm) on the enzymatic activity of two lipoxygenase enzymes, rabbit 15-LO and porcine 12-LO, which demonstrates that CBD inhibits 15-LO, but not 12-LO enzyme.

FIG. 6B is a graph demonstrating that inhibitory effect of CBD on 15-LO is competitive.

FIG. 7A is a graph similar to FIG. 6A, but was performed in whole cells rather than purified enzyme preparations, and shows the effect of CBD (as measured by the change in absorbance at 236 nm) on the enzymatic activity of 5-LO from cultured rat basophillic leukemia cells (RBL-2H3), which demonstrates that CBD inhibits 5-LO.

FIG. 7B is a graph showing the effect of CBD (as measured by the change in absorbance at 236 nm) on the formation of 12-HETE (the product of 12-LO) by human leukocytes (12-LO type 1).

FIG. 7C is a graph similar to FIG. 7B, showing the effect of CBD (as measured by the change in absorbance at 236 nm) on the formation of 12-HETE by human platelets (12-LO type 2).

FIG. 8 is a bar graph demonstrating that 12-HETE can protect cortical neurons from NMDAr toxicity most effectively when administered during and post ischemia.


This invention provides antioxidant compounds and compositions, such as pharmaceutical compositions, that include cannabinoids that act as free radical scavengers for use in prophylaxis and treatment of disease. The invention also includes methods for using the antioxidants in prevention and treatment of pathological conditions such as ischemia (tissue hypoxia), and in subjects who have been exposed to oxidant inducing agents such as cancer chemotherapy, toxins, radiation, or other sources of oxidative stress. The compositions and methods described herein are also used for preventing oxidative damage in transplanted organs, for inhibiting reoxygenation injury following reperfusion of ischemic tissues (for example in heart disease), and for any other condition that is mediated by oxidative or free radical mechanisms of injury. In particular embodiments of the invention, the compounds and compositions are used in the treatment of ischemic cardiovascular and neurovascular conditions, and neurodegenerative diseases. However the present invention can also be used as an antioxidant treatment in non-neurological diseases.

Molecular oxygen is essential for aerobic organisms, where it participates in many biochemical reactions, including its role as the terminal electron acceptor in oxidative phosphorylation. However excessive concentrations of various forms of reactive oxygen species and other free radicals can have serious adverse biological consequences, including the peroxidation of membrane lipids, hydroxylation of nucleic acid bases, and the oxidation of sulfhydryl groups and other protein moieties. Biological antioxidants include tocopherols and tocotrieneols, carotenoids, quinones, bilirubin, ascorbic acid, uric acid, and metal binding proteins. However these endogenous antioxidant systems are often overwhelmed by pathological processes that allow permanent oxidative damage to occur to tissue.

Free radicals are atoms, ions or molecules that contain an unpaired electron, are usually unstable, and exhibit short half-lives. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a collective term, designating the oxygen radicals (e.g. .O.sub.2.sup.- superoxide radical), which by sequential univalent reduction produces hydrogen peroxide (H.sub.2 O.sub.2) and hydroxyl radical (.OH). The hydroxyl radical sets off chain reactions and can interact with nucleic acids. Other ROS include nitric oxide (NO.) and peroxy nitrite (NOO.), and other peroxyl (RO.sub.2.) and alkoxyl (RO.) radicals. Increased production of these poisonous metabolites in certain pathological conditions is believed to cause cellular damage through the action of the highly reactive molecules on proteins, lipids and DNA. In particular, ROS are believed to accumulate when tissues are subjected to ischemia, particularly when followed by reperfusion.

The pharmaceutical compositions of the present invention have potent antioxidant and/or free radical scavenging properties, that prevent or reduce oxidative damage in biological systems, such as occurs in ischemic/reperfusion injury, or in chronic neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, HIV dementia, and many other oxidation associated diseases.


“Oxidative associated diseases” refers to pathological conditions that result at least in part from the production of or exposure to free radicals, particularly oxyradicals, or reactive oxygen species. It is evident to those of skill in the art that most pathological conditions are multifactorial, and that assigning or identifying the predominant causal factors for any particular condition is frequently difficult. For these reasons, the term “free radical associated disease” encompasses pathological states that are recognized as conditions in which free radicals or ROS contribute to the pathology of the disease, or wherein administration of a free radical inhibitor (e.g. desferroxamine), scavenger (e.g. tocopherol, glutathione) or catalyst (e.g. superoxide dismutase, catalase) is shown to produce detectable benefit by decreasing symptoms, increasing survival, or providing other detectable clinical benefits in treating or preventing the pathological state.

Oxidative associated diseases include, without limitation, free radical associated diseases, such as ischemia, ischemic reperfusion injury, inflammatory diseases, systemic lupus erythematosis, myocardial ischemia or infarction, cerebrovascular accidents (such as a thromboembolic or hemorrhagic stroke) that can lead to ischemia or an infarct in the brain, operative ischemia, traumatic hemorrhage (for example a hypovolemic stroke that can lead to CNS hypoxia or anoxia), spinal cord trauma, Down’s syndrome, Crohn’s disease, autoimmune diseases (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes), cataract formation, uveitis, emphysema, gastric ulcers, oxygen toxicity, neoplasia, undesired cellular apoptosis, radiation sickness, and others. The present invention is believed to be particularly beneficial in the treatment of oxidative associated diseases of the CNS, because of the ability of the cannabinoids to cross the blood brain barrier and exert their antioxidant effects in the brain. In particular embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition of the present invention is used for preventing, arresting, or treating neurological damage in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and HIV dementia; autoimmune neurodegeneration of the type that can occur in encephalitis, and hypoxic or anoxic neuronal damage that can result from apnea, respiratory arrest or cardiac arrest, and anoxia caused by drowning, brain surgery or trauma (such as concussion or spinal cord shock).

As used herein, an “antioxidant” is a substance that, when present in a mixture containing an oxidizable substrate biological molecule, significantly delays or prevents oxidation of the substrate biological molecule. Antioxidants can act by scavenging biologically important reactive free radicals or other reactive oxygen species (.O.sub.2.sup.-, H.sub.2 O.sub.2, .OH, HOCl, ferryl, peroxyl, peroxynitrite, and alkoxyl), or by preventing their formation, or by catalytically converting the free radical or other reactive oxygen species to a less reactive species. Relative antioxidant activity can be measured by cyclic voltametry studies of the type disclosed in Example 5 (and FIG. 3), where the voltage (x-axis) is an index of relative antioxidant activity. The voltage at which the first peak occurs is an indication of the voltage at which an electron is donated, which in turn is an index of antioxidant activity.

“Therapeutically effective antioxidant doses” can be determined by various methods, including generating an empirical dose-response curve, predicting potency and efficacy of a congener by using quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) methods or molecular modeling, and other methods used in the pharmaceutical sciences. Since oxidative damage is generally cumulative, there is no minimum threshold level (or dose) with respect to efficacy. However, minimum doses for producing a detectable therapeutic or prophylactic effect for particular disease states can be established.

As used herein, a “cannabinoid” is a chemical compound (such as cannabinol, THC or cannabidiol) that is found in the plant species Cannabis saliva (marijuana), and metabolites and synthetic analogues thereof that may or may not have psychoactive properties. Cannabinoids therefore include (without limitation) compounds (such as THC) that have high affinity for the cannabinoid receptor (for example K.sub.i <250 nM), and compounds that do not have significant affinity for the cannabinoid receptor (such as cannabidiol, CBD). Cannabinoids also include compounds that have a characteristic dibenzopyran ring structure (of the type seen in THC) and cannabinoids which do not possess a pyran ring (such as cannabidiol). Hence a partial list of cannabinoids includes THC, CBD, dimethyl heptylpentyl cannabidiol (DMHP-CBD), 6,12-dihydro-6-hydroxy-cannabidiol (described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,227,537, incorporated by reference); (3S,4R)-7-hydroxy-.DELTA..sup.6 -tetrahydrocannabinol homologs and derivatives described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,876,276, incorporated by reference; (+)-4-[4-DMH-2,6-diacetoxy-phenyl]-2-carboxy-6,6-dimethylbicyclo[3.1. 1]hept-2-en, and other 4-phenylpinene derivatives disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,434,295, which is incorporated by reference; and cannabidiol (-)(CBD) analogs such as (-)CBD-monomethylether, (-)CBD dimethyl ether; (-)CBD diacetate; (-)3′-acetyl-CBD monoacetate; and .+-.AF11, all of which are disclosed in Consroe et al., J. Clin. Phannacol. 21:428S-436S, 1981, which is also incorporated by reference. Many other cannabinoids are similarly disclosed in Agurell et al., Pharmacol. Rev. 38:31-43, 1986, which is also incorporated by reference.

As referred to herein, the term “psychoactivity” means “cannabinoid receptor mediated psychoactivity.” Such effects include, euphoria, lightheadedness, reduced motor coordination, and memory impairment. Psychoactivity is not meant to include non-cannabinoid receptor mediated effects such as the anxiolytic effect of CBD.

The “lipoxygenase enzyme activity” refers to the relative level of lipoxygenase enzyme activity for a particular lipoxgenase, such as 5-, 15- or 12-lipoxygenase, as measured in Example 8. A compound would be said to “selectively inhibit a lipoxgenase enzyme” if the concentration of inhibitor required to reduce enzyme activity by 50% was at least about 5 times less than the amount required to reduce activity of a second lipoxgenase enzyme by the same degree (under the same conditions, i.e. temperature, substrate concentration, etc.)

An “antagonist” is a compound that binds and occupies a receptor without activating it. In the presence of a sufficient concentration of antagonist, an agonist cannot activate its receptor. Therefore, antagonists may decrease the neurotoxicity mediated by NMDA (as described in Example 3) or AMPA and Kainate (as described in Example 4).

An “agonist” is a compound that activates a receptor. When the receptor is activated for a longer than normal period of time, this may cause neurotoxicity, as in the case of NMDA, AMPA and kainate receptors (see Examples 3 and 4).

The term “alkyl” refers to a cyclic, branched, or straight chain alkyl group containing only carbon and hydrogen, and unless otherwise mentioned contains one to twelve carbon atoms. This term is further exemplified by groups such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, t-butyl, pentyl, pivalyl, heptyl, adamantyl, and cyclopentyl. Alkyl groups can either be unsubstituted or substituted with one or more substituents, e.g. halogen, alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio, trifluoromethyl, acyloxy, hydroxy, mercapto, carboxy, aryloxy, aryloxy, aryl, arylalkyl, heteroaryl, amino, alkylamino, dialkylamino, morpholino, piperidino, pyrrolidin-1-yl, piperazin-1-yl, or other functionality.

The term “lower alkyl” refers to a cyclic, branched or straight chain monovalent alkyl radical of one to seven carbon atoms. This term is further exemplified by such radicals as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, i-propyl, n-butyl, t-butyl, i-butyl (or 2-methylpropyl), cyclopropylmethyl, i-amyl, n-amyl, hexyl and heptyl. Lower alkyl groups can also be unsubstituted or substituted, where a specific example of a substituted alkyl is 1,1-dimethyl heptyl.

“Hydroxyl” refers to –OH.

“Alcohol” refers to R–OH, wherein R is alkyl, especially lower alkyl (for example in methyl, ethyl or propyl alcohol). An alcohol may be either linear or branched, such as isopropyl alcohol.

“Carboxyl” refers to the radical –COOH, and substituted carboxyl refers to –COR where R is alkyl, lower alkyl or a carboxylic acid or ester.

The term “aryl” or “Ar” refers to a monovalent unsaturated aromatic carbocyclic group having a single ring (e.g. phenyl) or multiple condensed rings (e.g. naphthyl or anthryl), which can optionally be unsubstituted or substituted with, e.g., halogen, alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio, trifluoromethyl, acyloxy, hydroxy, mercapto, carboxy, aryloxy, aryl, arylalkyl, heteroaryl, amino, alkylamino, dialkylamino, morpholino, piperidino, pyrrolidin-1-yl, piperazin-1-yl, or other functionality.

The term “alkoxy” refers to a substituted or unsubstituted alkoxy, where an alkoxy has the structure –O–R, where R is substituted or unsubstituted alkyl. In an unsubstituted alkoxy, the R is an unsubstituted alkyl. The term “substituted alkoxy” refers to a group having the structure –O–R, where R is alkyl which is substituted with a non-interfering substituent. The term “arylalkoxy” refers to a group having the structure –O–R–Ar, where R is alkyl and Ar is an aromatic substituent. Arylalkoxys are a subset of substituted alkoxys. Examples of useful substituted alkoxy groups are: benzyloxy, naphthyloxy, and chlorobenzyloxy.

The term “aryloxy” refers to a group having the structure –O–Ar, where Ar is an aromatic group. A particular aryloxy group is phenoxy.

The term “heterocycle” refers to a monovalent saturated, unsaturated, or aromatic carbocyclic group having a single ring (e.g. morpholino, pyridyl or faryl) or multiple condensed rings (e.g. indolizinyl or benzo[b]thienyl) and having at least one heteroatom, defined as N, O, P, or S, within the ring, which can optionally be unsubstituted or substituted with, e.g. halogen, alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio, trifluoromethyl, acyloxy, hydroxy, mercapto, carboxy, aryloxy, aryl, arylakyl, heteroaryl, amino, alkylamino, dialkylamino, morpholino, piperidino, pyrrolidin-1-yl, piperazin-1-yl, or other functionality.

“Arylalkyl” refers to the groups –R–Ar and –R–HetAr, where Ar is an aryl group. HetAr is a heteroaryl group, and R is a straight-chain or branched chain aliphatic group. Example of arylaklyl groups include benzyl and furfuryl. Arylalkyl groups can optionally be unsubstituted or substituted with, e.g., halogen, alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio, trifluoromethyl, acyloxy, hydroxy, mercapto, carboxy, aryloxy, aryl, arylalkyl, heteroaryl, amino, alkylamino, dialkylamino, morpholino, peperidino, pyrrolidin-1-yl, piperazin-1-yl, or other functionality.

The term “halo” or “halide” refers to fluoro, bromo, chloro and iodo substituents.

The term “amino” refers to a chemical functionality –NR’R” where R’ and R” are independently hydrogen, alkyl, or aryl. The term “quaternary amine” refers to the positively charged group –N.sup.+ R’R”, where R’R” and R” are independently selected and are alkyl or aryl. A particular amino group is –NH.sub.2.

A “pharmaceutical agent” or “drug” refers to a chemical compound or composition capable of inducing a desired therapeutic or prophylactic effect when properly administered to a subject.

All chemical compounds include both the (+) and (-) stereoisomers, as well as either the (+) or (-) stereoisomer.

Other chemistry terms herein are used according to conventional usage in the art, as exemplified by The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Chemical Terms (1985) and The Condensed Chemical Dictionary (1981).

The following examples show that both nonpsychoactive cannabidiol, and psychoactive cannabinoids such as THC, can protect neurons from glutamate induced death, by a mechanism independent of cannabinoid receptors. Cannabinoids are also be shown to be potent antioxidants capable of preventing ROS toxicity in neurons.


Preparation of Cannabinoids and Neuronal Cultures

Cannabidiol, THC and reactants other than those specifically listed below were purchased from Sigma Chemical, Co. (St. Louis, Mo.). Cyclothiazide, glutamatergic ligands and MK-801 were obtained from Tocris Cookson (UK). Dihydrorhodamine was supplied by Molecular Probes (Eugene, Oreg.). T-butyl hydroperoxide, tetraethylammonium chloride, ferric citrate and sodium dithionite were all purchased from Aldrich (WI). All culture media were Gibco/BRL (MD) products.

Solutions of cannabinoids, cyclothiazide and other lipophiles were prepared by evaporating a 10 mM ethanolic solution (under a stream of nitrogen) in a siliconized microcentrifuge tube. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, less than 0.05% of final volume) was added to ethanol to prevent the lipophile completely drying onto the tube wall. After evaporation, 1 ml of culture media was added and the drug was dispersed using a high power sonic probe. Special attention was used to ensure the solution did not overheat or generate foam. Following dispersal, all solutions were made up to their final volume in siliconized glass tubes by mixing with an appropriate quantity of culture media.

Primary neuronal cultures were prepared according to the method of Ventra et al. (J. Neurochem. 66:1752-1761, 1996). Fetuses were extracted by Cesarian section from a 17 day pregnant Wistar rat, and the feral brains were placed into phosphate buffered saline. The cortices were then dissected out, cut into small pieces and incubated with papain for nine minutes at C. After this time the tissue was dissociated by passage through a fire polished Pasteur pipette, and the resultant cell suspension separated by centrifugation over a gradient consisting of 10 mg/ml bovine serum albumin and 10 mg/ml ovomucoid (a trypsin inhibitor) in Earls buffered salt solution. The pellet was then re-suspended in high glucose, phenol red free Dulbeco’s modified Eagles medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM glutamine, 100 IU penicillin, and 100 .mu.g/ml streptomycin (DMEM). Cells were counted, tested for vitality using the trypan blue exclusion test and seeded onto poly-D-lysine coated 24 multiwell plates. After 96 hours, 10 .mu.M fluoro-deoxyuridine and 10 .mu.M uridine were added to block glial cell growth. This protocol resulted in a highly neuron-enriched culture.


Preparation of Astrocytes and Conditioned Media

Astrocyte conditioned DMEM was used throughout the AMPA/kainate toxicity procedure and following glutamate exposure in the NMDAr mediated toxicity protocol. Media was conditioned by 24 hour treatment over a confluent layer of type I astrocytes, prepared from two day old Wistar rat pups. Cortices were dissected, cut into small pieces, and enzymatically digested with 0.25% trypsin. Tissue was then dissociated by passage through a fire polished Pasteur pipette and the cell suspension plated into untreated 75 cm.sup.2 T-flasks. After 24 hours the media was replaced and unattached cells removed. Once astrocytes achieved confluence, cells were divided into four flasks. Media for experiments was conditioned by a 24 hour exposure to these astrocytes, after which time it was frozen at C. until use. Astrocyte cultures were used to condition DMEM for no longer than two months.


NMDA Mediated Toxicity Studies

Glutamate neurotoxicity can be mediated by NMDA, AMPA or kainate receptors. To examine NMDAr mediated toxicity, cultured neurons (cultured for 14-18 days) were exposed to 250 .mu.M glutamate for 10 minutes in a magnesium free saline solution. The saline was composed of 125 mM NaCl, 25 mM glucose, 10 mM HEPES (pH 7.4), 5 mM KCl, 1.8 mM calcium chloride and 5% bovine serum albumin. Following exposure, cells were washed twice with saline, and incubated for 18 hours in conditioned DMEM. The level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in the media was used as an index of cell injury.

Toxicity was completely prevented by addition of the NMDAr antagonist, MK-801 (500 nM, data not shown). However, FIG. 1A shows that cannabidiol also prevented neurotoxicity (maximum protection 88.+-.9%) with an EC.sub.50 of 2-4 .mu.M (specifically about 3.5 .mu.M).


AMPA and Kainate Receptor Mediated Toxicity Studies

Unlike NMDA receptors, which are regulated by magnesium ions, AMPA/kainate receptors rapidly desensitize following ligand binding. To examine AMPA and kainate receptor mediated toxicity, neurons were cultured for 7-13 days, then exposed to 100 .mu.M glutamate and 50 .mu.M cyclothiazide (used to prevent AMPA receptor desensitization). Cells were incubated with glutamate in the presence of 500 nM MK-801 (an NMDAr antagonist) for 18-20 hours prior to analysis. Specific AMPA and kainate receptor ligands were also used to separately examine the effects of cannabinoids on AMPA and kainate receptor mediated events. Fluorowillardiine (1.5 .mu.M) was the AMPA agonist and 4-methyl glutamate (10 .mu.M) was the kainate agonist used to investigate receptor mediated toxicity. When specifically examining kainate receptor activity, cyclothiazide was replaced with 0.15 mg/ml Concanavalin-A.

Cannabidiol protection against AMPA/kainate mediated neurotoxicity is illustrated in FIG. 1B, where LDH in the media was used as an index of cell injury. The neuroprotective effect of cannabidiol was similar to that observed in the NMDA mediated toxicity model (FIG. 1A). Cannabidiol prevented neurotoxicity (maximum protection 80.+-.17%) with an EC.sub.50 of 2-4 .mu.M (specifically about 3.3 .mu.M). Comparable results were obtained with either the AMPA receptor ligand, fluorowillardiine or the kainate receptor specific ligand, 4-methyl-glutamate (data not shown). Hence cannabidiol protects similarly against toxicity mediated by NMDA, AMPA or kainate receptors.

Unlike cannabidiol, THC is a ligand (and agonist) for the brain cannabinoid receptor. The action of THC at the cannabinoid receptor has been proposed to explain the ability of THC to protect neurons from NMDAr toxicity in vitro. However in AMPA/kainate receptor toxicity assays, THC and cannabidiol were similarly protective (FIG. 2A), indicating that cannabinoid neuroprotection is independent of cannabinoid receptor activation. This was confirmed by inclusion of cannabinoid receptor antagonist SR-141716A in the culture media (SR in FIG. 2B). See Mansbach et al., Psychopharmacology 124:315-22, 1996, for a description of SR-141716A. Neither THC nor cannabidiol neuroprotection was affected by cannabinoid receptor antagonist (FIG. 2B).


