[DoobieDuck]

Rowdy thanks for posting, I hope you all are doing well. It is good to see Attorney Joseph Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, has stepped in to help you out. That is nice to hear. I'm happy for you as well as all the patients in the state that will bennefit from your actions if you're sucsessfull. You'll keep us posted as you always do, many thanks..DD

[weeddaddy50]

well today will be interesting in court in Lake County....goo luck.

I like to post the story itself for those who can't or won't click the link. This is a VERY interesting story and I'll be following, because seeking an injunction or restraining order is a different way to go about things. I was told about one fellow who was planning on suing his BoS for preventing him from growing sufficient meds for his needs. I don't know if it's true or what happened with it.

Originally Posted by Lake County News

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Just days after the Board of Supervisors passed an interim urgency ordinance to address the county’s burgeoning marijuana cultivation, three medical marijuana patients are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the county from moving forward with the regulations.

County Counsel Anita Grant said her office received notice on Wednesday of the hearing, which is scheduled to take place Thursday at 4:30 p.m. in Lake County Superior Court. The matter is to go before Judge David Herrick in Department 1.

Attorney Joseph Elford arranged for the hearing. He is chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access. However, both Elford and Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes told Lake County News that the group isn’t bringing the action.

Elford said he’s representing three clients whose names are not being released. “Right now they want to remain anonymous,” he said. “There is a significant risk of retaliation, unfortunately.”

The two men and one woman are being named as John Does and Jane Doe, respectively, in the action, the documents for which Elford plans to file ahead of the hearing on Thursday.

Grant said Deputy County Counsel Bob Bridges and Community Development Director Rick Coel will represent the county at the Thursday hearing.

Elford’s filing is in reaction to the supervisors’ 4-1 vote on Monday to pass a 45-day interim urgency ordinance. The vote followed a heated seven-hour meeting at the Lake County Fairgrounds.

The ordinance allows for up to six plants to be grown outdoors on a half acre or less, 12 plants with a 75-foot setback on parcels of half an acre to one acre, 18 plants and a 150-foot setback on parcels one to five acres in size, 36 plants and a minimum 150 foot setback on five- to 40-acre parcels, and a maximum of 48 plants on parcels 40 acres and larger.

There also are screening requirements, and the potential for fines and jail time for growers who are out of compliance.

Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing, who are members of a board-appointed marijuana cultivation advisory committee, advocated for changing the original, stricter plant numbers Coel had proposed with numbers closer to what had been proposed by the committee.

The majority of the board accepted those numbers, with Board Chair Rob Brown the dissenting vote due to his concerns that the plant numbers were too high. He said at Tuesday’s board meeting that he considers the ordinance the most liberal of its kind in the state.

Elford’s filing came in advance of the issuance of the final ordinance document, which Coel was still reworking to the board’s specifications Wednesday afternoon.

“They don’t even have the ordinance in their hands yet to know what they’re trying to sue us on,” Coel said.*

Attorney: Ordinance doesn’t meet medical needs

Elford said the ordinance is “mildly better” than what was proposed a few weeks ago, however he maintained it’s still preempted by state law.

“State law is clear here,” he said, referring to the 1996 Compassionate Use Act.

He said the law allows for medical marijuana patients to cultivate and possess whatever is necessary to treat their medical conditions.

“For one person that may be a single plant,” Elford said.

However, as an example, Elford said that, in the case of one of his three clients in the case, the six-plant limit for a small residential parcel is only a fraction of what he needs.

That man has lung cancer, lives on a residential parcel that’s less than half an acre in size, and lacks the financial ability to cultivate indoors, meaning he must take advantage of the limited outdoor growing season to grow the supply he needs for the year, Elford said.

Elford said his client uses marijuana in edible form to treat his nausea and chronic pain. When marijuana is ingested rather than smoked, Elford said it takes three to five times the supply to meet the need.

“He needs, realistically, 18 plants to satisfy his medical marijuana needs for a year,” Elford said.

Elford said SB 420, enacted by the state Legislature in 2004, attempted to apply limits to what medical marijuana patients could possess. However, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case People v. Kelly that those attempts by the Legislature to amend a voter initiative were unconstitutional.

What’s not clear is how the county can move forward with regulating marijuana grows, which even halfway through the season are continuing to spring up in large numbers around the county.

Both Grant and Coel said the county’s interpretation has been that, according to zoning law, if a use – like marijuana cultivation – is not specifically allowed, it’s not legal.

“It’s in three different sections of the zoning ordinance,” Coel said.

That interpretation has been held up repeatedly throughout the country, according to Coel.

Elford argued that Proposition 215 supersedes those zoning rules.

However, while marijuana advocates argue that the Compassionate Use Act gives them the right to grow, Grant noted, “There isn’t any right that’s absolute,” adding there always are restrictions.

“There has never been a court decision that said there was unfettered authority to just grow, cultivate anywhere,” Grant said.

Grant said the law on medical marijuana in California remains in flux, and she’s hoping the California Supreme Court will offer clarifications.

Coel said the right to violate basic zoning isn’t given to other more longstanding uses.

He said the county wouldn’t allow someone to go into the middle of town and put in a pear orchard. Neither are beehives or livestock allowed on residential parcels.

Coel is concerned that Lake County took too long to tighten up its regulations, which other jurisdictions around Northern California have been doing.

Coel has researched other jurisdictions, noting that many of them have prohibited outdoor cultivation – including the city of Ukiah and, locally, the city of Lakeport. Neighboring Mendocino County also doesn’t allow outdoor cultivation on parcels under a certain size, he said.

Those rules have stood, according to Coel.

“There’s no other place for them to go,” he said of growers, adding that Lake County has become “ground zero for the fight now.”

Coel said he plans to meet with sheriff’s staff soon to plan how to move forward on nuisance grows.

Considering other options

Coel said it’s hard to get an injunction on urgency ordinances, which also are immune to referendums.

“It’s really difficult because these are immediate, serious health threats going on,” he said.

Elford argued that if a serious emergency had existed, the board would have acted earlier than it did – such as before the growing season started.

He said the temporary restraining order he’s seeking will be carefully crafted to allow the county to move forward with addressing issues involving grows on vacant parcels.

People don’t have the right to squat and camp on property and plant, Elford said. “That’s by no means what we’re saying.”

He suggested the ordinance can go away and the county still has ways to address nuisance issues.

However, he said the county must prove grows are a nuisance, and not apply broad findings that don’t take into account personal medical needs.

“They’re just basically saying, we’re going to call this a nuisance per se, and you can’t prove your innocence,” he said.

Elford said case law elsewhere has established that just because a jurisdiction makes an emergency finding doesn’t mean one actually exists.

“We’re not asking for the world here,” he said.

“All we’re trying to do is maintain the status quo so this can be sorted out in a judicial fashion,” he said, noting his clients want a hearing before irreparable harm is caused by the sheriff carrying out abatements.

If the temporary restraining order isn’t granted, Elford is prepared to take other steps, including going directly to the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, where he said petitioners are entitled to an immediate appeal.

Grant said it’s premature to try to guess what the court might do.

However, she said that even if the temporary restraining order that Elford is seeking is granted, there wouldn’t necessarily be a permanent consequence for the county.

She said the Board of Supervisors and its marijuana cultivation advisory committee could continue efforts to set up cultivation rules.

“This doesn’t end the conversation, no matter what,” Grant said.

* I know what I'd be suing for and asking the court to restrain, and that's the damned jail time for being out of compliance. WTF???

And what the hell is up with no beehives allowed on residential parcels? God damned fucking bureaucrats.

I have a strong issue, and at least one court decision was made against the notion of making cultivation a per se nuisance, too.

BASTARDS! Sorry, reading the story is getting me kinda worked up. And here they think they're being generous..? I have to stop.

[justalilrowdy]

Thank you SM.
Its very interesting indeed.

[justalilrowdy]

Here is the latest from the Lake County News..
Judge continues temporary restraining order hearing on county’s urgency marijuana cultivation ordinance
Friday, 13 July 2012 01:59 Elizabeth Larson
LAKEPORT, Calif. – A judge on Thursday continued a hearing on several medical marijuana patients’ request for a temporary restraining order against the county for its interim urgency marijuana cultivation ordinance.

Judge David Herrick found there was not sufficient evidence of harm submitted in the filings to justify granting the temporary restraining order. However, he agreed to continue the matter until 3:30 p.m. Friday, July 27, in order to let the group’s attorney provide more proof.

San Francisco attorney Joseph Elford – who is chief legal counsel for Americans for Safe Access but is acting separately from the group in this action – noticed the county on Wednesday of the hearing to request the temporary restraining order on the ordinance, which was passed on Monday in a 4-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The board’s ordinance allows for up to six plants to be grown outdoors on a half acre or less, 12 plants with a 75-foot setback on parcels of half an acre to one acre, 18 plants and a 150-foot setback on parcels one to five acres in size, 36 plants and a minimum 150 foot setback on five- to 40-acre parcels, and a maximum of 48 plants on parcels 40 acres and larger.

The ordinance, which took effect July 9, lasts for 45 days, at which point it may be extended.

Elford had told Lake County News in a Wednesday interview that he was representing three anonymous marijuana patients – two men and one woman.

However, when Elford filed the request for the temporary restraining order against the county and Sheriff Frank Rivero ahead of the hearing on Thursday, included was the name of a fourth plaintiff – Don Merrill.

Merrill is a member of the Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulation, which was instrumental in getting the Measure D marijuana cultivation initiative on the ballot June 5, when it was overwhelmingly defeated.

He also was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to sit on its marijuana cultivation advisory committee. It was that committee’s proposed plant numbers – with some alterations – that the board had accepted Monday.

On Thursday, ahead of the hearing, the Board of Supervisors notified marijuana cultivation advisory committee members that their upcoming meeting on Monday, July 16, was canceled, and no further meetings are scheduled.

Elford’s filing – which only included information about Merrill and a John Doe marijuana patient who suffers from lung cancer – explained that Merrill, a qualified medical marijuana patient, grows 50 plants for himself and for qualified members of his collective on a property larger than 10 acres.

Before the hearing, Deputy County Counsel Bob Bridges – who along with Community Development Department Director Rick Coel represented the county at the hearing – presented Elford with a written opposition to his motion minutes before the hearing.

Bridges had only had a few hours to craft the four-page response, which Elford said he wasn’t expecting.

“Well, this is an important thing,” Bridges said.

Defense or entitlement?

Herrick arrived in the courtroom a short time later and the half-hour hearing began just before 4:45 p.m.

Looking on during the hearing were Board Chair Rob Brown – who had been the lone dissenter in the vote on the ordinance, concerned that the plant numbers were too high – and County Counsel Anita Grant.

In his arguments, Bridges pointed out that no affidavits or declarations had been submitted to support the temporary restraining order request.

“We think that casts some doubt right off the bat on the validity of the basis of the request,” he said.

When the Board of Supervisors adopted the ordinance, Bridges said they made important findings about the potential for wildland fires, sanitation issues, brandishing firearms, wildlife poaching, and groundwater and stormwater issues that affect everyone living in Lake County.

“We think the Board of Supervisors made huge findings on some very, very serious matters of public concern,” he said, asking that the court give those findings great weight.

Bridges said the county’s zoning ordinance is presumed to be both valid and constitutional, with the burden on the plaintiffs. “We would like the court to also keep that in mind.”

The Compassionate Use Act and the state’s medical marijuana program offer a defense to certain criminal conduct under California’s Health and Safety Code, Bridges argued.

Regarding Merrill, Bridges said the documents don’t state that Merrill is a primary caregiver, and thus Bridges suggested Merrill is an illegal grower. Bridges said the court shouldn’t use its power to support someone involved in illegal activity, “which Mr. Merrill appears to be engaging in.”

No matter what the activity is, it must comply with the zoning ordinances, with Bridges handing Judge Herrick two recent cases that upheld his argument and establish that the Compassionate Use Act and the state marijuana program don’t preempt local zoning.

He said the law allows the county to adopt a zoning ordinance and provide criminal penalties for noncompliance.

“We very, very much believe what we've done is legal,” Bridges said.

The belief by medical marijuana patients that they can cultivate as much marijuana as they want has resulted in “ludicrous” situations, said Bridges.

He also suggested that the Lake County Zoning Ordinance didn’t allow for marijuana cultivation until the board took action by approving the ordinance. “Any grows that existed previously to this last week don't have any vested rights, they're illegal grows,” Bridges said.

Elford said his clients were only asking to maintain the status quo, and seeking the temporary restraining order until a hearing on a permanent injunction could be held.

“We just don't want the sheriff to go out and destroy peoples’ property, take their medicine, in a way that would cause irreparable harm in the meantime,” he said.

Responding to Bridges’ statements, Elford said, “This is not illegal activity under California law.”

He said the Compassionate Use Act allows patients to cultivate and possess whatever they need, and California law takes precedence over Lake County law.

He questioned whether a locality can seek to change state law under the guise of its zoning ordinance. In addition, just because the supervisors made findings about an emergency didn’t mean those findings were valid.

“These patients right now are understandably scared,” he said.

Bridges challenged Elford’s argument that the Compassionate Use Act entitled people to use medical marijuana. He said that the act offered a criminal defense. “It’s not an entitlement.”

Judge Herrick asked if case law had established that medical marijuana use actually was a legal activity. Bridges said it requires that users comply with zoning.

“Doesn’t it extend it a little bit beyond a criminal defense?” Herrick asked.

Bridges said the courts are edging that way, but he was relying on the legislation’s language.

He told the judge that if Merrill had a problem with the plant numbers, he can grow indoors, in a greenhouse or purchase the drug from a dispensary.

“This is an incredible amount of marijuana that’s been authorized by the board,” Bridges said. “There’s no harm done to anyone here. There's lots of options.”

Concerns over lack of proof

Herrick said he didn’t have proof of the potential harm to patients before a hearing on the permanent injunction was held in 30 to 60 days.

“I’m not seeing how limiting the number of plants is going to irreparably harm anyone between now and then,” he said.

Elford said his clients were in fear of criminal enforcement as well as having the sheriff come and take their plants.

“I don't have evidence to support the conclusion that anybody, including the plaintiff, is going to be irreparably harmed in the next 30 to 60 days,” Herrick said. “That’s my point.”

Elford said his clients are serious patients without unlimited resources, and it’s “prohibitively expensive” for one of his clients to grow indoors. Neither can the man afford to buy from a dispensary.

Herrick replied that a declaration should be filed by Elford’s clients explaining why they need more than six plants between now and a hearing in 60 days.

Herrick said of the board’s interim ordinance, “It’s a presumptively lawful exercise of governmental authority.”

Regarding the need to provide more evidence and information, Elford said one of his John Doe clients was reluctant to be named.

“There are always tensions in the law. I understand that fully,” said Herrick.

Herrick said there wasn’t a sufficient showing of damage, and he could either deny the request and set a preliminary injunction hearing or continue the temporary restraining order hearing. Elford preferred the latter, but continued to worry about what enforcement efforts might occur before a decision was made.

“Our planning department doesn’t use gestapo tactics,” Bridges said, explaining that compliance is the goal and the agency gives warnings before taking action.

Elford wanted to know if enforcement of the 45-day ordinance would be occurring within the next few weeks.

Bridges – who said that by that time he had only been aware for two hours that the sheriff had been named in the suit – replied, “I have no idea what the sheriff is going to do,” but said Coel explained that his staff always begins actions with warnings.

That was the rub, said Elford. “We don’t know what the sheriff is going to do.” If deputies were to start pulling plants, it would result in irreparable harm, he argued.

“It’s not necessarily so,” replied Herrick.

While the July 27 date was set to continue the hearing, by the end of the court appearance a preliminary injunction hearing had not yet been set.

I am of our patients here for standing up!

Wow, so according to Deputy County Council Bridges, ANY grows occurring in Lake County were already illegal according to COUNTY laws? So, that means that, according to Bridges, county and local laws supersede and may in fact undo state laws..? Where does he think this line should be drawn between state and local ordinances and laws, then?

It's screaming "PERSONAL AGENDA!!!"

[stasis]

As usual. Politicos do this all over the country. They try to go above laws to pacify their indignance.

[justalilrowdy]

and this is the latest on the real weed wars..

LA City Council Votes to Ban Marijuana Shops
Dispensaries will be ordered to shut down immediately
Published on 07-25-2012 07:15 AM
LA City Council Votes to Ban Marijuana Shops
Dispensaries will be ordered to shut down immediately
By Mary Papenfuss, Newser Staff
Posted Jul 24, 2012 11:34 PM CDT | Updated Jul 25, 2012 6:35 AM CDT
(Newser) – Los Angeles pot shops are about to go up in a puff of smoke. The LA City Council has voted unanimously to ban all marijuana dispensaries. The ban will go into effect 30 days after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signs the law, which he intends to do. As many as 900 medical marijuana dispensaries will be sent a letter ordering them to shut down, reports AP. Medical marijuana patients and their pot suppliers will be able to grow and share pot in groups of three people or fewer—a compromise that will be far too costly for patients, say pot advocates. The council may fashion a future law that would allow some 170 of the oldest dispensaries to operate, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The vote drew furious jeers from medical marijuana advocates packing the council's chambers. It's an extraordinary development in a state known for its marijuana tolerance, where voters approved medical marijuana in 1996, and a victory for the Justice Department's crackdown on the dispensaries. Public condemnation of the dispensaries has grown as the shops have proliferated. Past Los Angeles attempts to crack down on the shops have triggered legal action, but a recent appellate court decision will likely protect the city this time around. "A judge could file an injunction but we think that is unlikely," said a city attorney

[BM-504]

Check this out.
On pg.2 they mention that Lake Co. is already in this program.
Go Big guys watch your back

https://www.northcoastjournal.com/new...-calls-backup/

Stay safe
Bm

[justalilrowdy]

Checking the Lake County booking logs for yesterday and today there have been several arrests made. I also hear a big bust is going down in Upper Lake that started this morning with more than 20 law enforcement vehicles and a helicopter.
https://www.lakesheriff.com/Recent_Arrests.htm