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
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.]

sandybarr Reviewed by sandybarr on 10-15-2009. ACLU VIOLATES OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT.. AGAIN 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 Rating: 5

[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. 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.

[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.

[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