Cannabis Science, American States University, FSO NAC, HRM Farms, and Winnemucca Shoshoni Tribe Collectively File Federal Action Against the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, Drug Enforcement Administration and Does 1-50 Among Others

IRVINE, CA--(Marketwired - Oct 30, 2017) - Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTC PINK: CBIS), a U.S. company specializing in the development of cannabinoid-based medicines, reports on today's Federal court action 8-K filing.

On October 27, 2017, Cannabis Science, Inc. (the "Company"), along with its partners Winnemucca Shosoni, MBS, American States University, Free Spirit Organics and HRM Farms (collectively the "Plaintiffs"), filed a Complaint in the United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of California (the "Complaint") against San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors; San Joaquin County Counsel; Erin Hiroko Sakata; Miguel Villapudua; Katherine Miller; Tom Patti; Bob Elliott; Chuck Winn; San Joaquin County District Attorney; San Joaquin County Sheriff; Drug Enforcement Administration and Does 1-50 (collectively the "Defendants").

The Complaint is filed in response to the Defendants entering onto the Plaintiffs' property and seizing their industrial hemp harvest and alleges: (1) Violation of Supremacy Clause/Preemption [U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2]; (2) Unconstitutional Vagueness [U.S. Const. am. 5, 14]; (3) Unlawful Bill of Attainder/Ex Post Facto [U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3]; (4) Violation of Fifth Amendment - Procedural Due Process; and, (5) Violation of Fourth Amendment - Unlawful Seizure [42 U.S.C. §1983]. The Complaint requests for the following:

• Temporary Restraining Order/Immediate Stay of Enforcement;
• Return of Property Seized;
• Preliminary Injunction;
• Permanent Injunction;
• Declaration re: Ordinance Is Void;
• Declaration re: Search Warrant Is Void;
• Declaration re: Seizure Was Unlawful;
• Compensatory Damages; and
• Punitive Damages.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants: (a) drafted San Joaquin County Ordinance 4497 (the "Ordinance") specifically to criminalize the Plaintiffs' existing industrial hemp harvest; (b) determined the Plaintiffs violated the Ordinance; and, (c) enforced it by seizing the Plaintiffs' grow, with an estimated value of US $77 Million, without affording them an opportunity to meaningfully present their arguments to a judge or other neutral fact finder. The Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendants committed this violation of the separation of powers in the form of an emergency ordinance so the Plaintiffs would not have enough notice or opportunity to become compliant and based on a multitude of inaccurate facts. The Plaintiffs contend that they have all of the required permits, exemptions, approvals and authorizations necessary, but, regardless, these actions are unconstitutional.