Pubdate: Fri, 13 Nov 2015
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2015 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: John Ingold

FEDS RESPOND TO FURTADO'S DISPUTE

Prosecutors Adamant That Budget Amendment Doesn't Block Their Case 
Against Colorado Attorney

Federal prosecutors say a Colorado attorney charged in connection 
with major raids on state-licensed medical marijuana businesses is 
not protected by a new law that tells the feds to back off.

Attorney David Furtado was one of four men charged after sweeping 
raids two years ago targeting the VIP Cannabis dispensary and related 
businesses. The men were ultimately indicted on charges of money 
laundering and trying to deposit money from an illegal enterprise 
into a bank account.

Last month, Furtado raised a novel legal argument: that a federal 
budget amendment passed last year means the U.S. Justice Department 
is prohibited from spending money on prosecutions like his. He asked 
the judge to throw out the case against him.

In a response filed last week, federal prosecutors say the budget 
amendment doesn't block their case against Furtado and his 
codefendants because what the men are accused of doing was illegal 
under both federal and state law.

"The government's prosecution of Furtado does not prevent, but indeed 
furthers, Colorado's implementation of its medical marijuana laws," 
the response states.

This is unmapped terrain for marijuana law in Colorado, and it is 
unclear how U.S. District Court Judge Robert Blackburn will decide 
which side is correct.

Even state-licensed marijuana businesses are illegal under federal 
law. But last year, Congress passed a budget amendment that blocks 
the Justice Department from spending money on activities that would 
prevent states from "implementing their own State laws that authorize 
the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

Earlier this year, a federal judge in California ruled that amendment 
prohibited the feds from going forward with a civil asset forfeiture 
case against a medical marijuana dispensary that was abiding by 
California law. Furtado argued the same reasoning should protect him 
from prosecution.

In their response, prosecutors first argue that the judge in 
California got it wrong and that the budget amendment only applies 
when the Justice Department tries to take action directly against the 
states. They then argue that the amendment doesn't apply in Furtado's 
case because he and his co-defendants are accused of doing things 
that "circumvented the Colorado state medical marijuana regulatory 
system by disguising the true ownership of, and funding sources for, 
the organization."

Furtado, brothers Luis and Gerardo Uribe, and Colombian citizen 
Hector Diaz were indicted on allegations that they funneled hundreds 
of thousands of dollars from Colombia, moved it through various bank 
accounts and then tried to use it to buy a warehouse for marijuana 
growing. The state later moved to shut down VIP Cannabis and related 
dispensaries.

Diaz has already pleaded guilty, and Luis Uribe has indicated he has 
reached a plea agreement, as well.

In a reply filed Thursday, Furtado argues he never held an ownership 
interest in VIP Cannabis and was instead merely acting as an attorney 
for the Uribe brothers.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom