ACLU VIOLATES OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT.. AGAIN

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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

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

THIS IS A MUST READ


http://doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/...laim08cert.pdf