text:
The Complainant is Symantec Corporation, Cupertino, California, United States of America, represented by Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
The Respondent is Nadeem Qadir, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
The disputed domain name <symantic.com> is registered with eNom, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 17, 2005 by e-mail and on November 21, 2005 in hardcopy. On November 18, 2005, the Center transmitted by email to eNom, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On November�18,�2005, eNom, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 25, 2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December�15, 2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 20, 2005.
The Center appointed Manoel J. Pereira dos Santos as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The trademark and tradename upon which the Complaint is based is SYMANTEC. Complainant is called Symantec Corporation, and, according to documentary evidence and contentions submitted by Complainant, has been using its SYMANTEC trademark in interstate commerce since at least 1985, owns the trademarks SYMANTEC and SYMANTEC and Design in the United States and other countries, and owns the domain name <symantec.com>. Reference is made to Annexes C and D to the Complaint (evidence of registration of the subject trademarks).
According to the contentions submitted by Complainant, the trademarks SYMANTEC and SYMANTEC and Design have acquired significant distinctiveness as a result of the worldwide activities of Complainant in connection with computer software security and a variety of related products and services.
According to documentary evidence and contentions submitted by Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered on November 20,�2000, and was subsequently transferred to Respondent. On November 1, 2005, Complainant emailed Respondent a cease and desist letter demanding that Respondent immediately transfer <symantic.com> to Complainant. No response was received as of the filing of the Complaint.
Until approximately November 2005, Respondent linked the <symantic.com> domain name to his other domain name <gotoo.com> which redirected to a website at “www.errorsafe.com” where computer security software in direct competition with Complainant’s products and services were offered. The “www.symantic.com” website was also indicated as a source of harmful spyware. Reference is made to Annexes E and F to the Complaint (copy of a printout of the “www.errorsafe.com” website as of October�31,�2005, and of a printout of the “www.free-web-browsers.com” website as of October 26, 2005, discussing the spyware problem and referencing <symantic.com>).
As of approximately November 3, 2005, the domain name ceased to redirect to the “www.errorsafe.com” website, and was redirected to “www.yahoo.com”. An independent verification was conducted by the Panel by visiting the “www.symantic.com” website, and the Panel found that the disputed domain name was still linked to the website “www.gotoo.com” and further redirected to the “www.yahoo.com” website, where a search result page on Symantec antivirus was displayed (access on February 1, 2006).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s SYMANTEC mark and, therefore, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SYMANTEC mark.
Complainant also contends that Respondent has created a strong likelihood that Internet users seeking to access information about Complainant’s SYMANTEC products and services shall be confused and shall mistakenly assume that Respondent and other third-parties associated with the <symantic.com> domain name are affiliated with Complainant. Complainant argues that the confusion, dilution, and tarnishment caused by Respondent’s acquisition and use of the <symantic.com> domain name is particularly likely given the manner in which Respondent has used the domain name.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name because Complainant has not licensed the SYMANTEC trademark or the <symantec.com> domain name to Respondent; Respondent has not filed any applications for registration of the SYMANTEC mark in any trademark offices or jurisdictions worldwide; Respondent does not produce or market any of his goods or services under the SYMANTEC mark or name and is not offering any of his own goods or services under the <symantic.com> domain name; and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.
Finally, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by his use of the <symantic.com> domain name in order to free ride on Complainant’s reputation and customer goodwill by diverting Internet users and customers to a website for commercial gain. Complainant argues that Respondent had actual notice of the SYMANTEC mark and domain name, in view of the redirection of the disputed domain name to a website offering competitive products, and had constructive notice of Complainant’s prior use of the SYMANTEC mark.
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by his acquisition and use of a domain name when he does not normally use that domain name or a corresponding mark or name to identify his company or his goods or services, as well as by his refusal to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant.
The consensus view in UDRP panel decisions is that a respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of a complainant and that a complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, para. 2.2). However, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules.
This Panel finds that there are no exceptional circumstances for the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response. As a result, the Panel infers that the Respondent does not deny the facts asserted and contentions made by Complainant from these facts. Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) v. Wellsbuck Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2005-0084; Ross-Simons, Inc. v. DomainContact, WIPO Case No. D2003-0994. Therefore, asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and the Respondent will be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by the Complainant. Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., supra; RX America, LLC v. Matthew Smith, WIPO Case No. D2005-0540.
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
Complainant has evidenced that it owns exclusive rights to the SYMANTEC mark. Complainant’s contentions that it has used such mark since at least 1985, and that it also owns the domain name <symantec.com> are admitted.
Complainant also contends that the <symantic.com> domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s SYMANTEC mark – merely substituting an “i” for an “e” – and, therefore, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SYMANTEC mark. Complainant relies on the VeriSign, Inc. v. Onlinemalls, WIPO Case No. D2000-1446, and Pfizer, Inc. v. Re This Domain For Sale-Email, WIPO Case No. D2002-0409, decisions where the panel has found that minor misspellings of complainant’s marks create marks and domain names virtually identical and capable of causing a clear likelihood of confusion.
This is a “typosquatting”case, where the disputed domain name is a slight variation from a registered trademark. In fact, the <symantic.com> domain name comprises the Complainant’s SYMANTEC mark with a single misspelling of an element of the mark: an “i” instead of an “e”. As a result, this is an example of confusing similarity brought about through easily made typing errors made by an Internet user: rather than typing the letter “e” to visit Complainant’s website, an Internet user could easily type an “i” and be diverted to a different website.
The practice of “typosquatting” has been consistently regarded in previous UDRP decisions as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. ACCOR v. Brigit Klostermann, WIPO Case No. D2005-0627; Sharman License Holdings, Limited v. IcedIt.com, WIPO Decision No. D2004-0713; Ross-Simons, Inc. v. Domain.Contact, WIPO Case No. D2003-0994.
In addition, a comparison between the SYMANTEC trademark and the <symantic.com> domain name shows a clear likelihood of confusion. In sum, the case passes the test for confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, para. 1.2).
Finally, the Panel admits the evidence submitted by Complainant to the effect that actual confusion by consumers who mistakenly entered the Respondent’s domain name when attempting to access Complainant’s website has been reported, as per Annex G.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights in the disputed domain name.
Complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case demonstrating the lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name by the Respondent. If the respondent fails to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, para. 2.1).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case. In fact, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, the principal element of the disputed domain name being the Complainant’s name and trademark, and Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark and name in the domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not using the domain name with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since Respondent is not offering any goods or services of his own under the <symantic.com> domain name, and that Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as the <symantic.com> domain name is used to divert consumers from Complainant’s website to other commercial websites. By defaulting, the Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services or of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
The Panel notes that Respondent has changed its previous practice of redirecting Internet users to the “www.errorsafe.com” website by currently redirecting such users to a particular <yahoo.com> webpage where a search result page on Symantec antivirus product is displayed. The Panel notes that such change occurred after Respondent received a cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant. That circumstance triggers two conclusions: first, the Respondent received notice of the cease and desist letter since it reacted thereto; second, the Respondent has no legitimate purpose to use and maintain the disputed domain name and is trying to hide its previous use of the disputed domain name.
In short, the Complainant has satisfied its burden of providing sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any evidence that the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy would be present. Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu, WIPO Case No. D2003-0465.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by his use of the <symantic.com> domain name in order to free-ride on Complainant’s reputation and customer goodwill by diverting Internet users and customers to a website for commercial gain.
The fact that the Respondent has chosen as a domain name the word “symantic,” which is confusingly similar and phonetically identical to the Complainant’s previously registered and known trademark is an indication that registration thereof was made in bad faith. Further, the Panel finds, in the circumstances of this case, and infers from the Respondent’s default that Respondent intended to free-ride on the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill.
The act of typosquatting or registering a domain name that is a common misspelling of a mark in which a party has rights has often been recognized as evidence of bad faith registration and use. Paragon Gifts, Inc. v. Domain.Contact, WIPO Case No. D2004-0107; citing National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011. The Panel concurs that this is the correct approach.
This Panel, furthermore, takes the view that the content of a website (whether it is similar or different to the business of a trademark owner) is relevant in the finding of bad faith registration and use. This is so because where a potential visitor, after typing in a confusingly similar domain name, reaches the website offering for sale goods and services that are in direct competition with those of the owner, there is clear divertion of Internet traffic in bad faith. These circumstances are present in this case and, therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith.
The Panel found before, for the purpose of determining whether or not the Respondent has a legitimate interest, that Respondent’s change of the redirection function for the disputed domain name was arguably intended to avoid a finding of bad faith in the present proceeding. It should also be added that such redirection is likely to confuse and deceive the public into believing that Respondent or other third-parties associated with the website are affiliated with or sponsored by the owner of the SYMANTEC trademark. Complainant’s contentions in this respect are warranted.
In short, the manner in which Respondent has used and is using the <symantic.com> domain name demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered, was used and is still being used in bad faith.
The Panel concludes that (a) the <symantic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (c) the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <symantic.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


On Saturday, March 30, the Des Moines Register reported that a member of the Medical Cannabidiol Advisory Committee resigned over comments made on the floor of the House during debate on House File 732.
Iowa House members who voted this week to allow the sale of stronger medical marijuana products said they were following the advice of physicians on a state board — even though that board voted unanimously last fall not to recommend the change.
The House’s action prompted the resignation this week of a physician who serves on the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Advisory Board.
Des Moines neurologist Wendy Zadeh was among eight board members who voted in November 2018 to maintain the state’s 3% cap on THC, the chemical that can make marijuana users high.
Medical marijuana bill allowing stronger medications contradicts stance of state’s expert panel, Des Moines Register, March 29, 2019.
The article incorrectly states that HF 732 was drafted solely from the input of the advisory committee. Video of the debate reveals that the advisory committee and “others” were involved in drafting the bill. Representative Klein said the bill was the result of working with members of the board “and both parties,” not solely of input from the board.
In another example of inaccurate reporting, on March 5, WHO TV reported that Senate File 256 would remove the THC limit that producers can put in each dose of medical cannabidiol. But SF 256 did not remove the 3% cap on THC. The next day House Study Bill 244 (now HF 732) was introduced and voted out of subcommittee at 9:30 a.m. the same day it was introduced. HSB 244 (HF 732) actually does remove the 3% cap on THC.
The medical cannabidiol board may recommend a statutory revision to the definition of medical cannabidiol contained in this chapter that increases the tetrahydrocannabinol level to more than three percent, however, any such recommendation shall be submitted to the general assembly during the regular session of the general assembly following such submission. The general assembly shall have the sole authority to revise the definition of medical cannabidiol for purposes of this chapter.
Here is a time line that will fill in some (but, not all) of the missing details.
Leaving the THC cap on medical cannabidiol products manufactured in Iowa at 3% in Iowa Code §124E.5(6).
Removing felony disqualifiers for patients and primary caregivers in Iowa Code §124E.4(1)(f) and Iowa Code §124E.4(3)(c).
Adding physician assistant or advanced registered nurse practitioner to the definition of health care practitioner in Iowa Code §124E.2(5).
SF 256 was introduced by Senator Brad Zaun.
Left the THC cap at 3%.
Added physician assistant and advanced registered nurse practitioner to the definition of health care practitioner.
SF 256 passed out of subcommittee at 3:30 p.m. on February 18.
House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, the top Republican in the House, has said lawmakers should wait for recommendations from a state board appointed to oversee Iowa’s medical marijuana program, so these expansion plans being discussed in the Senate face an uncertain future.
Medical marijuana expansion clears Iowa Senate subcommittee, Radio Iowa, February 18, 2019.
House Speaker Linda Upmeyer’s spokesman said recently that she continues to doubt the need for legislators to loosen restrictions on which Iowans can purchase the medications. She would prefer that any such moves come from a board of physicians that was appointed last year to consider proposals.
Iowa Poll: 78% want medical marijuana program expanded, 48% would allow recreational pot, Des Moines Register, February 23, 2019.
“There are things that can be done, things we will do, that make it a little easier, a little safer and give the board a little more latitude,” House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, said Tuesday after meeting with members of the Medical Cannabidiol Board.
House speaker eyes more cannabidiol access for Iowans, Cedar Rapids Gazette, February 26, 2019.
The bill would remove the limit of THC that producers can put in each dose, allow for more dispensaries in the state, and mandate Iowa’s Medical Cannabidiol Board to include PTSD on the list of qualifying conditions.
Medical Marijuana Expansion, E-Verify Mandate Bills Both Advance Through Funnel Week, WHO TV 13, March 5, 2019.
HSB 244 introduced by Committee on Public Safety Chairperson Representative Jarad Klein. Oddly, Representative Klein’s bill actually does remove the limit on THC that WHO TV incorrectly reported was in the Senate bill a day earlier.
HSB 244 passed out of subcommittee at 9:30 a.m. on the same day it was introduced.
HF 732 passed out of committee (formerly HSB 244) by a vote of 21-0.
HF 732 passed in the House by a vote of 96-3.
Representative Klein’s bill recommended removing the limit on THC, which the advisory board did not recommend. But Representative Klein said the advisory board and “others” were included in preparation of the legislative proposal. The advisory board was never given authority to write legislation. A good analogy would be the recommendation of the pharmacy board in 2010 to remove marijuana from state schedule 1, which the legislature still hasn’t done. Chapter 124E authorizes the advisory board to recommend increasing the THC limit, but not to recommend lowering it or even keeping it at 3%.
Until February 26, Speaker Upmeyer had been saying there would be no changes this year which did not leave Chairman Klein a lot of time to run a bill a week before the funnel deadline.
The Senate started working earlier and gave people more time to participate.
Representative Klein deserves an award for work extremely well done in a short amount of time and under extreme pressure. HF 732 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it will receive further consideration.
The following amendment became part of SF 501 on Tuesday, March 5, 2019, by a vote of 14 – 1 in the Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee. Please add the same language to HSB 244.
It is critically important that this statement of legislative intent be included in our state law. State legislators frequently say that the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act authorizes violation of federal law, including legislators who voted for it (Rep. Linda Upmeyer and Rep. John Forbes). Stigmatizing patients as criminals should not be something suffering Iowans are burdened with. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations exempt the religious use of a federal schedule 1 controlled substance, peyote. See, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (2019). For the same reason, DEA must exempt a state medical cannabis program. We need to declare we have the right to do this and that DEA must include an exemption in Title 21 Section 1307 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
A senator sent me a copy of a proposed amendment we would like added to SF 256 currently pending in the Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee. We would greatly appreciate your support.
It is critically important that this be included in our state law. State legislators frequently say that the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act authorizes violation of federal law, including legislators who voted for it (Rep. Linda Upmeyer and Rep. John Forbes). This is not something suffering Iowans should be burdened with. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations exempt the religious use of a federal schedule 1 controlled substance, peyote. See, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (2019). For the same reason, DEA must exempt a state medical cannabis program. We need to declare we have the right to do this and that DEA must include this exemption in Title 21 Section 1307 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
On January 28, a local attorney and I petitioned the DEA to grant an exemption to federal regulations for the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol program, Iowa Code Chapter 124E (2019), similar the one granted to the Native American Church for the religious use of peyote. See 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 (2019) and 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (2019). Medical cannabidiol and peyote are both federal Schedule 1 controlled substances, as well as Iowa Schedule 1 controlled substances. Medical cannabidiol is exempt from the Iowa Controlled Substances Act, Iowa Code § 124E.12(4) (2019), when used for medical purposes and peyote is exempt from the Iowa Controlled Substance Act when used for religious purposes, Iowa Code § 124.204(8) (2019). One could presume the religious exemption exists because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing religious freedom, and it then follows that a state medical cannabis law should be exempt because of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeting state autonomy and self-determination. The DEA grants exemptions and it must do so even-handedly.
Before we filed the DEA petition, we were talking about people who might have standing to file the petition. We talked about a medical cannabidiol card holder and someone being denied assistance from the Veterans Administration (VA) in getting a cannabidiol card. However, we filed the petition without anyone with standing to appeal if we get an adverse ruling. The DEA could ignore our lack of standing and grant the exemption on the merits, but we won’t be able to appeal if the DEA decides not to grant the exemption. I have no personal standing and I’m not an attorney. The other petitioner is an attorney, but he also has no personal standing. Unlike me, an attorney can represent a party that does have standing. I have included more information on “standing” in the federal courts below.
Someone who is being denied assistance in getting a card by the VA (this would have to be because of a VA policy, not the doctor simply declining to issue the certification as the Iowa laws allows doctors to decline).
A patient or caregiver who has a medical cannabidiol card.
A dispensary that has a dispensary license.
A manufacturer that has a manufacturing license.
These are the people we are claiming to represent. As it stands now, patients, caregivers, dispensaries, and manufactures are walking on egg shells trying to get the program expanded and they haven’t volunteered to come forward to help us with standing and it’s highly unlikely that they will.
I spent the afternoon on Monday, February 18, at the state capitol talking with legislators and state administrative officials. Help should logically be forthcoming from legislators or a state administrative agency like the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH). Legislators and administrative officials have a vested interest in defending and upholding state law and they are not manufacturers, dispensaries, caregivers, or patients (state officials are not personally at risk, but they do have standing). I initiated contact with IDPH with this specific request on January 31 and followed up again on February 18 at the state capitol. A state senator submitted an amendment to a proposed bill, SF 256, that would amend the Iowa Medical Cannabiol Act (Iowa Code Chapter 124E) with language based on our DEA petition. I have been discussing this with legislator and IDPH for the past couple of years (since Chapter 124E was enacted in 2017), but the DEA petition has now started the clock ticking and it’s time for action.
For those who don’t know what standing is, below is an explanation given by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Petitioners contend that they have “automatic standing” to appeal the DEA’s denial of their petition because 21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(2) permits “any interested party” to file a petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings. They suggest that this is enough — since they are the original petitioners before the DEA they should not be “held to heightened requirements for standing in pursuing judicial review of the DEA’s order,” and at no time during the administrative proceedings has the DEA claimed that they are not “interested parties” under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(2). Petitioners misunderstand the law. Petitioners may be “interested parties” under the statute, and therefore able to petition the agency, and yet not have Article III standing to bring this action in federal court. See Fund Democracy, LLC v. SEC, 278 F.3d 21, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Participation in agency proceedings is alone insufficient to satisfy judicial standing requirements.” Id. Mere interest as an advocacy group is not enough. The fact that Congress may have given all interested parties the right to petition the agency does not in turn “automatically”confer Article III standing when that right is deprived. See id. at 27-28. The Constitution requires a concrete and particularized injury. This is not a “heightened requirement,” but rather the bare minimum. Thus, the grant of a procedural right alone cannot serve as the basis for Article III standing unless “the procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of [petitioners’] that is the ultimate basis of his standing.” Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 28 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573 n.8). The sufficiency of the sort of “interest” allowing an interested party to petition an agency at the will of Congress and the justicially protectable “interest” required for an injury to afford standing in the courts is fundamentally the difference between the political branches on the one hand and the Article III courts on the other. While it is perfectly proper, and indeed appropriate and even necessary, for the political branches to respond to the abstract, ideological, philosophical or even idiosyncratic wishes and needs of citizens or, for that matter, persons at large, the courts are granted authority only for the purpose delineated in Article III, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution and “may exercise power only ‘in the last resort and as a necessity.’“ Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 82 L. Ed. 2d 556, 104 S. Ct. 3315 (1984) (quoting Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry., 143 U.S. 339 at 345).
Therefore, contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, it is not at all anomalous that Congress could permit them as “interested parties” (assuming that they are) to participate in agency proceedings, and yet they be unable to seek review in the federal courts. “Because agencies are not constrained by Article III, they may permit persons to intervene in the agency proceedings who would not have standing to seek judicial review of the agency action.” Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 27; see Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. NRC, 338 U.S. App. D.C. 282, 194 F.3d 72, 74 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In other words, the “criteria for establishing ‘administrative standing’ therefore may permissibly be less demanding than the criteria for ‘judicial standing.’” Envirocare, 194 F.3d at 74. Thus, unless petitioners can demonstrate an injury in fact, both particularized and concrete, as required by the Constitution, they lack standing to appear before an Article III court.
Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 433-434 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
10. Notwithstanding federal administrative regulations, 21 C.F.R. §1308.11 Schedule I, (23) Marihuana, (31) Tetrahydrocannabinols, and (58) Marihuana Extract, Administration Controlled Substances Code Numbers 7360, 7370, and 7350, state authorized use of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinols, and cannabis extracts, are exempt from federal regulations pursuant to the state’s historic police power to define the accepted medical use of controlled substances. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006) (“The Attorney General has rulemaking power to fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific respects in which he is authorized to make rules, however, instruct us that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law”). This is also because Congress did not define the term “accepted medical use” in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Public Law 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, October 27, 1970. See Grinspoon v. DEA, 881 F.2d 877, 886 (1987) (“Congress did not intend ‘accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’ to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state or, as the Administrator contends, approval for interstate marketing of the substance”); and Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“neither the statute nor its legislative history precisely defines the term ‘currently accepted medical use’”). See, for example, 14 C.F.R. §91.19(b) (“this section does not apply to … marihuana … authorized by or under any … State statute or by any … State agency”).
Iowa Code Chapter 124E, the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act, lacks a section on compliance with existing federal law.
Cannabis is a federal schedule 1 controlled substance, and yet Iowa Code Chapter 124E doesn’t even mention it. Why?
SF 2398 proves Iowa legislators know federal law exists, but the legislature failed to address federal law in Iowa Code Chapter 124E.
This causes numerous problems for patients and providers, some of which are documented in an Article from November 30, 2018, in the Des Moines Register.
This year is a perfect time to address the situation by stating clearly that Iowa is creating an exemption from existing federal schedule 1. Any law the state has a federal constitutional right to enact is a law the federal government must honor and respect.
Federal schedule 1 is only for substances that have no accepted medical use in the states. The legislature has created an accepted medical use for cannabis in Iowa.
This state protection under existing federal law doesn’t extend beyond the state’s borders, but it does provide Iowa patients and providers with the protection they need when being accused of violating federal law here in Iowa.
Please fix this broken law so the people it was intended to help do not needlessly suffer due to the state’s gross negligence to explain how it complies with existing federal law.


text:
§ 0.737-2 - Appointment of alternate officials.
§ 0.737-3 - Initiation of administrative disciplinary hearing.
§ 0.737-4 - Request for a hearing.
§ 0.737-5 - Appointment of Examiner.
§ 0.737-6 - Time, date and place of hearing.
§ 0.737-7 - Hearing rights.
§ 0.737-8 - Hearing decision and exceptions.
§ 0.737-9 - Decision on exceptions.
§ 0.737-10 - Administrative sanctions.
§ 0.737-11 - Judicial review.

matches:
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0
§ 0


text:
This chapter, and the four next that follow it (to chap. 13) are all one continued discourse or sermon, the scope of which is to show the great destruction that should now shortly be brought upon the kingdom of Israel, and the great disturbance that should be given to the kingdom of Judah by the king of Assyria, and that both were for their sins; but rich provision is made of comfort for those that feared God in those dark times, referring especially to the days of the Messiah. In this chapter we have, I. A prophecy of the destruction of the confederate kingdoms of Syria and Israel by the king of Assyria (v. 1-4). II. Of the desolations that should be made by that proud victorious prince in the land of Israel and Judah (v. 5-8). III. Great encouragement given to the people of God in the midst of those distractions; they are assured, 1. That the enemies shall not gain their point against them (v. 9, 10). 2. That if they kept up the fear of God, and kept down the fear of man, they should find God their refuge (v. 11�), and while others stumbled, and fell into despair, they should be enabled to wait on God, and should see themselves reserved for better times (v. 15�). Lastly, He gives a necessary caution to all, at their peril, not to consult with familiar spirits, for they would thereby throw themselves into despair, but to keep close to the word of God (v. 19�). And these counsels and these comforts will still be of use to us in time of trouble.
I. Orders given to the prophet to write this prophecy, and publish it to be seen and read of all men, and to leave it upon record, that when the thing came to pass they might know that God had sent him; for that was one end of prophecy, Jn. 14:29. He must take a great roll, which would contain those five chapters fairly written in words at length; and he must write in it all that he had foretold concerning the king of Assyria's invading the country; he must write it with a man's pen, in the usual way and style of writing, so as that it might be legible and intelligible by all. See Hab. 2:2, Write the vision, and make it plain. Those that speak and write of the things of God should avoid obscurity, and study to speak and write so as to be understood, 1 Co. 14:19. Those that write for men should write with a man's pen, and not covet the pen or tongue of angels. And forasmuch as it is usual to put some short, but significant comprehensive title before books that are published, the prophet is directed to call his book Maher-shalal-hash-baz桵ake speed to the spoil, hasten to the prey, intimating that the Assyrian army should come upon them with great speed and make great spoil. By this title the substance and meaning of the book would be enquired after by those that heard of it, and remembered by those that had read it or heard it read. It is sometimes a good help to memory to put much matter in few words, which serve as handles by which we take hold of more.
II. The care of the prophet to get this record well attested (v. 2): I took unto me faithful witnesses to record; he wrote the prophecy in their sight and presence, and made them subscribe their names to it, that they might be ready, if afterwards there should be occasion, to make oath of it, that the prophet had so long before foretold the descent which the Assyrians made upon that country. He names his witnesses for the greater certainty, that they might be appealed to by any. They were two in number (for out of the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established); one was Uriah the priest; he is mentioned in the story of Ahaz, but for none of his good deeds, for he humoured Ahaz with an idolatrous altar (2 Ki. 16:10, 11); however, at this time, no exception lay against him, being a faithful witness. See what full satisfaction the prophets took care to give to all persons concerned of the sincerity of their intentions, that we might know with a full assurance the certainty of the things wherein we have been instructed, and that we have not followed cunningly-devised fables.
III. The making of the title of his book the name of his child, that it might be the more taken notice of and the more effectually perpetuated, v. 3. His wife (because the wife of a prophet) is called the prophetess; she conceived and bore a son, another son, who must carry a sermon in his name, as the former had done (ch. 7:3), but with this difference, that spoke mercy, Shear-jashub桾he remnant shall return; but, that being slighted, this speaks judgment, Maher-shalal-hash-baz桰n making speed to the spoil he shall hasten, or he has hastened, to the prey. The prophecy is doubled, even in this one name, for the thing was certain. I will hasten my word, Jer. 1:12. Every time the child was called by his name, or any part of it, it would serve as a memorandum of the judgments approaching. Note, It is good for us often to put ourselves in mind of the changes and troubles we are liable to in this world, and which perhaps are at the door. When we look with pleasure on our children it should be with the allay of this thought, We know not what they are yet reserved for.
IV. The prophecy itself, which explains this mystical name.
1. That Syria and Israel, who were now in confederacy against Judah, should in a very little time become an easy prey to the king of Assyria and his victorious army (v. 4): "Before the child, now newly born and named, shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and My mother'' (which are usually some of the first things that children know and some of the first words that children speak), that is, "in about a year or two, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, those cities that are now so secure themselves and so formidable to their neighbours, shall be taken away before the king of Assyria, who shall plunder both city and country, and send the best effects of both into his own land, to enrich that, and as trophies of his victory.'' Note, Those that spoil others must expect to be themselves spoiled (ch. 33:1); for the Lord is righteous, and those that are troublesome shall be troubled.
2. That forasmuch as there were many in Judah that were secretly in the interests of Syria and Israel, and were disaffected to the house of David, God would chastise them also by the king of Assyria, who should create a great deal of vexation to Judah, as was foretold, ch. 7:17. Observe, (1.) What was the sin of the discontented party in Judah (v. 6): This people, whom the prophet here speaks to, refuse the waters of Shiloah that go softly, despise their own country and the government of it, and love to run it down, because it does not make so great a figure, and so great a noise, in the world, as some other kings and kingdoms do. They refuse the comforts which God's prophets offer them from the word of God, speaking to them in a still small voice, and make nothing of them; but they rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son, who were the enemies of their country, and were now actually invading it; they cried them up as brave men, magnified their policies and strength, applauded their conduct, were well pleased with their successes, and were hearty well-wishers to their designs, and resolved to desert and go over to them. Such vipers does many a state foster in its bosom, that eat its bread, and yet adhere to its enemies, and are ready to quit its interests if they but seem to totter. (2.) The judgment which God would bring upon them for this sin. The same king of Assyria that should lay Ephraim and Syria waste should be a scourge and terror to those of their party in Judah, v. 7, 8. Because they refuse the waters of Shiloah, and will not accommodate themselves to the government God has set over them, but are uneasy under it, therefore the Lord brings upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, the river Euphrates. They slighted the land of Judah, because it had no river to boast of comparable to that; the river at Jerusalem was a very inconsiderable one. "Well,'' says God, "if you be such admirers of Euphrates, you shall have enough of it; the king of Assyria, whose country lies upon that river, shall come with his glory, with his great army, which you cry up as his glory, despising your own king because he cannot bring such an army as that into the field; God shall bring that army upon you.'' If we value men, if we over-value them, for their worldly wealth and power, it is just with God to make them thereby a scourge to us. It is used as an argument against magnifying rich men that rich men oppress us, Jam. 2:3, 5. Let us be best pleased with the waters of Shiloah, that go softly, for rapid streams are dangerous. It is threatened that the Assyrian army should break in upon them like a deluge, or inundation of waters, bearing down all before it, should come up over all his channels, and overflow all his banks. It would be to no purpose to oppose or withstand them. Sennacherib and his army should pass through Judah, and meet with so little resistance that it should look more like a march through the country than a descent upon it. He shall reach even to the neck, that is, he shall advance so far as to lay siege to Jerusalem, the head of the kingdom, and nothing but that shall be kept out of his hands; for that was the holy city. Note, In the greatest deluge of trouble God can and will keep the head of his people above water, and so preserve their comforts and spiritual lives; the waters that come into their souls may reach to the neck (Ps. 69:1), but there shall their proud waves be stayed. And here is another comfortable intimation that though the stretching out of the wings of the Assyrian, that bird of prey, though the right and left wing of his army, should fill the breadth of the land of Judah, yet still it was Immanuel's land. It is thy land, O Immanuel! It was to be Christ's land; for there he was to be born, and live, and preach, and work miracles. He was Zion's King, and therefore had a peculiar interest in and concern for that land. Note, The lands that Immanuel owns for his, as he does all those lands that own him, though they may be deluged, shall not be destroyed; for, when the enemy shall come in like a flood, Immanuel shall secure his own, and shall lift up a standard against him, ch. 59:19.
I. He triumphs over the invading enemies, and, in effect, sets them at defiance, and bids them do their worst (v. 9, 10): "O you people, you of far countries, give ear to what the prophet says to you in God's name.'' 1. "We doubt not but you will now make your utmost efforts against Judah and Jerusalem. You associate yourselves in a strict alliance. You gird yourselves, and again you gird yourselves; you prepare for action; you address yourselves to it with resolution; you gird on your swords; you gird up your loins. You animate and encourage yourselves and one another with all the considerations you can think of: you take counsel together, call councils of war, and all heads are at work about the proper methods for making yourselves masters of the land of Judah. You speak the word; you come to resolutions concerning it, and are not always deliberating; you determine what to do, and are very confident of the success of it, that the matter will be accomplished with a word's speaking.'' Note, It is with a great deal of policy, resolution, and assurance, that the church's enemies carry on their designs against it; and abundance of pains they take to roll a stone that will certainly return upon them. 2. "This is to let you know that all your efforts will be ineffectual. You cannot, you shall not, gain your point, nor carry the day: You shall be broken in pieces. Though you associate yourselves, though you gird yourselves, though you proceed with all the policy and precaution imaginable, yet, I tell you again and again, all your projects shall be baffled, you shall be broken in pieces. Nay, not only shall your attempts be ruined, but your attempts shall be your ruin; you shall be broken by those designs you have formed against Jerusalem: Your counsels shall come to nought; for there is no wisdom nor counsel against the Lord. Your resolves will not be put in execution; they shall not stand. You speak the word, but who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, if the Lord commandeth it not? What sets up itself against God, and his cause and counsel, cannot stand, but must inevitably fall. For God is with us'' (this refers to the name of Immanuel桮od with us); "the Messiah is to be born among us, and a people designed for such an honour cannot be given up to utter ruin. We have now the special presence of God with us in his temple, his oracles, his promises, and these are our defence. God is with us; he is on our side, to take our part and fight for us; and, if God be for us, who can be against us?'' Thus does the daughter of Zion despise them.
1. The prophet tells us how he was himself taught of God not to give way to such amazing fears as the people were disturbed with, nor to run into the same measures with them (v. 11): "The Lord spoke to me with a strong hand not to walk in the way of this people, not to say as they say nor do as they do, not to entertain the same frightful apprehensions of things nor to approve of their projects of making peace upon any terms, or calling in the help of the Assyrians.'' God instructed the prophet not to go down the stream. Note, (1.) There is a proneness in the best of men to be frightened at threatening clouds, especially when fears are epidemic. We are all too apt to walk in the way of the people we live among, though it be not a good way. (2.) Those whom God loves and owns he will instruct and enable to swim against the stream of common corruptions, particularly of common fears. He will find ways to teach his own people not to walk in the way of other people, but in a sober singularity. (3.) Corruption is sometimes so active in the hearts even of good men that they have need to be taught their duty with a strong hand, and it is God's prerogative to teach so, for he only can give an understanding and overpower the contradiction of unbelief and prejudice. He can teach the heart; and herein none teaches like him. (4.) Those that are to teach others have need to be themselves well instructed in their duty, and then they teach most powerfully when they teach experimentally. The word that comes from the heart is most likely to reach to the heart; and what we are ourselves by the grace of God instructed in we should, as we are able, teach others also.
2. Now what is it that he says to God's people?
(1.) He cautions them against a sinful fear, v. 12. It seems it was the way of this people at this time, and fear is catching. He whose heart fails him makes his brethren's heart to fail, like his heart (Deu. 20:8); therefore Say you not, A confederacy, to all those to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; that is, [1.] "Be not associated with them in the confederacies they are projecting and forecasting for. Do not join with those that, for the securing of themselves, are for making a league with the Assyrians, through unbelief, and distrust of God and their cause. Do not come into any such confederacy.'' Note, It concerns us, in time of trouble, to watch against all such fears as put us upon taking any indirect courses for our own security. [2.] "Be not afraid of the confederacies they frighten themselves and one another with. Do not distress yourselves with the apprehension of a confederacy upon every thing that stirs, nor, when any little thing is amiss, cry out presently, There is a plot, a plot. When they talk what dismal news there is, Syria is joined with Ephraim, what will become of us? must we fight, or must we flee, or must we yield? do not you fear their fear: Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, as the heathen are, Jer. 10:2. Be not afraid of evil tidings on earth, but let your hearts be fixed. Fear not that which they fear, nor be afraid as they are. Be not put into such a fright as causes trembling and shaking;'' so the word signifies. Note, When the church's enemies have sinful confederacies on foot the church's friends should watch against the sinful fears of those confederacies.
(2.) He advises them to a gracious religious fear: But sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, v. 13. Note, The believing fear of God is a special preservative against the disquieting fear of man; see 1 Pt. 3:14, 15, where this is quoted, and applied to suffering Christians. [1.] We must look upon God as the Lord of hosts, that has all power in his hand and all creatures at his beck. [2.] We must sanctify him accordingly, give him the glory due to that name, and behave towards him as those that believe him to be a holy God. [3.] We must make him our fear, the object of our fear, and make him our dread, keep up a reverence of his providence and stand in awe of his sovereignty, be afraid of his displeasure and silently acquiesce in all his disposals. Were we but duly affected with the greatness and glory of God, we should see the pomp of our enemies eclipsed and clouded, and all their power restrained and under check; see Neh. 4:14. Those that are afraid of the reproach of men forget the Lord their Maker, ch. 51:12, 13. Compare Lu. 12:4, 5.
(3.) He assures them of a holy security and serenity of mind in so doing (v. 14): "He shall be for a sanctuary; make him your fear, and you shall find him your hope, your help, your defence, and your mighty deliverer. He will sanctify and preserve you. He will be for a sanctuary,'' [1.] "To make you holy. He will be your sanctification;'' so some read it. If we sanctify God by our praises, he will sanctify us by his grace. [2.] "To make you easy. He will be your sanctuary,'' to which you may flee for safety, and where you are privileged form all the arrests of fear; you shall find an inviolable refuge and security in him, and see yourselves our of the reach of danger. Those that truly fear God shall not need to fear any evil.
III. He threatens the ruin of the ungodly and unbelieving, both in Judah and Israel. They have no part nor lot in the foregoing comforts; that God who will be a sanctuary to those who trust in him will be a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, to those who leave these waters of Shiloah, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son, (v. 6), who make the creature their fear and their hope, v. 14, 15. The prophet foresees that the greatest part of both the houses of Israel would not sanctify the Lord of hosts, and to them he would be for a gin and a snare; he would be a terror to them, as he would be a support and stay to those that trusted in him. Instead of profiting by the word of God, they should be offended at it; and the providences of God, instead of leading them to him, would drive them from him. What was a savour of life unto life to others would be a savour of death unto death to them. "So that many among them shall stumble and fall; they shall fall both into sin and into ruin; they shall fall by the sword, shall be taken prisoners, and go into captivity.'' Note, If the things of God be an offence to us, they will be an undoing to us. Some apply this to the unbelieving Jews, who rejected Christ, and to whom he became a stone of stumbling; for the apostle quotes this scripture with application to all those who persisted in their unbelief of the gospel of Christ (1 Pt. 2:8); to them he is a rock of offence, because, being disobedient to the word, they stumble at it.
I. The unspeakable privilege which the people of God enjoy in having the oracles of God consigned over to them, and being entrusted with the sacred writings. That they may sanctify the Lord of hosts, may make him their fear and find him their sanctuary, bind up the testimony, v. 16. Note, It is a great instance of God's care of his church and love to it that he has lodged in it the invaluable treasure of divine revelation. 1. It is a testimony and a law; not only this prophecy is so, which must therefore be preserved safely for the comfort of God's people in the approaching times of trouble and distress, but the whole word of God is so; God has attested it, and he has enjoined it. As a testimony it directs our faith; as a law it directs our practice; and we ought both to subscribe to the truths of it and to submit to the precepts of it. 2. This testimony and this law are bound up and sealed, for we are not to add to them nor diminish from them; they are a letter from God to man, folded up and sealed, a proclamation under the broad seal. The binding up and sealing of the Old Testament signified that the full explication of many of the prophecies of it was reserved for the New-Testament times. Dan. 12:4, Seal the book till the time of the end; but what was then bound up and sealed is now open and unsealed, and revealed unto babes, Mt. 11:25. Yet with reference to the other world, and the future state, still the testimony is bound up and sealed, for we know but in part, and prophesy but in part. 3. They are lodged as a sacred deposit in the hands of the disciples of the children of the prophets and the covenant, Acts 3:25. This is the good thing which is committed to them, and which they are charged with the custody of, 2 Tim. 1:13, 14. Those that had prophets for their tutors must still keep close to the written word.
(1.) The discouragements which the prophet laboured under. He specifies two:梉1.] The frowns of God, not so much upon himself, but upon his people, whose interests lay very near his heart: "He hides his face from the house of Jacob, and seems at present to neglect them, and lay them under the tokens of his displeasure.'' The prophet was himself employed in revealing God's wrath against them, and yet grieved thus for it, as one that did not desire the woeful day. If the house of Jacob forsake the God of Jacob, let it not be thought strange that he hides his face from them. [2.] The contempt and reproaches of men, not only upon himself, but upon his disciples, among whom the law and the testimony were sealed: I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders; we are gazed at as monsters or outlandish people, pointed at as we go along the streets. Probably the prophetical names that were given to his children were ridiculed and bantered by the profane scoffers of the town. I am as a wonder unto many, Ps. 71:7. God's people are the world's wonder (Zec. 3:8) for their singularity, and because they run not with them to the same excess of riot, 1 Pt. 4:4. The prophet was herein a type of Christ; for this is quoted (Heb. 2:13) to prove that believers are Christ's children: Behold, I and the children whom God has given me. Parents must look upon their children as God's gifts, his gracious gifts; Jacob did so, Gen. 33:5. Ministers must look upon their converts as their children, and be tender of them accordingly (1 Th. 2:7), and as the children whom God has given them; for, whatever good we are instrumental of to others, it is owing to the grace of God. Christ looks upon believers as his children, whom the Father gave him (Jn. 17:6), and both he and they are for signs and wonders, spoken against (Lu. 2:34), every where spoken against, Acts 28:22.
(2.) The encouragement he took in reference to these discouragements. [1.] He saw the hand of God in all that which was discouraging to him, and kept his eye upon that. Whatever trouble the house of Jacob is in, it comes from God's hiding his face; nay, whatever contempt was put upon him or his friends, it is from the Lord of hosts; he has bidden Shimei curse David, Job 19:13; 30:11. [2.] He saw God dwelling in Mount Zion, manifesting himself to his people, and ready to hear their prayers and receive their homage. Though, for the present, he hide his face from the house of Jacob, yet they know where to find him and recover the sight of him; he dwells in Mount Zion. [3.] He therefore resolved to wait upon the Lord and to look for him; to attend his motions even while he hid his face, and to expect with a humble assurance his returns in a way of mercy. Those that wait upon God by faith and prayer may look for him with hope and joy. When we have not sensible comforts we must still keep up our observance of God and obedience to him, and then wait awhile; at evening time it shall be light.
2. By the counsel and advice which he gives to his disciples, among whom the law and the testimony were sealed, to whom were committed the lively oracles.
(1.) He supposes they would be tempted, in the day of their distress, to consult those that had familiar spirits, that dealt with the devil, asked his advice, and desired to be informed by him concerning things to come, that they might take their measures accordingly. Thus Saul, when he was in straits, made his application to the witch of Endor (1 Sa. 28:7, 15), and Ahaziah to the god of Ekron, 2 Ki. 1:2. These conjurors had strange fantastic gestures and tones: They peeped and muttered; they muffled their heads, that they could neither see nor be seen plainly, but peeped and were peeped at. Or both the words here used may refer to their voice and manner of speaking; they delivered what they had to say with a low, hollow, broken sound, scarcely articulate, and sometimes in a puling or mournful tone, like a crane, or a swallow, or a dove, ch. 38:14. They spoke not with that boldness and plainness which the prophets of the Lord spoke with, but as those who desire to amuse people rather than to instruct them; yet there were those who were so wretchedly sottish as to seek to them and to court others to do so, even the prophet's hearers, who knew better things, whom therefore the prophet warns not to say, A confederacy with such. There were express laws against this wickedness (Lev. 19:31; 20:27), and yet it was found in Israel, is found even in Christian nations; but let all that have any sense of religion show it, by startling at the thought of it. Get thee behind me, Satan. Dread the use of spells and charms, and consulting those that by hidden arts pretend to tell fortunes, cure diseases, or discover things lost; for this is a heinous crime, and, in effect, denies the God that is above.
(2.) He furnishes them with an answer to this temptation, puts words into their mouths. "If any go about thus to ensnare you, give them this reply: Should not a people seek to their God? What! for the living to the dead!'' [1.] "Tell them it is a principle of religion that a people ought to seek unto their God; now Jehovah is our God, and therefore to him we ought to seek, and to consult with him, and not with those that have familiar spirits. All people will thus walk in the name of their God, Mic. 4:5. Those that made the hosts of heaven their gods sought unto them, Jer. 8:2. Should not a people under guilt, and in trouble, seek to their God for pardon and peace? Should not a people in doubt, in want, and in danger, seek to their God for direction, supply, and protection? Since the Lord is our God, and we are his people, it is certainly our duty to seek him.'' [2.] "Tell them it is an instance of the greatest folly in the world to seek for living men to dead idols.'' What can be more absurd than to seek to lifeless images for life and living comforts, or to expect that our friends that are dead should do that for us, when we deify them and pray to them, which our living friends cannot do? The dead know not any thing, nor is there with them any device or working, Eccl. 9:5, 10. It is folly therefore for the living to make their court to them, with any expectation of relief from them. Necromancers consulted the dead, as the witch of Endor, and so proclaimed their own folly. We must live by the living, and not by the dead. What life or light can we look for from those that have no light or life themselves?
(3.) He directs them to consult the oracles of God. If the prophets that were among them did not speak directly to every case, yet they had the written word, and to that they must have recourse. Note, Those will never be drawn to consult wizards that know how to make a good use of their Bibles. Would we know how we may seek to our God, and come to the knowledge of his mind? To the law and to the testimony. There you will see what is good, and what the Lord requires of you. Make God's statutes your counsellors, and you will be counselled aright. Observe, [1.] What use we must make of the law and the testimony: we must speak according to that word, that is, we must make this our standard, conform to it, take advice from it, make our appeals to it, and in every thing be overruled and determined by it, consent to those wholesome healing words (1 Tim. 6:3), and speak of the things of God in the words which the Holy Ghost teaches. It is not enough to say nothing against it, but we must speak according to it. [2.] Why we must make this use of the law and the testimony: because we shall be convicted of the greatest folly imaginable if we do not. Those that concur not with the word of God do thereby evince that there is no light, no morning light (so the word is) in them; they have no right sense of things; they do not understand themselves, nor the difference between good and evil, truth and falsehood. Note, Those that reject divine revelation have not so much as human understanding; nor do those rightly admit the oracles of reason who will not admit the oracles of God. Some read it as a threatening: "If they speak not according to this word, there shall be no light to them, no good, no comfort or relief; but they shall be driven to darkness and despair;'' as it follows here, v. 21, 22. What light had Saul when he consulted the witch? 1 Sa. 28:18, 20. Or what light can those expect that turn away from the Father of lights?
(4.) He reads the doom of those that seek to familiar spirits and regard not God's law and testimony; there shall not only be no light to them, no comfort or prosperity, but they may expect all horror and misery, v. 21, 22. [1.] The trouble they feared shall come upon them: They shall pass through the land, or pass to and fro in the land, unfixed, unsettled, and driven from place to place by the threatening power of an invading enemy; they shall be hardly bestead whither to go for the necessary supports of life, either because the country would be so impoverished that there would be nothing to be had, or at least themselves and their friends so impoverished that there would be nothing to be had for them; so that those who used to be fed to the full shall be hungry. Note, Those that go away from God go out of the way of all good. [2.] They shall be very uneasy to themselves, by their discontent and impatience under their trouble. A good man may be in want, but then he quiets himself, and strives to make himself easy; but these people when they shall be hungry shall fret themselves, and when they have nothing to feed on their vexation shall prey upon their own spirits; for fretfulness is a sin that is its own punishment. [3.] They shall be very provoking to all about them, nay, to all above them; when they find all their measures broken, and themselves at their wits' end, they will forget all the rules of duty and decency, and will treasonably curse their king and blasphemously curse their God, and this more than in their thought and in their bedchamber, Eccl. 10:20. They begin with cursing their king for managing the public affairs no better, as if the fault were his, when the best and wisest kings cannot secure success; but, when they have broken the bonds of their allegiance, no marvel if those of their religion do not hold them long: they next curse their God, curse him, and die; they quarrel with his providence, and reproach that, as if he had done them wrong. The foolishness of man perverts his way, and then his heart frets against the Lord, Prov. 19:3. See what need we have to keep our mouth as with a bridle when our heart is hot within us; for the language of fretfulness is commonly very offensive. [4.] They shall abandon themselves to despair, and, which way soever they look, shall see no probability of relief. They shall look upward, but heaven shall frown upon them and look gloomy; and how can it be otherwise when they curse their God? They shall look to the earth, but what comfort can that yield to those with whom God is at war? There is nothing there but trouble, and darkness, and dimness of anguish, every thing threatening, and not one pleasant gleam, not one hopeful prospect; but they shall be driven to darkness by the violence of their own fears, which represent every thing about them black and frightful. This explains what he had said v. 20, that there shall be no light to them. Those that shut their eyes against the light of God's word will justly be abandoned to darkness, and left to wander endlessly, and the sparks of their own kindling will do them no kindness.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.