ACLU VIOLATES OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT.. AGAIN

[sandybarr]

Hello,



For too many years now the ACLU has been meeting with law enforcement in private to determine medical marijuana policies. This practice is not only unethical it is against the law. This policy decision should only be made by an open rule making process that is open to everybody, and not by clandestine meetings for the special few.



The history of the ACLU meddling into medical marijuana is now well documented. In the past enforceable policies have been developed for medical marijuana patients, without their input or participation. In fact they are proving to be engaged in a pattern and practice of habitually bypassing the Open Public Meetings Act to make secret deals with law enforcement to acquire a policy that is not outlined by the governing state general law.



In fact, neither the state general law RCW 69.51A, nor the county charters authorize this group as having any statutory authority to decide such a medical marijuana policy.



It is time to reprimand the ACLU and the law enforcement agencies that have demonstrated a pattern and practice of violating the Open Public Meetings Act, and conducting back room policy meetings.



The ACLU does not speak for medical marijuana patients, nor can they legally represent medical marijuana cooperatives which are operating in violation of a state general law. The ACLU could and should be held liable for creating a Rico Act violation environment by encouraging illegal behavior to be conducted under a wink and a nod agreement with State, County, or City law enforcement.



The ACLU needs to stop this pattern and practice of creating secret medical marijuana polices and lobby for a bill or rule making process , or file an initiative to make a legal law. In fact, the ACLU should be pushing for the legislature to address the second part of SB 6032 which was to figure out a safe and legal supply, rather than hold more secret medical marijuana policy meetings.



Thank you





King County law enforcement officials meet with patients
Submitted by Ben on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 10:56pm
We received word via the Potline that the ACLU was hosting a meeting between King County law enforcement officials and representatives of various medical marijuana groups. Some confusion and concern existed about the purpose of these meetings, and two invited activists refused to attend because their lawyer wasn't allowed.

Via the intertubes we received a copy of the meeting agenda and two documents with draft guidelines for medical marijuana collectives or cooperatives. We are placing these documents online for general consumption.

Memo - 080509 Medical Marijuana Meeting - 082809.pdf
Collective Cultivation Guidelines - Lifevine - 092209.pdf
Guidelines for Washington State Medical Cannabis Cooperativ.pdf
To get the full story on this tempest, we called Alison Holcomb from the ACLU. She said that, after the Satterberg memo was issued to clarify what the King County Prosecutor would and would not prosecute, law enforcement had some questions on how to identify the groups, or collectives, or coops -- or whatever -- the memo refers to in Policy #3.

Apparently, King County law enforcement have been discussing what this means with one another. Alison is in touch with SPD Captain Mike Meehan, and was informed of these discussions, and the fact that law enforcement felt it would be worthwhile to discuss the matter with actual medical marijuana groups -- or collectives, or cooperatives, or etc.

So came this meeting between King County law enforcement officials, and Green Cross, Lifevine and Green Buddha.

But wait, there's controversy.

Medical marijuana attorney extraordinaire Douglas Hiatt was neither invited to, nor allowed to attend the meeting. Two representatives of Compassion in Action were specifically invited, but refused to go, because Douglas -- their lawyer -- was not allowed to go with them.

This is true, according to Alison Holcomb. She explained that this group of law enforcement officials specifically requested to not have Douglas present. The reasons for this, she explained, are three-fold: 1) they feel constantly attacked in meetings with Douglas, 2) they feel Douglas monopolizes time and conversation, and 3) they feel they understand Doug's position, and hearing more of it would not help the dialogue they are trying to have with this meeting.

So that's the story. The draft guideline documents are certainly interesting, so take a look, we hope you find them interesting too.


King County law enforcement officials meet with patients | Cannabis Defense Coalition (http://cdc.coop/2009-10-09-aclu-meeting)
RCW 42.30.010
Legislative declaration.

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.



RCW 42.30.020
Definitions.


As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:

(1) "Public agency" means:

(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;

(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;

(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;

(d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.

(2) "Governing body" means the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.

(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

(4) "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken.


[1985 c 366 § 1; 1983 c 155 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 43 § 10; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 2.]


Notes:
Severability -- Savings -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.52.374.





RCW 42.30.120
Violations â?? Personal liability â?? Penalty â?? Attorney fees and costs.


(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.

(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.


[1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]

[Dreadscale]

Hail !!!

You and Glen Beck!!! :)

[sandybarr]

They need to create a legal WAC,instead of these wink and nod agreements.People don't understand that they can make these agreements all they want,but another task force from another county(TNET or West Net) can come in and arrest you.

Alison Holcomb is always willing to let lawyers and judges sort out the problem,and that is what will happen with this secret de facto policy.people will engage in growing larger plant numbers and will no doubt be arrested by a drug task force with a DEA agent assigned to it,and the lawyers and judges will be sorting it all out just like any pot criminal attorney would love for it to be.

It is a form of ambulance chasing by causing the wreck.

They need to start the WAC process,and have us all show up in the four corners of the state to start a legal open rule making process.We will all argue,spin our heads and spit pea soup,but it will be legal and somebody will have to make the tough call...like the 15 plant limit.

It was mandated by SB 6032 anyway so lets get to work

[gypski]

Where's your bitch Sandy??? Is it because you weren't invited??? I see nothing disagreeable about either the co-op growing guidelines or the co-op guidelines. Actually, they are nearly what I have been saying on this forum, but that isn't unusual since figuring it out is elementary. Just like they say in AA, Keep it simple. :thumbsup:

And, I might add that I'd like to see LEO cooperate with patients who have gotten ripped off without fearing a third degree of themselves. I believe I know who burned me and could have turned over cheap rubber gloves and single edged razor blades used to steal my plants and make it look like a legal grab. They took my medical papers too that were with the nine plants. :mad: Alas, I will be left to deal with it in my own way, and it ain't worth going to jail over beating the shit out of a thief. :cool:

[Islandborn]

Damn Gypski, thats some shady shit that happened. They got all CSI to steal your plants? And you know who did it 100%?

[sandybarr]

My beef is:

That they are not co-ops they are dispensaries,and the only reason they want to be called a co-op is because they want to hide their money behind a non profit status.

They should have all been hit with a cease and desist notice ten years ago,so all the compassion and yada yada can line the Cherberg,and Obrien halls until the legislature hammers something out.(IN FACT I AM GOING TO GO DOWN TO THE CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL AND TELL THEM THAT)

I am sick and fucking tired of the ACLU making back room deals that create more work for criminal pot attorneys.Holcomb is fraud and so is the ACLU.they can kiss my ass...so can Hempfest inc.

[sandybarr]

Thank you for your email regarding your concerns over recent meetings held by the ACLU with local law enforcement regarding the Washington State Medical Marijuana Statute. As the representative who attended the meetings on behalf of my office, the King County Prosecutor's Office, I can tell you that our meetings in no way violated the Open Public Meetings Act set out in RCW 42.30.030. Our meetings were not violative of the Open Public Meetings Act because those of us who work in government who attended the meetings did not constitute a "governing body" of a public agency as defined in RCW 42.30.010. Furthermore, the ACLU is a private organization. The Open Public Meetings Act does not apply to private entities.

Our purpose in meeting, at least from my personal perspective, was to simply discuss the silence in RCW 69.51A regarding how to produce a safe and legal supply of medical marijuana. We had discussions but reached no agreement on what "official policy" is in King County. The simple fact is that it is the police and prosecutors' job to interpret the statute and apply their own law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion as they judge fit, subject to the citizens we serve. We will continue to exercise what discretion the law gives us in this area of the law but we are never opposed to sitting down with citizens whether they be the ACLU or some other advocacy organization and discussing the issues. As public servants that is just as much our job as any other responsibility we have.
Sincerely,

Ian Goodhew
Deputy Chief of Staff
King County Prosecutor's Office

[sandybarr]

Ian,

I will be at the County Council meeting on Monday the 19th at 1:30,asking them to require the Prosecuting attorney to serve a cease and desist order on all pot clubs in King County.What you are doing is enabling a violation of the law.The county charter requires that the County council assign statutory authority to create such a guideline, if it is not a general law.County laws are subordinate to state general laws,and the state general law does not asign local control of the medical marijuana law.Absent any statutory authority, I feel that this is nothing more than a civil conspiracy to develop illegal laws,and give a false sense of security to medical marijuana patients,and delay the development of a legal WAC or RCW.



I will be attempting to force this issue into a legal rule making process and prevent anymore back room deals in the ACLU.The purpose of the meeting was to serve Holcomb's interest in having judges and lawyers sort this secret illegal policy out and avoid clear bright lines for enforcement with legal posted RCW's and WAC's..



The time of creating work for criminal pot attorneys is over,and it is tiime to deal with this issue in Olympia,not in Seattle.

Thank you

[gypski]

I'm beginning to really wonder whose side you are really on? :( It doesn't matter who attends the meetings, its the end result. Legal and safe access to medical marijuana through legal non-profit co-ops. Give it a rest Sandy and grind your ax on something else like the legislators who aren't doing anything to address the issue.:D

[sandybarr]

Hello Councilmemberâ??s,



Below is an email exchange regarding an attempt by the King County Prosecutor and members of area law enforcement to create a medical marijuana policy in King County. This group is not acting on a council resolution to create this policy and is absent any such authority to legally create official policy under the King County charter.



To further complicate things the County does not have local control over this state general law, so any policy that is created will be in violation of a state general law.



The County Council needs to step in and address this problem now that these illegal policies are either in some cases in effect or in the process of being created. The Council should vote to order all medical marijuana pot clubs operating in King County to cease and desist, and initiate the urgency for Olympia to commence a rule making so there can be a legal remedy put into the state general law.



SB 6032 has a section written into it that is supposed to address this very problem, so creating secret illegal policies just puts off the real fix to this problem.



I am aware of the potential budget savings that creating laws at the ACLU would provide, however I would prefer to conduct the peopleâ??s business in the Councilâ??s chambers.

Thank you

[sandybarr]

Gypski,
Show up at 1:30PM on Monday and plead your case...Out in the fucking open where it belongs.

[sandybarr]

Co-ops don't sell pot to 1,000's of people dispensaries do.I am not interested in hiding the pot clubs money behind a non profit,perhaps that is the way you want it.Either way the policy decision belongs out in the open not at the ACLU.I want dispensaries to pay taxes and comepete just like any other free market situation,you want a non profit cartel to provide the service.Fine maybe you can convince Olympia the value of your approach...out in the fucking open where all the other laws get formed.

[gypski]

I, along with many would prefer that mmj remain tax free just as any other medication is tax free except for the state sales tax. That would require guidelines for record keeping on the amount of medication dispensed, not how much any patient obtained along with the other normal record keeping. That is basically private information unless they get caught redistributing it. And that would be their responsibility to defend, not the co-op that thought they were using their medicine correctly under the law. Not too hard to add a rule for that. Just pencil it in. King County needs revenue and as good citizen's paying a nominal tax is our civic duty in a sense. :thumbsup:

Remember medical marijuana patients can't claim it under insurance and are at a disadvantage right from the start. Being a medical patient yourself Sandy, you should understand that. :jointsmile:

[sandybarr]

Like I said there may be value in the co-op approach,who knows we might end up with both.I prefer it be run as a regular business with insurance for bad products,which is why I won't go to any of these clubs out there now.I have been told too many times that they can not guarentee the quality of their products.Can you imagine going to Dick's and getting sick all the time and having them tell you they can't guarantee the quality of their product.It is unacceptable.

As far as not being alowed in the meeting because I am not a co-op,that is horsehockey.Perhaps I want to use them at some point but I won't until they are responsible for the products they sell,or have some sort of regulatory system in place.I simply don't trust the clubs that are out there now to develop a safety standard.These people in my opinion are just trying to sell as much pot as they can and could give a rip if they sell tainted or moldy pot.

However selling to thouands of patients that do not do anything but show up and buy pot is a dispensary.Green cross is a dispensary..most of them are like that very few are actiually co-ops.

I have been told it would be best to wait until after the budget hearing process is over to go down to the county council to gripe about this so I can get my full two minutes.

[sandybarr]

The King County Prosecutor is a separately elected countywide official elected by the people of King County to enforce the state laws and county ordinances of King County. We have discretion to set policy including filing standards and other prosecutorial policies separate and apart from the county council or any other legislative body. We are the Executive Branch of county government and have authority under RCW 9.94A., specifically RCW 9.94A.411. We do not submit our filing standards to the County Council for approval.

Ian Goodhew
King County Prosecutor's Office

[killerweed420]

sandy why don't you focus your energies at the real issue, legalizing coops and dispensaries?

[sandybarr]

I am suing them for this practice in the past,I need to know what their defense is going to be.He has provided me with the specific RCW with which they can supposedly do this legally.We will see about that in due time.
Now I can forecast potential arguments and start to formulate specific questions for defendant's when they take the witness stand.

I see glaring problems already and I can't wait for the moment they make this argument in court.

This whole thing is about creating work for lawyers,and the expert witness Martin Martinez.They push some totally illegal guideline that will get people to grow larger amounts without the specific protection of the state general law.Law enforcement will find them and sort this all out with lawyers and Judges just like those sneaky fucking bastards Martinez, Holcomb,Steinborn,and Hiatt want.

[jamessr]

sandybarr, your on point there with what your trying to achieve,:thumbsup: go get them man !!! I totally agree with you, people whom haven't delt with the people your talking about are extremely clueless.... I have delt with almost all of them and what a bunch of thieves....:wtf:

[sandybarr]

Thank you James SR.
Perhaps we will cross paths in Olympia this next session.I urge you to recruit people to show up down there to be seen and heard.They keep wanting to hand pick people out of our community to make agreements with and run to the people and say here we have come to a concensus..Then they all gather behind the Governor and get their pen after she signs the Bill, as a momento.

Not any more.

[jamessr]

sandybarr, can you e-mail me please at [email protected], I need some info from you and to give you info. outside the forums, I am in clark co., far from your location. thank you:thumbsup:

[sandybarr]

James SR. I know that you are part of the cannacare forum so I have to maintain distance from you.I do not do this for any other reason than to maintain seperation from an organization that apparently according to the two task forces is still under investigation for Rico Act violations.
I was denied public records for that very reason.So I must keep a distance from Cannacare people until things blow over.people still believe and that is ok with me.I have said my piece and I will let it be.As I have stated before I would love to be wrong about the movement leader,but for now they would love to tie me to him to get a crack at me.I am the one they were after the first time,and I bet I am still the one they are after.

[jamessr]

sandybarr, I also am a THCF patient since 1999 and was a volunteer there, and am in a war with thcf, you are a THCF patient associated with a fraudster than I guess since they are after me also we shouldn't be mmj patients... Please put your issues aside with steve or what ever your rico issues are, just you going on this site is a rico issue, just you being a mmj patient is a rico issue, you say that steve didn't have a license when you had your run in, not my issue bro... THE WA. STATE located U.S. attorney's office got on your ass for filing your inquires into WESTNET you sillyman,FEDERAL MONEY GRANT inquires, they are on my ass for doing the same thing you did, just on the different level for filing citizen criminal complaints against state, county & city LEO',not to mention a $20 mil tort claim, bar complaints against steinborn, hiatt, private lawyers hired by risk management I.E. STU ESTES of keating, bucklin & McCormick and Todd Rueter of K/L Gates the largest government(LEO) lawyer agency in the world. SO BIG DEAL, BUCK UP AND BE A MAN, just because of your issues in your mind with steve don't legally transfer to me, just like mine with PAUL STANFORD don't transfer to you... we PATIENTS all need to stick together in the mmj fabric, or go hide under a rock, and don't come out, and definitely don't go to any public meeting on mmj, as in oly you mentioned meeting me at here on the forum... come on your a very smart dude and should know better than to act like this toward other mmj patients.. we can put these fools to bed if we SMART people actually work together to the common good, you got some info. I need to continue my work for the common good of us mmj patients, thats what I need from you PERIOD !!! ain't interested in anything else, I have read your work on-line and it gave me wood, deny me stable wood ?(were is the viagra in that? SHIT), I can't believe anyone doing that in your position, cruel and unusual punishment bro... I am a solider in the fight, not one to hide in any closet EVER,EVER,EVER !!!!!! Don't want to fight a fellow mmj patient, just all those against us... play ball sandy...

[killerweed420]

So whats the big deal with thcf? They're just doctors authorizing MMJ to patients. They don't have a dispensary that I know of so they're not vilating any laws.

[sandybarr]

James Sr.

Sounds like interesting stuff going on with the old guard ,white night,Hempfest inc crowd.I have until January to sterilize and Homogenize a legal argument capable of withstanding an immunity defense and summary judgement.Then I have to come up with 1400 bucks to file and serve the summons and complaint.There is a lot on my plate right now,while I wait for an division II appeals court decision I may have to appeal. I have been going at it alone for years now and I seem to be getting better and better at it.

What is it you want from me..Is it information..there is enough stuff posted here that you or anyone else can use in your battles.Funny you should mention cruel and unusual punishment it is now part of my legal argument.

This outta be specific enough to survive immunity and summary judgment

a. Even if State, County, and City Defendants had colorable authority to enforce federal marijuana laws over state medical marijuana laws, and ultra vires medical marijuana plant limits, for medical practice standards to be used under programs operated by State, County and City Defendantsâ?? Departments, such authority does not permit Defendants to establish standards that are contrary to existing Specific lawful standards of medical practice developed by MQAC
The medical marijuana plant limits and de facto 60 day supply creations specifically conflict with the Washington State medical marijuana initiative, approved by the Washington state voters. As such, the ultra vires within the meaning of the law of the State of Washington, and will of the people violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and should be enjoined in toto by this Court and declared invalid for any lawful purpose.
80. ___________ was seeking treatment for his pain, and was striped of the statutory rights under state law to seek the necessary medical care that would allow him to avoid intolerable pain and suffering, including choosing medical marijuana when no effective alternatives are available.
a. The right to make this choice is a fundamental right under the due
process clause, and is entitled to the strongest degree of constitutional protection.
81. Undermining the state medical marijuana law unduly burdens a
mentally competent adultâ??s fundamental liberty interest in avoiding
intolerable pain and suffering by seeking a physician-patient
relationship wherein a physician is allowed to exercise his best
professional and scientific judgment, even when such judgment is that
pain treatment with medical marijuana when it is medically necessary and no adequate alternative exists.
a. When the state exercises sufficient â??control and dominionâ?� over
the life circumstances of an individual so that it becomes
impossible for the individual to obtain necessary support , such as
medical care, then by virtue of state â??control and dominionâ?� over
those life circumstances, the state undertakes the obligation to
make that support available to the extent that absence of such
support would result in â??torture or a lingering death.â?�
b. The Stateâ??s overall and unduly restrictive regulatory impairment of
the only legal state mechanisms whereby individuals could obtain
necessary medical care with voter-approved medical marijuana, lawful treatment of severe chronic pain with medical marijuana as restricted through the civil conspiracy to undermine the Washington State medical marijuana Act described above -- results in â??control and dominionâ?� over the medical circumstances of persons who, without such treatment, would have to live in intolerable
conditions. When a State, such as here, chooses to exercise
complete â??control and dominion,â?� then by virtue of the state
regulatory environment impairing the availability of necessary medical care, citizens on the street have less â??freedomâ?� to obtain
that care than incarcerated prisoners who have a legal entitlement
thereto under the Eighth Amendment.
c. When the State chooses to exercise such complete â??control and
dominionâ?� that it effectively proscribes or stigmatizes all
reasonable lawful avenues for receiving necessary medical care,
then the State has a concomitant obligation to ensure that adequate
resources are available for treatment of those medically necessary
needs which, absent interference by the state, would not otherwise
produce physical â??torture or a lingering death.â?� By virtue of state
â??control and dominionâ?� it is the state impairment that is
responsible for the physical â??torture or a lingering death.â?�


GOD I CANT WAIT.

[jamessr]

Well sandybarr, look at this. If the 15 plant limit is a real issue then lets find out why? So when you look at the city of aberdeens dtf website, they claim each plant is worth $4,800, so 15x $4,800= $72,000, the courts just changed the superior court jurisdiction upto $75,000 from $50,000, that means one can't bring forth a civil claim in the proper jurisdiction to make a claim, CORRECT? (risk management !!)

Now look at the Grays Harbor Superior court case my son & I have in that county(Mr. Hardgroves jurisdiction) 61 plants x $4,800 x 3=$878,400, just in CROPS( under the timber statutes, it's treble damages automatically) not to mention the amount of equipment they destroyed worth over $30,000.

My son set down in Whitman county(I suggest you get copies of the documents he filed, under James E.Barber jr. aka Barber Bishop) that mmj is NOT CONTRABAND for any mmj patient, meaning NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE under RCW 69.50 AND THE STATE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO SEIZE LAWFUL PROPERTY OR FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES UNDER 69.50, unfortunately he is in prison in alaska for trumped up cs charges & he is looking at 5-10 years, so he can't continue the fight here, as he now has others..

You forgot to follow the contracts of the dtf, THE MONEY TRAIN BRO,(copies of the cash warrants under CTED, they are ONLY allowed to investigate DRUG TRAFFICKING, not medical treatment for the "use" of the substance of mj, which is not to be IMPAIRED...

Your 14th amend argument will fail, without the state first acknowledging your statutory rights under RCW 69.51A et. seq., this means they must give you back medicine without filing any motions for it to get it back...

Your 8th amendment will also fail, because you don't have the 3rd prong established yet under that amendment.. see the case in the state of california, city of L.A. homeless people case... What you have is a summary judgment on what you have before the court, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW,YOU MISSED VERY IMPORTANT FACTS AND CASELAW.......

This is the reason I asked you to send me EVERYTHING you have:thumbsup:, not to tell me read what you put on-line, because you didn't put it all on-line, and rather than airing it out here or on other sites, I just want it all to read for myself( for your benefit), we have been at this since before the law came out, and changed much policy without issues.. so buck up bro.. :pimp:

[jamessr]

KW 420, I suggest you show up at my trial on Nov. 30th at 9a.m. and learn who, what, where, why and how.. this is in Grays Harbor County DC2 in Aberdeen on summner st. THE HEAD CITY THAT DISTRIBUTES THE FEDERAL DTF GRANT FUNDS IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, REP. HARDGROVES JURISDICTION, THE GUY WHO DRIVES THE BUS THEY TOSS US MMJ PATIENTS UNDER, MY TURN TO DRIVE THE BUS...

THCF is not who they claim to be, they turn in patients for profit, don't argue, just show up !!!!!!!!! If not then shut your pie hole... I am a certified patient of dr. orvalds...

Ya got any clue why the DOH made new rules for recommendations, i.e. 1yr expiration of documentation??? Because of my case before the district court, you got a 1yr. expiration on your recommendation, CORRECT !! Well son, I don't, nor does mine have any thing that says THCF on it, yet Mr. Stanford decided he wanted to practice medicine without a VALID license to do so....Just like Leveque and Dodge in washington state, have had all of them sign my documents over the past 10 yrs...look at state v. soper, stanford has acknowledged he is THE SUPERVISOR of the DR.'s, son that is illegal here in Washington state, PERIOD !!! So you may be without any lawful document when I get done with this case... Your bad for not being up on the laws, not mine. Ignorance of the laws are no excuse!!!!!!!

By the way, it was me who forced Stanford to hire Orvald because he was frauding all us patients with the other non-licensed dr.'s in wa., he made huge amounts of money, which he laundered through THCF.. Feel covered now??;):thumbsup:

[sandybarr]

No 8th amendment or fourth amended argument that has used the latest case law has lost. They can not interefere with the medical treatment of a physician.Gonzales v. Oregon is the new argument on the block.You are stuck in the media world of Norml/Raich yada yada.

Orvald is a legal physician in Washington state.They licensed him.if he was not a legal physician then they should not have licensed him.As long as the DOH has him listed as a legal Washington State Phycisian I am safe.The same goes for Ling.Then there is the qualifying condition.Either you have one or you don't.

Gonzales v Oregon is the line of scrimmage now.the releationship with you and your doctor.It always has been the line of scrimmage since the U.S. Supreme court made that ruling.Besides Raich was never implemented.Nor did it create a precedence.The U.S. Supreme Court can only suggest that Congress can regulate interstate commerce.The same Supreme court said you can't regulate medical practice.Even in Conant v Walters the feds acknowledge they can't regulate medical practice.

The can't force regulatory schemes on states either because Congress did not pass anything specific to implement Raich and allow federal regulatory schemes,even then the anti commandeering doctrine would have to be overturned..which it wasn't.

That is why they condition federal funding to get compliance beacsue they have never and will never be able to prohibit state medical marijuana laws.Even the ACLU knows that I have their explanation behind closed doors in writing.But in public they will tell you Raich blah blah blah high court blah blah blah.

So along comes Ganzales v Oregon and an cements the line of scrimmage to states controling medical practice.WSHQAC regulates medical practice.they say medical marijuana has medical value and add qualifying conditions.Then they set the plant limit..because they can regulate medical practice..But they put a release valve that restores to decision to you and your dr.Because they have been down the road of pain management with opiates and they are still being sued for regulating opiate pain management.In the end the have to leave it up to your DR. And you have the right to refuse or accept that medical treatment. Ganzales v Oregon fucking cements it.

Time for you to put down the ACLU,and Norml cirlulars and take a good look at where the line of scrimmage is here pal. Gonzales v Oregon

I would be wasting my time siding with someone that thinks otherwise.

[sandybarr]

So lets recap.

When they made plant limits or decided not to allow the law...they fucking regulate medical practice
When they work for the federal grants and by pass the law..they fucking regulate medical practice.
When they have done that even after Raich..THEY ARE VIOLATING THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND THE 8TH AMENDMENT BECAUSE RAICH WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED..NOR COULD IT HAVE BEEN BY JUDICIAL DECREE.IT FUCKING HAD TO COME FROM CONGRESS.CONGRESS DID NOTHING.

GONZALES CHALLENGED OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW AND GOT SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES.THE INTER STATE COMMERCE RULING DOES NOT MEAN THE FEDS CAN CONTROL MEDICAL PRACTICE.IF IT COULD GONZALES WOULD HAVE WON AND THE OREGON SUICIDE LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

IF YOU CAN'T FIND A DR TO SAY YOU COULD HAVE 61 PLANTS YOU MIGHT LOSE.IF YOU HAD A DR THAT SAID YOU COULD GROW 61 PLANTS YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IS BACKED BY GONZALES V OREGON,AND SAY IT IS BETWEEN ME AND HIM.PERHAPS THIS IS THE UNDERLYING BEEF WITH ORVALD AND THCF.

[jamessr]

sandy, your on point with the gonz. v. or. caselaw, my point was that you may have missed the other end of the argument...

As for the orvald and 61 plants, THCF and Orvald refuses to put any plant #'s on any papers, just an end result amount, my sons was 600 grams for every 60-days, mine was 3.oz. the oregon state limit, we both have the same condition and saw him 3 months apart... not to mention it was before any limits went into effect, yes just as the guy in kitsap county case, he sealed our criminal case in that respect...in our favor:thumbsup: we both got orvald documents to replace the fraudulent ones signed by dodge, FREE OF CHARGE AND FOR LIFE, SO SAID ORVALD AND STANFORD, TILL NOW!!!

it's a matter of time on that case of the 61 plants(they charged my son but not me for the house and plants) then a yr later charged me for possession of 9.59 grams in which I really had 35 grams, the WSP cop smoked the rest to his head. Paul said I don't have any valid documents because THCF documents only is good for 1 yr., SOOOOO, THIS GUY IS STATING HE IS A DR. UNDER 18.57-18.71, LOOK AT THE CASELAW BEHIND THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE IN WA....OOOPS, HE FUCKED UP BY EVEN LOOKING AT MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND SENDING THEM OUT OF STATE TO WASHINGTON FROM THE MAIN RECORDS DEPT. IN PORTLAND OREGON, not to mention I never ever saw orvald in washington, lol, I am a dual resident, and got both states covered from both dodge and orvald..... NOW WHAT??? RICO?? GENERAL WARRANTS ARE ILLEGAL IN WA. AND THE FEDERAL COURTS ALREADY RULED THEY CAN'T SUBPOENA ANY OF THCF MEDICAL RECORDS AND MUST US A DIFFERENT WAY TO GET THE INFO... CORRECT?:thumbsup: REMEMBER, ORVALD CERTIFIED MY RECOMMENDATION....

So if ling had his license in wa. when you was associated so to speak, then why are you in fear of rico??? steve is not any place in the act, your tie is with ling... correct??

p.s. fuck the aclu and normal political crap....they are morons...

[jamessr]

Sandy, can you please cite the 8th amend caselaw your relying on please? I only have located 1 case outside of custody of leo( city of L.A. homeless case) if no caselaw, your argument will be new then?? NICE !!:thumbsup:

[sandybarr]

My tie is with the movement leader and cannacare/canabiogen at the time.Neither had a business license when I was with them.I have already gone over that in previous threads.

Rico still applies according to the task forces rufusing to disclose public information about a case that state statutes ran out on..except rico apparantly...which is what set me off the last time...

I acknowledge there most likely isn't going to be charges..you never know,the movement leader might piss of Gregoire's old buddy Jenny Durban or whatever. the new U.S Attorney in Seattle.or who knows the AG.


I am looking for people that were looted by TNET or West Net.Or had plant limits applied when there wasn't a plant limit law...or if anyone interfered with their medical treatment.

My arguments start at conant,then go from there I have three years of research going into this and 50 pages of public disclosure info that is going to be hard to beat..at least in Federal Court I hope.

It sounds like THCF and this yearly thing shouldbe moot if you have a permenant condition. (U.S V Correll)Permenant conditions require only a one time authorization even without a current authorization.I believe there is a state us supreme court ruling on that as well.

[sandybarr]

Newest 8TH AND 14TH amendement arguments are in PRN v Washington State.I have taken those arguments applied the medical marijuana law and led them to Gonzales v Oregon.

Pain Relief Network v Washington has the quotations you are looking for.

[sandybarr]

There are 10th amendment arguments in San Diego v Norml et al which will uphold the anti commandeering doctrine.This is what I use to make the argument that the state,county and city volenteer to uphold a federal drug control strategy.They can't be ordered to.

State,county or city cant be ordered to enforce federal regulatory schemes.
Feds can't regulate medical practice.Nothing left for the state to do except go against the will of the people...for a fee...or grant in this case.

[sandybarr]

Without Gonzales v Oregon then yes 8th and 14th arguments would fail...then feds could control medical practice and interfere with the treatment of a physician and not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment arguments made in federal prisoner case law. Raich didn't use the U.S. Prisoner case law arguments(I have the prisoner case law somewhere here)..Raich is moot now the hall of justice league just doesn't want to face fact.

[jamessr]

That's what I was looking for sandy !!! Thank you bro. Hope I can be of help in some way to your cause of action, I have never had any contact with either dtf you mentioned, YET!! JUST THE GRAYS HARBOR TASK FORCE AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PLAY BALL WITH ME, JUST MY SON...(RISK MANAGEMENT) :thumbsup: NOR does clark county want to play ball, they have history with my bite:pimp:
p.s. I have read many cases about the 10th, and the citizen doesn't have any standing to raise that issue, unless you found something new lately that says different? If so please reply which case that is.. thank you:thumbsup:

[sandybarr]

City of San diego v Norml et al earlier this year.I am only using the 10th as a factual supplement that shows the state can't say the feds made us do it.

[jamessr]

Well sandy, I just went into lexis and the cases of correll and prn are not there, do you have a cite I can load in? The vs. isn't available that I can find, correll comes up a tax case issue, and prn comes up a kansas case, none are relevant. thank you. and I get your point on the 10th, very on point bro, reverse engineering is great.:thumbsup:

[sandybarr]

State v Hanson I believe is the one where the guy diddn't have an authorization at the time of his arrest..Think about it why would you need a DR to continually authorize a permenant condition...Like epilepsy for example.

US V Correll Cr 04 251 RSL.Correll had epilepsy the court ruled he was a legitimate patient even though he had no mmj authorization at the time.That was a plea bargain so it was never a published opinion,and perhaps may not be citeable.But the cops made the argument and Monica Benton shut it down because Correll was diagnosed with epilepsy well before he was arrested.

Hansen is relivant because I think that ruling made it so you could show your authorization at the time of trial or something like that I would read State v Hansen to see if that can help... it is citeable

[sandybarr]

PRN V Washington state et al
Call Laura and ask her to give her citiings if you can't find them.. they are filed.




PRN files State Tort Claim vs. WA State (http://doctordeluca.com/wordpress/archive/prn-files-state-tort-claim-vs-wa-state/)

[sandybarr]

THIS IS A MUST READ


http://doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/WSG/WaStateTortClaim08cert.pdf

[jamessr]

Ah yes sandy, I am familiar with the janes case, Hanson is irrelevant to the issue of what I am going through as far as a 1yr recommendation mandate(That case was about having a recommendation prior to police questioning about the use of mmj,& State v.Adams, was the case that sealed the deal that LEO must ask and allow access to the recommendation period) But is not irrelevant to the torture issue, cause the state used 9A.36 in their brief in the Hanson case which opened the door, then transferred it to State v. Fry even further opening the door, which is what grays harbor is using against me for my case(probable cause, the same argument my son won his hearing on in Whitman county) . Go figure. Thank you for your input.:thumbsup:

p.s. merle janes lost the case...but opened many other doors for mmj patients if used correctly by a lawyer whom represents patients and not self-serving interests like the ones we know...

[sandybarr]

James sr.

If I were you I would make the argument that marijuana is legal crops no longer subject to the controlled substances act because it no longer meets the criteria outlined in the state schedule 1 test.

Research the issue thoroughly.Hanson did not rule correctly and things have changed since Hanson. Hanson ruled that no agency had ruled that marijuana had accepted medical use..they were flat out wrong the Health and quality assurances Commission did rule marijuana had accepted medical use when they added qualifying conditions.Furthermore I have since challenged the state scheduling and instead of applying the state schedule 1 test,they applied the another test (a thru I)which is not what keeps marijuana in schedule 1(I think it is the test that puts it there originally).

Hanson acknowledges that the state schedule 1 test needs to be applied,and the board when asked to apply it refused to do so.

This time instead of failing to argue that an agency has determined marijuana has accepted medical use,and bringing up that someone has asked the board to apply the schedule 1 test...and the board refused could force the courts to apply the state schedule 1 test ,using the decision to add qualifying conditions.

I hope it is not too late for you to make those arguments.I believe the state schedule 1 test will take a ruling to be properly applied.When the courts have looked at this in Hanson they have determined that the state schedule 1 test was the proper determination to see if marijuana still belonged in schedule 1...only they erred when determining that no agency had ruled marijuana had acceptable medical use.Since the board has punted and you know the qualifying conditions had been added by a professional agency that regulates medical practice,you can make these arguments in the lower court.

Read Hanson and see if you can figure out my argument.Then read the boards decision not to apply the state schedule 1 test.It will be hard for the lower court to rule that the state schedule 1 test is not the test to keep marijuana in schedule 1,since Hanson has already reasoned that it is.

You need to re argue Hanson in the lower courts and take it to division II if you have to.Then you will have crops instead of controlled substances.

[justpics]

The state does not have to apply the schedule 1 test if the substance is schedule 1 federally, its the last part of the governing RCW.

[sandybarr]

You haven't been keeping up with current events.The top down system of control went by the wayside with the anti commandeering doctrine.They could no longer require state's to enforce a federal regulatory scheme.Whether it would be nuclear waste,Hand guns laws or immigration laws.There are now EPA arguments that could lead to Congress trying to restore the top down system of control.I will bet they will stick with conditioning federal funds.The problem is if they usurp the state powers then they have to pay for it all and they will never do that..that is why these high court rulings are never implemented.They just load up the federal grants on conditions to adopt a federal policy then slowly withdraw the funds,and then the state restores the funding to keep getting the smaller percentage of funding.The trick is to get the state ramped up with jobs then have the state step in the keep the jobs.This has been going on since Krakatoa exploded.
Like I said step away from the ACLU and Norml circulars..they lie like rugs they need the public to believe just as much as law enforcement does.And the 10,000 people that hold federally funded state jobs.

Next

[sandybarr]

The state schedule 1 test is required to be applied and the schedule is required to be updated periodically.Otherwise why would we have Pharmacy boards.The problem is the top down system of control was lost,and the state act was written as a mirror policy of the federal act.The bottom line here is Washington State does not want to apply the state schedule 1 test properly because marijuana has accepted medical use in the "United States"and the state agency which regulates medical practice and the same state agency that has to apply the state schedule 1 test has said marijuana has accepted medical use.Even the board admitted it has accepted medical use(they had to they added qualifying conditions)They just want to apply a different test.However the other RCW WITH a-i is not the state schedule 1 test.If it was Hanson would have ruled that marijuana did not meet the a-i RCW.Hanson didn't do that Hanson specifically said the state schedule 1 test was

RCW 69.50.203
Schedule I tests.

(a) The state board of pharmacy shall place a substance in Schedule I upon finding that the substance:

(1) has high potential for abuse;

(2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

(3) lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

(b) The board may place a substance in Schedule I without making the findings required by subsection (a) of this section if the substance is controlled under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a federal agency as the result of an international treaty, convention, or protocol.

And they reasoned the board saw fit not to apply this test or had not been asked to.

RCW 69.50.201
Enforcement of chapter â?? Authority to change schedules of controlled substances.

(a) The state board of pharmacy shall enforce this chapter and may add substances to or delete or reschedule substances listed in RCW 69.50.204, 69.50.206, 69.50.208, 69.50.210, or 69.50.212 pursuant to the procedures of chapter 34.05 RCW.

(1) In making a determination regarding a substance, the board shall consider the following:

(i) the actual or relative potential for abuse;

(ii) the scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;

(iii) the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance;

(iv) the history and current pattern of abuse;

(v) the scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

(vi) the risk to the public health;

(vii) the potential of the substance to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability; and

(viii) whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance.

(2) The board may consider findings of the federal Food and Drug Administration or the Drug Enforcement Administration as prima facie evidence relating to one or more of the determinative factors.

(b) After considering the factors enumerated in subsection (a) of this section, the board shall make findings with respect thereto and adopt and cause to be published a rule controlling the substance upon finding the substance has a potential for abuse.

(c) The board, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or RCW 69.50.203, 69.50.205, 69.50.207, 69.50.209, and 69.50.211 or the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section, may place an immediate precursor in the same schedule in which the controlled substance of which it is an immediate precursor is placed or in any other schedule. If the board designates a substance as an immediate precursor, substances that are precursors of the controlled precursor are not subject to control solely because they are precursors of the controlled precursor.

(d) If a substance is designated, rescheduled, or deleted as a controlled substance under federal law, the board shall similarly control the substance under this chapter after the expiration of thirty days from the date of publication in the federal register of a final order designating the substance as a controlled substance or rescheduling or deleting the substance or from the date of issuance of an order of temporary scheduling under Section 508 of the federal Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act of 1984, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 811(h), unless within that thirty-day period, the board or an interested party objects to inclusion, rescheduling, temporary scheduling, or deletion. If no objection is made, the board shall adopt and cause to be published, without the necessity of making determinations or findings as required by subsection (a) of this section or RCW 69.50.203, 69.50.205, 69.50.207, 69.50.209, and 69.50.211, a final rule, for which notice of proposed rule making is omitted, designating, rescheduling, temporarily scheduling, or deleting the substance. If an objection is made, the board shall make a determination with respect to the designation, rescheduling, or deletion of the substance as provided by subsection (a) of this section. Upon receipt of an objection to inclusion, rescheduling, or deletion under this chapter by the board, the board shall publish notice of the receipt of the objection, and control under this chapter is stayed until the board adopts a rule as provided by subsection (a) of this section.

(e) The board, by rule and without regard to the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, may schedule a substance in Schedule I regardless of whether the substance is substantially similar to a controlled substance in Schedule I or II if the board finds that scheduling of the substance on an emergency basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety and the substance is not included in any other schedule or no exemption or approval is in effect for the substance under Section 505 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 355. Upon receipt of notice under RCW 69.50.214, the board shall initiate scheduling of the controlled substance analog on an emergency basis pursuant to this subsection. The scheduling of a substance under this subsection expires one year after the adoption of the scheduling rule. With respect to the finding of an imminent hazard to the public safety, the board shall consider whether the substance has been scheduled on a temporary basis under federal law or factors set forth in subsection (a)(1)(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section, and may also consider clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution, and, if available, information concerning the other factors set forth in subsection (a)(1) of this section. A rule may not be adopted under this subsection until the board initiates a rule-making proceeding under subsection (a) of this section with respect to the substance. A rule adopted under this subsection must be vacated upon the conclusion of the rule-making proceeding initiated under subsection (a) of this section with respect to the substance.

(g) [(f)] Authority to control under this section does not extend to distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco as those terms are defined or used in Titles 66 and 26 RCW.



When marijuana had been found to have acepted medical use it was required to have the state schedule 1 test to be applied to see if it could be put back into schedule 1.RCW 69.50.201 did not apply since qualifying conditions were added.They simply could not have added qualifying conditions if Marijuana did not meet the criteria in 201.

The evidence was submitted ..the agency ruled marijuana had medical value for the addded qualifying conditions.They didn't just go to the agency DOH and say please can we add qualifying conditions.They submitted everything listed in 201.Furthermore the test says medical use in the United States.So the state is screwed.They have had marijuana in schedule 1 since 2000 without marijuana meeting the criteria to be in schedule 1.


STATE v HANSON

FindLaw | Cases and Codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/247783MAJ&invol=4)

No. 24778-3-III

State v. Hanson



authorized by their physician. RCW 69.51A.005; Shepherd, 110 Wn. App. at 549.



Schedule I controlled substances are designated as such because either the state



board of pharmacy has found that it "(1) has high potential for abuse; (2) has no currently



accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) lacks accepted safety for



use in treatment under medical supervision" or "if the substance is controlled under



schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a federal agency as the result of an

international treaty, convention, or protocol." RCW 69.50.203.3 Marijuana is listed as a



schedule I controlled substance in RCW 69.50.204(c)(14).



The legislature listed marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance as part of the



Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Ch. 69.50 RCW; Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776,



784, 940 P.2d 604 (1997). The Uniform Controlled Substances Act then allows the board



of pharmacy to change the designation based on a number of statutory factors:



3

(a) The state board of pharmacy shall place a substance in Schedule I upon

finding that the substance:

(1) has high potential for abuse;

(2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United

States; and

(3) lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical

supervision.

(b) The board may place a substance in Schedule I without making

the findings required by subsection (a) of this section if the substance is

controlled under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a

federal agency as the result of an international treaty, convention, or

protocol.

RCW 69.50.203.

No one has asked the pharmacy board to revisit the classification and it has



apparently not seen fit to do so. RCW 69.50.204(c)(14); Seeley, 132 Wn.2d at 784-85.



The classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance reflects a legislative



choice. State v. Martin, 14 Wn. App. 717, 721-22, 544 P.2d 750 (1976). One that



reflects a federal classification pursuant to an international treaty. 21 U.S.C. § 801(a)(2);



RCW 69.50.203; Martin, 14 Wn. App. at 721. The decision to change the classification,



then, is hardly a judicial decision. RCW 69.50.201; Seeley, 132 Wn.2d at 814.



Nor has the classification been repealed by implication since neither of the factors



has been satisfied. First, the Medical Marijuana Act does not cover the entire scope of



schedule I controlled substance designations nor was it meant to. RCW 69.51A.005,



.020; RCW 69.50.203, .204(c)(14). It simply provides that marijuana use "may" provide



some relief for some diseases. RCW 69.51A.005. And therefore use is permitted if



9



No. 24778-3-III

State v. Hanson



specific legislative procedures are followed.



Second, the Medical Marijuana Act only provides an affirmative defense to the



drug crime. RCW 69.51A.040(1). It is not, then, inconsistent with the schedule I



classification. An affirmative defense does not negate the elements of a crime. It excuses



the conduct. State v. Ginn, 128 Wn. App. 872, 878, 117 P.3d 1155 (2005).



Finally, on this point the legislative intent is clear: "[n]othing in this chapter shall



be construed to supersede Washington state law prohibiting the acquisition, possession,



manufacture, sale or use of marijuana for non-medical purposes." RCW 69.51A.020.



We do not read the Medical Marijuana Act and the Uniform Controlled Substances



Act as inconsistent. Indeed, the Medical Marijuana Act never addresses whether



marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. It only states that some patients may

benefit from medical marijuana. RCW 69.51A.005.4 It also states that it may be



beneficial for certain conditions. Id. There has been no specific finding in the Medical



Marijuana Act that marijuana actually benefits patients who suffer from certain



conditions, or that it is now safe for use in treatment. See id.

[sandybarr]

In my petition,The board is saying marijuana is dangerous.I say if it was dangerous how could they add qualifying conditions.The Board is in the position of admitting marijuana has medical use..but saying at the same time it is too dangerous to take out of schedukle 1???

In a criminal procedure you can make an argument that Marijuana has been repealed by implication,and that it is impossible for marijuana to have accepted medical use,and add qualifying conditions based on medical science,and still be placed in schedule 1.

[killerweed420]

KW 420, I suggest you show up at my trial on Nov. 30th at 9a.m. and learn who, what, where, why and how.. this is in Grays Harbor County DC2 in Aberdeen on summner st. THE HEAD CITY THAT DISTRIBUTES THE FEDERAL DTF GRANT FUNDS IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, REP. HARDGROVES JURISDICTION, THE GUY WHO DRIVES THE BUS THEY TOSS US MMJ PATIENTS UNDER, MY TURN TO DRIVE THE BUS...

THCF is not who they claim to be, they turn in patients for profit, don't argue, just show up !!!!!!!!! If not then shut your pie hole... I am a certified patient of dr. orvalds...

Ya got any clue why the DOH made new rules for recommendations, i.e. 1yr expiration of documentation??? Because of my case before the district court, you got a 1yr. expiration on your recommendation, CORRECT !! Well son, I don't, nor does mine have any thing that says THCF on it, yet Mr. Stanford decided he wanted to practice medicine without a VALID license to do so....Just like Leveque and Dodge in washington state, have had all of them sign my documents over the past 10 yrs...look at state v. soper, stanford has acknowledged he is THE SUPERVISOR of the DR.'s, son that is illegal here in Washington state, PERIOD !!! So you may be without any lawful document when I get done with this case... Your bad for not being up on the laws, not mine. Ignorance of the laws are no excuse!!!!!!!

By the way, it was me who forced Stanford to hire Orvald because he was frauding all us patients with the other non-licensed dr.'s in wa., he made huge amounts of money, which he laundered through THCF.. Feel covered now??;):thumbsup:
There are no state laws governing a one year expiration of MMJ authorization. I hear Dr Orvald is writing that on his authorizations and of course we all know why he's doing it. There's no doubt that there were some closed door deals done with the revamped MMJ laws. I still believe the easiest way to deal with that is to start another intiative before the people to straighten out the mess the Health Dept and the governor did by revamping the MMJ laws.

[justpics]

Sandy, please read the bold section several times.

RCW 69.50.203
Schedule I tests.

(a) The state board of pharmacy shall place a substance in Schedule I upon finding that the substance:

(1) has high potential for abuse;

(2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

(3) lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

(b) The board may place a substance in Schedule I without making the findings required by subsection (a) of this section if the substance is controlled under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a federal agency as the result of an international treaty, convention, or protocol.

[sandybarr]

The key word there is may.This is the section that was meant to create a lock step or top down system of control.

All of this is moot.The fact is if marijuana was dangerouss why did they add qualifying conditions.

I think the confusion here is medical marijuana is a reccomendation and comes from the advice of a physician,and not a prescription.The board can not interfere with the treatment of a physician.

What has happened is that the branch of the DOH that regulates medical practice has said marijuana has accepted medical use,and the branch that regulates controlled substances refuses to apply the medical science used to add qualifying conditions to the state schedule 1 test.RCW 201 was addressed by the HQAC,but the Board refuses to acknowledge all the information that was submitted to add qualifying conditions.

One interesting thing is the board admitted marijuana has accepted medical use.If you check I think you will find that no branch of government anywhere that regulates controlled substances has admitted that.

I could not afford to litigate that yet..but I will if nobody else does.

[jamessr]

KW420, it's not orvald whom is writing any date expirations on patients documents, it's paul stanfords policy as head chief to make a profit for thcf clinics... when I was a volunteer there, we went round and round about this very issue, just like the dr. dodge issue, he finally hired dr. orvald, guess what will happen with the 1 yr issue??

My guess is stanford is practicing medicine with-out a license to do so, and thcf clinics are engaged in corporate practicing medicine without the proper license to do so also... when the courts look at these issues, no-one will have any valid documents from thcf clinics or dr. orvald, because orvald is aidding and abetting in the illegal practice of medicine... this is how the courts have ruled in other same situations in the past...:pimp:

[jamessr]

sandybarr, please read the states brief in hanson, it is located at LegalJoint: Washington Lawyers: Stiley and Cikutovich, Criminal Defense, Medical Marijuana Law (http://www.Legaljoint.net), you will see some of your arguments already shot down, with the court agreeing... food for thought...

[sandybarr]

Good gawd you cited Hanson and didn't bring up the failures of Hanson.What didn't you read it.Are you trying to set precedence for the other side or what???

[sandybarr]

Hanson was litigated by criminal pot attorneys that fucking help set bad precedence.My argument has not been shot down in flames,the argument of criminal pot attorneys with a vested interest in undermining the law and creating bad precedence has been shot down.

[jamessr]

No sandy, the arguments used in that brief came from my son against the state man, and they turned around and used it, LMAO, read it carefully sandy, very carefully, they set up my final argument against them !!!! TORTURE man TORTURE, RCW 9A.36.021(f), the door is open, NOW IT'S ON LIKE DONKEY KONG BRO !!! HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!:pimp:

p.s. more than one way to skin a cat bro !!!

[jamessr]

Sandybarr, they also used the assault Affirmative Defense legal theory(RCW 9.A.36) in State v. Fry, which as you know is before the Wa. St. Supreme court right now... Also the lawyers whom set the "bad precedents" actually removed from the state the states legal position on how they view the CSA schedule1, our RCW is an adopted Federal Statute, our legislature nor the board of pharmacy has NEVER,EVER made any findings on MMJ until now, GSB 6032 intent is of the simplest evidence of medical practice acceptance for strictly medical purposes as you have been screaming about.... take the hanson state brief and reverse engineer it bro.... these idots boxed themselves in to a corner... our state LEO is operating under Federal law, not state.... They can't do that by the way our constitution is set up....

It was extremely nice of Denise Tracy to use the convention and treaty arguments, have you any clue what he just did by this BOLD move?? Ever heard of CAT (convention against torture)and the treaties of our country prior to the CSA treaty Denise Tracy mentions?? WOW this is gonna be extremely fun for me, and the MMJ movement across the U.S......:pimp: