interlocutory Motion to stay until Jackson case is finalized and motion to handicap" the judge for being to old to whip his own ass himself. lol. BIAS, and not following both constitutions Judges are bound to uphold as the supreme law of the land.
All mmj patients, providers, caregivers, collective/co-op operators have a constitutional right to a defense. FED and STATE. Both require a person taking the stand to testify as to the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH..
How does one do this with a gag order in place ?? Can't go to the merits of the meat of the case, but, must remain "SILENT" .
That is a true handicap if there ever was one .. bar none !! Get on with your bad self judge, your time has come.
I think this kind of applies.
See Worrell, 219 F.3d at 1212 ("[A]ny form of official retaliation for exercising one's freedom of speech, including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment, constitutes an infringement of that freedom." (internal quotation marks omitted))
We have required proof of the following elements:
(1) that the plaintiff "was engaged in constitutionally protected activity";- testimony and legislative operative language mandating an affirmative defense for "ALL medical marijuana claims.
(2) that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff "to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity"; and- testify to the truth
(3) that the "defendant's adverse action was substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct." Id. - mandate to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. not to test-a-lie .
That approach has been followed by other circuits. See, e.g, Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300-01 (9th Cir. 1213*1213 1999); Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 678 (6th Cir.1998).
Gehl Group v. Koby, 63 F.3d 1528, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995) ("[G]overnment actors cannot intentionally suppress constitutionally protected expression because of its content and avoid First Amendment scrutiny simply by claiming that they were acting pursuant to an otherwise valid criminal law."), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998).
Go Joe !!
Last edited by james sr (2011-12-13 03:16:41)