norml01 - Page 18



Page 18 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 |
 I -- and more disappointingly -- in its brief, Respondent has erred
 in much the same manner as did the Administrator, repeatedly
 disregarding the record evidence and demonstrating the govern-
 i mentes continued refusal fairly to judge this issue on the
 merits.
 j Respondent seems to assert that Petitioners _ decision
 i not to dispute each and every one of the Administrator's
 misstatements is proof of their accuracy, and thus of the
 I fairness and reasonableness of the Administrator's decision. See
 Resp. Bro at 30_ 32. Rather_ Petitioners simply chose not to
 I burden the Court with a recitation of all of the overwhelming
 l record evidence. Given Respondentgs continued mischaracteri-
 zation of the records however, Petitioners feel compelled to
 g correct the most glaring factual distortions, which examples
 highlight the extent of the governmental bias against this
 petition.
 U Firsts Respondent continues the AdministratorSs
 disregard of the wealth of evidence regarding marijuana's medical
 I usage for the treatment of glaucoma, including in the specific
 case of Robert Randall. Although Respondent is aware that Mro
 l Randall has been under virtually continuous DEA-sanctioned and
 i FDA-approved scientific and medical evaluation since 1975_ in an
 unfair and unsubstantiated personal attack on Mr. Randall,
 Respondent cites "the absence of any valid scientific evaluation
 of Randall's case .... _ Respo Br. at 29 This is in complete
 I disregard of the record evidence showing that, among other valid
 i scientific evaluationse Mro Randall underwent an intensive
 - 13 -




Previous , Next , Return to Index