Cyclic Voltametery Studies or ReDox Potentials

To investigate whether cannabinoids protect neurons against glutamate damage by reacting with ROS, the antioxidant properties of cannabidiol and other cannabinoids were assessed. Cyclic voltametry, a procedure that measures the ability of a compound to accept or donate electrons under a variable voltage potential, was used to measure the oxidation potentials of several natural and synthetic cannabinoids. These studies were performed with an EG&G Princeton Applied Research potentiostat/galvanostat (Model 273/PAR 270 software, NJ). The working electrode was a glassy carbon disk with a platinum counter electrode and silver/silver chloride reference. Tetraethylammonium chloride in acetonitrile (0.1 M) was used as an electrolyte. Cyclic voltametry scans were done from +0 to 1.8 V at scan rate of 100 mV per second. The reducing ability of cannabidiol (CBD), THC, HU-211, and BHT were measured in this fashion. Anandamide, a cannabinoid receptor ligand without a cannabinoid like structure, was used as a non-responsive control. Each experiment was repeated twice with essentially the same results.

Cannabidiol, THC and the synthetic cannabinoid HU-211 all donated electrons at a similar potential as the antioxidant BHT. Anandamide (arachidonyl ethanolamide) did not undergo oxidation at these potentials (FIG. 3). Several other natural and synthetic cannabinoids, including cannabidiol, nabilone, and levanantrodol were also tested, and they too exhibited oxidation profiles similar to cannabidiol and THC (data not shown).


Iron Catalyzed Dihydrorhodamine Oxidation (Fenton Reaction)

The ability of cannabinoids to be readily oxidized, as illustrated in Example 5, indicated they possess antioxidant properties comparable to BHT. The antioxidant activity of BHT was examined in a Fenton reaction, in which iron is catalyzed to produce ROS. Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were evaluated for their ability to prevent oxidation of dihydrorhodamine to the fluorescent compound rhodamine. Oxidant was generated by ferrous catalysis (diothionite reduced ferric citrate) of t-butyl hydroperoxide in a 50:50 water:acetonitrile (v/v) solution. Dihydrorhodamine (50 .mu.M) was incubated with 300 .mu.M t-butyl hydroperoxide and 0.5 .mu.M iron for 5 minutes. After this time, oxidation was assessed by spectrofluorimetry (Excit=500 nm, Emiss=570 nm). Various concentrations of cannabinoids and BHT were included to examine their ability to prevent dihydrorhodiamine oxidation.

Cannabidiol, THC and BHT all prevented dihydrorhodamine oxidation in a similar, concentration dependent manner (FIG. 4), indicating that cannabinoids have antioxidant potency comparable to BHT.

To confirm that cannabinoids act as antioxidants in the intact cell, neurons were also incubated with the oxidant t-butyl hydroperoxide and varying concentrations of cannabidiol (FIG. 5A). The t-butyl hydroperoxide oxidant was chosen for its solubility in both aqueous and organic solvents, which facilitates oxidation in both cytosolic and membrane cell compartments. Cell toxicity was assessed 18-20 hours after insult by measuring lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release into the culture media. All experiments were conducted with triple or quadruple values at each point and all plates contained positive (glutamate alone) and baseline controls. The assay was validated by comparison with an XTT based metabolic activity assay. As shown in FIG. 5A, cannabidiol protected neurons against ROS toxicity in a dose related manner, with an EC.sub.50 of about 6 .mu.M. The maximum protection observed was 88.+-.9%.

Cannabidiol was also compared with known antioxidants in an AMPA/kainate toxicity protocol. Neurons were exposed to 100 .mu.M glutamate and equimolar (5 .mu.M) cannabidiol, .alpha.-tocopherol, BHT or ascorbate (FIG. 5B). Although all of the antioxidants attenuated glutamate toxicity, cannabidiol was significantly more protective than either .alpha.-tocopherol or ascorbate. The similar antioxidant abilities of cannabidiol and BHT in this chemical system (FIG. 4), and their comparable protection in neuronal cultures (FIG. 5B), implies that cannabidiol neuroprotection is due to an antioxidant effect.


In vivo Rat Studies

The middle cerebral artery of chloral hydrate anesthetized rats was occluded by insertion of suture thread into it. The animals were allowed to recover from the anesthetic and move freely for a period of two hours. After this time the suture was removed under mild anesthetic and the animals allowed to recover for 48 hours. Then the animals were tested for neurological deficits, sacrificed, and the infarct volume calculated. To examine the infarct volume, animals were anesthetized, ex-sanguinated, and a metabolically active dye (3-phenyl tetrazolium chloride) was pumped throughout the body. All living tissues were stained pink by the dye, while morbid regions of infarcted tissue remained white. Brains were then fixed for 24 hours in formaldehyde, sliced and the infarct volumes measured.

One hour prior to induction of ischemia 20 mg/kg of cannabidiol was administered by intra-peritoneal injection (ip) in a 90% saline:5% emulphor 620 (emulsifier):5% ethanol vehicle. A second ip 10 mg/kg dose of cannabidiol was administered 8 hours later using the same vehicle. Control animals received injections of vehicle without drug. IV doses would be expected to be 3-5 times less because of reduction of first pass metabolism.

The infarct size and neurological assessment of the test animals is shown Table 1.

TABLE 1 Cannabidiol protects rat brains from ischemia damage Volume of Infarct Behavioral Deficit (mm3) Score Animal Drug Control Drug Control 1 108.2 110.5 3 2 2 83.85 119.6 4 4 3 8.41 118.9 3 4 4 75.5 177.7 1 4 5 60.53 33.89 1 3 6 27.52 255.5 1 5 7 23.16 143 1 4 Mean 55.3 137.0 2.0 3.7 SEM 13.8 25.7 0.5 0.4 p = 0.016 significant p = 0.015 significant *Neurological scoring is performed on a subjective 1-5 scale of impairment. 0 = no impairment, 5 = severe (paralysis)

This data shows that infarct size was approximately halved in the animals treated with cannabidiol, which was also accompanied by a substantial improvement in the neurological status of the animal.

These studies with the nonpsychotropic marijuana constituent, cannabidiol, demonstrate that protection can be achieved against both glutamate neurotoxicity and free radical induced cell death. THC, the psychoactive principle of cannabis, also blocked glutamate neurotoxicity with a potency similar to cannabidiol. In both cases, neuroprotection is unaffected by the presence of a cannabinoid receptor antagonist. These results therefore surprisingly demonstrate that cannabinoids can have useful therapeutic effects that are not mediated by cannabinoid receptors, and therefore are not necessarily accompanied by psychoactive side effects. Cannabidiol also acts as an anti-epileptic and anxiolytic, which makes it particularly useful in the treatment of neurological diseases in which neuroanatomic defects can predispose to seizures (e.g. subarachnoid hemorrhage).

A particular advantage of the cannabinoid compounds of the present invention is that they are highly lipophilic, and have good penetration into the central nervous system. The volume of distribution of some of these compounds is at least 100 L in a 70 kg person (1.4 L/kg), more particularly at least 250 L, and most particularly 500 L or even 700 L in a 70 kg person (10 L/kg). The lipophilicity of particular compounds is also about as great as that of THC, cannabidiol or other compounds that have excellent penetration into the brain and other portions of the CNS.

Cannabinoids that lack psychoactivity or psychotoxicity are particularly useful embodiments of the present invention, because the absence of such side effects allows very high doses of the drug to be used without encountering unpleasant side effects (such as dysphoria) or dangerous complications (such as obtundation in a patient who may already have an altered mental status). For example, therapeutic antioxidant blood levels of cannabidiol can be 5-20 mg/kg, without significant toxicity, while blood levels of psychoactive cannabinoids at this level would produce obtundation, headache, conjunctival irritation, and other problems. Particular examples of the compounds of the present invention have low affinity to the cannabinoid receptor, for example a K.sub.i of greater than 250 nM, for example K.sub.i.gtoreq.500-1000 nM. A compound with a K.sub.i.gtoreq.1000 nM is particularly useful, which compound has essentially no psychoactivity mediated by the cannabinoid receptor.

Cannabidiol blocks glutamate toxicity with equal potency regardless of whether the insult is mediated by NMDA, AMPA or kainate receptors. Cannabidiol and THC have been shown to be comparable to the antioxidant BHT, both in their ability to prevent dihydrorhodamine oxidation and in their cyclic voltametric profiles. Several synthetic cannabinoids also exhibited profiles similar to the BHT, although anandamide, which is not structurally related to cannabinoids, did not. These findings indicate that cannabinoids act as antioxidants in a non-biological situation, which was confirmed in living cells by showing that cannabidiol attenuates hydroperoxide induced neurotoxicity. The potency of cannabidiol as an antioxidant was examined by comparing it on an equimolar basis with three other commonly used compounds.

In the AMPA/kainate receptor dependent neurotoxicity model, cannabidiol neuroprotection was comparable to the potent antioxidant, BHT, but significantly greater than that observed with either .alpha.-tocopherol or ascorbate. This unexpected superior antioxidant activity (in the absence of BHT tumor promoting activity) shows for the first time that cannabidiol, and other cannabinoids, can be used as antioxidant drugs in the treatment (including prophylaxis) of oxidation associated diseases, and is particularly useful as a neuroprotectant. The therapeutic potential of nonpsychoactive cannabinoids is particularly promising, because of the absence of psychotoxicity, and the ability to administer higher doses than with psychotropic cannabinoids, such as THC. Previous studies have also indicated that cannabidiol is not toxic, even when chronically administered to humans or given in large acute doses (700 mg/day).


Effect of Cannabidiol on Lipoxygenase Enzymes

This example describes in vitro and in vivo assays to examine the effect of cannabidiol (CBD) on three lipoxygenase (LO) enzymes: 5-LO, 12-LO and 15-LO.

In vitro Enzyme Assay

The ability of CBD to inhibit lipoxygenase was examined by measuring the time dependent change in absorption at 234 nM following addition of 5 U of each lipoxygenase (rabbit 15-LO purchased from Biomol (PA), porcine 12-LO purchased from Cayman chemicals (MI)) to a solution containing 10 .mu.M (final concentration) linoleic acid.

Enzyme studies were performed using a u.v. spectrophotometer and a 3 ml quartz cuvette containing 2.5 ml of a stirred solution of 12.5 .mu.M sodium linoleic acid (sodium salt) in solution A (25 mM Tris (pH 8.1), 1 mM EDTA 0.1% methyl cellulose). The reaction was initiated by addition of 0.5 ml enzyme solution (10 U/ml enzyme in solution A) and recorded for 60 seconds. Lipoxygenase exhibits non-Michaelis-Menten kinetics, an initial “lag” (priming) phase followed by a linear phase which is terminated by product inhibition. These complications were reduced by assessing enzyme activity (change in absorption) over the “steepest” 20 second period in a 60 second run time. Recordings examined the absorption at 234 nm minus the value at a reference wavelength of 280 nm. Linoleic acid was used as the substrate rather than arachidonic acid, because the products are less inhibitory to the enzyme, thereby providing a longer “linear phase”.

