QuickBooks Desktop 2023 creating a backup file. Let's do it within 2-its QuickBooks Desktop 2023. Here we are on the desktop. We want to do a quick recap of the different types of icons in terms of software icons, data file icons, and the backup file icons that you will see and create when using QuickBooks Desktop. So this is the software icon that would open up the program in a similar way as the analogy that we will use Microsoft Word when you open up the Microsoft program of Microsoft Word. The data files then are going to be the things that we open within the program which would be similar to the analogy of Microsoft Word to the document files that would be opened up in the program. So in prior presentations we set up our data file, we housed it in here. I do recommend having a separate folder where you can kind of store your data files so you know where those data files are at. And also if I go into these data files, when you create the data file, this is the data file. If I right click on it and then and this would be similar to the analogy that we've been talking about of the Microsoft document that would then be opened by Microsoft Word. And if I go then to the properties we can see this is a data file and it's a QBW extension. So it's a QBW that's the data file. Notice when you create the data file, it always also has all this other stuff that's created. That's why you want to house it in its own folder, not like on your desktop or it's going to get really kind of messy. And so just keep that in mind. Also if you don't designate its own folder, Microsoft might put it in some place under like an Intuit folder, their default location, but you want to know where that is so you can find it if you need it. And then we're going to put our backup files in here. Now the backup file doesn't really tie into the Microsoft Word analogy because the backup files are not going to be something that we would use in Microsoft Word because we could just copy the file itself in Microsoft Word because they're usually not that big even if we have a large document. With QuickBooks, the backup, the data files, especially if we've been using them for multiple years can get quite large. And therefore when we back them up, we don't want to backup. We don't want to just copy the file. We want to have a different file to backup. So there's two kind of at least two reasons why you might back up the files. Note that we could back up the files of course to save the data in case our computer crashes. So note if the software is on your C drive and the computer were to crash, you want to make sure that you have your backup files somewhere other than the C drive, possibly online is fairly easy these days to put it in an online space. And that's one solution you can have. And that'll help to safeguard you just losing the data. You can make up backup files pretty easily as we will see. And the restoration process is pretty straightforward.  So you might create a backup file so that you can then test something out and be able to restore. That's a great tool for the backup files. And we use it here for teaching, of course, because it's a great tool for putting in data into a practice problem and practicing with it. And then you can rework the same piece of piece of data by going back to the original before you added the new data. So that's another use for the backup files. If I double click the program, I'm going to open up the program. I'm going to open up the data file within it. So I'm going to try to open up just the sample file here. And we're going to make a backup of the sample file go through the backup process. Okay, so it doesn't really matter what folders we have open. We're in sample rock castle construction, the sample file provided by Intuit. If at the end of the day, and we would do this typically after each time we have a working session, typically at the end of each day, possibly we would want to maybe back up the file. And so we can go to the file drop down. And we could say we want to backup so we can then create a local backup. We can store previous local backups set up active online backup. So that might be another option to kind of automate the process we here we're going to be creating a local backup. So we'll go through the dialogue box, make a backup copy of everything you need to recreate your company file in case of accidental loss or damage to your data. Do you want to save your backup file online or locally? So remember online could be a good option because then it's on a server other than your C drive.  So get automatic online for your QuickBooks data and other important documents using Intuit's online backup solution. So you can learn more about that here. We're going to do the local backup, save locally to a removable storage device. If you want to not do it on the cloud, possibly you're not connected online all the time when working, you might then have external drives that you can save it to possibly rotating those external drives and having and then storing those drives at least somewhere other than the actual C drive so that if the computer crashes, you have the external drives there possibly in another location if you could as well. So then you've got the options down below. If we click on the options, tell us where you want to save your backup copies. I think if I hit next, it'll actually take us to the same screen. But in any case, I can browse to see where I want to put them. So I'm going to browse. Now it gives you the little drop down and when I go to the next window, it'll give us more of a standard kind of window that doesn't have just the arrows, but I'm going to go into the arrow drop down and we're going to look that I want on the desktop. I want it in the QuickBooks desktop and then I want it in the backup files. There we go. I'm going to say, okay, then we have our options here. Did it go there? What happened? I want here. I want QuickBooks desktop and then backup file. Okay. So there we have it. So add the data and time of the backup file. This is useful because when you put all your backup files to the same location, you want it to have the you want to be able to identify the latest backup file. Otherwise, it'll just have the same name that won't be useful. So that's usually a good thing. It's checked off by default limit the number of backups. So the default is three. You might I would might want more than that if they're not going to take up too much space. Usually more and more people have more and more space these days if you save your backups on an external drive or something like that. So but that allows you to be able to backup every day and have it then remove some of the older backups so that you don't have too much data in the one place. It just doesn't just pile up forever. And then we've got the online and local backup. We've got remind me to backup when I close my computer file every four times. So it'll remind you I would come up with a routine basically trying to backup either using the automatic backups or try to backup every every night or every time you use the software but possibly you can set the reminders here to do it every four times or something like that to give you a reminder that you haven't done it for a while. So that's on default. Select an option to verify that your company data is okay. That is not corrupt when you save. So we've got complete verification. That's the recommendation. So we'll keep it there. You could do the quicker verification or not have any verification at all. So we'll keep it as is. I'm going to say okay. And so you've told us to save that notice it gives us a check here. It's like you told us to save the backup copies to the same hard drive C drive that holds your company file. We do not recommend this instead. We recommend that you save a different drive or a removable storage device to avoid losing the backup due to an unexpected hard drive failure. They're saying why are you saving the backup file to the same drive that your company file is on that defeats the purpose of the backup file. Now this is just for practice. That's why we are doing it and you might have other reasons than just saving your backup file, such as you're practicing with it or testing something out or something like that. But for our purposes, I'm going to say use this location. Thank you for the checkup. And so it's going to be next. And do you want to save your backup file? Save it now, save it on a schedule future backups, save it now and schedule future backups only schedule future backups. And so if you are saving your backup copy to a removable storage device, such as a CD or USB drive, insert it now, we're going to say next. And then it gives you the dropdown again. Notice we already searched the proper location with the little arrows. So this gives you a more, a more dynamic kind of window to find where you want to put it. So you've got that. Then it gives you the file name down below. So notice it gives you the sample file and it gives you the backup timestamp so that you can tell which one it is. The extension now is going to be a QBB file instead of a QBW file, which is the written file, the one you're actually using.  It could take a little bit of time to back up. Usually not too much. It will be dependent on how much data is in your backup file or is in your data file. Okay, it's been complete. I'm going to say, okay, and then let's check out where it went. You do want to know where your backup files are, just like you want to know where your data files are. So we've now we've got, this is our software. I put the two things in this folder. So this folder now has the data files we looked at last time, which looks like this. And then it's got, wait, that was the backup. This is the data file that looks like this. And then we've got the backup file. So if I go back to the other file, the backup file looks like this, I'm going to make this large. So they look similar, but they are different. And look, you notice it gave us the date to the timestamp. So if I have multiple backup files, it will organize by date. So we can see where the latest one is. If I hover over it, you can see it's a backup file. If I right click on it and go to the properties of it properties, we're going to see it's a QBB extension indicating backup file. So just to recap, now we've got our software over here. There's the software icon. We've got the data file, which will open up every time if we're using the same company all the time, which can lead to us for getting words actually located. And we want to know where it is, just in case there's a problem. And then we've got the backup files that we do periodically, which we typically we want to have on some other drive other than the C drive possibly to the cloud that looks something like this, which we wouldn't normally open unless we needed to restore the data for some reason. Now remember, you do have the other options here. If you go to the dropdown and you go to the backup file and you want to set up active online backup, then you can take a look at those options. Intuit data protect creates an automatic local backup of your file daily, reducing the risks of data corruption, computer crashing and power failure. Obviously you would typically need to be connected to the internet in order to allow it to backup daily. Selecting option will help you activate an Intuit. You'll own manage backup file. You want to own manage backup of computer file data. So this I believe will be backing up to the Intuit servers, which should be a secure location. So keep that option in mind. And you could also experiment with basically setting the time for a future backup by going to the file, backup, same process, create a local backup. And then we can say next, and you could schedule a backup only schedule future backups, for example, to test out that option. I don't typically use these as much because usually I would think the best way to get in the habit of doing things is to every time you finish entering data, you just backup the file nightly or use the Quickbooks backup files. So they will do it automatically nightly or you backup every time you use or enter new data into the software would be the general idea. But you can take a look at these options as well to basically set a future date for the backup.


Hello and welcome to this session in which we would look at this exercise that illustrate the concept of failure to pay your taxes, failure to file and failure to pay the estimated income tax. This topic is important. It's on the CPA exam as well as your income tax course. You want to make sure you are familiar with this concept. I do have recording about this also if you are studying for your CPA exam I strongly suggest you check out my website farhatlectures.com. I don't replace your Becker, Roger, Gleam or Wiley. That's not what I do and I can do that. I can be a useful addition to your CPA review course. I can add 10 to 15 points. How do I do so? I explain the material differently. No better, no less. Differently. You may need that different explanation, different perspective to understand the material better and your risk is subscribing for one month. Your return is possibly passing the exam. If you don't like it you can cancel but you would lost one month of subscription but the alternative is not the alternative. The payout is good if it works for you. If not for anything check out my website to determine how well is your university doing or not doing for the CPA exam. I do have resources for other accounting as well as CPA courses. Please connect with me on LinkedIn and on LinkedIn you can view my LinkedIn recommendation actual CPA candidate that used my system. Please like this recording, connect with me on Instagram and Facebook. So Maggie's 2020 tax return was due on April 15, 2021 but she did not file it until June 12, 2021. So Maggie was late and Maggie did not file an extension. So although you file an extension you still have to send the money if you owe any money. Remember that just file an extension. It doesn't mean you don't have to pay the money. The tax due on the tax return when filed was 8,500. So that's the check that Maggie had to write. In 2020 Maggie paid 12,000 through withholding. What does that mean? It means she paid from her W-2. Her W-2 showed 12,000 of withholding. Then she paid herself 8,500 when she filed the return. What does that mean? It means her total tax bill was 20,500 dollars. Her tax liability was 11,500 the prior year. So for the prior year her tax liability was 11,500. 2020 this is 2020 it was 20,500. Maggie's AGI is less than 150,000. How much penalty will Maggie have to pay this regard interest? Now we have to determine what's the penalty that Maggie have to pay. Well for one thing she was late for two months from April 15th till June 15th. Well failure to pay she did not pay her taxes. How much did she owe? She owe 8,500 dollars. So let's start with failure to pay for those two months. Failure to pay we're going to multiply this by 0.5 percent. Let's just make sure we we go through this 0.5 percent then multiply this by two. That's going to be her failure to pay and failure to file because she did not file failure to file 8,500 times here the penalty is 5 percent times two months as well. Okay now let's compute this. This is going to be a little bit redundant but I'm going to have to do this just to show you the concept as well because it's important to understand what concept is taking place here. So let's do this. So if we take now remember this is 0.5 percent which is 0.005 we're going to take 0.005 times two times 8,500 and that's going to be 85 dollars for failure to pay. Then failure to file is 5 percent times two is 10 percent which is 0.1 times 8,500 that's 850 dollars. Now if both penalties apply in the same period which they do for two months then guess what then we'll kind of kind of the IRS says you don't have to pay failure to pay so we can you don't have to pay failure to pay okay therefore those two penalties the total is 850 simply put they in a sense they not they give you a credit but since they are run concurrently they said if they are run concurrently you just have to failure to file penalty not failure to pay you don't worry about failure to pay as long as these two penalties run concurrently which they did for those two months. Now that's her penalty now what about failure to pay estimated income tax she did not pay enough income tax is there a penalty for that well for one thing she's less than 150,000 and if that's the case there are certain rules okay to avoid this penalty they must pay either through withholding a minimum of 90 percent of the current tax or 100 percent of the prior tax assuming the AGI is less than 150 so how can how can how can how can she avoid the penalty well we have to find out what's 90 percent of 20,500 well we really don't have to do that but I'm going to show you the concept the reason I say this because because Maggie paid 20,000 I'm sorry not 20,000 well because the second rule is 100 percent of prior year she did pay 100 percent of prior year the prior year she paid 11,000 she paid 11,000 and this year she paid 12,000 therefore she needed 100 percent of the prior year but just I want to show you the the computation is let's see 20,500 times 0.9 which is she did not pay 8,450 so she did not meet 90 percent of the current year but she meet 100 percent of the prior year she paid little bit more than the prior year just from her withholding for some reason it seems Maggie got a side job and made some extra money and did not pay taxes on this extra money this is what it looks what happened really from this so this is so this is the penalty so there is no penalty for failure to pay estimated taxes there is no penalty for that okay therefore what we did is we computed the failure to pay that we did not count it because failure to file if they both run concurrently we just go 850 no penalty for failure to pay estimated income taxes once again I'm going to invite you to check out my website farhatlectures.com this topic is important for the CPA exam so you really want to know how you compute all these penalties there are different type of penalties I explain it in details good luck of course study hard and stay safe


s to have continuous membership of the European economic area. That is a lot easier to achieve very, very quickly. It is not something that has anything like the difficulties of securing full European Union membership. If that is indeed the SNP's strategy, then this debate is not about finding a way for Scotland to get into or remain in the EU, because Alex Salmond says that now is not the time. This debate is about a decision to call for a second referendum on leaving the UK, regardless of the consequences in relation to Europe. Nicola Sturgeon wants to have that vote in the next two years, as we have heard. She said earlier this afternoon that the future relationship between Britain and Europe will be clear by then, but the only person who can quote in support of that view appears to be Theresa May. EU chief negotiator Michelle Barnier said last week that all the terms of the UK's withdrawals must be settled before trade talks can even start. Pascal Lammy, former director of the WTO, said also last week that I do not think that it can be done within two years. Of course, a few weeks ago, former British ambassador Sir Ivan Rogers summarised the view in Brussels that agreeing a trade deal with the UK may take until the early mid-2020s. I suspect that Michelle Barnier, Pascal Lammy and Sir Ivan Rogers are more likely to be proved right than either Nicola Sturgeon or Theresa May. We cannot yet know what Brexit will look like and nor do we know what the SNP's prospectus will be for leaving the UK. We have heard over the last two weeks that they have no answers on Europe, the currency, the economy or the fiscal deficit. Instead, they insist that a vote in favour of this choice between two unknowns will represent the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Most people would assume the phrase democratic will had something to do with the will of the people, yet neither Nicola Sturgeon nor Patrick Harvie, when asked, could point to any evidence that another referendum is what the people want. All the available evidence says it is not. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will he acknowledge that, consistently throughout this debate, the Greens have acknowledged not only the contradiction between the 2014 and 2016 results in Scotland but that none of us, however we voted in either of those referendums, should be here because the UK Government has taken the result of the UK-wide EU referendum for a mandate for something that it was never supposed to be. Here to implement the democratic will of the Scottish people, we need to listen to the Scottish people. I am listening very hard and I am picking up no demand at all for another independence referendum. The First Minister promised in the heat of the last referendum campaign that she would respect that result but now says that it is trumped by the reference in our party's manifesto. The Greens manifesto said that it should come about by the will of the people and not be driven by calculation of party political advantage. It is a pity that she chose to abandon that view once the election was over. I expect to be a parliamentary majority for another referendum, which the people of Scotland do not want on a question that the Scottish people have already answered. However, the use of that majority for that purpose is a party political choice. It should not be dressed up as somehow representing the people's democratic will. Of course, we would all wish votes in this place to be treated with respect even when we do not agree with him. However, it is surely for Scotland's Government itself to lead on that by example. Speaker after speaker in this debate has asked the First Minister why she has chosen to ignore parliamentary majorities on issues as important as health and education, highland control of highland development and university funding. She will not say, yet she expects others to treat this evening's vote as an expression of the will of the people of Scotland when there is no evidence that it is what the people of Scotland want. Therefore, I would encourage the First Minister to listen to the people of Scotland, to treat all votes of this Parliament with equal respect and, above all, to spare the people of Scotland an independence referendum that the people do not want. Murdo Fraser to wind up for the Conservative Party Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is normal when winding up a debate to say how excellent it has been and paid tribute contributions on all sides. It is very much to my regret that I do not feel that that is appropriate at the end of this debate, because although we have had some very good speeches, overall this has been a disappointing and at times depressing debate. It is a rehash of old arguments on an issue that we believe was settled less than three years ago. If ever there were an argument against a second independence referendum, it has been the last eight hours of parliamentary time that give us a flavour of what the country would have to go through for years to come if the SNP were successful. For this debate has literally been a waste of parliamentary time. Eight hours that could have been spent on education, on the health service, not just