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...
jamessr Reviewed by jamessr 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