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 ?? Personal liability ?? Penalty ?? 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 . 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