now, on our underperforming economy, and at the end of eight hours of debate no one is any the wiser and the arguments have not advanced one iota from where they were previously. One of the few bright spots in this debate was the contribution that was made last Tuesday by Bruce Crawford, who made what I thought was a very important point about tone and language. It is a pity that some of his party colleagues who contributed later in that day seem not to have paid much attention. It is also an issue here for the SNP leadership, not just now. A few weeks ago, I raised with the First Minister the language of the SNP deputy leader of Perthinconross council, Dave Duggan, who went on an extraordinary rant in the council about quizlings and occupying forces. The First Minister at the time condemned such language in general terms, but there has been no explanation, no withdrawal and no apology from Councillor Duggan. Yesterday, he was pictured on the steps of the council headquarters in Perth as an SNP candidate for the coming elections, standing beside a grinning John Swinney. The First Minister called earlier this afternoon for a respectful debate, but it seems that the use of offensive language in her own party is rewarded with an endorsement from her deputy. If the First Minister is serious about taking Mr Crawford's sage advice, then she needs to start leading by example in her own party. Let me respond if I can. Yes, I will give way. I thank Mr Fraser for taking my intervention. A young family member of mine on Twitter asked the Scottish Tories, will you be guaranteed that my partner will be able to return to Scotland after Brexit negotiations are complete? He happens to be in love with a French national. The response from Conservative candidate Linda Holt was, how on earth can guarantee that?  Does Mr Fraser want to apologise for that comment, or has the Tory mask of respectability just slipped? Myrda Fraser. There she goes again. If the member thinks that there is any comparison with that sort of remark and talking about quizzlings and redcoats and occupying forces, then she is on a different planet from the rest of us. Let me get on to responding to the number of points made in the debate, starting with the First Minister's opening speech. I would like to start, if I can, by congratulating the First Minister on what I think is a remarkable success for her. Within the past two weeks, she has managed to achieve something that no previous First Minister or SNP politician has been able to deliver. For years, members of this party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, have deliberated and agonised over the issue of how we make a Conservative Prime Minister in London popular in Scotland once again. For decades, we have faced a situation where, despite our best efforts, it has been difficult for the Scottish people to warm to a Conservative Prime Minister. Much sweat and tears have been expended, vast sums have been spent on speechwriters, on focus groups, on opinion polling, on style consultants to try and turn around the state of affairs to make a Conservative Prime Minister truly popular in Scotland. All that effort could have been saved if only we knew then what we know now. For all that it takes to make a Conservative Prime Minister popular in Scotland, it is for her to say no to Nicola Sturgeon. For that has been the outcome of the events of the past week. As Jackson Carlaw told us earlier, the First Minister had a plan. She would go to Theresa May and demand the power to call a Scottish independence referendum. Theresa May would say no, and such would be the outrage in Scotland at this slap in the face for Scotland's First Minister. We would see a surge in support for independence. There has indeed been a surge in support, but it is not a surge in support for independence. It is a surge in support for Theresa May, because Nicola Sturgeon has achieved something remarkable for an SNP politician and for the First Minister of Scotland. She has boosted the popularity of a Conservative Prime Minister with the people of Scotland. She has created a situation where the First Minister is not just less popular than Ruth Davidson, but she is now less popular than Theresa May, where the people of Scotland. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives Unionist Party, I sincerely thank the First Minister for her efforts on her behalf and keep on the good work on her behalf, First Minister. Much of this debate has centred around the question of mandates for a second independence referendum. In 2014, the First Minister and her deputy and the former First Minister all promised that the 2014 referendum would settle the issue for a generation. Alex Salmond seems to have forgotten that promise despite all the evidence to the country, but that is what we were told at the time. I do not believe that there is any clear mandate in the SNP manifesto for a referendum, but in the Green manifesto there is what he might call a cast iron block to a second referendum. At that manifesto launched back in April last year, if press reports are to be believed, the party's co-convener, Maggie Chapman, said that it would take 100,000 signatures on a petition to trigger a vote for a second referendum. 100,000, but that was not enough, because party managers then changed that figure to 1 million. That is the commitment that green MSPs were voted on. 1 million signatures were required before they were back in the independence referendum. Mr Harvey will now dissence himself from his co-convener. Patrick Harvie. I am sure that Mordo Fraser is quite capable of reading what is in our manifesto rather than misrepresenting what is not in our manifesto, but can he answer, as several of his colleagues have been given the chance and none of them have yet done it, can he answer where on earth the UK Government takes a mandate for leaving the single market on the basis of a manifesto that promised to commit to it on the very same page as committing to an EU referendum? Mordo Fraser. Mr Harvey is trying to rewrite history. He pledged that he would get a million signatures to be seen, because he did not need a million signatures. He was only one signature that the Green Party needed, and that was Nicola Sturgeon's signature on the bottom of the letter instructing him to vote with the SNP at the vote tonight. The people that I feel sorry for are those well-meaning Green Party voters of Scotland. All those earnest folk—we know them all with their homespun woolens and their recycled bicycles and their vegan diets—are all coming out to vote for the Green Party, because they are concerned about the environment, about climate change, about pollution, about the birds, about the bees and about the beavers. All of them voting green for a myriad of reasons, but not once thinking that they were handing a blank check to their group of MSPs to do the SNP's bidding at every turn. For it is beyond doubt, despite Mr Whiteman's protest, that the Greens have departed from the position that they set out at the election last year, and no wonder so many of their voters feel betrayed by the current shower of green MSPs. The First Minister argues that, if Parliament votes this afternoon for the section 30 powers to be transferred from Westminster, it will be a democratic outrage if it is refused by the UK Government. However, we have heard time and time again in this debate from members across the Parliament that this is not followed by the SNP when it comes to votes in this Parliament. When this Parliament voted against NHS closures, did the SNP Government act? When it voted against the abolition of the board of HIE, did the Government act? When the Parliament voted against the scrapping of the Scottish funding council board, did the Scottish Government act? And when this Parliament voted to abolish the ludicrous and discredited offensive behaviour of football acts, did this Government listen? No, they did not. They ignored this Parliament and they treated the views of its members with contempt. So what breathtaking hypocrisy for the SNP now to claim that the Westminster Government must listen to the will of this Parliament, whether it routinely dismisses votes in this Parliament and treats them with contempt? Presiding Officer, let us be clear what happens if the SNP get their way on this issue. It means campaign teams on the streets by the weekend, unionists and nationalist camps, back out knocking doors, demanding your vote. A vote to support the SNP motion is a vote to put your school and your local hospital to the back of the queue from tomorrow because the Scottish Government would start working immediately on beginning another unnecessary and divisive campaign. And rather than getting back to work after this debate to sort out the mess that she's made of your children's education, Nicola Sturgeon will be going into the office tomorrow with a campaign for independence at the top of her to-do list. The countdown would begin tomorrow, which is utterly unfair to voters, given that we don't know how our new relationship with Europe will play out and we still have no idea whether, after independence, we keep the pound or we go back into the EU. Presiding Officer, I expect tonight's vote will be narrowly in favour of the Government's motion, with the Green Party MSPs betraying their own manifesto and their own voters. However, let us be absolutely clear that if that is the vote of this Parliament tonight, on this issue, the Parliament, the SNP and the First Minister do not speak for Scotland. Presiding Officer, the SNP might be turning their backs on the people of Scotland, but we will not. We will continue to speak up for them and say boldly and clearly to the SNP, just as we as a country did in 2014. No thanks. The First Minister opened this afternoon's part of the debate by recalling the horror of last Wednesday's events in Westminster. I opened the conclusion of this debate with those same sentiments and the reminder of the significance of the democratic process that beats at the heart of our community. That is what this debate has been about. It has been about a democratic discussion and the difference of opinion. Democracy cannot thrive unless there is a difference of opinion. There must be contending propositions that people put forward. That difference is at the heart of the democratic choice that every citizen has to make and every politician has to consider and wrestle with. Of course, those sentiments were anchored in the debate by three very strong contributions from Bruce Crawford, and Murdo Fraser paid one tribute to Bruce Crawford's speech, but chose to ignore most of the sentiments in the speech that he delivered to Parliament just now. On the speech by Ruth Maguire, which I thought was a really considered reflection on the need for there to be respectful debate about issues of significance to the future of our country, on the beautiful speech that Kate Forbes made, which drew together the great Gaelic tradition of our country and expressed it so powerfully to Parliament about the importance of fair and open discourse within our country. That is the debate that we have to have. I appreciate