James Barber Sr. v. Clark County & Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force (Page 3 of 3)

So today I contacted Chris Horne the actual signer as to form of the propose ord. and he had not seen my proposal from what he claimed. He wanted me to send it to him to see what my Bitching is all about .. he giggles every time I tell him sorry for being so Bitchy but !!!!!

Hello Chris,

This is what I sent Axel and the Board. I thought for sure they would be sharing this with their counsel but, I guess I was wrong.

I do not take any issue with the county having authority over business issues at all. My gripe and the rub is Chapter 69.51A.025,.040,.043,.045,.047, and .085 are noted for private uses ONLY which the county doesn't have any authority over to make any propositions except, to allow it without any sanctions or negative legal actions .

Please look at the numbers and not this claim of the gardens are so big they are evil !! The state already "restricted" the uses for the gardens for "qualifying patients" ONLY and no-one not in the garden is allowed access, PERIOD. No commercial SALES are allowed, PERIOD!!

Trying to use the words, "production, processing and dispensing" in .140 doesn't give any local jurisdiction card blanche . The legislature made 2 clear distinctions of production, processing and dispensing. (1) commercial uses the locals have full authority over IF, they so choose to. (2) private uses in which no local authority exists.

If you as a bar member and with years of being a lawyer intend you want to play ignorant, that is your entitlement .

My medical use is not covered by ord. 2011-08-07 and I am subject to arrest, seizure and prosecution for being given a severe debilitating medical condition while in custody of the  county sheriffs dept. from 2000- 2001. Cannabis is the ONLY substance known to the medical community which mitigates the condition the county gave me... now you want to deny me this substance to further harm me ??

Chris, you can tell me stories all day long how people don't like cannabis in their neighborhoods but, you all forgot to go to the ballot box and vote no back in 1997. Get over it.

As you can see, I have no choice but, to sue the county policy from the beginning  as axel wrote it and you approved it as to "form".

I ended up in the hospital last week from not being able to mitigate my seizure condition the county gave me and I dislocated my right knee in my sleep from a grandmal seizure .

I seriously do not believe the state legislature gave authority to local jurisdictions to torture patients Chris.

If you disagree, we need to go to court with a finder of fact making that call to so authorize such egregious conduct contrary to our own state const. cruel punishment clause. 

Please call me when your done reading and want to further discuss this matter, or you can adopt my "reasonable" proposal to solve any further disputes.

Secondly, if you read the statute(s) below it is clear that we need to come to a settlement agreement for enacting such a nuisance ord. contrary to state law, and the const. .

RCW 7.48.010
Actionable nuisance defined.

The obstruction of any highway or the closing of the channel of any stream used for boating or rafting logs, lumber or timber, or whatever is injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property, is a nuisance and the subject of an action for damages and other and further relief.

[Code 1881 § 605; 1877 p 126 § 610; 1869 p 144 § 599; 1854 p 207 § 405; RRS § 943.]

RCW 7.48.120
Nuisance defined.

Nuisance consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission either annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others, offends decency, or unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, any lake or navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or any public park, square, street or highway; or in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property.

[Code 1881 § 1235; 1875 p 79 § 1; RRS § 9914.]

RCW 7.48.160
Authorized act not a nuisance.

Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance.

[Code 1881 § 1238; 1875 p 79 § 4; RRS § 9916.]

RCW 7.48.180
Abatement does not preclude action for damages.

The abatement of a nuisance does not prejudice the right of any person to recover damages for its past existence.

[Code 1881 § 1240; 1875 p 79 § 6; RRS § 9918.]

Here is a case from clark county: Burton v. Clark County (Div.II 1998)

Where a county's notice misleads citizens, it is defective. Barrie v. Kitsap County, 84 Wn.2d 579, 584-85, 527 P.2d 1377 (1974). In Barrie, Kitsap County sent out notice for a meeting to discuss a general rezoning and a planned unit development application. Barrie, 84 Wn.2d at 580-81. The court determined that the notice was written in such a way as to suggest that the planned unit development and rezoning were part of the same application. Barrie, 84 Wn.2d at 584. The court held that because the notice mislead citizens and conceivably deprived affected parties of the ability to intelligently prepare for the hearing, the notice was defective. Barrie, 84 Wn.2d at 585-86.