Cell Purification and Separation

Human platelets and leukocytes were purified from buffy coat preparations (NIH Blood Bank) using a standard Ficoll based centrifugation method used in blood banks. Prior to use, cells were washed three times to eliminate contaminating cell types. Cultured rat basophillic leukemia cells (RBL-2H3) were used as a source of 5-lipoxygenase.

In vivo Determination of Lipoxygenase Activity

Cells were incubated with arachidonic acid and stimulated with the calcium ionophore A23187. Lipids were extracted and separated by reverse phase HPLC. Product formation was assessed as the area of a peak that co-eluted with an authentic standard, had a greater absorbance at 236 nm than at either 210 or 280 nm, and the formation of which was inhibited by a lipoxygenase inhibitor.

Cell pellets were triturated in DMEM culture media, aliquoted and pre-incubated for 15 minutes with 20 .mu.M arachidonic acid and varying concentrations of cannabidiol and/or 40 .mu.M nordihydroguaiaretic acid (a lipxygenase inhibitor). Platelets and leukocytes were also pre-incubated with 80 .mu.M manoalide (Biomol) to prevent phospholipase A2 activation. Product formation was initiated by addition of 5 .mu.M A23187 and incubation for 10 minutes at C. At the end of the incubation, the reaction was stopped by addition of 15% 1M HCl and 10 ng/ml prostaglandin B2 (internal standard). Lipids were extracted with 1 volume of ethyl ether, which was dried under a stream of nitrogen. Samples were reconstituted in 50% acetonitrile:50% H.sub.2 O and separated by reverse phase HPLC using a gradient running from 63% acetonitrile: 37% H.sub.2 O:0.2% acetic acid to 90% acetonitrile (0.2% acetic acid) over 13 minutes.

Measurement of NMDAr Toxicity

The ability of 12-HETE (12-(s)-hydroxy-eicosatetraenoic acid, the product of the action of 12-lipoxygenase on arachidonic (eicosatetraenoic) acid) to protect cortical neurons from NMDAr toxicity was measured as described in Example 3. The 12-HETE (0.5 .mu.g/ml) was added either during ischemia (co-incubated with the glutamate), during post-ischemia (co-incubated with the DMEM after washing the cells), or during both ischemia and post-ischemia.


Using semi-purified enzyme preparations, the effect of CBD on rabbit 15-LO and porcine 12-LO was compared. As shown in FIGS. 6A and B, CBD is a potent competitive inhibitor of 15-LO with an EC.sub.50 of 598 nM. However, CBD had no effect on the 12-LO enzyme.

Using whole cell preparations, the effect of CBD on 5- and 12-LO enzymes was investigated. As shown in FIG. 7A, CBD inhibited 5-LO in cultured rat basophillic leukemia cells (RBL-2H3) with an EC.sub.50 of 1.92 .mu.M. However, CBD had no effect on 12-LO, as monitored by the production of 12-HETE (the product of 12-LO), in either human leukocytes or platelets (FIGS. 7B and C). The leukocyte 12-LO is similar, while the platelet 12-LO is structurally and functionally different, from the porcine 12-LO used in the in vitro enzyme study.

The ability of 12-HETE to protect cortical neurons from NMDAr toxicity is shown in FIG. 8. To achieve best protection from NMDAr toxicity, 12-HETE was administered both during and post ischemia.

Therefore, CBD serves as a selective inhibitor of at least two lipoxygenase enzymes, 5-LO and 15-LO, but had no effect on 12-LO. Importantly, this is the first demonstration (FIG. 8) that the 12-LO product 12-HETE can play a significant role in protecting neurons from NMDAr mediated toxicity. Although the mechanism of this protection is unknown at the present time, 12-HETE is known to be an important neuromodulator, due to its ability to influence potassium channel activity.


Methods of Treatment

The present invention includes a treatment that inhibits oxidation associated diseases in a subject such as an animal, for example a rat or human. The method includes administering the antioxidant drugs of the present invention, or a combination of the antioxidant drug and one or more other pharmaceutical agents, to the subject in a pharmaceutically compatible carrier and in an effective amount to inhibit the development or progression of oxidation associated diseases. Although the treatment can be used prophylactically in any patient in a demographic group at significant risk for such diseases, subjects can also be selected using more specific criteria, such as a definitive diagnosis of the condition. The administration of any exogenous antioxidant cannabinoid would inhibit the progression of the oxidation associated disease as compared to a subject to whom the cannabinoid was not administered. The antioxidant effect, however, increases with the dose of the cannabinoid.

The vehicle in which the drug is delivered can include pharmaceutically acceptable compositions of the drugs of the present invention using methods well known to those with skill in the art. Any of the common carriers, such as sterile saline or glucose solution, can be utilized with the drugs provided by the invention. Routes of administration include but are not limited to oral, intracranial ventricular (icv), intrathecal (it), intravenous (iv), parenteral, rectal, topical ophthalmic, subconjunctival, nasal, aural, sub-lingual (under the tongue) and transdermal. The antioxidant drugs of the invention may be administered intravenously in any conventional medium for intravenous injection such as an aqueous saline medium, or in blood plasma medium. Such medium may also contain conventional pharmaceutical adjunct materials such as, for example, pharmaceutically acceptable salts to adjust the osmotic pressure, lipid carriers such as cyclodextrins, proteins such as serum albumin, hydrophilic agents such as methyl cellulose, detergents, buffers, preservatives and the like. Given the low solubility of many cannabinoids, they may be suspended in sesame oil.

Given the excellent absorption of the compounds of the present invention via an inhaled route, the compounds may also be administered as inhalants, for example in pharmaceutical aerosols utilizing solutions, suspensions, emulsions, powders and semisolid preparations of the type more fully described in Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy ( Edition, 1995) in chapter 95. A particular inhalant form is a metered dose inhalant containing the active ingredient, in a suspension or a dispersing agent (such as sorbitan trioleate, oleyl alcohol, oleic acid, or lecithin, and a propellant such as 12/11 or 12/114).

Embodiments of the invention comprising pharmaceutical compositions can be prepared with conventional pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, adjuvants and counterions as would be known to those of skill in the art. The compositions are preferably in the form of a unit dose in solid, semi-solid and liquid dosage forms such as tablets, pills, powders, liquid solutions or suspensions, injectable and infusible solutions, for example a unit dose vial, or a metered dose inhaler. Effective oral human dosage ranges for cannabidiol are contemplated to vary from about 1-40 mg/kg, for example 5-20 mg/kg, and in particular a dose of about 20 mg/kg of body weight.

If the antioxidant drugs are to be used in the prevention of cataracts, they may be administered in the form of eye drops formulated in a pharmaceutically inert, biologically acceptable carrier, such as isotonic saline or an ointment. Conventional preservatives, such as benzalkonium chloride, can also be added to the formulation. In ophthalmic ointments, the active ingredient is admixed with a suitable base, such as white petrolatum and mineral oil, along with antimicrobial preservatives. Specific methods of compounding these dosage forms, as well as appropriate pharmaceutical carriers, are known in the art. Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy, 19th Ed., Mack Publishing Co. (1995), particularly Part 7.

The compounds of the present invention are ideally administered as soon as a diagnosis is made of an ischemic event, or other oxidative insult. For example, once a myocardial infarction has been confirmed by electrocardiograph, or an elevation in enzymes characteristic of cardiac injury (e.g. CKMB), a therapeutically effective amount of the cannabinoid drug is administered. A dose can also be given following symptoms characteristic of a stroke (motor or sensory abnormalities), or radiographic confirmation of a cerebral infarct in a distribution characteristic of a neurovascular thromboembolic event. The dose can be given by frequent bolus administration, or as a continuous IV dose. In the case of cannabidiol, for example, the drug could be given in a dose of 5 mg/kg active ingredient as a continuous intravenous infusion; or hourly intramuscular injections of that dose.


The following table lists examples of some dibenzopyran cannabinoids that may be useful as antioxidants in the method of the present invention.

##STR13## ##STR14## Compound R.sub.19 R.sub.20 R.sub.21 R.sub.22 R.sub.23 R.sub.24 R.sub.25 R.sub.26 H 5 7-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH H H H H H H C.sub.5 H.sub.11 H 6 6.alpha.-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 .alpha.-OH H 7 6.beta.-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 .beta.-OH 8 1″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 OH H 9 2″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 OH 10 3″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 OH 11 4″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 OH H 12 6.alpha.,7-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH .alpha.-OH H 13 6v,7-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH .beta.-OH 14 1″,7-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH OH H 15 2″,7-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH OH H 16 3″,7-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH OH H 17 4″,7-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH OH 18 1″,6.beta.-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 .beta.-OH OH 19 1″,3″-diOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.3 OH OH 20 1″,6.alpha.,7-triOH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CH.sub.2 OH .alpha.-OH OH H 21 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-6-one CH.sub.3 .dbd.O 22 Epoxyhexahydrocannabinol CH.sub.3 (EHHC)* 23 7-oxo-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC CHO H 24 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-7″-oic acid COOH H 25 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-3″-oic acid CH.sub.3 C.sub.2 H.sub.4 COOH H 26 1″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-7″-oic acid COOH OH H 27 2″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-7″-oic acid COOH OH H 28 3″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-7″-oic acid COOH OH H 29 4″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-7″-oic acid COOH OH H 30 3″,4″,5″-trisnor-2″-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 – COOH C.sub.2 H.sub.4 OH THC-7-oic acid H 31 7-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-2″-oic acid CH.sub.2 OH CH.sub.2 COOH H 32 6.beta.-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-2″-oic acid CH.sub.3 .beta.-OH CH.sub.2 COOH H 33 7-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-3″-oic acid CH.sub.2 OH C.sub.2 H.sub.4 COOH H 34 6.beta.-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-3″-oic acid CH.sub.3 .beta.-OH C.sub.2 H.sub.4 COOH H 35 6.alpha.-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-4″-oic acid CH.sub.3 .alpha.-OH C.sub.3 H.sub.6 COOH H 36 2″,3″-dehydro-6U-OH-.DELTA..sup.1 – CH.sub.3 .alpha.-OH C.sub.3 H.sub.4 COOH THC-4″-oic acid H 37 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-1″,7-dioic acid COOH COOH H 38 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-2″,7-dioic acid COOH CH.sub.2 COOH H 39 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-3″,7-dioic acid COOH C.sub.2 H.sub.4 COOH H 40 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-4″,7-dioic acid COOH C.sub.3 H.sub.6 COOH H 41 1″,2″-dehydro-.DELTA..sup.1 -THC-3″,7- COOH C.sub.2 H.sub.2 COOH dioic acid H 42 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-glucuronic acid CH.sub.3 gluc.sup..dagger. H 43 .DELTA..sup.1 -THC-7-oic acid COO gluc.sup..dagger. glucuronide *Epoxy group in C-1 and C-2 positions .sup..dagger. Glucuronide Note: R-group substituents are H if not indicated otherwise.