and I am on the receiving end frequently of social media comments and political comments that are hostile and aggressive, and I know that other people are too, but we have a duty in this Parliament to try to lead by example about the quality and the depth of the debate that we take forward and to wrestle with the genuine choices that face us all. That brings me on to the crux of the starting point of this debate, which is about whether or not there is any mandate for the Scottish Government to take forward the proposition that we are putting before Parliament this afternoon for there to be a second referendum on the question of independence. I go back to the wording of our manifesto in 2016, which I would remind Parliament, was supported in the constituency ballot by 46.5 per cent of the electorate in Scotland. The largest share of the vote that any Government has been elected in the United Kingdom with since the mid-1960s is a huge mandate, larger than the mandate that returned us in 2011. That manifesto said that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstance that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. The reason why that is significant is because we all know whatever side of the argument that we were on in 2014, we all know that the question of EU membership was a fundamental question in the debate in 2014. The no campaign made the point clearly and firmly in my own hearing around the country that the way to guarantee Scotland's membership of the European Union was to vote no. Scotland voted no, and our membership of the European Union has been taken away from us against our will. Of course, I give way to Pauline McNeill. Based on that logic, there has been a material breach and you have a mandate, but surely the question that you would want to put to the Scottish people then is an independent Scotland within the EU, and I do not hear you saying that. That is the position of the Government, and that is my position, and it is the position of my party, so I hope that that clarifies the matter for Pauline McNeill. That brings me on to the reconciliation of the outcomes of the two referendum in 2014 and 2016. In that respect, if Johann Lamont would allow me to make a lot more progress on this question, that brings me to the contributions of Andy Wightman and Jackson Carlaw, because they wrestled with the same question. Andy Wightman said that the outcome of the 2014 referendum and the outcome of the 2016 referendum are incompatible without a further choice being exercised, and I think that there is the rationale that supports that. Jackson Carlaw made a contribution in response to an intervention from my colleague Stuart McMillan. In 2014, his constituents had voted no. In 2016, they had voted remain, but they had somehow lost. They were not to get the outcome in 2016 that they voted for in Mr Carlaw's constituency, Orange Scotland. The point is that there is an incompatibility, as Mr Wightman said, between the outcome of the 2014 referendum and the 2016 referendum, which, for me, is the rational justification for us to ask this question again to the people of Scotland. Jackson Carlaw. In wrestling with that incompatibility, I have said that I have taken the decision and the constituents have taken the view that we will respect the outcome of both referendums. It seems that the Scottish Government's response is to accept the outcome of neither referendum. What we have acknowledged is the incompatibility of those two outcomes and seek to give the people the choice to determine their own future. That brings me on to the efforts that we have gone to as an administration to try to resolve those questions. When the Prime Minister came to meet with the First Minister in July 2016, the First Minister made it very clear that she wanted to secure an agreed UK position before she triggered article 50. Parliament, essentially, argued for many of those aspects when Parliament on 28 June argued for us to explore a relationship that would maintain Scotland's place in the single market with the social employment and economic benefits that flow from that relationship. The Joint Ministerial Committee has, in its remit, the desire to seek to agree a UK approach to objectives in the article 50 negotiations. The Scottish Government published Scotland's place in Europe, I would say to Parliament to very, very wide endorsement across many, many views outwith the Government and supporters of the Scottish National Party as being a very strong and legitimate approach to trying to secure compromise and pillar by pillar. That agreement was pulled down by the UK Government, single market on migration on the customs union. We are left with a situation in which we as a Government have, in good faith, gone through a process of trying to secure agreement that would maintain the benefits of EU membership, accepting that we are leaving the European Union within the United Kingdom and the UK Government as evidence from the fact that we have got absolutely nowhere in the process of joint ministerial discussion to get to a conclusion. Ruth Davidson I would like the Deputy First Minister to comment on good faith when any efforts that were made post Brexit from this Government became, after his leader and the First Minister of this country stood up in Bute House and said that, within three hours of the last vote being counted in the Brexit referendum, she had already instructed Scottish Government employees to draw up the requisite legislation for another independence referendum. She was always coming to this point and nothing was going to stop her. The First Minister That might suit Ruth Davidson's narrative but it is not the case. It did not stop the Prime Minister coming to Bute House after that statement and inviting the Scottish Government to make its contribution to the UK Government process. However, what has not protected us has been the decision of the UK Government to go for a hard Brexit in which many, many leave voters did not actually want to happen. What we have seen is, stage by stage, the opportunity for the Scottish Government to make progress on this question being ruled out by the decisions and the actions of the UK Government. Why does all this matter, Presiding Officer? Why does this matter? Because of many of the experiences that I went through as a member of the Smith commission and a number of other members around the Parliamentary Chamber. We spent hours of our lives agreeing the importance of improving inter-governmental relationships so that there would be a better way to get to an agreed UK position and what this process has shown is that that was not possible with the way in which the United Kingdom Government embarked on this process. Finally, we come to the issues, Presiding Officer, about what lies, for me, is at the heart of the debate about whether or not the referendum should take place or not. That is about whether or not the country, about what type of country we want to live in and what type of society we want to be part of, has been lots of accusations made against my party about the fact that we apparently are people that divide others. That has been the accusation that has been made across this chamber. Claire Adamson made a remark in the debate about the way in which the term othering has been used in UK debate. Of any of us, all of us have heard many individuals dividing our country with the accusations against migrants and EU nationals, people that today we need to work in our public services and in our companies in our country who provide invaluable contributions to our economy. Division has been sown by those who have spent years arguing against the forces of migration that have been beneficial to Scotland, and we should be grateful for that. Alex Rowley made a very fine speech in the debate. You can take it at one more intervention. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would share my concern in the othering that is going on in this country right now that implies that everyone right across the United Kingdom, apart from Scotland, is uniquely unconcerned about the question of refugees and EU nationals. There are plenty of people right across the United Kingdom who would agree with us, and it is unhelpful to redefine the rest of the United Kingdom as somewhere beyond the pale. I am absolutely certain that there are people across the United Kingdom. I read their comments in the news media and the social media, deeply dispirited by where debate in the United Kingdom has got to. The question, and this is where I come to Mr Rowley's fine contribution to the debate, is what do we do about it? Mr Rowley said that we cannot allow the Tories to dictate the terms of a hard Brexit, and I unreservedly agree with Mr Rowley in that respect, but we are being marched step by step to a hard Brexit and over the cliff by a United Kingdom Government that is not representing the values and the aspirations that brought me into politics. I make no apology for defending those values and those aspirations because they matter deeply and personally to me. The crucial thing is that I want to do something about it. I want to make sure that my country has the opportunity to shape its future, devoid of that awful agenda that has contaminated political debate in the United Kingdom, that has been fuelled by the Conservative Party in its determination to see off UKIP, and I want to make sure that we build in this country the best possible future for our country and that we can best do that with the powers of independence. That concludes our debate on Scotland's choice, and we move to decision time. There are five questions to be put today. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Ruth Davidson is agreed, then all other amendments fail. The first question is that amendment 4710.2, in the name of Ruth Davidson, which seeks to amend motion 4710 in the name of the First Minister on Scotland's choice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4710.2, in the name of Ruth Davidson, is yes, 31, no, 97. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. If the amendment in the name of Kezia Dugdale is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvey and Willie Rennie fail. The next question is that amendment 4710.4, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Kezia Dugdale is yes, 28, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 4710.5, in the name of Patrick Harvey, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland's choice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4710.5, in the name of Patrick Harvey, is yes, 69, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 4710.3, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4710.3, in the name of Willie Rennie, is yes, 28, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 4710, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland's choice, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 4710, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, as amended, is yes, 69, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll now move to members' business in the name of Graham Day. I would ask members to leave the chamber quietly.


Alright everyone, next speaker up is Michael Hiller. He's an attorney based in Manhattan. Is that accurate? That is accurate. And he does a lot of work in cannabis, but really he does a lot of work in a lot of fields and a lot of his very interesting as I found out. But today he's going to talk about the lawsuit regarding federal legalization. That's right. So without further ado. Thanks, I think I better use it. It's just off. Okay. Check it, is it? Yeah. Hey guys, how you doing? I'm Michael Hiller and I'm here to talk about the lawsuit we brought against Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department to decriminalize cannabis across the United States. Thank you. Just a little bit of background about me. I was a constitutional law professor for eight years and I'm now principal of Hiller PC. We represent the cannabis industry throughout the United States and it's our desire and goal to legalize cannabis and make it available to whoever wants it. In order to talk about the lawsuit, we have to go back up a little bit in time to 1970. In 1970, the Nixon administration drafted and then pushed through Congress legislation, the controlled substances act, which criminalized cannabis and pushed it into Schedule 1 of a five schedule framework which essentially made it illegal to possess, use, sell or distribute cannabis. And it renders possession sale distribution of cannabis a felony with a five year minimum prison term. And that law still exists today. Not only does the law exist but the scheduling and classification of cannabis still exists today, not withstanding everything you've heard or read about cannabis. So what are we talking about? How is it illegal and federally when in fact in state law there are now 30 states that have some form of legalization program. Medical marijuana is available in 30 states throughout the United States and just to give you a sense of perspective here, over 200 million Americans today live in a state where there's some form of legalized cannabis. And of those 30 states, there are 10, I'm sorry, there are nine where cannabis is legal not only for medical use but for any use, adult use, recreational use. And for those of you who are curious, Nevada is one of them so I know what we're all doing tonight, party at my house. So what's interesting about this is how is it that cannabis is illegal on the federal level but there are 30 states, with over 200 million Americans living in states where cannabis is legal for medical purposes. And over 90 million Americans, including the 40 million who live in California, which is the fifth largest economy in the world, how is it legal for recreational use there? That doesn't make any sense. And if you think about it over the course of America's history, there's the federal government and then there's state governments, right? And the way it works under our Constitution is if something is illegal under federal law, state law can't make it legal. That's something called the supremacy clause and the federal government has enforced the supremacy clause consistently for over 200 years. But clearly that's not what they're doing now. So why aren't they doing it now? Well, let's just back this up for a second and talk about what the federal government is doing because it's illegal under federal law. It's legal under 30 state laws. How is that possible? Well, the federal government, the Congress specifically enacted legislation beginning in 2014, which are basically funding riders to every piece of appropriations legislation. What that is being done, what's being done is Congress has defunded the Justice Department from prosecuting any claims against state legal medical marijuana use in states where it's legal. So that means that even though the Justice Department may want to enforce the controlled substances act, it simply lacks the funds with which to do so. And so what that basically means is that even though the federal government has made it illegal, they can't enforce the law. So what does that really mean in real life? You're thinking to yourself, well, if that's the case, I don't have to worry about cannabis because if I live in a state where it's legal, I don't have to worry about it. The problem you have is that it can change on a dime. Right now the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, feel free to hiss if you'd like. Jeff Sessions, thank you very much. Jeff Sessions has made it clear from the very moment he took his oath of office that it's his desire to ban cannabis across the United States. And why does he want to do that? Because he says that he used to like the KKK until he found out they smoked weed. That's a direct quote from 1986. He actually said that. In addition, Jeff Sessions has also said that good people don't smoke marijuana.  Clearly, Jeff Sessions doesn't know what he's talking about, but what else is new? So the big problem is that they could switch this anytime they want because these funding writers last only a year. So 2014, 15, 16, and 17, it was renewed on time every year. In 2018, they waited two weeks. So for two weeks, believe it or not, every cannabis program in the United States was actually at risk. And think about this. What does that mean for people who have cannabis businesses? How many people have a cannabis business now? Just one. Guys, get out there. So the thing about investing in cannabis businesses is if you've poured a lot of capital into a cannabis business, and all of a sudden the United States government decides to revoke the funding writers, then the United States government can start prosecuting you for selling cannabis or distributing it. And not only just selling and distributing cannabis, but think about the ancillary businesses, right, security, lab testing, extraction, all of those businesses, you threw tons of money in, you'll lose it. So that's why it was really critical for us to go out and file a lawsuit against Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department and the DEA to stop them from prosecuting people from cannabis to stop them from changing their minds. And there's something else to consider. Let's go back to the map. Now just take a look for a second example at Colorado. Let's say you lived in Colorado and you wanted to go to the East Coast. How could you do it? Now your first thought is I jump on a plane, but you can't. Why? Because the rule about the federal government not enforcing cannabis only applies in states where it's legal and you're acting in conformity with state law. So if you get on an airplane, which is regulated by the FAA, the federal government, and they catch you with cannabis, you can be prosecuted under the CSA with a five-year minimum. It's for real. In addition, let's say, okay, I want to take a plane, I'll take a train. Trains are federally regulated too. Okay, even federal roads are regulated. So you go on state roads. Okay, now we're going to take a state road, no problem. Try to make your way from Colorado to the East Coast. You can't do it. You're going to have to go through Missouri a little bit, and you're really taking a risk there.  So there really is no way to go. So I represent people all across the United States who can't leave their home states because some of them need cannabis to live. And they have to have it on them like an EpiPen. Like if you're allergic to peanuts and you need to have an EpiPen, I have clients who need cannabis on them at all times because they have epileptic conditions which require cannabis to relieve their symptoms. And if they don't, they could die. So we needed to file a lawsuit against Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department to get them to change their minds. Because Lord knows that's the only way to do it. Why? Well, because in the United States government, they simply don't have it together. I'm looking at my next slide and it looks like it's incomplete. Okay, I'm sorry guys. There we go. All right, so let me back up for a second. So the United States government has the law about cannabis and we've got to do something about it. So what we did was we sued on five grounds. The first one was that the controlled substances act and the designation of cannabis is so irrational that it violates the Constitution.  Congress can pass ill-conceived laws, poorly drafted laws, laws that don't represent good public policy. But what they cannot do is they can pass a law that simply makes no sense. And one of our arguments, our principle argument is the laws governing cannabis make no sense. And I'll talk about that in a minute. The second claim we have is that cannabis, and you heard this from the prior presentation if you were here, the laws against cannabis are rooted in racism and discrimination and efforts to suppress people's political and civil rights. In addition, the laws against cannabis, believe it or not, deprive you of your free speech, your right to travel, and your rights under the Commerce Clause. So let's unpack that first. How is it that cannabis, the laws governing cannabis, are so irrational that they violate the Constitution? Well, to be regulated the way cannabis is, it has to be regulated in what's called Schedule 1. The Controlled Substances Act has five schedules, and the first schedule is the one that's the most serious, it's the one where they have the drugs that are supposedly the most dangerous. Which drugs are on Schedule 1? Ecstasy, heroin, cannabis. Now, as you can imagine, you think of heroin, you think of cannabis, you think very different drugs, right? You take heroin, you're instantly addicted, it changes your life forever the first time you take it. Cannabis, of course not, it's ridiculous. But just think for a second what you need to have in order to be a Schedule 1 drug. When you see the three Schedule 1 requirements, you're going to think, oh, heroin, that makes sense. Cannabis? Not so much. So these are the three requirements. Number one, cannabis has to be subject to high levels of abuse, which the government says is co-extensive with addiction, physical addiction. Think heroin, of course. It has to have no medical benefits whatsoever. Cannabis has to have no medical benefits whatsoever. And lastly, it has to be so dangerous that any use, even under strict medical supervision, causes extreme danger to the person using it. So you look at this and you think, how could cannabis be on that list? Because it has to be all three. How could Congress have placed this on the list? There's your answer.  I mean, the Congress should never have put this on the list. Cannabis doesn't belong on the list. And so we recognized very early on when we started studying the issue that the last thing we're going to do is try to go to Congress and try to get them to change it. So we went to court and we filed an action which is entitled Washington versus Sessions. Washington is Marvin Washington, former Super Bowl champion of the Denver Broncos. He was also a player on the Jetson. He made the wise decision to leave that team so he wanted to go to one that wins. I'm from New York, by the way. Full disclosure. That's why I know. So we also represent a number of other people who desperately need cannabis to live. Alexis Bortel, who suffers from intractable epilepsy, a little boy named Jagger Cot, who suffers from lead disease, the Cannabis Cultural Association, and Jose Bellin. And for those of you who are at the last presentation, the prior speakers held up a magazine that said Weed Newsweek. The story is actually about Jose Bellin. He's an Iraq War veteran.  He developed post-traumatic stress disorder, wanted to kill himself. And amazingly, once he started cannabis, all of his symptoms went away. So we filed the lawsuit and we argued, again, that cannabis makes no sense. The laws make no sense to criminalize cannabis. So let's go back to those three requirements and I'll show you how it doesn't make sense. I want for today, just focus on number two it has to have no medical benefits whatsoever and it has to be so dangerous it can't be used even under strict medical supervision. Okay, so here's reveal number one. The United States government owns a medical patent on medical cannabis. Let me say that again. The United States government since 2002 has held a medical marijuana cannabis patent.  It's mind-boggling. Now to get a patent in the United States you have to show that it has some utility. That it has actually works. So the United States government did that. The United States government represented to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that cannabis helps treat Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, HIV induced dementia, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory diseases. And not only that, after that the United States government went to the World Intellectual Properties Organization and got an international patent and then licensed medical marijuana all over the world. That's right, you can actually get American-made marijuana overseas but you can't get it here. Well actually you can a little bit. I'll talk to you about that in a second. But the point is, let's go back for a second to that number two. Has no medical application whatsoever. You gotta be kidding me. They have one that says it does have medical application and it's the United States government. And if that's where all I had, I think it'd be enough but I have more. And I think it's a good question. Would you believe that beginning in 1976 the United States government started growing and distributing cannabis and distributing it to patients all over the country? Pursuant to the Investigational New Drug Program, the United States government actually distributes 30 to 40,000 joints worth of cannabis every year. And if you want to see where the United States government gets its grow, go to the University of Mississippi. That is the federal government's stash at the University of Mississippi. The governments grow there. And so you think to yourself, wait a second, how can the government say it has no medical benefits whatsoever, but they are distributing cannabis to patients through this Investigational New Drug Program? You got me if you know the answer to that question. But I'll take you one step further. In order to be part of the Investigational New Drug Program, number one, the FDA has to believe that there is no reasonable base to conclude. In order for the FDA to include it, there must be some evidence, a reasonable base to conclude that the drug is effective, and also that including it in the drug program will not harm people. Well, if the government believes that cannabis is not going to harm people, it actually could have some medical benefit, well then why is it a Schedule I drug, which is supposedly has no medical applications whatsoever, and is too dangerous in medical treatment, even under strict medical supervision. And by the way, so that you all know, there's no medical supervision in the Investigational New Drug Program. They simply send out the weed, that's the way it works. And if that weren't enough, I'm telling you, it's crazy. In 1988 there was a huge dispute between advocates in support of medical cannabis and the federal government. They started a lawsuit and a study was generated in 1988, 30 years ago, and at the end of that study, here's what the results were. Marijuana has a currently accepted medical use and treatment in the United States. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious to find otherwise. 1988, 30 years ago, they found this, that it's currently accepted in medical use. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. Now you might say, well, who commissioned the study? Was it some pot lover? Was it some pot supportive scientist? Administrative law judge Francis Young. The United States government has a judge who made this finding during a contested proceeding. And if that weren't enough, if it weren't enough that the United States government has a federal patent, a medical marijuana patent has its own stash pursuant to which it distributes 30,000 to 40,000 joints worth of weed every year after growing it at its stash operation in the University of Mississippi. And if it weren't enough that there weren't this study, how about this? On June 26th of this year, the United States government approved the first medical cannabis drug through the federal drug administration, the Food and Drug Administration. This is actually a press release from the U.S. FDA. And you know what it's for the treatment of? It's for epileptic seizures, children. So you think to yourself, oh my God, they're going to be saving kids. Well in my lawsuit when we brought this action you know what the defense was from the federal government? Marijuana should be classified as a schedule one substance because it might be abused by or cause harm to minors. So the first FDA drug, cannabis drug, was approved to help minors meanwhile they're saying that it could kill minors. Again, it simply makes no sense and this is literally the tip of the iceberg. If I had two hours I can give you a lot more, but there's a lot of other evidence here. There's the Schaefer Commission report. The Schaefer Commission report was commissioned by the Nix administration and Governor Schaefer was the law and order governor from Pennsylvania. He was going to come in, he was Nixon's buddy and he was going to find that cannabis was too dangerous to distribute. Unfortunately for President Nixon Schaefer came back and said we think we should decriminalize cannabis. In addition there's something called the Coal Memorand where the United States government for five years specifically instructed U.S. attorneys not to prosecute cannabis users and businesses because they felt that it was better to use their time and resources elsewhere. The Audde Memorand was an extension of the Coal Memorand. The United States Surgeon General in 2014 announced on national television that cannabis constitutes an effective drug for the treatment of disease. The DEA was forced to remove language from its website that cannabis is a gateway drug. What happened was some really smart lawyer came up and said, that wasn't me by the way, some really smart lawyer came up and said you know what that violates the Internet the information quality act which requires that all government websites include truthful information and it was not true that cannabis was a gateway drug. They sued and they got everything removed. In addition even though the investigation of new drug program is not supervised by the federal government Missoula University came up with a study and confirmed that every single person who took medical cannabis distributed by the federal government pursuant to the investigation of the new drug program started in 1976, everyone got better. Every single person got better. I talked to you about the funding writers, the United States government has defunded the Justice Department. Congress allowed the District of Columbia to legalize cannabis. Now the thing about that is that Congress actually had the power to stop it from happening but Congress specifically chose not to do so as a recreational cannabis program. So you might think to yourself well when did this happen? Is this all recent? How did cannabis how did people start using cannabis and when did people start thinking about it in the United States? You'll never believe who one of the most prominent hemp farmers in the history of the United States is. George Washington was a hemp farmer and he talks in his diaries and correspondence about how much he enjoyed smoking his sweet hemp. Sweet hemp was what colonists and pre-constitutional Americans used to call weed. Sweet hemp. Not just him, Thomas Jefferson was a very successful hemp farmer. James Madison actually said that sweet hemp was how the framers was one of the things he used to inspire him to draft the Constitution and it's not just those presidents, lots of presidents smoked pot. And don't believe Bill Clinton, he inhaled. And Barack Obama said that he inhaled. Barack Obama said he inhaled. You know why? Because that was the point. Jimmy Carter smoked weed. George W. Bush smoked weed. And don't believe anything you hear. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and the guy who's in the White House now. They've all smoked weed. And you know what? They've all lived to tell about it. And I can tell you that when you look at a cannabis in the United States I mean we should go back a little bit further. In 1860 the United States actually published something called the pharmacopia. For those of you who are old enough there used to be something called the physician's desk reference. Basically it was a list of all accepted medications that had been recognized by the medical establishment. Would you believe that cannabis was in there? Cannabis was there, talked about menstrual cramps, migraine headaches, insomnia, digestive disorders. And then in the 20th century cannabis was expanded to be used. Are you ready for this? For treatment of asthma. Now even today if you speak to a pulmonologist and you ask a pulmonologist about whether or not cannabis can help with asthma most of them will say it does work but they don't know why. I'm convinced it's the anti-inflammatory qualities of cannabis because asthma is an inflammatory reaction in the pulmonary system but regardless the point is that you actually used to use cannabis to treat asthma. In 1942 during World War II the United States government started publishing handbooks which were listed hemp for victory. They were encouraging farmers to grow hemp. In 1944 the LaGuardia Commission actually was commissioned to again show that cannabis was really dangerous and that it was a gateway drug. This is the report that came out and again this is a consistent theme. Every time they try to commission a study to show that cannabis is dangerous they come up with the opposite result. Smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the world. The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking. Marijuana is not a determining factor in the commission of major crimes. The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded. Every time they look at the issue they know it's a lie. How did they come up with the most recent version of their lie? Well, again, let's go back to 1970 in the Nixon administration. If you look back at your history you'll remember that at the time we were in a state of crisis, right? The Vietnam War was raging. The 60s were still raging. Nixon was really an establishment politician facing a cultural transformative shift in American society. So he saw certain groups as enemies of his administration. And the thing, the common element between the two, between those groups and between the groups that were against him was cannabis. So, what do we know? John Ehrlichman was Counsel and Assistant to President Nixon and this is what he said on the record. You want to know what this was really all about? Nixon had two enemies, the anti-war left and the black people. We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black. But by getting the public to associate the hippies and marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. John Ehrlichman, the Chief Counsel to the President of the United States, acknowledged that the war on drugs was a lie. And it's not just John Ehrlichman. H.R. Haldeman contemporariously reported all that information in his diary. You guys probably know this guy, he's on CNN from time to time. Roger Stone, he's a big friend of Donald Trump's. I actually met Roger Stone. He was a witness in our case. He provided us with an affidavit and Roger Stone was at ground zero for the war on drugs because he met with Miles Ambrose and discussed America's drug policy in 1971. And Miles Ambrose disclosed to him that the entire point of criminalizing cannabis was to suppress the rights of African-Americans and those against the war. This is the fight. We are talking about a law that is purely rooted in racism and it's having effects today because today, as I mentioned earlier a lot of people, thousands of people who need an administration of cannabis to live and they are fighting this war which was started again out of racism. And unfortunately the poster child for the current position on cannabis is this guy. First it starts with marijuana next thing you know they'll be listening to Lindy Hoppin dancing with the colored folk. This is the face of the anti-canabis movement. Now under the controlled substance act the way it works is the attorney general actually can de-schedule cannabis. There's no way that he's going to do it obviously. And so we actually thought should we try to lobby the attorney general to get him to change it? Well of course not because I mean he's so narrow minded and bigoted it's impossible to get him to agree to anything that would be in any way open-minded about cannabis. So we knew we couldn't go that route. So what we did was we filed our lawsuit. And as I emphasized you