We review the constitutionality of a land-use decision de novo. RCW 36.70C.130(f); Cingular Wireless, 131 Wn. App. at 767-68. We analyze a quasi-judicial decision, such as one denying or granting a development permit, under the federal takings clause in the Fifth Amendment. Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 515-16, 958 P.2d 343 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1015 (1999). This clause prohibits the government from taking private property without just compensation. U.S. Const. amend V.; Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 515. A county may take land in a quasi-judicial proceeding only if the county can justify its conduct as a proper exercise of its police power. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 517.

In Burton, we created a four-part test to determine whether a county may exact a road as a condition for development. First, the county must identify a public problem that the condition is designed to address. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 520. If it is only a private problem, the government lacks a legitimate public purpose and the action is unconstitutional. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 520. And the commercial development of an individual's parcel is a private problem. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 521. Second, the county must show that the development will create or exacerbate the identified public problem. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 521. Third, the county must show that its proposed exaction tends to solve or alleviate the identified problem. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 522. And fourth, the county must show that its proposed solution is roughly proportional to the problem the development exacerbated. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 523.

RCW 69.51A.025
Construction of chapter — Compliance with RCW 69.51A.040.

Nothing in this chapter or in the rules adopted to implement it precludes a qualifying patient or designated provider from engaging in the private, unlicensed, noncommercial production, possession, transportation, delivery, or administration of cannabis for medical use as authorized under RCW 69.51A.040.

[2011 c 181 § 413.]

RCW 69.51A.085
Collective gardens.
(1) Qualifying patients may create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting, and delivering cannabis for medical use subject to the following conditions:

(3) A person who knowingly violates a provision of subsection (1) of this section is not entitled to the protections of this chapter.

Looks like it's all ONLY private to me.. per state statute.

James E. Barber Sr.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: James Barber
To: Swanson Axel <axel.swanson@clark.wa.gov>
Cc: "boardcom@clark.wa.gov" <boardcom@clark.wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Look at this revised draft Axel

Hello Axel,

In response to not receiving my last email to you this week. This is when I sent the last one to you Axel.. Monday , May 14, 2012 @ 11:28 A.M.

You must have me on your computer spam program settings. As you have found other pertinent emails in that file before, like some of the authoritative controlling case law I have sent you in which has you and Chris thinking twice about the first written resolution in regards to qualifying patients, designated providers and of course the collective gardens . In light of the purpose of the statutes and the unique facts herein, it would be an unreasonable exercise of police power to extend the prohibition to exempt conduct.

I recently found this case law here :

The term "wilfully" is not ambiguous. As used in criminal statutes, it means intentionally and designedly.

Prior decisions of this court support the definition set forth in Spino, supra. In State v. Vanderveer, 115 Wn. 184, 196 Pac. 650 (1921), it is stated that "An act done willfully is done intentionally and designedly." (Italics ours.) In State v. Evans, 32 Wn.2d 278, 201 P.2d 513 (1949) (a second degree assault case), the court pointed out that "A willful act is one done intentionally, not accidentally."

"[T]he term, `malice' conveys the meaning of hatred, ill-will, or hostility toward another. . . . [M]alice has been frequently, substantially so defined as consisting of the intentional doing of a wrongful act toward another without legal justification or excuse." State v. Heyward, 197 S.C. 371, 15 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1941).

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "substantive due process is denied if a local jurisdiction makes a land use decision irrationally, arbitrarily, and capriciously, its decision utterly fails to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, or was tainted by improper motive." Cox v. City of Lynnwood,72 Wn.App. 1, 9, 863 P.2d 578 (1993) (citing Robinson v. City of Seattle,119 Wn.2d 34, 62, 830 P.2d 318 (1992)) When considering whether a statute violates due process in exercising the police powers of the State the standard is "whether the statute is reasonably designed to remedy the evils which the legislature has determined to be a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare." (Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. (1955), 6 Ill.2d 152, 159, 128 N.E.2d 691.) The due process clauses of the Federal and State constitutions limit only the unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the police power. (Illinois Gamefowl Breeders Association v. Block (1979), 75 Ill.2d 443, 453, 389 N.E.2d 529.)

In regards to State v. Spino, 377 P.2d 868 (1963) - http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? … p;as_vis=1

The rule is that, to justify any law upon the theory that it constitutes a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power, it must be reasonably necessary in the interest of the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the people. This exercise of police power must pass the judicial test of reasonableness. Remington Arms Co. v. Skaggs, 55 Wn. (2d) 1, 345 P. (2d) 1085. Legislatures may not, under the guise of the police power, impose restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities. Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116, 73 L.Ed. 210, 49 S.Ct. 50, 86 A.L.R. 654 (quoted with approval in Hauser v. Arness, 44 Wn. (2d) 358, 267 P. (2d) 691).

Zoning measures must find their justification in the police power exerted in the interest of the public. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra, 387. "The governmental power to interfere by zoning regulations with the general rights of the land owner by restricting the character of his use, is not unlimited and, other questions aside, such restriction cannot be imposed if it does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Nectow v. Cambridge, supra, p. 188. Legislatures may not, under the guise of the police power, impose restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137. Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 594. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-400. Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504, 513. Norfolk Ry. v. Public Service Comm'n, 265 U.S. 70, 74. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535. Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402, 412, 415. Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 442.

JEB SR
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: James Barber
To: "axel.swanson@clark.wa.gov" <axel.swanson@clark.wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Look at this revised draft Axel

Hello Axel,

I made some "Prudent" changes which should be OK with chris... if not and he wants your draft to be signed, we will end up in court without any  doubt in my mind.

I believe from my research, the below is the most "prudent" and most sound for all interested sides ...

If you or anyone else have any questions please don't hesitate to call me...

James E. Barber Sr.

The Board hereby repeals resolution 2011-08-07 and  hereby enacts A new resolution relating to land use and zoning, continuing the temporary prohibition on the location of "commercial" collective gardens , Licensed Dispensers and/or dispensaries for the growing or production, processing or dispensing of cannabis prior to further study and public analysis.

    WHEREAS, in 1998, the Washington voters chose to remove criminal penalties for patients and caregivers who use or provided medical cannabis for a debilitating or terminal conditions; and

    WHEREAS, for the preceding 14 + years, production, processing, possession or dispensing of cannabis was not a crime in the State of Washington for VALID Qualifying patients and/or their designated providers but, was a crime for ALL other purposes; and

    WHEREAS, in 2011, the legislature has chose to expand the removal of criminal penalties for patients and designated providers who use or provide medical cannabis for a debilitating or terminal conditions for a "non commercial" use codified at Chapter 69.51A.025 and also sought to expand the opportunities to grow,  produce, process, transport and dispense medical cannabis in the State of Washington codified at Chapter 69.51A.085 for "Qualifying Patients ONLY"  and Also sought to give local jurisdictions authority over licensed dispensers codified at Chapter 69.51A.140 for the "commercial" growing or production, processing or dispensing of cannabis ; and

WHEREAS, the U. S. Attorneys Office has notified the legislature and governor that such large commercial use state legislation once located in senate bill 5073 will not shield Washington citizens from the potential for federal prosecution, therefore, those sections have been vetoed by the Governor; and

WHEREAS, the "commercial" production, processing or dispensing of medical marijuana is an important public issue and the improper location of such facilities could cause serious harm to the public generally and particularly vulnerable populations, including youth; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds and concludes that additional time is needed to establish locational "commercial use" criteria from churches, schools, bus stops and other public gathering sites to ensure that the public is properly protected;and

WHEREAS, additional time is needed to establish those "commercial use" zoning districts in which these uses may be approved or approved with regulations or prohibited; and

WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200 authorize the Board of County Commissioners to adopt emergency "commercial" land use measures; and

WHEREAS, the Board enacted a temporary resolution without a prior public hearing as necessary to further the public health, safety and welfare; and

WHEREAS, the Board has held a duly advertised public hearing in compliance with state law; and

WHEREAS, the Board enters the findings and conclusions set forth below in support of this resolution extending the moratorium; now, therefore,

    BE IT ORDERED, RESOLVED AND DECREED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS:   

    Section 1.    Regulation of Medical Cannabis COMMERCIAL USE OF collective gardens and/or dispensaries Pursuant to Title 40. 

    The use of land or buildings for the "Commercial" growing or production, and/or processing, and/or dispensing of medical cannabis in connection with "commercial use"  of any collective gardens as defined by R.C.W. 69.51A.085 and/or licensed dispensers and/or Dispensaries as a primary or accessory use is not lawful in any zoning district in Clark County.  This section is not intended to impact or sanction anything that qualifying patients or designated providers choose to do under R.C.W. 69.51A.025, 69.51A.040, 69.61A.043, 69.51A.045, 69.51A.047, 69.51A.085 as an accessory use to the principal residential use of their property as defined and codified under state law.

Section 2.    Applications for Permits to "commercially" Grow, Produce, Process or Dispense Medical Cannabis.

    Applications for permits to "commercially" produce, grow, process and/or dispense medical cannabis will not be accepted by employees of Clark County pending further resolution by the Board of Clark County Commissioners.

    There hereby exists a temporary moratorium on such "commercial use " applications and "commercial uses" pending further resolution by the Board of Clark County Commissioners pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200.

    Section 3.    Findings.

a.    There is a contradiction between federal and state law as to commercial use permits.  Until such time as federal law permits or allows Clark County and its employees to do so free of federal prosecution, Clark County will not amend its development code to allow the siting or operation of "COMMERCIAL USE "  of medical marijuana collective gardens , licensed dispensers and/or dispensaries within the County.

b.    The Board hereby adopts the facts contained in the recital clauses above as findings of fact in support of this resolution.

The Governor while granting limited approval of the 2011 legislation specifically recognized that medical cannabis “cooperative organizations” should be conditioned in compliance with local government regulations.

COMMERCIAL USE OPERATIONS of Medical cannabis presents security risks for public and eligible users if sufficient security is not in place to protect the substances from theft.

e.    A work plan is necessary to draft a proposed ordinance and elicit comments from the public, interested stakeholders and law enforcement, present the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission and present the proposed ordinance to the Board.

    Section 4.    Instructions to Clerk.  The Clerk to the Board shall record a certified copy of this Resolution with the Clark County Auditor.

    Section 5.    Effective Date.  This emergency Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption and shall expire July 11th, 2012 unless extended by further action by the Board following a public hearing or modified by earlier action by this Board.

    ADOPTED this ___________ day of May, 2012.

Here is the final order from the Federal Judge in our local state district. Not Cali or Colorado, or Montana.

Mr. Mielke,

The way it works here is you pay attention to the Federal Judge in your Jurisdiction, not an advisory opinion from some agency.

If you wish your own legal opinion, then pass some ord. which contradicts this Federal Judge and I would most be happy to assist you in getting such an opinion. Only it won't be an advisory opinion, it will be a prohibition order, coupled along with damages.

Please enjoy your time to think about what to do .

Either way, you still owe damages for passing the prohibition you did. Now the Federal court clearly stated : The law was clear 3 months after it went into effect. Provision .040 and .045 is Not a crime. Care to find out if  collective gardens fall under the same legal theory the Judge came up with ?? Since he used a collective gardens case to make his ruling.

Translation here counsel Horne.

The board acted in bad faith and not within their assigned duties.

No qualified immunity as the law was clearly established.

No banning or regulations, as it is not a crime.

No local authority over any qualifying patient or designated providers, nor any over the qualifying patients collective gardens, as it is not a crime and the plain language of .140 is pretty clear... licensed dispensers.. not qualifying patients or designated providers.. whom are not licensed.

The contempt you have for the law Mr. Mielke is beyond me.

Yours Truly,

James E. Barber Sr.

From: "Mielke, Tom" <Tom.Mielke@clark.wa.gov>
To: "Roberts, Linda" <Linda.Roberts@clark.wa.gov>; "Boldt, Marc" <Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov>; "Stuart, Steve" <Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov>;
Cc: "Swanson, Axel" <Axel.Swanson@clark.wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: From James Barber-FYI

Wow!  This is what we will soon be faced with.  Was this an executive order by Gov. Christine?  I didn't expect the Federal gov. who doesn't recognize any states legal marijuana laws.  How is that supposed to work?  Maybe we should have our legal opinion too.

tom

From: James Barber
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 7:42 PM
To: Horne, Chris
Cc: Swanson, Axel; Cnty Board of Commissioners General Delivery
Subject:

Thought you all may wish to read this before considering resolution 2011-08-07 reasonably valid in any way, shape or form or even anything written close to it.

I am again going to suggest the more "prudent proposal" I sent in my recent emails to you all.

Yours Truly,

James E. Barber Sr.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/j … d-illegal/

Officers didn’t consider medical marijuana law change

A recent court ruling that deemed a drug raid illegal has raised questions about how law enforcement in Spokane County investigate marijuana growers.

Sheriff’s detectives had reason to believe marijuana was being grown at a northwest Spokane County home when they raided it Nov. 2, but they didn’t have reason to believe the growers were violating the state’s medical marijuana law – or at least they didn’t say they did when they got authorization from a local judge to search the home.

>>A federal judge ruled the search violated Washington’s recently expanded law governing medicinal marijuana and last week prohibited prosecutors from using marijuana plants and other items seized at the large grow house. <<

Now a federal grand jury indictment against five young men, two of whom have previous drug convictions, is in limbo, and drug detectives in Spokane are wondering how they’ll continue investigating marijuana growers.

“We’re kind of biding our time to see how this thing turns out,” said sheriff’s Detective Lloyd Hixson, who investigated the case. “We probably don’t want to spend a whole bunch of energy investigating something that’s going to get thrown out.”

George Trejo, a Yakima-based lawyer who represents one of the men charged, said he doesn’t believe the government has enough evidence to proceed. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Frem Nielsen suppressed everything gathered during the search, including statements made by defendants.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office has asked Nielsen to reconsider his decision. The office did not return phone calls seeking comment this week.

Hixson said he was “floored” by Nielsen’s decision and is hopeful it will be reversed. He said he and his coworkers are awaiting feedback from county prosecutors about how the ruling might affect cases prosecuted in state court. If the ruling stands, “It would really frustrate our ability to investigate marijuana grows,” Hixson said.

>>The ruling stems from a rewrite of the law approved by legislators last year that specifically stated possessing medical marijuana was not a crime.<<

Before then, medical marijuana was considered a defense – law enforcement could arrest users and make them prove their case in court. That changed in July, but Spokane County sheriff’s detectives didn’t consider that when they raided the home last year, Nielsen ruled.

“The 3-month-old law was clear, and the officers should have been aware of its requirements,” the judge said.

Two suspects, Jerad J. Kynaston, 23, and Samuel M. Doyle, 25, were released from jail last week. Each have previous convictions in Oregon for possessing 10 pounds of marijuana and had been in custody since a federal grand jury indicted them in February.

Kynaston also was convicted in Spokane County in 2009 for possessing 5 pounds of marijuana.

Three other suspects, Jayde D. Evans, 24, Brice C. Davis, 25, and Tyler S. McKinley, 27, were out of jail awaiting trial. Two others, Corey E. Mobley, 29, and Peter M. Magana, 23, pleaded guilty prior to the judge’s decision to throw out all evidence against them. Magana is seeking to be released from jail despite a sentencing scheduled for Sept. 12. A judge is set to consider his request June 11.

“Imagine how they feel?” said Trejo, who represents Doyle. “They could be pretty screwed unless the government wanted to say, you know what, we believe your guilty plea should be set aside. I doubt they’ll do that.”

>>In court documents, prosecutors argued that the Washington Legislature did not intend to change the affirmative defense when they rewrote it. In his ruling, Nielsen called that opinion a “tortured reading” of the law that contradicts its plain language.<<<

Hixson and other detectives with the Spokane County sheriff’s drug unit arrested the suspects Nov. 2 during a search at 11900 N. Judkins Road, which is west of Newman Lake and east of Forker Road. A news release at the time said they seized 8 pounds of harvested marijuana, 695 marijuana plants and 500 plants that recently had been harvested.

The release noted that medical marijuana provider forms were located at the home and that a patient had told sheriff’s detectives that he contracted with someone at the Judkins Road address to supply him medical marijuana, but that the grower was selling it to other people.

It also noted that the state medical marijuana law had recently been changed to allow up to 10 people to grow up to 45 plants together. But it didn’t mention the change in the law that Nielsen ruled is so crucial to law enforcement investigations.

Hixson said it’s difficult to know whether suspected marijuana grows are legal under medical marijuana laws without searching them.

He said the power supply at the Judkins Road home was extraordinarily high and showed much more usage than just a 45-plant operation.

But in most cases, “you just don’t know that for sure,” he said. “It depends on how many lights are being used, the quality of the lighting” and other factors.

There also isn’t a database of authorized medical marijuana users that law enforcement can access, he said.

“For 99 percent of our marijuana grows, we just simply wouldn’t be able to write the warrant anymore,” Hixson said. “It kind of ties our hands.”

JEB SR
This e-mail and related attachments and any response may be subject to public disclosure under state law.

WOW, so many squares out there.. hee hee. good thing you stayed home because you would have been video taped by none other than Commander Mike Cooke of the Drug Task Force.

In a work shop mind you. He got a full shot of me the whole time.. focused he was. lol.

After the work shop session I asked him if we could talk and he replied : NO !! You said bad things about me on the Internet. Why should I talk to you...

I said bad things about all of them, and he is the only one offended.. He must think he is god.

Anyhow, the most interesting part was Commissioner Stuart asking his advisory counsel if a registry is legal or if one exists... they couldn't answer so he ask none other but, hey James can you answer that question please..

Reply, NO rcw 69.50.302 does not require such.

Moving on he did.

He then after listening to what none of them asked of their senior advisory staff to do in the first place as I was shacking my head with disbelief the whole time staff spoke about irrelavent private issues of qualifying patients and how LARGE these gardens are...

Commissioner Stuart got to the point.

NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Are we subject to federal prosecution if we act under state law medical cannabis act.

Now I am interested in this commercial vs. none commercial definition..

Get me a definition of this commercial use your talking about.

Counsel said you need not worry about being sued by anyone because section .130 doesn't allow it.

And further claimed the case over in spokane in the federal court just recently suppressing all evidence said he believed that the state laws are preempted by federal law because it interferes with their duties to enforce federal laws. I about peed my pants when I heard such garbage come from a veteran lawyer.

So it looks like the staff proposed Commander Mike Cooke wild federal enforcement ideas.. for a whole year at that... Just to find out, the commissioners didn't asked for them to do that job, they asked for a different job to be done under their assigned duties under good faith.

This was the funnest cannabis work shop I have ever been too.

I got to watch fools being made of, I got to meet Mike Cooke in person after he recorded me.lol.

And Commissioner Stuart made clear he don't want to encroach on any disabled persons rights .. this was to the lady representing the homeowners association snitching on her disabled pot smoking neighbor whom is defrauding the government because her neighbor can do stuff around their home and grow pot in the back yard.

I can't wait to get a hold of that list.. thats $50k per violation.. against the association for discrimination.

EDIT: Commissioner Stuart after the work shop said James unless your a magician,  you have no idea what we are going to do because we don't know our selves what we are going to do.

I said sure I know exactly what your going to do because you already did it.. cannabis prohibition moratorium Steve. ( The thought in my mind was, I didn't need to pull no rabbit out of my hat to answer that magical question. I am not Bullwinkle !! ).
"It is the Imaginative and Intellectual mind that "they're" afraid of. An educated mind, the world's most powerful weapon".

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a "Ignorance of the law is no excuse officer"
http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewforum.php?id=56 " MMJ Case law"

Last edited by james sr (2012-06-13 23:42:32)