Chemical structures of some of the dibenzopyran cannabinoids are shown below. ##STR15## ##STR16## ##STR17##


Examples of Structural Analogs of Cannabidiol

The following table lists examples of some cannabinoids which are structural analogs of cannabidiol and that may be useful as antioxidants in the method of the present invention. A particularly useful example is compound CBD, cannabidiol.

Compound R.sub.19 R.sub.20 R.sub.21 R.sub.22 R.sub.23 R.sub.24 R.sub.25 R.sub.26 ##STR18## ##STR19## 44 CBD CH.sub.3 H H H H H H C.sub.5 H.sub.11 45 7-OH–CBD CH.sub.2 OH 46 6.alpha.- CH.sub.3 .alpha.-OH 47 6.beta.- CH.sub.3 .beta.-OH 48 1″- CH.sub.3 OH 49 2″- CH.sub.3 OH 50 3″- CH.sub.3 OH 51 4″- CH.sub.3 OH 52 5″- CH.sub.3 C.sub.4 H.sub.8 CH.sub.2 OH 53 6,7-diOH–CBD CH.sub.2 OH OH 54 3″,7-diOH–CBD CH.sub.2 OH OH 55 4″,7-diOH–CBD CH.sub.2 OH OH 56 CBD-7-oic acid COOH 57 CBD-3″-oic acid CH.sub.3 C.sub.2 H.sub.4 COOH ##STR20## ##STR21## 58 CBN CH.sub.3 H H H H H H C.sub.5 H.sub.11 59 7-OH–CBN CH.sub.2 OH 60 1″-OH–CBN CH.sub.3 OH 61 2″-OH–CBN CH.sub.3 OH 62 3″-OH–CBN CH.sub.3 OH 63 4″-OH–CBN CH.sub.3 OH 64 5″-OH–CBN CH.sub.3 C.sub.4 H.sub.8 CH.sub.2 OH 65 2″-7-diOH–CBN CH.sub.2 OH OH 66 CBN-7-oic acid COOH 67 CBN-1″-oic acid CH.sub.3 COOH 68 CBN-3″-oic acid CH.sub.3 C.sub.2 H.sub.4 COOH Note: R-group substituents are H if not indicated otherwise.

The invention being thus described, variation in the materials and methods for practicing the invention will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such variations are to be considered within the scope of the invention, which is set forth in the claims below.
* * * * *

Tagged , , , ,

FBI Director "Isn't Sure" Whether Americans Can Be Assassinated On U.S. Soil?

This article does not investigate whether politicians can be assassinated by civilians for, not only constitutional transgressions, but for basic violations of human decency. Therefore, by failing to difinitely address that issue or to otherwise identify any barrier to such action, they tacitly acknowlege the justification for doing so. Funny how that works.

The Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution specifically delineates what process should be taken when dealing with American citizens who are accused of becoming enemy combatants against their own country.  This clause does NOT allow the federal government to assassinate them under any pretense whatsoever.  What it does allow for, is due process, the requirement of at least two plausible witnesses, and a jury of their peers to hear both sides of the case.  What the Bush and Obama administrations have done over the past decade is very carefully craft a judicial “grey area” in which the law is left open to very broad interpretation, and, they have circumvented civil liberties by attempting to re-categorize certain activities and undesirables using national security and military protocols.  Ultimately, this feeds an atmosphere not of order but of lawlessness on the part of the political machine.  Legislation like the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the executive option of assassination of American citizens, completely removes the foundational pillar of innocence until proven guilty.  Leadership must be bound by SPECIFIC legal guidelines of what it can and cannot do.  The law has to apply to government, even more so than the citizenry, otherwise, the balance of power is lost, and so is our nation.

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, “it doesn’t really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,” a senior administration official said. “They are then part of the enemy.”

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called “High Value Targets” and “High Value Individuals,” whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi’s name has now been added.

Above, FBI Director Robert Mueller tries to evade the question of whether the federal government considers Americans on American soil as viable targets for assassination.  By doing so, he actually answers quite clearly our concerns in the Liberty Movement.  By avoiding the query, he silently admits that the government is, indeed, at least considering the possibility of enemy combatant status for citizens here at home.  There is no longer any need for debate over where exactly D.C. stands on this.  Obama has tried to dance around the issue of the NDAA and indefinite detention, “promising” he will not apply it to U.S. citizens, but clearly, if he is willing to kill us without trial, then he is certainly willing to throw us in a concrete box without trial.  The bottom line; the people of this country are not going to acquiesce to this kind of totalitarian behavior from a historically unpopular Congress and President, and so, the elites have to engage in word games and semantics until they achieve an event or set of social circumstances that generate enough fear and desperation within the populace to force such abuses of power through…

You can contact Brandon Smith This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense.  Join today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.

To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:

Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse?  Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren’t stocked, then you aren’t prepared.  To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10

Not all survival foods are the same.  In fact, most of them are made with the same terrible quality, body rending ingredients as the foods we often try to avoid.  Is it possible to get maximum shelf life, large servings, great taste, and fantastic health benefits all at the same time in a survival food company without spending outrageous sums in the process?  Now it is!  Check out the exclusive survival food supplier of Alt-Market; Numanna Foods!  Use the code altmarket15, and get a 15% discount on all 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, or 12 month food packages.

Tagged , ,

Minor Traffic Issue Allegedly Ends With Cop Pointing Gun At Head

Well, Fairview Heights Police have again illustrated their propensity for aggressiona and violence when they chase down a family in their vehicle before dragging them out and putting guns to their heads. This is not so far removed from what happened to me on Feb. 17th, 2009 when I too was pulled over and had a gun drawn on me. The difference is, I was beaten‚ and Tasered as well. That story can be found here.

Here is the story as reported by in St. Louis, Mo. Visit their site to also see a video of their interview with the Sims’.

BELLEVILLE, IL (KTVI)- A Belleville family wants answers‚  after they say an undercover police officer crossed the line during a traffic stop.

The family says undercover officer pointed a gun at their heads while a four year old watched in the back seat.

The Sims family says they were headed from Fairview Heights to Belleville last Wednesday evening when their four year old accidentally tossed an ash tray out of the window.

Moments later, they say a man in a Cadillac Escalade tried to run them off the road.
They thought it was road rage, but it was an undercover officer who they say was out of control.

Adriana Sims, 18, said, ‚“When he was chasing us I was thinking it`s road rage and I tried to get somewhere in the light where there are people.‚

Adriana Sims was behind the wheel driving her parents GMC Envoy.
Her sister, older brother and his four year‚ old daughter are in the car. They are scared.

Arthur Sims Jr. said, ‚“Being the older brother I said it`s road rage don`t stop until we get to a lighted area.. We rode for while and finally when we saw some other cars he turned on the lights.‚

But even then. they say they had no idea the man behind the wheel was an undercover officer.

‚“My main concern is my baby was sitting right next to me he would get behind us and rev the engine,‚ said Arthur.

The intersection at Lebonnon Ave in Belleville is where the situation allegedly escalated.
The Sims say the officer jumped out of his car, put a gun to their heads and slammed them on the ground while the four year old watched.

‚“First the gun was to my head and then to my back as we were walking. All I‚  could think about was if he would slip that bullet was going through me,‚ said Arthur.

As other Fairview Heights police officers started to show up the Sims thought the situation would improve.

‚“When I saw them I was thinking maybe they are going to help but they helped him and everything he was doing,‚ said Adriana.

Fairview Heights police say the undercover officer is assigned to the narcotics task force.
In a written statement, they say the officer pursued the Sims after they yelled curse words and threw something out the window that hit his unmarked car.

‚“I felt helpless it was all because an ash tray fell out if anything give me a littering ticket,‚ said Arthur.

Arthur says his four year old now has nightmares. He says the officer could have handled the situation differently.

‚“It was embarrassing. My daughter was right there,‚ said Arthur.

‚“He didn`t jump out with a badge. He just jumped out with a gun,‚ said Adriana.

Adriana Sims was ticketed for not having her insurance card and drivers license and failing to stop for an emergency vehicle.

Arthur Sims was taken‚ to Fairview Heights jail for disorderly conduct and was released when his parents arrived.

The Sims say the are filing a complaint.

Fairview Heights police say they have initiated an internal review.

Below is the statement from police:

Fairview Press Release on Sims Incident

I will quote from the Press Release, and address disparities between what Fairview Heights Police say should be done in trying to bring criminal charges against police, and driving to a well-lit area if pulled over by an unmarked vehicle.

“On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Arthur Sims Jr., and Adriana Sims came to the Fairview Heights Police Department to file a complaint against the Fairview Heights Police officer. After briefly explaining their version of the events, theey‚ were informed that state law requires they provide a sworn affidavit as to their complaint. They were provided the necessary paperwork, but they refused to provide a sworn affidavit. As of Monday, March 12, 2012, they have not returned and no formal complaint has been filed.

The Fairview Heights Police Department holds all its officers to high ethical and professional standards. Although the formal investigation process legally requires the signed affidavit, we recognoze and are aware of the incident and complaint. We have initiated our internal review process and await further information and a sworn affidavit from the Sims.

We recognize the presence of emergency lights in an unmarked vehicle does not provide complete assurance the vehicle is actually an authorized police vehicle. Drivers are reminded when they have doubt, they should continue driving to a well-lit populated location before stopping. In addition, they should call 911 whenever possible while driving to determine the validity of the stop.”

‚ Now, as for the first paragraph regarding sworn affidavits; I have provided the same to officials in St. Clair County, only to have them mis-handled and filed as a civil complaint by the then Circuit Clerk, Brendan Kelly.

Mr. Kelly had the case assigned to his judicial lackey, Brian Babka, who very adroitly disposed of the case upon being met with my motion proving that associate judges had a duty under the Illinois Constitution to hear criminal complaints.

With regard to the last paragraph regarding driving when you can’t identify the vehicle as being an official police vehicle, I did the same thing when pulled over at 2am and could not tell if the car was marked or the driver in uniform. I proceeded to drive to a lit area and was beaten, as well as charged with fleeing and eluding. Even though I could not identify the vehicle with lights on as a police vehicle due to it being dark and lights shining in my eyes, I drove to a lighted street, was ordered from my vehicle at gunpoint, beaten and Tasered.

I hope to speak with the Sims’ soon and get more information on their case.

Dayton, Ohio Police Beat and Taser Mentally Handicapped Youth

Cops Just Love Those Tasers
DAYTON, Ohio (CN) – Dayton police “mistook” a mentally handicapped teenager’s speech impediment for “disrespect,” so they Tasered, pepper-sprayed and beat him and called for backup from “upward of 20 police officers” after the boy rode his bicycle home to ask his mother for help, the boy’s mom says.  –
I have to ask, if there were 20 police officers available to respond to this incident, then there are obviously too many police. I would imagine there is a reserve of officers waiting in a room watching the clubbing of baby seals, or maybe even real babies, just waiting for one of their brethren to call for help because he needs a “throw down” weapon to frame the “perp”. In my opinion, one cop is too many, but 20 of these thugs being available for back up is pork on the payroll.
Pamela Ford says her “mentally challenged/handicapped” son Jesse Kersey, 17, was riding his bike near his Dayton home when Officer Willie Hooper stopped him and tried to talk to him.
The mom says that “Prior to the incident described below, defendant Hooper knew Jesse and was aware that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped and a minor child.”
Nonetheless, Ford says, Hooper “apparently took Jesse’s speech impediment for disrespect … [and] began yelling at Jesse and after Jesse attempted to communicate with him[.] Jesse, being a minor and mentally challenged/handicapped, turned and rode his bike back to his home in an attempt to ask his mother, Ford, to help him communicate with defendant Cooper,” according to the complaint in Montgomery County Court. –

First of all, Hooper has NO business approaching anybody unless they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Nobody has any duty to speak to, much less, exhibit respect to a cop. Hooper has also received the distinguished “Douchebag of the Week”, which doesn’t even come close to conveying the contempt I feel for this low-life right now, but will suffice nonetheless.

On the way, the mom says, “A neighbor attempted to communicate with Officer Hooper about Jesse’s disabilities and was told to go back into his home, or he would be arrested.”
As Ford opened her front door, she says, Hooper and co-defendant Officer John Howard, “fired their Tasers, striking Jesse in the back with both probes.”
“Once inside the house, defendant Hooper and defendant Howard began to struggle with Jesse, who was standing against the back door with his hands up in front of his face, saying ‘Please quit, please quit.’
“On numerous occasions, Ford and a family friend, Christopher Peyton, informed Officer Hooper that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped, and that Jesse did not understand what was happening,” the complaint states. –

First of all, the next time anyone witnesses anyone being assailed by police, they need to go back into the house and get a weapon and go to that person’s aid. What Hooper and Howard did afforded them no protection since they were acting outside the law, and anybody who witnessed the assault would have been within their rights to subdue them, even to the point of taking their lives if necessary. This article talks about using force, even if deadly, to resist an unlawful arrest.

But the mom says the cops continued their assault: “Officer Howard utilized his Cap-Stun pepper spray and sprayed Jesse … [and] struck Jesse with a closed fist in the upper chest area.
“Officer Howard utilized his ASP and repeatedly struck Jesse in the upper left side of his left thigh.
“Back-up units were requested to Jesse’s house, wherein upward of 20 police officers from different jurisdictions were present.
“At no point, even after being advised of Jesse’s mental challenge/handicap by Jesse’s family and numerous bystanders, did defendant Hooper, defendant Howard, or any other police officer present, attempt to communicate with Jesse or explain in terms he could understand as to why Jesse was being chased.
“Jesse was handcuffed and hogtied before being placed in the back of a police cruiser.
“Jesse was charged with assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business.” –

It seems that Willie Hooper is a scumbag of some notoriety. This is not the first time Hooper has been sued for his violent tendencies and lack of basic human decency. In 1995, Daniel B. McGuiness sued Hooper and the City of Dayton, Ohio for Malicious Prosecution and Infliction of  Emotional Distress. The court dismissed that case against Hooper, as is usual with judicial protectionism of these vermin, in 1997.

However, “Jesse was declared incompetent by the Montgomery County Juvenile Court and the charges against Jesse were dismissed.”
Jesse and his mom seek damages from the city and the two lead officers, for false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, excessive use of force, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. –

Of course the charges were dismissed. This is the way they always deal with these issues. However, that doesn’t stop the police from initiating bogus charges and physically assaulting people in the first-place. They were dismissed because they had no right to stop Jesse. I would say that whenever you are approached by a cop, that you should be on the defensive and should they step outside the law and exhibit intent to harm you, take defensive action. The Dayton Daily News give a different perspective on the story, but still does not explain by what right Hooper had in using the level of force used against Jesse. If Jesse did, as alleged in the police report, ride his bike down a one way street, that is not a criminal offense and arrest is not allowed for violations which consist of a fine only.

There is also a forum hosted by supposedly freedom-loving right wing lunatics at Conservative Political Forum where they mention Jesse’s lack of cooperation with being a justification for the police using the force that they did. As if we have a duty to jump to the commands of police as if they were wardens over a prison, which is not really far from the truth. They talk about the “liberal left with an agenda” reporting this incident and Jesse’s lawyer as trying to use the issue as a ploy for sympathy of a handicapped individual.

They are represented by Richard Boucher. –

To contact the Chief’s Office of the Dayton Police Department to express your thoughts, call (937) 333-1080.

I checked into this case and have the complaint here, as well as information on Willie Hooper.

Hooper was also involved in a civil suit in 2007 where he claims to have been rear ended while sitting in a drive-thru of a Walgreens.

The Case Number is 07-8452.

Hooper was with his daughter, Brittany Hooper.

Hooper is a resident of Dayton, Ohio in Montgomery County.

Hooper’s Address is recorded as:




Information on his home is:

Hooper also had a property sold at sheriff’s auction.

Owner name & address



DAYTON OH 45419 3632




Legal Information



Tax District


Conveyance Number



There was another civil case involving Hooper and Child Emergency Services. There is a Karen Johnson listed as another defendant.

Civil Case Party Information


Plaintiffs              Attorneys

1              Childrens Emergency Service      Knostman, Richard G

P.o. Box 751084

Dayton, OH 45475

Defendants        Attorneys

1     Karen Johnson  Schiff, Thomas R.

636 Huffman Ave

Dayton, OH 45403

2     Willie B Hooper Schiff, Thomas R.

256 Cellarius

Dayton, OH 45404

Case Description:

Contract / Account Case


Plaintiff                               Party Info




Case Status: Dismissed

Judge Assigned: Carl S Henderson

Execution No:

Next Court Date: None

Causes of Action

No.         Cause Description            Amount               Damages             Interest %

1              Money $361.50                 8.0000

Case History






Children’s Emergency Service






Karen Johnson



Receipt 07024252



Filing Fee Of $110.00



Paid By Knostman, Richard G



New Complaint Entered



Childrens Emergency Service P.o. Box 751084 Dayton Oh, 45475









Karen Johnson 636 Huffman Ave Dayton Oh, 45403 Willie B Hooper 256 Cellarius Dayton Oh, 45404






Plaintiff’s Attorney Knostman, Richard G 4428 N Dixie Dr Dayton Oh, 45414



Summons Issued To Defendant(s)



Entry Appointing Barb Silver As Special



Process Server.(img)



Service Process Server Process Server Personal Servc On 07/23/07 Served To Johnson, Karen Signed By Barb Levan



Service Process Server Process Server Personal Servc On 09/02/07 Served To Hooper, Willie Signed By Barb Levan



Judge: Gehres, Daniel G Assigned To Case



Answer Filed By Willie B Hooper



Entry Of Recusal & Notice To Court Administrator



To Reassign The Case.(img)



Judge Csh Reassigned To Case Judge Gehre’s Recusal



Sched. Pre-trial On 02/12/08,01:30pm,div4c





Sched. Civil Trial On 04/16/08,08:30am,div4c





Judge Henderson’s Pre-trial Orders Filed.(img)



Deft.willie Hooper’s Copies Of Exhibits To



Be Used In This Case.(img)



Deft.willie Hooper’s Motion For Continuance Notice Of Appearance Of Thomas R.schiff As



Counsel For Deft.(img)



Resched. Civil Trial On 05/05/08,08:30am,div4c Resched Reason: Def’s Request



Entry Granting Continuance Of 04/16/08 Trial



To May 05,2008 At 8:30 Am.(img)



Pltf’s Motion For Continuance Filed.(img)



Entry Granting Continuance Of 05/05/08 Hearing,



Further Ordered That Matter Be Referred For



Assignment Of A New Trial Date.(img)



Sched. Civil Trial On 08/05/08,08:30am,div4c





Sched. Civil Trial On 09/17/08,08:30am,div4c





Case Dismissed


Complaint of Jesse Kersey




531 St. Paul Ave.

Dayton, Ohio 45410    *

and      *

PAMELA FORD, individually  *

and as mother and natural guardian  of Jesse Kersey    *

531 St. Paul Avenue

Dayton, Ohio 45410    *

Plaintiffs, *

vs.      *


101 W. Third St.

Dayton, Ohio 45402    *

OFFICER WILLIE HOOPER  In his individual and official capacity

c/o Dayton Police Department  *

335 W. Third Street

Dayton, Ohio 45402

and      *


In his individual and official capacity

c/o Dayton Police Department  *

335 W. Third St.

Dayton, Ohio 45402    *




In his individual and official capacity  *

c/o Dayton Police Department

335 W. Third St.    *

Dayton, Ohio 45402



CASE NO.  2011 CV 04561




Now come Plaintiffs, Pamela Ford, individually and as the mother and natural guardian

of Jesse Kersey (“Ford”), and Jesse Kersey (“Jesse”), (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through

counsel, and for their Complaint against Defendants, City of Dayton, Ohio (“City of Dayton”),

Officer Willie Hooper (“Hooper”), Officer John Howard (“Howard”), and Officers John Doe,

state and aver as follows:


1. At all times relevant herein, Jesse, a mentally challenged/handicapped teenager, was and is a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio and was a minor child.

2. At all times relevant herein, Ford was and is the biological mother and natural guardian of Jesse and was and is a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio.

3. At all times relevant herein, the individually named Defendants Hooper and Howard were acting in an official capacity as police officers employed by the City of Dayton in the Dayton Police Department.  As such, the individual Defendants Hooper and Howard were duly appointed agents authorized to enforce the laws of the City of Dayton and they were acting under the color of state law at all times relevant to this action.

4. At all relevant times described herein, City of Dayton is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio, and is responsible for the regulation, 3 policies, customs, and practices of the Dayton Police Department, as well as supervising, controlling, and disciplining police officers located within Dayton, Ohio.

5. Prior to the incident described below, Defendant Hooper knew Jesse and was aware that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped and a minor child.

6. On or about June 25, 2010, Defendant Hooper encountered Jesse while he was on duty and acting within his role as an officer of the Dayton Police Department.

7. The above encounter began at the corner of Andrew Street and St. Paul Avenue, in the City of Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio, where Jesse was riding his bicycle near his residence.

8. Defendant Hooper approached Jesse and Jesse attempted to communicate with Defendant Hooper, however, Defendant Hooper apparently mistook Jesse’s speech impediment for disrespect.

9. Defendant Hooper began yelling at Jesse and after Jesse attempted to communicate with him, Jesse, being a minor and mentally challenged/handicapped, turned and rode his bicycle back to his home in an attempt to ask his mother, Ford, to help him communicate with Defendant Hooper.

10. A neighbor attempted to communicate with Officer Hooper about Jesse’s disabilities and was told to go back into his home, or he would be arrested.

11. Jesse approached his front door, in an effort to retrieve Ford for assistance, and Defendant Hooper proceeded to chase him.

12. Defendant Howard, while he was on duty and acting within his role as an officer of the Dayton Police Department, showed up at Ford’s house at Defendant Hooper’s request. 4

13. Once Ford opened the front door, Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard fired their Tasers striking Jesse in the back with both probes.

14. Once inside the house, Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard began to struggle with Jesse, who was standing against the back door with his hands up in front of his face, saying “please quit, please quit.”

15. On numerous occasions, Ford, and a family friend, Christopher Peyton, informed Officer Hooper that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped, and that Jesse did not understand what was happening.

16. Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard continued to struggle with Jesse.

17. Officer Howard utilized his Cap-Stun pepper spray and sprayed Jesse.

18. Officer Howard struck Jesse with a closed fist in the upper chest area.

19. Officer Howard utilized his ASP and repeatedly struck Jesse in the upper side of his left thigh.

20. Back-up units were requested to Jesse’s house wherein upward of 20 police officers from different jurisdictions were present.

21. At no point, even after being advised of Jesse’s mental challenge/handicap by Jesse’s family and numerous bystanders, did Defendant Hooper, Defendant Howard, or any other police officer present, attempt to communicate with Jesse or explain in terms he could understand as to why Jesse was being chased.

22. Jesse was handcuffed and hog tied before being placed into the back of a police cruiser.

23. Jesse was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer,  Resisting Arrest, and Obstructing Official Business. 5

24. Jesse was declared incompetent by the Montgomery County Juvenile Court and the charges against Jesse were dismissed.

25. Jesse has suffered severe mental and physical bodily distress due to the actions of Defendants Hooper and Howard, and was forced to seek medical and psychological treatment for his injuries.


(False Imprisonment)

26. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully rewritten herein.

27. In restraining Jesse and in firing his Taser into Jesse, Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard acted knowingly, wrongfully, unlawfully and maliciously.

28. Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard’s actions constituted a false imprisonment of Jesse.

29. As a direct and proximate result of the false imprisonment of Jesse by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


(False Arrest)

30. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained  in paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully rewritten herein.

31. In charging Jesse with assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business, as well as causing the arrest of Jesse, Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard acted knowingly, wrongfully, unlawfully and maliciously and the aforesaid actions constituted a false arrest of Jesse and an arrest without probable cause. 6

32. As a direct and proximate result of the false arrest of Jesse by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


(Malicious Prosecution)

33. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained  in paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully rewritten herein.

34. Defendant Hooper and Defendant Howard maliciously and without probable cause, charged Jesse with having committed assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business, and knowingly persisted in their wrongful effort to have Jesse convicted for crimes he did not, and was not capable of committing.

35.  As a direct and proximate result of the malicious prosecution of Jesse by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).



36.  Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully rewritten hereunder.

37. Defendants conduct constitutes assault under Ohio Law.

38.  As a direct and proximate result of the assault of Jesse by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than TwentyFive Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 7



39.  Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 as if fully rewritten hereunder.

40. Defendants conduct constitutes battery under Ohio Law.

41. As a direct and proximate result of the battery of Jesse by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than TwentyFive Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


(Excessive Use of Force)

42.  Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 41 as if fully rewritten hereunder.

43. Defendants conduct constitutes excessive force  in violation of Jesse’s rights under the Constitution of the State of Ohio and the United States Constitution.

44. The use of said excessive and illegal force by the Defendants named herein, acting by and on behalf of the City of Dayton and the Dayton Police Department, constituted a violation of Jesse’s rights to equal protection of the laws and/or due process of the laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United  States Constitution and also constitutes a violation of Jesse’s rights under Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the excessive use of force by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 8


(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

46.  Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully rewritten herein.

47.  Defendants intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on Jesse in violation of Ohio Law.

48. Defendants intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on Ford in violation of Ohio Law.

49.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional infliction of emotional distress by Defendants, Jesse and Ford have suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

50.  Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully rewritten herein.

51.  Defendants negligently inflicted severe emotional distress on Jesse in violation of Ohio Law.

52. Defendants negligently inflicted severe emotional distress on Ford in violation of Ohio Law.

53.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligent infliction of emotional distress by Defendants, Jesse and Ford have suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 9


(Gross Negligence and Reckless Actions)

54. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained  in paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully rewritten herein.

55.  Defendants were grossly negligent and reckless in their actions as aforesaid.

56.  As a direct and proximate result of the grossly negligent and reckless actions by the Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


(Civil Conspiracy)

57.  Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully rewritten herein.

58.  Jesse was initially charged with assault on a  peace officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business.

59.  After being declared incompetent by the Montgomery County Juvenile Court, the charges against Jesse were dismissed.

60.  Jesse states that in order to cover up the Defendants unjustified use of their taser, pepper spray, and ASP, all Defendants conspired to charge Jesse with assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business.

61.  Defendants unjustified and objectively unreasonable use of their taser, pepper spray, and ASP, was a direct and proximate cause of Jesse’s pain, suffering, and mental anguish.

62.  Said acts by the Defendants violated Jesse’s rights to be free from summary punishment and deprivation of his life and liberty without due process of law under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be  free from an objectively 10 unreasonable seizure and objectively unreasonable use of force under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

63.  As a direct and proximate result of the civil conspiracy by Defendants, Jesse has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


(Loss of Consortium)

64. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained  in paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully rewritten herein.

65. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Ford has been denied the society, companionship, comfort, love, and consortium of her son.

66.  As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants negligence, Ford has suffered harm in an amount yet to be determined however anticipated  to be not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim judgment against the Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

A. On the First Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for false imprisonment in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

B. On the Second Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for false arrest in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

C. On the Third Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for malicious prosecution in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00); 11

D. On the Fourth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for assault in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

E. On the Fifth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for battery in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

F. On the Sixth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for the excessive use of force in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

G. On the Seventh Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for the intentional infliction of emotional distress in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

H. On the Eighth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for the negligent infliction of emotional distress in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

I. On the Ninth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for their gross negligence and reckless actions in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

J. On the Tenth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for civil conspiracy in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

K. On the Eleventh Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants for loss of consortium in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

L. Attorney Fees;

M. Costs of this action; and

N. Such other and further relief as Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity. 12

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard A. Boucher, Esq.

Richard A. Boucher, Esq. (#0033614)

Julia C. Kolber, Esq. (#0078855)

Lauren E. Grant, Esq. (#0087315)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


12 W. Monument Ave., Suite 200

Dayton, Ohio 45402-1202

(937) 223-0122 – Office

(937) 223-0120 – Facsimile


Now come Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues herein.

/s/ Richard A. Boucher, Esq.

Richard A. Boucher, Esq. (#0033614)

Julia C. Kolber, Esq. (#0078855)

Lauren E. Grant, Esq. (#0087315)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Cedar Falls, Iowa City Council Demands Keys to Resident's Property

Watch this video and tell me this does not outrage you.

A link to the actual excerpt from the May 23, 2011 meeting from the Cedar Falls website is here

This link is to the subsequent meeting on June 13, 1011 where the ordinance passed

I recommend watching the entire excerpt if you can find the time. I want to say thank you to Nick Taiber, who aptly presented a well-reasoned objection to this proposed ordinance and his standing firm in the face of what must have been daunting peer pressure. One council members, John Runchey, alludes to an authority higher than he or the citizens. Let me tell you something, Mr. Runchey, the people are the ultimate authority. Do not refer to some judicial misfit lurking in the wings to prop your flaccid position on some inane reading of powers posses by government through the Constitution. You are not deserving of holding any position of governance or representation because you are devoid of any concept of the flow of power.

The proposed ordinance, 2740, by the Cedar Falls, Iowa City Council imposes a duty upon commercial property to make available access to their property by way of lock boxes. This includes businesses, apartments, and some rental units. It is allegedly promulgated under the authority of the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code. Chief John Schilling of the Cedar Falls Fire Department is the lackey who supports introducing into his enforcement penumbra a code of international standards as being imposed upon the citizens of Cedar Falls. Schilling also comments on his belief that the constitutionality of such an ordinance has had to have been pondered somewhere, since he alleges this program being implemented in larger metropolitan cities like Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Mr. Schilling, who cares what the constitutionality of this measure is? The bottom line is that when the people find a law oppressive they have a right to act or resist in spite of what powers you believe come from the Constitution.

This is but one of the methods by which municipalities slowly pry themselves into the lives of the unwitting without any requirement for constitutionality. If you submit, you have no claim. The constitution, in all its impotent glory, is designed to be a tool to protect us from government. If you pave the path to your liberty for which to permit governmental intrusion, then the constitution has no place in protecting the ignorant from themselves.

The City of Collinsville has attempted a number of intrusions into private lives, beginning with businesses and landlords; again, to test the waters of compliance. I’ve written on a number of them including these:

You have to admire the arrogance of the city council and their insistence that they are keeping the citizens “safe”. It makes you wonder if they consider the people as part of the citizenry, or if it is just another name for the elite.  Particularly frustrating is the clueless councilman Kamyar Enshayan. A self-aggrandizing megalomaniac, he smugly retorts with scripted indifference at the objections of the attendees. Seeing as how these council persons live within the community, it should not be difficult for the citizens to make their voice, “abundantly clear”. I would see to it that their only concern for safety would be that of their own, and as a result, a rare appearance out in public or to council meetings where they wield their condescension.

I believe there is a concerted effort among various municipalities in testing such legislation in hopes of gaining intrusion into our lives with nary a whimper.

Mr Kamyar Enshayan is quoted as saying, “The merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea.” Mr. Enshayan, would you say that likewise applies to people who hold the idea that government is tasked with providing individual protection or safety? The merit of government, as well as you and your ilk, does not depend on the number of people who breathe life into your caustic personna, but rather depends on the resolve of the limited few or individuals standing firm against your intentions.

For those who wish to reach out to the council, here is their contact information.

City Council Members 



Tom HagartyTom Hagarty

1st Ward

809 Franklin Street

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 266-1321


Susan DeBuhr

Susan DeBuhr

2nd Ward

1713 Continental Access StreetCedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 277-8974



John Runchey – This man should be tarred and feathered for his idiotic comments about keeping people safe. Where is the authority for doing this, Mr. Runchey?

John Runchey

3rd Ward

920 Columbine Drive

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 277-1053

Ph: (319) 415-9350



Kamyar Enshayan – This man is simply a blithering idiot who wants to protect everyone from everything but the city government.

Kamyar Enshayan

4th Ward

1703 Washington Street

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 266-5468

Ph: (319) 273-7575


Frank Darrah

Frank Darrah

5th Ward

1915 Greenhill Drive

Cedar Falls, IA

Ph: (319) 277-2801

Ph: (319) 290-0381


Nick Taiber – Nick is the only council member who voted against the proposed ordinance. Thank you Mr. Taiber! 

Nick Taiber

At Large

221 W. 13th Street

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 610-8370


Mayor Jon Crews 

Mayor Jon Crews

Contact the Mayor’s Office

By phone at 319-268-5119

By email at


David WielandDavid Wieland 

At Large

4201 Heritage Road

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (316) 266-4300

In closing, I would urge the citizens of Cedar Falls who are forced to comply with this mandate to purchase a used box, hang it from your door, and break the key off in the lock. Who’s to say “how” it happened?  Also, if anyone from Cedar Falls sees this article, please forward to me a copy of the legal brief the City relied upon in supporting this ordinance. They always begin with commercial activities and as time goes on, people forget the limited application and through legalese and custom, they slowly implement on the unwitting and unaware.

Police Have the Right to Invade the Homes of Judges in Indiana.

I find this case to be a warning shot across the bow of those hold-outs who believe this is a government of, by, and for the People, and that political action will remedy the no-longer stealthy encroachment upon natural, unalienable rights. No longer does the State veil its threats in craftily worded court opinions, but rather proudly raise the flag of totalitarianism in laying claim to one of the most fundamental of rights, that of self-defense. I expound upon the application of this right and previous courts recognizing such in this article.  The Indiana Supreme Court also references one seminal case, Bad Elk v. United States.

In that case, the court said,

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

However, the Indiana Supreme Court goes on to overturn this antiquated, common law right in referring to the Model Penal Code, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). What people fail to realize is, that under the Common Law, it was recognized that the individual was in full possession of his liberties by way of natural, unalienable rights and the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Nowadays, courts circumvent long-held beliefs in the supremacy of individual liberty in favor of public policy. Everyone is essentially considered to be suspected of something, and when felonies were the crime of concern, the bar has been lowered to accommodate misdemeanors as well. Everyone is considered to be potentially violent and in violation of some law. Police are afforded carte blanche when it comes to inspecting, questioning, detaining, arresting, and even killing people.  The Indiana Supreme Court said,

“The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ―(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.‖  Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23.  In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolishedthe right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s.

What are the “alternate remedies for aggrieved arrestees” the court favors in opposition to the common law right to resist arrest? Under the common law right, the court supports its previous recognition of the right based on the then-perils facing the arrestee such as indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, and physical torture. This is to say that when faced with such possibilities, an individual had the right to resist unlawful arrest because the outcome from such resistance was less and considered more reasonable than the perils awaiting him if he should submit. Reading this another way, the courts were saying that law enforcement was known to, at times, treat arrested persons in ways inconsistent with natural, unalienable rights and Constitutional protections. The “alternate remedies” to which the court now speaks, referring to them as “modern developments’, include, “(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3)the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).” This is to say that, presuming you survive the arrest, you have more civil and peaceable remedies at your disposal which will still subject you to the arbitrary, corrupt, and protracted administration of so-called “justice”. If you are the victim of an unlawful arrest you can post bail, challenge the probable cause for the intrusion, which has essentially been negated by this ruling because probable cause exists only in justifying the grounds for an arrest, exclude any illegally obtained evidence and petition the gangsters who violated your rights for redress and pursue civil remedies of which the legislatures have extended limited immunity. Sounds like a fair trade-off to me.

There are two Justices who voiced their dissent with the majority ruling, and you can read the entire court opinion here. They likewise mention the overbreadth of this ruling which essentially means the police need no reason at all for entering your home. One thing that distinguishes this case from others where the court affirmed the Common Law right to resist unlawful arrest is that this was a “domestic violence” case where a call to 911 was made. The Court did not mention this as a specific and limited application of their overbroad abrogation of the common law, but briefly mention it early in the ruling. Domestic violence, or not, the Court essentially buries centuries of jurisprudence which recognizes the right of an individual to defend themselves from unlawful State action, especially that which violates the sanctity of their home.

I wonder what Justice, Steven David, would do when faced with the specter of an unlawful arrest; especially on in which his very life is threatened by police. For example, let’s say that some private individuals purchase uniforms that resemble police uniforms. Let ‘s say these individuals just so happen to be particularly exasperated with the despotic ruling by Justice David and, as a result, exhibit aggressive, violent, and irrational behavior when acting out this scenario; much like a common police officer would exhibit. Let’s say these angry, violent, police-imposters barge into Justice David’s home with guns drawn and barking orders at the residents, maybe including David’s wife, children, and elderly parents. Let’s assume that Justice David is a gunowner and has within his reach access to a firearm. The imposters order everyone to the ground where they go on to verbally abuse and physically assault recalcitrant suspects. Justice David tries to verbally engage the imposters to determine the reason for the intrusion. Some of David’s family appear to resist out of fear for their lives. The imposters kick and pistol whip them for their insolence. They shout to the suspects, “Shut up! Justice David has affirmed our right to violate your right to be secure in your own home! We are blameless!” During the confrontation, one of the imposters shoots and kills David’s children and wife as well as seriously wounding David himself. They then apologize for the intrusion, citing a mistaken address provided to them by a drug snitch before leaving the premises.

Would David gather his fallen family members and tsk-tsk-tsk their demise as a justifiable exercise of State action? He would be none the wiser that the perpetrators were not police, as they were disguised as police. Yet, in David’s twisted mind he would believe their actions to be in conformance with his psychotic ruling. Would David lick his wounds and then march down to the county courthouse to file a civil suit to recover monetary damages to replace the lost affection and companionship of his fallen family members? Would he look at the hole in his leg and reflect back on his ruling, thinking, ” ’tis just and right.”? One must wonder what such a man would do when faced with the real-world application of his holding. I guess David, being the good Statist that he is, would accept the death of his family as reasonable, since their recourse is to quietly compost into worm food and apply for bail.

Of course, God forbid any such thing would happen, but then again, God forbid the State would do the same to any other. Yet, that very thing happens all too frequently. In that case, I guess there is no reason to feel any differently towards Justice David’s loss than that of any other; and seeing David has no consideration for the possible horrors facing others who take exception with David’s opinion, I can only speculate that David would believe his family “deserved it”. Maybe Justice David has something to think about, and maybe something to fear, as well. What follows is the text of the opinion. This message brought to you by Bob’s Costume Rental, 123 Main Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.


Oakland gardener questions need for permit to sell produce.

Novella Carpenter took over a vacant lot on a hardscrabble corner of West Oakland eight years ago and turned it into a working farm of vegetables, goats, rabbits and, sometimes, pigs.

Carpenter milked goats, made cheese and ate much of the produce. She also wrote a popular book, “Farm City,” about the experience and became an icon of the Bay Area’s urban farming movement.

But the future of her Ghost Town Farm is in question. This week, Oakland officials suggested it may need to close. The reason: She sells excess produce and needs a costly permit to do so.

“It seems ridiculous,” said Carpenter, 38. “I need a conditional use permit to sell chard?”

The news stunned the region’s urban farmers and their supporters, who questioned how a fundamental human task that goes back millennia could become illegal.

“It’s incredibly sad that people can’t grow food and sell it to folks,” said Barbara Finnin, executive director of City Slicker Farms, an Oakland nonprofit that runs produce markets and helps people start their own urban farms.

Profit, not personal use

The city planner who visited Carpenter’s 4,500-square-foot plot at 28th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way said he sympathized with Carpenter, but the rules are clear.

Carpenter “is raising these things for a profit,” said Chris Candell, a planner in the city’s building department. “If you’re doing this for your own home consumption, this would not be applied.”

Though his report is not final, Candell said Carpenter probably has three options: pay for a conditional use permit, shut down the farm, or not change anything and face sanctions from the city.

The permit would probably cost several thousand dollars, Candell said, and Carpenter also would have to pay penalties for operating without such a license as she is now. Carpenter works about 25 hours per week at the farm and takes in only about $2,500 a year, before expenses.

Candell said a complaint about rabbits on the property led to the city inquiry. Carpenter believes the critic was upset because she was making rabbit potpies available for an $8 donation.

Carpenter taught herself to grow food and raise livestock. She went Dumpster diving in Oakland’s Chinatown to feed her pigs and learned how to butcher from top chefs.

“I really like to feel connected to food and understand the stories of where my food came from,” she said. “When I started, I did it to feed myself. Then I realized that in Oakland, people are really hungry. So people in the neighborhood came and picked food.”

But she realized there were other benefits, too.

“A garden in the middle of a concrete jungle is a nice thing,” she said. “The garden has become a community space. It’s like a place of beauty as well as production. If you pick your lettuce, it just has more vitamins. … We’re told to go consume and just buy food, but I want to empower myself by growing it.”

Crops in the city

Oakland is considered the center of the urban farming movement, with numerous nonprofits and individual farmers devoted to the cause. Sunset Magazine featured Oakland last year as a “town of the future” because of citizens’ passion for the movement. Carpenter’s farm was featured in the article.

But zoning regulations haven’t quite caught up, planners and urban farmers say.

A conditional use permit might make sense for 40-acre farms, Finnin said, but not when the farm occupies one-tenth of an acre and beets sell for $2 a bunch.

Candell agreed that the zoning is outdated. But he said the rules nonetheless have to be followed.

“We’ve had (these rules) for 50 years or so, but we’re stuck with them until they’re changed,” he said.

In San Francisco, where similar conflicts have arisen, Supervisor David Chiu and Mayor Ed Lee introduced legislation this week to allow growing and selling of garden produce in all neighborhoods. In Oakland, zoning officials and nonprofits have been working on new rules, which are to be debated by the City Council this year.

Guerrilla gardener

Carpenter said it has all been a learning experience. After starting out as a “squat farmer,” she bought the plot for $30,000 in December. The previous owner sold it to her as a favor.

“It was so great squatting,” she said. “I didn’t have costs. I was a total renegade doing something totally illegal, but now that I’m a property owner, that’s when they actually come down on me.

“I can’t fly under the radar and be a punk anymore. I have to actually be an adult and deal with these things.”

Read more: