ALLOCATUR PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL
AND NOW comes the PETITIONER, John M. Grubor, J.D., pro se, pleading for Allocatur Allowance of Appeal as follows:
Petitioner pleads for relief from the PER CURIAM order of the Commonwealth Court dated January 10, 1995, the text of which was:
"0 R D E R
NOW, January 10, 1995, upon consideration of appellant's nunc pro tunc petition for reconsideration based on after acquired evidence, the petition is denied."
The aforementioned Order followed a previous "OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: October 28, 1994" and an Order attached thereto. The complete opinion and Order are attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit II."
For the purpose of clarifying the issues (see "Questions presented for review") a proposed Petition for Certiorari has been attached as "Exhibit I."
The lower court order has been attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit III."
The verbatim text of the first statute at issue has been attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit IV."
The verbatim text of the second statute at issue has been attached hereto and marked a "Exhibit V."
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The circumstances of this case involve the bona fide medical use of a controlled substance for a life threatening medical necessity (deadly seizures), which was justified under section 503 of the Crimes Code, and which justification should be a complete defense to all other sanctions. The suspension of the Defendant's Driver's License in the instant case is the Political Subjugation of Medicine, which is an issue of immediate public importance, justifying this Honorable Court's assumption of plenary jurisdiction.
The three main questions presented for review by this Honorable Court are questions of substance not heretofore determined by this Honorable Court. There are two other questions which this Court has "apparently ruled upon" but which are included in the proposed PETITION FOR CERTIORARI contained in the Appendix of this pleading. The two other questions are subsidiary questions fairly comprised within the three main questions and shall not be discussed in this pleading. However, argument on the two other questions, as set forth in paragraphs one and two of the aforementioned CERTIORARI, is hereby reserved for subsequent pleadings and oral argument. The three main questions are as follows:
A. Whether the commonwealth can suspend the driver's license of Defendant, who is a bona tide medical user of a controlled substance, for a plea bargain to a crime which had nothing to do with the Motor Vehicle Code.
B. Whether the Commonwealth can refuse to consider the issuance of an occupational Limited License to the Defendant.
C. Whether the Defendant was denied his constitutional right to Procedural Due Process by being required to present his entire case to the lower court in five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the bona fide medical use of a controlled substance for a life threatening medical necessity. After having bloody nocturnal Epileptic seizures for almost five years, the PETITIONER (Defendant) began using the only substance that could stop his seizures, Cannabis. Defendant was treated with Dilantin and other drugs by three Neurologists for 4 1/2 years, but the conventional drugs prescribed by the Physicians did not stop the Defendant's bloody nocturnal episodes.
In 1986, Defendant read in the medical literature that Cannabis ("Marijuana" in Spanish) was known to be the only substance to actually "stop" Epileptic seizures. Defendant was in fear of death from his nocturnal Epileptic seizures for two reasons. The first was the possibility of ending a seizure "on his back" and thereby suffocating on the "swallowing of the tongue" effect. But he was also fearing death from "drowning on his own blood." On many a morning, Defendant woke up with blood all over his pillow and sheets. His tongue was severely bitten into on both sides and the taste of blood would last for days. Sometimes it would take weeks for the tongue to heal and the pain resulting from the back spasms during the seizures would last for months.
Because Defendant had no other legal alternative, he began using Cannabis for his life threatening medical necessity in 1986. His actions were and continue to be justified under the criteria set forth in section 503 of the Crimes Code. Defendant has had no seizures for nine years and his termination of the use of the controlled substance is not Medically indicated.
In 1988, at the St. Louis University Medical School, and in 1989, at the National Institute of Mental Health, cannabinoid receptors were discovered and located in the human brain. This new evidence gave the answer as to why Cannabis was so effective
in the treatment of Epilepsy. We already knew why the miracle drug cannabis was effective in Glaucoma, AIDS, Cancer, Asthma and other diseases, but the existence and location of the brain receptors now explained it's tremendous effectiveness in Epilepsy, Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and other spastic disorders. It seemed that the law should recognize these new medical developments, but it did not. Instead, politicians caused the POLITICAL SUBJUGATION OF MEDICINE.
In 1989, with George Bush playing "tough on crime," the "Federal Mandates" came in like gangbusters. The mandates required the States to pass these new laws in order to get the new "Federal Money." The two statutes at issue in the instant case are the results of the "Federal Mandates." No one paid any attention to the needs of the Medical Necessity Users.
In March of 1992, Defendant plead guilty to the possession of 1/3 ounce of cannabis in return for "one year probation and no other penalty." Defendant never knew or was told of the mandatory driver's license suspension during the court Colloquy. When the Bureau of Motor Vehicles tried to suspend Defendant's Driver's license in April of 1992, Defendant filed a Statutory Appeal in the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
On November 4, 1992, the lower court dismissed Defendant's Appeal and Defendant filed a timely appeal to the commonwealth court. (The lower court order is attached hereto as "Exhibit III.") Oral Argument was not granted by the commonwealth Court and a written "OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION" was filed by the commonwealth court on October 28, 1994. (Exhibit II.) After consideration of a Petition for Reconsideration, the Commonwealth Court denied same on January 10, 1995.
A timely Allocatur Petition for Allowance of Appeal was filed and is presently at issue before this Honorable Court.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL
This may be the most important case this Honorable Supreme Court has ever considered, because it deals with the Political Subjugation of Medicine. This recently identified PSM phenomenon has caused an increase in the crime problem, the drug problem and the domestic violence/abuse problems in the last seven years. In essence, an overwhelming issue of immediate public importance is at hand: This Honorable Court is obligated to be a non-political entity, and it must therefore consider and rule upon this PSM which has invaded the Legislative and Executive branches of Government. If the Judiciary does not do it's duty, then we lose our only hope for a decent Government: The Statutes at issue in the instant case were passed without the slightest regard for the then current medical information, a prime example of the Political Subjugation of Medicine. All three main questions presented for review in the instant case are ramifications of this PSM and are questions of substance not heretofore determined by this Honorable Court.
The Petitioner is a member of a "suspect class" of Medical Necessity users of the Controlled substance Cannabis, who deserve "greater protection" than other offenders, because their actions are Justified under section 503 of the Crimes Code. This "suspect class" involves millions of people in this commonwealth who use Cannabis daily for Epilepsy, Glaucoma, AIDS, Cancer, Asthma, Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Emphysema, Muscular Dystrophy and other diseases, and who's driver's licenses are put in jeopardy by their medical necessities.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays to this Honorable Court for Allocatur, Permission for Appeal and for oral argument.
Respectfully Submitted, by: John M. Grubor, pro se, PETITIONER
"Proposed Pleading" (not to form):
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITI0N FOR CERTIORARI
Questions to be presented to the Court:
1. Whether a State may rule that a sanction passed under a "Crimes Code" is merely a "civil penalty." (thereby denying the consideration of constitutional rights applicability to the sanction).
2. Whether a State may deny Due Process to a Defendant who has executed a plea bargain by later demanding additional penalties (license suspension and over $10,000 in costs) which were not disclosed to the Defendant at the time of the Court colloquy. (Defendant would not have plead guilty if he had known of the driver's license suspension)
3. Whether a Defendant in a Driver's license suspension case is denied Procedural Due Process by being required to present his entire defense in five minutes in a courtroom that was a "joke" because of apparent case fixing by the tipstaff.
4. Whether a State may take away ones liberty (driver's license suspension) because of a Defendant's use (justified under 503 of crimes code) of a controlled substance which had nothing to do with an automobile or the Motor vehicle Code.
5. Whether a State may refuse to consider the issuance of an occupational Limited License to those individuals in the suspect class of Medical Necessity Users of a controlled Substance who's actions are justified within the definitions set forth in Section 503 of the Uniform Crimes Code.