So I have been dissecting State v. Fry our Wa. Supreme court ruled on...I am finding our court here is smoking controlled substances themselves, way worse than "MARIJUANA/CANNABIS"...they have "used" 3 different defenses claiming they are the same defense...statutory-affirmative- and "COMPASSIONATE USE"...

O.K., looking these "definitions" up separately are completely different from one another...talk about corruption TO WATCH THE BANK...geez people, can you use your law degrees in a more fashionable means...like representing your citizens, instead of your bed buddies.

TIME TO REMOVE THESE FOOLS FROM OFFICE...WE WANT HONEST SERVICES PROVIDED TO US IN OUR COURT SYSTEM.
jamessr Reviewed by jamessr on . Why did the Wa. St. Supreme court "use" 3 different defenses in State v. Fry? So I have been dissecting State v. Fry our Wa. Supreme court ruled on...I am finding our court here is smoking controlled substances themselves, way worse than "MARIJUANA/CANNABIS"...they have "used" 3 different defenses claiming they are the same defense...statutory-affirmative- and "COMPASSIONATE USE"... O.K., looking these "definitions" up separately are completely different from one another...talk about corruption TO WATCH THE BANK...geez people, can you use your law degrees in a more Rating: 5