today the principal claim in the lawsuit is that the laws governing cannabis simply make no sense. I'm going to go back to the beginning just briefly to show you those three requirements. Again all three requirements must be met. Is it rational in any sense of the word that there's no medical applications whatsoever in the United States for cannabis? When the United States government has a patent on it? Of course not. Is it too dangerous for medical treatment even under strict medical supervision when the United States government is growing cannabis and distributing it to patients all over the country for the last 42 years? Of course not. We need a judicial solution because the legislative solution simply isn't possible. And the fact of the matter is that the courts have to step in when Congress acts unconstitutionally which is exactly what we have here today. The United States government is acting unconstitutionally. So in just wrapping up what I would say to you guys I get a lot of questions when I speak about the lawsuit. What can we do next? How can we make it so that we can all make a difference? The first thing I would say is keep the pressure on. If you're on social media and you're comfortable talking about cannabis talk about today's talk. And by the way Google some of the things we talked about if you're a little bit skeptical or you want to block and copy in a couple of those articles put them in. You can find that patent on the internet. You can find all the evidence of the government's program in Mississippi, the Missoula study, the Schaefer commission report. You can get all that information online. So first of all I would say try to do it and if you're not a Facebook person, Twitter, Instagram, however you can do it. The second thing is we are going to be arguing this case sometime between September of this year and the end of the year December 31st. If any of you are in New York come to the argument. It's in the second circuit courthouse at 40 Center Street in Manhattan. Show up because it's really important that the judiciary sees how important this is to all of us because when it comes down to it, when people ask me if this is a lawsuit about weed I always say the same thing. It's not a lawsuit about weed. It's a civil rights case because Congress shouldn't be imposing laws on us that are irrational and they shouldn't be imposing laws on us that are rooted in racism and bigotry. The government shouldn't be enforcing laws which prevent people from traveling because remember if you are someone who relies on cannabis to live and you live, let's say, in Colorado you can't go to Washington, D.C. and advocate to your public officials and say listen, I'm living proof that cannabis works and so as a result, believe it or not the only voices that the people in D.C. get to hear are those who are against cannabis because those who show up are concerned about being stigmatized or some of them don't know at all. So it encroaches on your rights to free speech, your rights to travel and it violates the Commerce Clause because the last thing that anyone who was drafting the Constitution was thinking was that in some way a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. could control whether or not somebody wants to sit in their room and light up a joint. There's no way that the Constitution was intended to have that reach from the federal government. Anyway I'm available to answer any questions you might have but thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to speaking with you. I'm glad to take questions if you have them or otherwise we can just go to the panel. What's that? I wish he's never going to show up but I've invited him several times he never accepts the invitation. The lawyers we're arguing up against are lawyers from the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office and the only way I get Jeff Sessions in a room and I'll tell you there's one way actually and that is if he shows up for his deposition leave me all your information I'll invite all you guys to come. It's going to be a lot of fun because I can't wait to ask him questions about all this stuff. It'd be remarkable to hear him try to answer them. So when that day comes I'll let you know Bill and distribute the list. Yes. That's a great question. And really it's a significant dispute in the cannabis industry because there are companies, green companies that are actually patenting strains of cannabis. So the answer to your question is the way you extract the THC from the plant creates a particular strain the terpenes you put in put in a particular strain. There are different ways to harvest cannabis and to use and to develop it so that it adds a certain man-made component to it. So you cannot patent water that you find in a spring but if you do something to the water it's different than you can patented. And so the government has patented cannabis both at the federal level and also as I said internationally and there are other companies that have done the same. Yeah, but if you add let's say the stomach cure put some pimples in the water and make a patent. You're not really patenting the water you're patenting the compact. Or the process. This is also a big problem with Monsanto. You say, oh well they can patent a strain. Well still that's a natural plant created by Mother Earth and Creator God. It's not something like the corn made by Monsanto. I mean I'm Native American we've been making strains of plants for 40,000 years before Monsanto was doing it. I mean we have a thousand varieties of corn and you know different types of potatoes that we make on natural things. And if you ask Native American, did you make that potato? They'll tell you Mother Earth made that potato. Well as I said, I have to tell you that what you're raising, the issue you're raising is something that's a hotbed legal issue in the cannabis world because there are companies right now in California in particular that are patenting products and it's a really contentious issue because some people take the position that you take, which is you can't patent something that's growing naturally and their response has consistently been we're doing something different to it. So what I would say to you is I would follow it on the internet, because this is an issue that's going to develop over time. There's been no final determination on it by the Supreme Court but I'm looking forward to hearing about it because it's an interesting issue. But that plan, even if it's a different string, it's still a plant, it's really a living thing. But then again, we get into the genome thing. It seems like we're getting patents on everything and so pretty soon we won't even know around itself. Yeah, I hear you. Yes? Yes. So there is a treaty in 2005 for the Supreme Court case, Gonzalez-Bissray. Yes. I'm sure you're familiar with that because the Supreme Court decides that the Congress can prohibit you from growing something in your home for personal use, because it affects interstate commorts in theory. So do you think this would affect the outcome of your case and do you plan anything about it? So we have actually asked the courts to overrule Gonzalez-Bissray, but let's be clear about the scope of Gonzalez. The Gonzalez-Bissray case stands for the proposition that the United States Congress has the power to regulate the growth and harvesting of cannabis even if it occurs entirely within a single state. Now, under our Constitution, Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce, commerce between the United States and other countries, and commerce between the United States and Native American tribes. Congress is not supposed to have the power to regulate commerce that occurs entirely within a single state. And in 1942, there was a case called the Harvesting of Wheat, which involved the harvesting of wheat. Some guy was growing wheat on his own farm and the federal government was saying, listen, we have a wheat program, and if everybody starts growing wheat on their own farm, it's going to depress the price of wheat, which is going to hurt our war effort. They convinced the United States Supreme Court to say, yep, that's true, you can actually, Congress has the power to reach into a single farm and regulate it. And on the basis of that Wicked case, if we can regulate a single farm, we can obviously regulate what goes on within a single state. I can tell you that right now the composition of the Supreme Court is likely not to support that decision anymore. There are four conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and there may very well be a fifth one soon. And I can tell you, those five Supreme Court justices are very unlikely to support Gonzalez vs. Raich. So we have strategically decided to not only sue on the basis of the two process clause equal protection, the racism and the irrationality issues, but also on the commerce issue, because we know that when we get to the Supreme Court we will have at least four judges who are going to look at the Gonzalez vs. Raich case and the commerce clause case and say, you know what, Congress didn't have the right in the first instance to regulate cannabis back in 1970, so therefore the whole statute is unconstitutional, and then we're done. Yes. Thank you. The Supreme Court will approve the Supreme Court's consent. They will appeal. Absolutely. And what I can tell you about it is I look forward to it. I really do. I want this case to go to the Supreme Court because I do want us to win it. Yes. Well, there are two things. Our goal is to have the controlled substances act declared unconstitutional. And once that happens, well, we have limited as to the designation of cannabis. And we want to have it available to everybody. Sorry, for those of you who are interested in that. So, but we are asking for the law governing cannabis to be declared unconstitutional. And once it's declared unconstitutional, that means that it's not like the court says, okay, we'll make it Schedule 2 or Schedule 3. No, it's completely off the chart, which means it's completely decriminalized. And if Congress wants to change that, I will say this and I know I'm running long on time. I'll just say, you okay? I tell you this, we have the midterm elections coming up in November and there have been more than a few whispers that the Republicans who are concerned about losing their majority in the House of Representatives are thinking of changing their perspective on cannabis. For those of you who will remember, John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, Republican, Conservative Republican, is now a member of a green company, a cannabis company, a member of the Board of Directors. His partner William Weld is a Republican from Massachusetts, former Governor of Massachusetts also joined the same company as a member of the Board of Directors. As soon as that happened, Chuck Schumer from New York, Senator from New York, so we're for it too, a way to come to the party late. But the point is that I do see the real possibility of movement in the United States Congress or from the Justice Department we can see Donald Trump overruling Jeff Sessions and saying you know what? You need to decriminalize it. And then he could become the hero of the cannabis movement and he will be looking for Republicans to be supported. I could urge you that once he makes that decision, don't vote for him. That's a whole other story. Take our win and let's keep it, right? Take our win, let's keep it. But the other thing I'll tell you is that New Jersey is about to become the 10th recreational cannabis state in the United States. And once that happens I can tell you right now New York is not going to be far behind. Because I'm a New Yorker we lost the Giants we lost the Jets to New Jersey we're sure as hell not going to lose cannabis to New Jersey also. Keep an eye out for New York it's going to be, I bet you it's on the ballot in 2020 and New York State which has the 8th largest economy in the world will become a recreational cannabis state which means we'll have the 5th largest economy in the world in California and the 8th largest economy in the world in New York recreational cannabis states at that point it's over. The United States of America will be a decriminalized society so one way or the other look out for some exciting news in the next 18 months I do see it happening. Thank you very much


Shoot another one. Target has been subdued. In the distance you see another pro. Get that shield.  Expand that bag tube.


Don't believe the lie that it's difficult to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. You can begin to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit with confidence and perfect clarity. I want to give you three biblical keys that you can apply immediately to begin hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit. Before I begin, make sure that you're subscribed to EncounterTV and click that notification bell when you do subscribe so that you can receive notices whenever we put out new videos. You can also follow us wherever you're watching us. Now, when I talk about keys to hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit, what I mean is keys to recognizing the voice of the Holy Spirit. Hearing God is not a skill, it's a sense. You see, when you were born, you were born with your hearing. You were born with your sight. Those are senses. Likewise, when you were born again, you were born again with spiritual senses, the ability to hear and receive things from the heavenly realm. You can't be taught to hear. You can't be taught to see. When a baby is born, you don't have to teach it to hear. When a baby is born, you don't have to teach it to see, but you do have to train the child to listen and observe, to sharpen those skills, to use those senses properly. Likewise, you can't be told what God sounds like. This is probably the question that's put to me most often. What is the voice of the Holy Spirit sound like? How does he sound? How does he sound? And some may say, well, his voice sounds like the still small voice of whisper. And that would be biblically correct. Some would say, well, it sounds like the rushing of many waters, and that too would be biblically correct. But you see, if I go based off of another person's experience, then I myself will never learn to recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit. I'm just going to be listening for those things that sound similar to what they described. But because it's an individual experiencing that sense, it's a subjective description, and therefore it's no good. Even if they actually have heard God, them telling you about their experience and what his voice sounds like won't do you any good. Instead, you must learn to recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit for yourself. This is, in fact, the most powerful truth I can give you concerning the voice of the Holy Spirit. And that is that you are already hearing the Holy Spirit. That's right. You're already hearing him. John 10, 27 says, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. My sheep hear my voice. In other words, if you belong to him, you already hear him. If you belong to the Lord, he's speaking to you. You hear his voice. He knows you and you follow him. The key, again, is recognizing the voice of the Holy Spirit. We see a biblical example of this, 1 Samuel, chapter 3, verses 1 through 10. We see a story here of how Samuel was called as a prophet. He heard the voice of God speaking to him, and he thought that it was his master, Eli. Turns out it was actually the voice of God. He was hearing God. He just didn't recognize at that moment that it was, in fact, God speaking to him. So again, it's not a matter of hearing God's voice, but of recognizing God's voice. Now, when it comes to recognizing God's voice, all you have to do is silence the other voices that are not his, and the one that will emerge will be the voice of the Holy Spirit. Again, you're already hearing him. He's already speaking to you. These are the three categories of voices that will speak to you in your life. There is the satanic, the secular, and the spirit. Any bit of information that you will ever receive. Any belief that will ever be communicated to you. Anything that you will ever hear will fall under one of these categories, the satanic, the secular, or the spirit. Now, the satanic directly contradicts the Word of God. The secular often contradicts the nature of God, but the spirit always speaks in harmony with both the Word and the nature of God. So how do you silence these other voices? How do you practice this recognizing the voice of the Holy Spirit? Because, again, hearing the Holy Spirit really is not something that I can teach you. And if anybody claims that they can teach you how to hear him, what they probably mean is that they can teach you how to silence the other voices in your life to recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit already speaking to you. Again, that sense was something that you were given when you were born again. So here's the first key to recognizing the voice of the Holy Spirit and silencing those other voices. Number one, it's the Word. John 14.26 says, But when the Father sends the advocate as my representative, that is the Holy Spirit, He will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you. If you're serious about hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit, then you will be serious about receiving the Word of God. The Holy Spirit reminds and He reveals. What does He remind you of? What does He reveal? He reminds you of the Word. He reveals the Word, the truth. How is He supposed to remind you of a truth that you never received from Scripture? How is He supposed to partner with you in remembering what God has spoken in His Word if you yourself are not intaking the Word? Being in the Word familiarizes you with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Number two, silence and stillness. Silence and stillness. Silence is the practical side. Silence is the easier thing to do. Silence is the putting away of outer distraction.  Then your Father who sees everything will reward you. Here is an example of Jesus talking about setting the atmosphere, of moving aside distraction. Silencing again comes from removing outer distractions. So like turning off your cell phone or telling your loved ones that you're not to be disturbed at least for the time that you're spending in prayer. It's turning off the television. It's stopping the streaming service. It's making sure that your mind is focused on what God wants to say to you. So again, silence and stillness is twofold. Silence is the practical side. The putting away of outer distraction, the setting away of the atmosphere, the secluding of yourself, the communicating to others that you're not to be disturbed. And the second part of this second key is stillness. Psalm 46.10 says, Be still and know that I am God. Interesting that stillness precedes revelation. In the presence of God, we are told to be still. Psalm 37.7 says, Be still in the presence of the Lord and wait patiently for Him to act. Now on this key, silence and stillness, the easier part is silence. That's a matter of discipline. Whereas silence is the putting away of outer distraction, stillness is the quieting of the soul. And that's the more difficult part. The internal chatter, the internal chaos, the guilt concerning your past mistakes, the worry about your future, the sense of hurt that you might be feeling because of damaged relationships or harsh words that someone spoke to you. Or maybe a sense of your own inadequacy, possibly confusion about God and prayer and how to approach Him. All of the questions that we have concerning our spirituality, there's a lot that goes through the mind. Work and school and relationships and responsibilities and schedules and finances. It goes on and on and on and on. Our mind fills with chatter and our emotions are stirred in all different directions. How can you silence? How can you bring to stillness that internal chaos? Again, silence, the putting away of outer distraction, simple enough, put your phone aside, communicate to your loved ones, but stillness. Now that's the difficult part. But it is actually in the stillness that the flesh begins to die. That's why you can sometimes read the word, you can do ministry, you can enjoy a worship service, you can even watch a YouTube video like this. But the moment you go to pray, suddenly your flesh starts to squirm. Why? Because it's in the stillness that the flesh is destroyed. There's so much going on in our minds. And we recognize that there's an internal struggle. How do you silence the soul? Well, number one, it goes back to the word.  And when you meditate on the word, you receive revelation and revelation will always inspire worship. You want to bring stillness to the soul, worship Jesus. Turn your focus from the things of this world and place them on him. And in doing so, you will see the scripture is true when it says that will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. So number one is the word. Number two is twofold silence, the putting away of outer distraction and stillness, the quieting of the soul. Silence is practiced by discipline, that is setting the atmosphere. Stillness comes when we worship and meditate on the word. Number three, obedience. This is the third key to recognizing or hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit. Psalm 3723 says, the Lord directs the steps of the godly. He delights in every detail of their lives. The godly are the ones who are blessed by the direction of the Lord. Proverbs 3.6 says, in all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths.  When you walk in obedience to the voice of the Holy Spirit, there is perfect clarity. Now, at this point, some might say, but I don't know what the Holy Spirit wants me to do. This is where it's important to understand that the will of the Holy Spirit is really clearly spelled out in the scripture. Live holy, live a lifestyle of prayer, be in the word, love one another, evangelize and so forth. The life of the Christian is described in the scripture. And God has given to us clear instructions that we are to obey in his word. So when you don't know what to do with those specific things in your life, where you should work, where you should go to school, where you should live, then always come back to the basics. And if you live the basics, that positions you to hear from God for the specifics. Obey the written word of God and the spoken word of God to your heart will become more clear. But obey as instruction because disobedience makes it very difficult to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. You see, some people want God to speak to them when they haven't done what he's told them. God will speak and not speak again until you've obeyed what he's already spoken. Why is God going to give you step two, three, four and five if you haven't taken step number one? Obedience brings clarity of mind. Obedience brings peace. Obedience brings wisdom. Obedience invites the guiding hand of God. Obedience helps you to recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit. So number one, the word, the word, the word. Number two, silence and stillness and number three, obedience. Let me pray with you now. Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray that you would help that one to be a person who is sensitive to your voice. Father, help them to do the practical that you might do the supernatural. Let them obey your word that they might hear your voice more clearly. In the name of Jesus, we pray. I want you to say it because you believe it. Say amen. Well, that is it for the lesson. Here now is a question for conversation. What are some distractions that make it difficult for you to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and how can you begin to remove these distractions from your life? Let me know in the comments section right now. Here now are some comments from a previous video titled, God Wants to Give You a Sign. Morita Bo, our dear friend writes, Amen, thank you, David, for another great teaching. Yes, the word of God and encounters with God will always go hand in hand. They are linked together. Leslie Marie writes, I'm so happy you did a teaching on this. Oh, how I wanted this truth out there. Thank you, David, Stephen and the team.  Orange Peacock writes, this teaching was awesome. God spoke to me through this teaching to let me know that it's okay for me to ask him for signs. Thank you, pastor, for this message and thank you, Stephen, for using your voice for the kingdom of God and not for the world. Catherine writes, I was so blessed to come across this message. This was exactly what I needed to hear. Keep preaching, pastor. And the final comment I'll read from this video comes from Pam Mays, who writes, Excellent word, thank you, David, for always drawing us back to scripture and showing us that experience is important, but it needs to be viewed through the lens of the word, praying for you and the team daily. Now, one more time before I say goodbye, if you're not subscribed to this channel yet, make sure that you don't wanna miss any of the content or the live streams that will help you to draw closer to the Holy Spirit. Make sure you're subscribed and click that notification bell when you do subscribe. You can also follow us wherever you're watching us. I wanna share a verse with you found in Hebrews chapter 13. It's gonna be verse 16. It says, and don't forget to do good and to share with those in need. These are the sacrifices that please God. Whenever you and I make a sacrifice, a sacrifice that costs us something, whenever we do that, it's pleasing to our Heavenly Father. It brings joy to the Holy Spirit, especially when we give toward the gospel. God is pleased with our giving. You look at the production here, these videos that we create, the live streams that we do, the events, the in-person events that we host all around the world and the Holy Spirit School online. Think about the fact that we don't charge for any of it and we don't have to charge for any of it because of generous supporters like you who say, I wanna please God with my giving. You give through this ministry, not to this ministry. You give to Jesus, but through this ministry. So help us continue to do what we do. We can't do it without God speaking to His people to support the ministry. Help us today by giving a one-time donation and consider also becoming a monthly ministry partner.  Go to davidhernandezministries.com slash partner to sign up as a partner and check out all of the monthly partner benefits over there at the website when you do. Until next time, remember, nothing is impossible with God. Thank you for watching EncounterTV. Don't forget to subscribe and click the notification bell. Also, help us spread the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Make a one-time donation or become a monthly supporter by clicking on the donate link now.