1. Name Calling or general rude behavior is no longer acceptable in the Cafe, We are adults which means that we should be able to debate without resorting to name calling. Warnings will be given out if users fail to act appropriately.

James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.

Discussion in 'Legal Edge' started by bsemaj, Nov 13, 2012.

  1.  
    bsemaj

    bsemaj Member

    [h=2]James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.[/h]
    So I went to the planning commission hearing 11/6/12 @ 4 PM and got served with notice the city has motioned the federal court in Tacoma to transfer because my request for damages is a federal question.

    Plaintiffs 66 page compliant seeks injunctive relief and money damages against defendant based on inter alia, the following authority: (a) the ADA title II of usc sec. 12101 et. seq.(4th cause of action); (b) sec. 504 rehabilitation act of 1973 29 usc sec. 701 et. seq. (5th cause of action); © 1st amendment right freedom of association(11th cause of action); (d) 14th amendment, for alleged deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law(12th cause of action).

    I served the city on Nov. 1 and they wasted no time.... after I went to the superior court and requested an emergency TRO which got denied by the drunk judge ... and she made me pay a $ 20 surcharge being on social security... poverty level... putting me below poverty level.

    Some judges need to leave office for doing stupid stuff like that ... denying access to the courts is a no-no.

    And denied me bond waiver... stupid is as stupid does..

    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    IN THE COUNTY OF CLARK


    NO.

    JAMES E. BARBER SR. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
    PLAINTIFF, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    WLAD ACTION RCW 49.60
    TITLE II ADA VIOLATION
    HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
    DAMAGES 4.96 RCW
    BOND WAIVER REQUEST
    (M-3988/VMC 20)
    Civil Rule 65

    JURY TRIAL DEMAND
    v.

    CITY OF VANCOUVER, WA. ET. AL,
    A WASHINGTON STATE POLITICAL
    SUBDIVISION. ,DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive
    DEFENDANT(S),


    INTRODUCTION

    1. Plaintiff James E. Barber Sr. a known by the City of Vancouver tobe a severely

    disabled Washington State citizen on SSD , appearing pro-se, brings this civil action

    against defendant City of Vancouver, WA., et. al. seeking declaratory relief under the

    Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 7.24 RCW, injunctive relief under Chapter

    7.40 RCW, Civil Rule 65, Chapter 49.60, Chapter 4.96 RCW, ADA Title II, and Housing

    Discrimination.

    Defendant the City of Vancouver is a political subdivision of the State of Washington.

    This is not a LUPA petition as no finality has been had between Plaintiff and Defendants.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    2. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under RCW 7.24 et. Seq.,

    Civil Rule 65 Chapter,7.40 RCW, Chapter 49.60 RCW, 4.08.120 RCW, Chapter 4.96

    RCW, State Constitution Art. 4 § 6 (Amendment 28). Defendant MUNICIPALITY is

    located in this judicial district.

    The acts, omissions, occurrences, injuries caused, and/or liabilities that are alleged in this

    Complaint took place in this judicial district.

    3. Accordingly, Venue is proper in Clark County Superior Court Chapter 2.08.210 RCW,

    Chapter 4.12.025 RCW . Clark County Superior Court is the County Court in which both

    Plaintiff and Defendant are located .

    PARTIES AND STANDING

    4. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Washington. Plaintiff is a “qualifying patient” with valid

    documentation as required under Chapter 69.51A et. seq.

    5. Plaintiff has “full” 100% SSA disability rating and rights under other federal laws which have

    been prohibited within the city of vancouver located in the county of clark.

    6. Plaintiff has standing.

    7. Defendant CITY OF VANCOUVER ("MUNICIPALITY") is a Washington city established

    and operating under provisions of art.XI of the Washington State Constitution.

    8. Defendant City of vancouver is a political subdivision of the State of Washington located in the

    county of clark, WA.. .

    9. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    MUNICIPALITY receives federal financial assistance.

    10. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    MUNICIPALITY receives financial funding from the State of Washington.

    11. Defendant MUNICIPALITY is a "public entity~' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)

    and 28 C.F.R. Part 35.

    12. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants designated as

    DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, ('"DOE DEFENDANT(S)") and therefore sue the DOE DEFEND-

    ANTS by fictitious names and will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to set forth

    the true names and capacities of the fictitiously designated Defendants when such information

    has been ascertained.

    13.Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that each

    of the DOE DEFENDANTS is responsible in some manner for the acts, omissions~ occurrences

    and/or liabilities alleged in this Complaint.

    14.This action is for violation of civil rights, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Accordingly,

    filing in this judicial district and courthouse is proper under the Local Rules of this Court.

    15. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."


    BACKGROUND FACTS

    16. In E2SSB 5073 the legislature had set up a system whereby the commercial business of

    cultivation, materials handling and final sales of cannabis were to be licensed, registered and

    zoned. The legislature did not amend 69.51A requiring commercial business licensing, registering

    or zoning of patient growers, designated provider growers nor qualifying patients collectively

    gardening. Obviously, the Legislature had no intent to do so.

    17. But,, the governor explicitly designated local governments to have concurrent jurisdition over

    non-profit cannabis oraganizations consisting of both qualifying patients and their designated

    providers sharing in the responibility of it's medical cannabis membership(s).

    18.A Vancouver City council meeting was held July 18, 2011. In his opening statement City

    Attorney Ted Gathe states The County had already passed a moratorium.

    19. Just previous to that, “The item before you tonight, here in council, is an interim moratorium

    ordinance that is authorized by state law. To be passed on what is somewhat of an

    emergency basis; which would create a six month moratorium on the establishment, location,

    operation, licensing, maintenance or continuation of medical marijuana collective gardens

    or dispensaries.”

    The City used their emergency moratorium authority without public notice under the

    auspice in good faith and within the scope of their assigned duties under Chapter 69.51A.

    130 RCW intertwined with (if not bootstrapped to) Chapter 69.51A.140 RCW for interpreting

    land use and zoning districts on the use of cannabis by qualifying patients and their collective

    gardens at thier residential premises, as well as licensed dispensers (the city refers to as dispen-

    saries} as necessary to further the public interest, for their health, safety, morals and welfare.

    20. On September 12, 2011, the City held a public hearing as required by both moratoria

    statutes and passed a preclusion ban on "qualifying patients collective gardens at their residential

    premises as delineated in the statute, intertwined with dispensaries which is not deliniated in any

    statute, just "licensed dispensers" are. The rule is that, to justify any law upon the theory that it

    constitutes a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power, it must be reasonably necess-

    ary in the interest of the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the people.

    In State ex rel. Faulk v. CSG Job Ctr.,117 Wn.2d 493, 816 P.2d 725 (1991), this court

    announced a two-part test to be employed when determining the validity of a statute

    passed pursuant to the police power.

    1.) First, the statute must promote the health, safety, peace, education, or welfare of the

    people. CSG Job Ctr., 117 Wash.2d at 504, 816 P.2d 725

    2.) Second,the requirements of the statute must bear some reasonable relationship to

    accomplishing the purpose underlying the statute.CSG Job Ctr, 117 Wash.2d at 504,

    816 P.2d 725.

    21.The Washington Supreme Court has stated that federal preemption of state law, under the

    Supremacy Clause of the US. Constitution (Art. VI), can occur in multiple ways:

    "Congress may preempt state law by explicitly defIning the extent to which its enactments

    preempt laws (express preemption). Preemption may also occur where the federal government

    intends to exclusively occupy a fIeld (fIeld preemption) and where it is impossible to comply with

    both state and federal law (conflict preemption)." Veit v. Burlington N Santa Fe Corp., 171 Wn.2d

    88, 99, 249 P.3d 6097 (2011) (citing Campbell v. Dep't ofSoc. & Health Servs., 150 Wn.2d 881,

    897, 83 P.3d 999(2004)).

    Conflict preemption is found where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law or

    where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives

    of Congress." McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 387191 P.3d 845 (2008); citing Silkwood

    v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,464 U.S. 238, 248, 104 S. Ct. 615, 78 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1984).



    APPLICABLE DISABILITY LAWS

    22. ROE v. TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE MANAGEMENT 257 P.3d 586 (2011) (Quite

    often, marijuana is used to treat conditions that would qualify as a disability. Compare RCW

    69.51A.010 (listing some of the qualifying conditions), with RCW 49.60.040(7)(a) (defining

    "disability" for purposes of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW).

    23. To qualify as a suspect class. "the class must have suffered a history of discrimination. have

    as the characteristic defining the class an obvious, immutable trait that frequently bears no relation

    to ability to perform or contribute to society,and show that it is a minority or politically powerless

    class.Race, alienage, and national origin are examples of suspect classifications. Andersen v.

    King County,158 Wn.2d 1, 19, 138 P.3d 963 (2006).

    WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION(WLAD)

    24. Wa. State statute chapter 49.60 , the Washington law against discrimination, prohibits laws,

    rules, policies, procedures, and actions by anyone, including but, not limited to state, county,and

    city governments that facially or through disparate impact discriminate against qualified disabled

    individuals.

    25. 49.60.220 It is an unfair practice for any person to aid, abet, encourage, or incite the co-

    mmission of any unfair practice, or to attempt to obstruct or prevent any other person from

    complying with the provisions of this chapter or any order issued thereunder.

    26. 49.60.222 . It is an unlawful practice to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with

    any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enj-

    oyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or

    enjoyment of, rights regarding real estate transactions secured by RCW 49.60.030,

    49.60.040, and 49.60.222 through 49.60.224.

    27. 49.60.224 It is an unfair practice to insert in a written instrument relating to real pro-

    perty a provision that is void under this section or to honor or attempt to honor such a provi-

    sion in the chain of title.

    28. City of Vancouver Ord. M-3988 and proposed Ord. both prohibit that which is authorized
    by state law explicitly, qualifying patients associate class-member' collective gardens at his/her
    private residential premises, which is preempted. The City of Vancouver ordinance is field pre-
    empted by state law in 4 codified sections. Chapters 35.63.220 RCW, 35A.63.240 RCW,
    36.70.990 RCW and 36.70A.410 RCW .

    29. A local ordinance prohibiting certain behavior conflicts with a state statute only when the

    language of the state statute expressly or implicitly permits the behavior. Luvene, 1 l8 Wash.2d

    826,839,827 P.2d 1374 (1992). "In Burton, Division II of the appellate court created a four-part

    test to determine whether a county may exact a road as a condition for development. "First, the

    county must identify a public problem that the condition is designed to address." Burton, 91

    Wn.App at 520. If it is only a private problem, the government lacks a legitimate public

    purpose and the action is unconstitutional. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 520. And the commercial

    development of an individual's parcel is a private problem. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 521.


    TREATMENT OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OCCUPIED BY PERSONS
    WITH HANDICAPS.

    30. 35.63.220 RCW No city may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation,

    zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential

    structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure

    occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, "handicaps" are as

    defined in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602).

    31. 35A.63.240 RCW No city may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation,

    zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential

    structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure

    occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, "handicaps" are as

    defined in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602).

    32. 36.70A.410. RCW No county or city that plans or elects to plan under this chapter

    may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation or official

    control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential structure occupied by

    persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or

    other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, "handicaps" are as defined in the federal fair

    housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602).

    33. 36.70.990 RCW No county may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation,

    zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential

    structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure

    occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, "handicaps" are as

    defined in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602).

    34. 42 USC sec. 3602- Definitions

    (b) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied

    as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families,

    and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location

    thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof.

    (f) “Discriminatory housing practice” means an act that is unlawful under section

    3604, 3605, 3606, or 3617 of this title.

    (h) “Handicap” means, with respect to a person—

    (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such

    person’s major life activities,

    (2) a record of having such an impairment, or

    (3) being regarded as having such an impairment,

    35. 42 USCS 3604(f)(2006). The act preempts conflicting laws.Id. $ 3615(any state or local

    law " that purports to require any action that would be discriminatory housing practice

    under this subchapter to that extent be invalid").

    Amendments in 1988 prohibit discrim. against the handicapped.

    36. A 3 bedroom dwelling with 3 qualifying patients whom also are designated providers can have

    up to 90 plants and 144 Oz.total .The same 3 bedroom dwelling with the same qualifying patients

    whom instead have a associate disabled class-member' collective garden are "restricted" to half of

    the 90 plants ... i.e. 45 plants and only 72 Oz.

    The defendant MUNICIPALITY has no good faith reasonable arguments to ban nor restrict one

    use by specific disabled asscoiate class-member' which is already "restricted" by state law ... .

    State ex reI. Bond v. State, 59 Wash.2d 493, 503, 368 P.2d 676 (1962) (Rosellini, J., dissenting)

    (emphasis added) (quoting Alice in Wonderland) .Article I, section 16 of the Washington Con-

    stitution provides, "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without

    just compensation having first been made." Under this section, the state effects an unconstitutional

    regulatory taking when it enacts a regulation that goes "too far" in infringing the plaintiff's property

    rights. See, e.g., Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wn.2d 621, 646, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987) (Orion II).


    APPLICATION OF THE HOUSING POLICY ACT

    37. We turn then to whether the planned population of the Home is handicapped under the

    WHPA. The statute does not itself define "handicap." Instead it references the federal Fair

    Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3602:

    (h) "Handicap" means, with respect to a person —

    (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's

    major life activities,

    (2) a record of having such an impairment, or

    (3) being regarded as having such an impairment . ..

    38. The regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are also instructive since the
    "handicap" definition is identical to that in the housing act. 45 C.F.R. pt. 84, app. A contains
    language identical to the above, but it goes on to say:
    [O]nly physical and mental handicaps are included. Thus, environmental, cultural,
    and economic disadvantage are not in themselves covered; nor are prison records, age,
    or homosexuality. Of course, if a person who has any of these characteristics also has a
    physical or mental handicap, the person is included within the definition of
    handicapped person.
    45 C.F.R. pt. 84, app. A, at 355 (1994).

    39. Originally focused on discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and religion,
    the FHA was expanded to address sex-based discrimination in 1974 and to address discrimin-
    ation on the basis of familial status and disability in 1988. Housing and Community Develop-
    ment Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-383, §808, 88 Stat. 633, 729 (1974);Fair Housing Amendments
    Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619-39 (1988).

    40. The FHA can be violated by either intentional discrimination or if a practice has a disparate

    impact on a protected class. Cmty. Serv., Inc. v. Wind Gap Mun. Auth., 421 F.3d 170, 176

    (3d Cir. 2005).Under the Act, any person harmed by discrimination, whether or not the target of

    the discrimination, can sue to recover for his or her own injury. See Trafficante v. Metropolitan

    Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 212, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972). "This is true, for example,

    even where no housing has actually been denied to persons protected under the Act." San Pedro

    Hotel, 159 F.3d at 475-76 (upholding standing of hotel owners in suit alleging that the City inter-

    fered with the housing rights of the mentally ill); Smith v. Stechel, 510 F.2d 1162, 1164

    (9th Cir.1975) (real estate agent fired for renting apartments to minorities allowed to sue under the

    Act).

    41. The Supreme Court has long held that claims brought under the Fair Housing Act are to be

    judged under a very liberal standing requirement. Unlike actions brought under other provisions of

    civil rights law, under the FHA the plaintiff need not allege that he or she was a victim of dis-

    crimination. See Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 115, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.

    Ed.2d 66(1979) (holding that Caucasian residents have standing under the Act to challenge racial

    discrimination against African-Americans in their neighborhood). Rather, the sole requirement for

    standing under the Act is the "Article III minima of injury in fact." Havens Realty Corp. v. Cole-

    man, 455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). To meet this requirement, a

    plaintiff need only allege "that as a result of the defendant's [discriminatory conduct] he has

    suffered a distinct and palpable injury." Id.


    42. In enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act, Congress concluded that it was important for

    the current legislation to use terminology most in line with the sensibilities of most Americans with

    disabilities. No change in definition or substance is intended nor should one be attributed to this

    change in phraseology.

    The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual -

    (A) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities

    of such individual;

    (B) A record of such an impairment; or

    (C) Being regarded as having such an impairment.

    If an individual meets "any one of these three tests", he or she is considered to be an

    individual with a disability for purposes of coverage under the Americans with

    Disabilities Act.

    43. Title II of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),

    provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability., be

    excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities

    of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. (42 U.S.C. § 12132,

    et seq.; 28 C.F.R. pt. 35; 49 C.F.R. pts. 37 and 38.)

    44. Defendant MUNICIPALITY may be held liable for damages in ADA Title II cases. (See,

    e.g., Board of Trustees of the University ofAlabama v. Garrett (2001) 531 U.S. 356 [holding

    city and county governments are not protected from damage awards in ADA Title II cases

    under the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity provision]; see also Tennessee v. Lane

    (2004) 541 U.S. 509; United States v. Georgia (2006) 126 S. Ct. 877).

    45. Section 504 of 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("SEC. 504")~

    prohibits discriminatory actions against handicapped individuals by federally funded government

    entities.

    46. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 ("SEC. 1983"), provides that "[e ]very

    person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or

    Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United

    States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

    or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an

    action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

    "substantive due process is denied if a local jurisdiction makes a land use decision irrationally,

    arbitrarily, and capriciously, its decision utterly fails to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, or

    was tainted by improper motive." Cox v. City of Lynnwood,72 Wn.App. 1, 9, 863 P.2d 578 (1993)

    (citing Robinson v. City of Seattle,119 Wn.2d 34, 62, 830 P.2d 318 (1992)).

    47.Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides in pertinent part that "[n]o State shall . . deny

    to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    48. The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection of the law to all citizens: "'persons

    similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.", Guard

    Estate of Keffeler v. DSHS, 151 Wn.2d 331, 339, 88 P.3d 949 (2004)(internal cites omitted).

    Paramount to the equal protection clause is the idea that all individuals With in one group must be

    treaty equally. TO succeed with a equal protection challenge,a person must first establish that he

    is similarly situated with other persons in a class who have received different treatment under the

    same law.

    49. The equal protection clause, found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has

    consistently been construed substantially identically with the privileges and immunities clause found

    in Article I, Section 12 of the Washington Constitution. Holbrook, Inc. v. Clark County, 112 Wn.

    App 354, 367,49 P.3d 142 (2002); citing Equitable Shipyards, Inc. v. State, 93 Wn.2d 465, 476, 611

    P.2d 396 (1980).State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474, 139, P.3d 334 (2006); State v. Handley, 115 Wn.

    2d 275 289-90, 796 P.2d 1266 (1990). If those within the class are treated equally, then equal

    protection is satisfied and the analysis should end.

    50. There are "two types of associational rights protected by the Constitution: the freedom of

    'expressive association' and the freedom of 'intimate association.'" Am. Legion Post No. 149 v.

    Dep't of Health, 164 Wn.2d 570, 601, 192 P.3d 306 (2008); citing City of Bremerton v. Widell, 146

    Wn.2d 561, 575, 51 P.3d 733 (2002). Freedom of expressive association derives from the First

    Amendment and applies to government interference with speech, assembly, redress of grievances,

    and exercise of religion. Roberts v. US. Jaycees, 468 U.s. 609, 618, 104 S. Ct 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d

    462 (1984). Freedom of intimate association derives from the due process clause and principles of

    liberty and privacy. Freedom of intimate association protects the "choices to enter into and

    maintain certain intimate human relationships." fd. at 617. These relationships are protected

    because they "have played a critical role in the culture and traditions of the Nation by cultivating

    and transmitting shared ideals and beliefs; they thereby foster diversity and act as critical buffers

    between the individual and the power of the State." fd. at 618-19. Such relationships are those

    ''that attend the creation and sustenance of a family," including marriage, childbirth, the raising and

    education of children, and cohabitation with one's relatives. fd. at 619.

    51. 6A Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 24.54, at 150
    (3d rev. ed.1997) ("that which is allowed under state law cannot be prohibited by ordinance").
    This principle dates back to the earliest days of statehood. See Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise
    on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the
    American Union 741 n. 2 (6th ed. 1890) ("If the municipal authority should assume to declare
    something which was entirely lawful by the law of the State to be a nuisance, the declaration
    would be a mere nullity because in conflict with the superior law.").

    . ARTICLE XI § 11 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION.

    52. SECTION 11 POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS. Any county, city, town or
    township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulati-
    ons as are not in conflict with general laws.

    53. The above sentence prohibits municipalities from trumping state law.,and Court precedents

    quoting Article XI, § 11 are many . The plaintiff believes the following makes his case

    quite well.
    WEDEN v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, 135 Wash.2d 678, 958 P.2d 273 (1998) Article XI, §

    11 requires a local law yield to a state statute on the same subject matter if that statute

    “preempts the field, leaving no room for concurrent jurisdiction,” or “if a conflict exists

    such that the two cannot be harmonized.”

    Then Attorney General Christine Gregoire states:

    “The plenary police power in regulatory matters accorded municipalities by the state
    constitution ceases when the state enacts a general law upon the particular subject,
    unless there is room for concurrent jurisdiction. Lenci v. Seattle,63 Wn.2d 664, 669,
    388 P.2d 926 (1964). Whether there is room for the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction
    in a given instance necessarily depends upon the legislative intent to be derived from an
    analysis of the statute involved.
    If the Legislature is silent as to its intent to occupy a given field, one must look to the pu-
    rposes of the legislative enactment and to the facts and circumstances upon which the
    enactment was intended to operate. If, on the other hand, the Legislature has
    affirmatively expressed its intent to either occupy the field or accord concurrent
    jurisdiction, then preemption, except to the extent of concurrent jurisdiction, is clear.”


    . ARTICLE I § 7 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION

    54. SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No
    person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of
    law.
    Under the clear wording of the MUNICIPALITY ord. Any rights of privacy are
    banished by prohibition, cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479; Eisenstadt v.
    Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453-454.

    ARTICLE I § 14 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION

    55. SECTION 14 EXCESSIVE BAIL, FINES AND PUNISHMENTS. Excessive bail
    shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted.

    56. An assault is an attempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injury upon another accompanied
    with the apparent present ability to do harm if not prevented; whether there has been an ass-
    ault depends more upon the apprehension created in the mind of the person assaulted than
    upon the undisclosed intention of the person committing the assault.

    57..The objective standard as asking "whether a reasonable person would foresee that the

    statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a

    serious expression of intent to harm or assault." United States v. Orozco-Santillan,903 F.2d

    1262, 1265 (9th Cir.1990); see also Lovell, 90 F.3d at 372.

    The objective standard calls for an examination of the speech in the "light of [its] entire factual

    context, including the surrounding events and reaction of the listeners." Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d

    at 1265; see also Bellrichard, 994 F.2d at 1321 (focusing the inquiry on the context of the speech).

    This line of cases and the objective standard were called into question by the Supreme Court's

    statement in Black that "`[t]rue threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to

    communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence toa particular

    individual or group of individuals," 538 U.S. at 359,123 S.Ct. 1536. Following Black, the court

    applied a subjective standard in United States v. Cassel,408 F.3d 622, 633 (9th Cir.2005). The

    court "conclude[d] that speech may be deemed unprotected by the First Amendment as a`true

    threat' only upon proof that the speaker subjectively intended the speech as a threat." Id.

    The Supreme Court has since analyzed speech under both an objective and a subjective standard.

    In United States v. Stewart,420 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir.2005),the defendant stated that "he

    wanted to target a judge and `string the motherfucker up and cut her throat, his throat, and make it

    like a copycat so that people would do the same thing.'" The court found it unnecessary to

    choose between an objective and subjective standard because the speech constituted a true

    threat under either standard.Id. at 1018-19 . As in Stewart, it is unnecessary in this case to

    choose between an objective and subjective standard as the communications speak for themselves

    along with the following actions of the city of Vancouver in suit to put it in words and contact the

    media.

    58. In State v. Vanderveer, 115 Wn. 184, 196 Pac. 650 (1921),it is stated that "An act done will-

    fully is done intentionally and designedly." (Italics ours.) In State v. Evans,32 Wn.2d 278, 201

    P.2d 513 (1949) (a second degree assault case), the court pointed out that "A willful act is one

    done intentionally, not accidentally." "[T]he term, `malice' conveys the meaning of hatred, ill-will,

    or hostility toward another. . . . [M]alice has been frequently, substantially so defined as consisting

    of the intentional doing of a wrongful act toward another without legal justification or excuse."

    State v. Heyward, 197 S.C. 371, 15 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1941). The phrase "by design" means "inten-

    tionally" and is not vague. "Grievous bodily harm", includes any hurt or injury calculated to in-

    terfere with the health of the person injured, but need not be a permanent injury. "Grievous"

    means atrocious, aggravating, harmful, painful, hard to bear, or serious in nature. One pur-

    pose of affording constitutional rights to accused individuals and imposing limits on the State is to

    protect accused individuals from overreaching by the disproportionately powerful State. Payne v.

    Tennessee,501 U.S. 808, 860, 115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

    See also Pulley v. Harris,465 U.S. 37, 45, 79 L.Ed.2d 29, 104 S.Ct. 871 (1984) (constitutional

    review of death penalty statutes is to avoid "wholly arbitrary, capricious, or freakish sentences");

    State v. Cater's Motor Freight Sys., Inc., 27 Wn.2d 661, 667, 179 P.2d 496 (1947) (due process

    guaranty protects individuals from arbitrary exercise of powers of government).

    To ensure the death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily or invidiously, the jury must find at least one

    aggravating factor involved in the crime.

    "It is of vital importance to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the

    death sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion". Barth-

    olomew II, 101 Wn.2d at 638 (quoting Gardner v. Florida,430 U.S. 349, 358, 51 L.Ed.2d 393, 97

    S.Ct. 1197 (1977)).


    59. Assault is a crime against the state as well as against the victim, and forgiveness of the
    assailant by the victim does not change the fact that a crime was committed; nor does the fact that
    the victim desires that the charges be dropped imply that the force used by the assailant was
    lawful.
    Second degree assault inflicted by torture is not a lesser included offense of first degree assault.

    60. As noted above, the MUNICIPALITY ord. and proposed ord. has been intentionally designed
    to assault the plaintiff and a whole community just like the plaintiff without legal
    justification or excuse and has inflicted cruel torturing punishment which is hard to bear, harmful,
    painful, and very serious in nature when citizens are unable to mitigate these harms.. this is ill will
    and hostility towards a subset class of disabled citizens. Not only is it criminal but also unconstitut-
    ional. Plaintiff has been damaged.

    61. In Seattle Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S. 116, Seattle had a zoning ordinance that permitted
    a " `philanthropic home for children or for old people' " in a particular district " `when the written
    consent shall have been obtained of the owners of two-thirds of the property within four hundred
    (400) feet of the proposed building.' " Id.,at 118. The Court held that provision of the ordinance
    unconstitutional, saying that the existing owners could "withhold consent for selfish reasons or
    arbitrarily and may subject the trustee [owner] to their will or caprice." Id., at 122.Unlike the bill-
    board cases (e. g., Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U. S. 526), the Court concluded that the
    Seattle ordinance was invalid since the proposed home for the aged poor was not shown by its
    maintenance and construction "to work any injury, inconvenience or annoyance to the
    community, the district or any person." 278 U. S., at 122.

    62. RCW 7.48.160 Authorized act not a nuisance.

    Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a

    nuisance.

    [Code 1881 § 1238; 1875 p 79 § 4; RRS § 9916.]

    63.Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886) ("[The right to vote]

    is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.");

    64. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349-50 (1971)(citation omitted) (unless Congress conveys

    its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have altered “sensitive federal-state relationships”).

    65. Public entities hold a unique trust on behalf of the citizens they represent and are generally

    subject to constitutional obligations to provide equal protection to all persons within their jurisd-

    iction. In such cases, the threat of disparate impact liability may be an effective means to assure

    thatpublic bodies consider the impact of their actions on persons within their jurisdiction and to

    cause them to refrain from action that has an unequal impact.See Peter E. Mahoney, The End(s)

    Of Disparate Impact: Doctrinal Reconstruction, Fair Housing And Lending Law, and the Anti-

    discrimination Principle, 47 EMORY L.J. 409, 440–42 (1998).

    66. RCW 69.51A.130 State and municipalities — Not subject to liability.

    (1) No civil or criminal liability may be imposed by any court on the state or its officers and

    employees for actions taken in good faith under this chapter and within the scope of their

    assigned duties.

    (2) No civil or criminal liability may be imposed by any court on cities, towns, and counties or

    other municipalities and their officers and employees for actions taken in good faith under this

    chapter and within the scope of their assigned duties.

    [2011 c 181 § 1101.]

    67. 4.96.010 All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary

    capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct

    of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purp-

    orting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corp-

    oration. Purpose -- 1993 c 449: "This act is designed to provide a single, uniform procedure for

    bringing a claim for damages against a local governmental entity. The existing procedures,

    contained in chapter 36.45 RCW, counties, chapter 35.31 RCW, cities and towns,

    chapter 35A.31 RCW, optional municipal code, and chapter 4.96 RCW, other political sub-

    divisions, municipal corporations,and quasi-municipal corporations,are revised and consolidated

    into chapter 4.96 RCW." [1993 c 449 § 1.]

    68. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills,may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    . SSA APPLICABLE DISABILITY LAW

    69. On March 28, 1996,(1st yr any medical cannabis act went into law for seriously ill qualifying

    patient whom are "DISABLED" and using cannabis) Congress amended Title II of the Social

    Security Act by adopting the Contract With America Advancement Act ("CAAA"), Pub.L. No.

    104-121 § 105(a)(1)

    (C). The amendment provides: "An individual shall not be considered to be disabled for purposes

    of this title if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing

    factor material to the Commissioner's determination that the individual is disabled."

    70. "In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record

    including, inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and `the effects of symptoms, including pain,

    that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.'" Robbins v. Social Security

    Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

    71. For purposes of the Social Security Act, disability is the "inability to engage in any substantial

    gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can

    be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A);

    Schaal, 134 F.3d at 501.

    72.Under the authority of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration has

    established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determing whether an individual is diabled

    (20 CFR 404.1520(a) and 416.920(a)). These steps are followed in order. If it is determined that

    the claimant is or is not disabled at a step of the evaluation process, the evaluation will not go on

    to the next step.

    73. If it is found that a claimant is disabled and there is medical evidence of a substance use

    disorder(s), the undersigned must determine if the substance use disorder(s)

    is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability. In making this

    determination, the undersigned must evaluate the extent to which the claimant's mental and

    physical limitations would remain if the claimant stopped the substance use. If the remaining limit-

    ations would not be disabling, the substance use disorder(s) is a contributing factor material to

    the determination of disability(20 CFR 404.1535 and 416.935). If so the claimant is not dis-

    abled.

    74. Plaintiff has the burden of showing that drug and alcohol addiction (DAA) is not a con-

    tributing factor material to disability. Ball v. Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir.2001). The

    Social Security Act bars payment of benefits when drug addiction and/or alcoholism is a

    contributing factor material to a disability claim.42 U.S.C. §§ 423 (d)(2)(C) and 1382 (a)

    (3)(J); Sousa v. Callahan,143 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.1998). If there is evidence of DAA and the

    individual succeeds in proving disability, the Commissioner must determine whether DAA is

    material to the determination of disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535 and 416.935. If an ALJ

    finds that the claimant is not disabled, then the claimant is not entitled to benefits and there

    is no need to proceed with the analysis to determine whether substance abuse is a contributing

    factor material to disability.However, if the ALJ finds that the claimant is disabled, then the ALJ

    must proceed to decide if the claimant would be disabled if he or she stopped using alcohol

    or drugs.

    75. Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. is inapplicable to social security and state disability laws of

    unemployable and the plaintiff in this case or any other in regards to using cannabis with such a

    disability.

    REHABILITATION SERVICES

    76. Treatment Referrals for Individuals With An Alcoholism or Drug Addiction Condition

    (e) In the case of any individual whose benefits under this title are paid to a representative payee

    pursuant to section 205(j)(1)(B), the Commissioner of Social Security shall refer such individual to

    the appropriate State agency administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment services

    approved under subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.

    300x-21et seq.).

    [236] P.L. 106-170, §101(b)(1)(B); 113 Stat.1873.

    [237] P.L. 106-170, §101(b)(1)(C); 113 Stat.1873.

    [238] The month is October 1960; the paragraph was enacted on September 13, 1960, as part of

    P.L. 86-778 [74 Stat. 968].

    [239] P.L. 93-112.

    [240] P.L. 93-112.

    77. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    CLARIFICATION OF DISABILITY UNDER TITLE II OF THE ADA.THE CSA
    REGULATES RECREATIONAL DRUG USE/ABUSE (TRAFFICKING) AND NOT
    MEDICINAL USE OF NATURAL DRONABINOL (THC-DELTA-9 ISOMER) FOR
    MEDICAL PURPOSES.

    78. There is considerable evidence that efforts to regulate cannabis (THC) use in the early-

    twentieth century targeted recreational use, but permitted medical use. See Richard J. Bonnie

    & Charles H. Whitebread, The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the

    Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition, 56 Va. L.Rev. 971, 1010, 1027, 1167 (1970)

    (noting that all twenty-two states that had prohibited cannabis(THC) by the 1930s created

    exceptions for medical purposes). By 1965, although possession of cannabis (THC) was a crime

    in all fifty states, almost all states had created exceptions for persons for whom the drug had been

    prescribed or to whom it had been given by an authorized medical person. Leary v. United States,

    395 U.S. 6, 16-17 (1969). See Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 865 (9th Cir. 2007).The CSA was

    passed in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling the legitimate and

    illegitimate traffic in controlled substances. Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 250. The

    CSA set up a comprehensive regulatory scheme criminalizing unauthorized activities relating to the

    substances in any of the Act’s five schedules.Id.The focus of the CSA is “combating recreational

    drug abuse.” Id. at 246. The purpose of the CSA is to combat recreational drug abuse and not

    regulate state medical practices. Id. at 270-272; County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 165

    Cal.App.4th 798; City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.App.4th 355. Thus, the goal of

    the CSA is to regulate and control recreational drug use as in I-502, while allowing states to regul-

    ate medical practices as under state law(s) MUCA and SSA under other federal law(s).


    79.Under Title II of the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

    disability,be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs,

    or activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C.§

    12132. A “public entity” includes “any State or local government,” id.§ 12131(1)(A), and there

    is no dispute that the defendant MUNICIPALITY IS a public entity for purposes of Title II.

    Title II of the ADA was expressly modeled after Section 504. Thus, "[t]here is no significant

    difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created" by these statutes. Zukle v. Regents of

    University of California, 166 F.3d 1041, 1045, n.11 (9th Cir. 1999). See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 ("The

    remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in [§ 504] shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights

    this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination in violation of section 12132 of this

    title.").


    80. 42 U.S.C. § 12210 : US Code - Section 12210: Illegal use of drugs

    (a) In general

    For purposes of this chapter, the term "individual with a

    disability" does not include an individual who is currently

    engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts

    on the basis of such use.

    (b) Rules of construction

    Nothing in subsection (a) of this section shall be construed to exclude as an individual with a

    disability an individual who -

    (3) is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but is not engaging in such use;

    (d) "Illegal use of drugs" defined

    (1) In general

    The term "illegal use of drugs" means the use of drugs, the

    possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the

    Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.]. Such term does

    not include the use of a drug taken under supervision by a

    licensed health care professional,or other uses authorized by

    the Controlled Substances Act or other provisions of Federal law..

    81.In Moore, for example, the defendant doctor "acted as a large-scale `pusher' not as a

    physician," and admitted that he did not observe generally accepted medical practices. 423

    U.S. at 126, 143.

    82. In Rosenberg, the evidence established that "[w]hen a doctor acts as Dr. Rosenberg did in this

    case, he can appropriately be called a trafficker in drugs." 515 F.2d at 196. The Rosenberg

    court was careful to note, however, that the phrase "in the course of professional medical

    practice" as used in the CSA "clearly means that a doctor is not exempt from the statute when

    he takes actions that he does not in good faith believe are for legitimate medical purposes,"

    plainly a subjective standard. 515 F.2d at 197 (emphasis added).

    83. Johnston v. Barnhart, 378 F. Supp. 2d 274, 281-82 (W.D.N.Y. 2005); see Buchholz v.

    Barnhart, 56 Fed. App'x 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2003) ("it is unclear how, if at all, Buchholz's medical

    marijuana use affects his credibility"); Sessions v. Astrue, Dist. Court, WD New York 2010

    (citing Aponte v.Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Humans Servs., 728 F.2d 588, 591 (2d Cir. 1984)

    ( Assessing the credibility of the claimant is a function of the Commissioner and not the reviewing

    court.) .; Lawson v. Astrue, No.06-4136-RDR, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96408, 2007 WL 3026648,

    *8 (D. Kan. Sept. 27, 2007) ("The relevance of the ALJ's reference to plaintiff's marijuana

    use is not well-explained.

    If the ALJ believes that the marijuana use contributes to plaintiff's depression, then he should

    have referred to some evidence in the record to support that belief. If he believes that people

    who smoke marijuana do not make credible claims of disability, then he should have said so

    and supported that position.").

    84. The determination of what constitutes a legitimate medical practice or purpose traditionally has

    been left to the individual states. State statutes, state medical boards, and state regulations control

    the practice of medicine.The CSA was never intended, and the USDOJ and DEA were never

    authorized, to establish a national medical practice or act as a national medical board.To allow an

    attorney general-an appointed executive whose tenure depends entirely on whatever admin-

    istration occupies the White House—to determine the legitimacy of a particular medical practice

    without a specific congressional grant ofsuch authority would be unprecedented and extraordinary.

    As stated, the practice of medicine is based on state standards, recognizing, of course, national

    enactments that,within constitutional limits, specifically and clearly define what is lawful and what

    is not.. OREGON v. ASHCROFT 192 F.Supp.2d 1077 (2002).

    85. Gonzales v. Oregon, 547 US (2008) In deciding whether the CSA can be read as prohibiting

    physician-assisted suicide, we look to the statute's text and design. The statute and our case law

    amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors

    from using their prescription writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and

    trafficking as conventionally understood.Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to

    regulate the practice of medicine generally. The silence is understandable given the structure and

    limitations of federalism, which allow the States " 'great latitude under their police powers to leg-

    islate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.'" Medtronic,

    Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins.Co. v.Massachusetts,471

    U. S. 724, 756 (1985)).

    Even though regulation of health and safety is "primarily, and historically, a matter of local

    concern," Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.,471 U. S. 707, 719(1985).

    In connection to the CSA, however, the Supreme Court finds only one area in which Congress set

    general, uniform standards of medical practice. Title I of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Preven-

    tion and Control Act of 1970, of which the CSA was Title II, provides that:

    "[The Secretary], after consultation with the Attorney General and

    with national organizations representative of persons with knowledge

    and experience in the treatment of narcotic addicts, shall determine

    the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment

    of the narcotic addiction of various classes of narcotic addicts, and

    shall report thereon from time to time to the Congress." §4, 84 Stat.

    1241, codified at 42 U. S. C. §290bb—2a.

    This provision strengthens the understanding ofthe CSA as a statute combating recreational

    drug abuse, and also indicates that when Congress wants to regulate medical practice in the

    given scheme, it does so by explicit language in the statute.The Attorney General has rule-

    making power to fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific respects in which he is authorized to

    make rules, however, instruct the court that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illeg-

    itimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under

    state law.

    86. U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, Section 902 Definition of the Term Disability, at §

    902.6 (last modified No. 21, 2009), available at Section 902 Definition of the Term Disability

    (last visited Apr. 27, 2012).-

    Section 902 Definition of the Term Disability

    The Compliance Manual Section onthe Definition of the Term "Disability" has been removed from

    this website, since the analysis in it has been superseded by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

    (ADAAA). The ADAAA makes it easier for individuals challenging employment actions

    under Title I of the ADA to establish that they meet thedefinition of "disability" and are thus

    protected by the law.

    For more information on the ADAAA, go to Information about the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA)

    SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

    (a) Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201 et seq.) is amended-

    (1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:

    (e) BENEFITS UNDER STATE WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAWS.—Nothing in this Act

    alters the standards for determining eligibility for benefits under State worker’s compensation laws

    or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.

    This page was last modified on July 25, 2012.

    87. The legislative history of the ADA indicates that Congress intended judicial interpretation ofthe

    Rehabilitation Act be incorporated by reference when interpreting the ADA. See Laura F.

    Rothstein Disabilities and the Law § 3.12 (1992).


    88. RCW 69.50.308 Prescriptions.

    (e) A valid prescription or lawful order of a practitioner, in order to be effective in legalizing

    the possession of controlled substances, mustbe issued in good faith for a legitimate medical

    purpose by one authorized to prescribe the use of such controlled substance. An order purp-

    orting to be a prescription not in the course of professional treatment is not a valid pre-

    scription or lawful order of a practitioner within the meaning and intent of this chapter;

    and the person who knows or should know that the person is filling such an order, as well as the

    person issuing it, can be charged with a violation of this chapter.

    89. Rcw 69.51A.010

    (7) "Valid documentation" means:

    (a) A statement signed and dated by a qualifying patient's health care professional written

    on tamper resistant paper, which states that, in the health care professional's professional

    opinion, the patient may benefit from the medical use of marijuana; and



    90. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS LAW

    91. In November, 1998, Washington voters approved the Medical Use of Marijuana Act

    ('''MUMA''). (I-692 [1998]; Wa.long-term health &safety statute chapter 69.51A.) The

    MUMA in-part provided that the state should implement a safe and affordable distribution

    system that provides for all seriously-ill Washitonians in need of medical marijuana..

    92. In 2007, the state governor approved the designated provider section and added conditions

    for which cannabis could be used.

    93. "The law should not be construed to do indirectly what it cannot do directly". Gelpcke v. City

    of Dubuque,11 68 U.S. (l Wall) 175, 192, 17 L. Ed. 520 (1864) ("It is almost unnecessary to say,

    that what the source")Governor Gregiore addresses the stream and its source in her veto letter as

    shown below:

    I fully support the purpose of Initiative 692, and in 2007, I signed legislation that expanded the

    ability of a patient to receive assistance from a designated provider in the medical useof marijuana,

    and added conditions and diseases for which medical marijuana could be used. Today, I have

    signed sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that retain the provisions of

    Initiative 692 and provide additional state law protections.

    94. The definitions of medical cannabis qualifying patient, designated provider and qualifying

    patients collective gardens are provided in state statutory and/or decisional law.

    95.. The legislature,by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.025 Construction of Chapter-Compliance

    with RCW 69.51A.040 clearly provides: Nothing in this Chapter or in the rules adopted to impl-

    ement it precludes a qualifying patient or designated provider from engaging in the private, un-

    licensed, non commercial production, possession, transportation, delivery, or administration of can-

    nabis for medical use as authorized under RCW 69.51A.040.

    [2011 c 181 $ 413]

    96. "Noncommercial" is not defined by the MUCA. Its ordinary meaning is "not commercial,"as in

    "not used in commerce," "having no commercial importance," or "not commercially motivated."

    Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1536 (1993).

    97. The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.040 Compliance with chapter-Qualifying

    patients and designated providers not subject to penalties-law enforcement not subject to liability

    provides in relevant part:

    The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms of this chapter does not constitute a

    crime and a qualifying patient or designated provider in compliance with the terms and

    conditions of this chapter may not be arrested, prosecuted, or subjected to other criminal

    sanctions or civil consequences, for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possess-

    ion with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, or have real or personal

    property seized or forfeited for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with

    intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law,and investigating peace officers and law

    enforcement agencies may not be held civilly liable for failure to seize cannabis plants in this

    circumstance if:

    (1) (a) The qualifying patient or designated provider possesses no more than fifteen plants and;

    ( i ) No more than twenty four ounces of usable cannabis;

    (ii) No more cannabis product than what could reasonably be produced with no more than twenty

    four ounces of usable cannabis; or

    (iii) A combination of usable cannabis and cannabis product that does not exceed a combined total

    representing possession and processing of no more than twenty four

    ounces of usable cannabis.

    (b) If a person is both a qualifying patient and a designated provider for another qualifying patient,

    the person may possess no more than twice the amounts described in (a) of this subsection,

    whether the plants, usable cannabis, and cannabis product are possessed individually or in combin-

    ation between the qualifying patient and his or her designated provider.

    (2) The qualifying patient or designated provider presents his or her proof of registration with the

    department of health, to any peace officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or

    her medical use of cannabis;

    (3) The qualifying patient or designated provider keeps a copy of his or her proof of registration

    with the registry established in *section 901 of this act and the qualifying patient or designated pro-

    vider's contact information posted prominently next to any cannabis plants, cannabis products, or

    useable cannabis located at his or her residence..

    98. The legislature, by it’s enactment of RCW 69.50.302 Registration requirements clearly pro-

    vides in relevant part: :

    (c ) The following persons need not register and may lawfully possess controlled sub-

    stances under this chapter.

    (3) An ultimate user or a person in possession of any controlled substance pursuant to a law-

    ful order of a practitioner or in lawful possession of substance included in schedule V

    [2011 c 336 $ 839; 1993 c 187 $ 16; 1989 1st ex.s c 9 $ 432; 1971 ex.s. c 308 $ 69.50.302]

    99. The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 9A.36.021 in relevant part:

    was to protect the citizens within it’s boarders from serious bodily harm which could amount to

    serious physical or psychological violations or even death. And provides fully: to punish those

    violators of a criminal violent act with severe punishment to garnish a violation as a class B felony.

    100. The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.085 is a section of the Washington State

    medical cannabis act which enables qualified patients to create and participate in collective

    gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting, and delivering cannabis

    for medical use, in relevant part:

    RCW 69.51A.085 Collective Gardens.
    (1) Qualifying patients may create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose of
    producing, processing, transporting, and delivering cannabis for medical use subject to
    the following conditions:
    (d) A copy of each qualifying patient's valid documentation or proof ofregistration with the
    registry established in *section 901 of this act, including a copy of the patient's proof of identity,
    must be available at all times on the premises of the collective garden; and
    (e) No useable cannabis from the collective garden is delivered to anyone other than one ofthe
    qualifying patients participating in the collective garden.
    (2) For purposes of this section, the creation of a "collective garden" means qualifying
    patients "sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required" to
    produce and process cannabis for medical use such as, for example, a location for a collec-
    tive garden; equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to plant, grow, and harvest cannabis;
    cannabis plants, seeds, and cuttings; and equipment, supplies, and labor necessary for proper
    construction, plumbing, wiring, and ventilation of a garden of cannabis plants.
    (3) A person who knowingly violates a provision of subsection (1) of this section is not

    entitled to the protections of this chapter.

    [2011 c 181 § 403.]

    Notes: *Reviser's note: The section creating a registry, 2011 c 181 § 901, was vetoed by the

    governor.

    101. The defendant MUNICIPALITY relies entirely on Section 1102 of ESSSB 5073, now cod-

    ified in RCW 69.51A.l40, which speaks to the authority of cities to regulate the production, pro-

    cessing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products , provides:Cities and towns may adopt and

    enforce any of the following pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or

    cannabis products within their jurisdiction: Zoning requirements, business licensing requirements,

    health and safety requirements, and business taxes. Nothing in this act is intended to limit the auth-

    ority ofcities and towns to impose zoning requirements orother conditions upon licensed dispensers,

    so long as such requirements do not preclude the possibility of siting licensed dispensers within the

    jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction has no commercial zones, the jurisdiction is not required to adopt

    zoning to accommodate licensed dispensers.

    102. In the Governor's veto letter, the Governor vetoed the state licensed dispensaries sections

    supporting section 1102, and either made section 1102 of ESSSB 5073 an orphan section without

    meaning as shown below: Section 1102 sets forth local governments' authority pertaining to the

    production, processing or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdictions.The

    provisions in Section 1102 that local governments' zoning requirements cannot "preclude the poss-

    ibility of siting licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction" are without meaning in light of the vetoes

    of sections providing for such licensed dispensers. 1t is with this understanding that I approve

    Section 1102.

    103. Or in the alternative, section 1102 was left it in to allow nonprofit cannabis cooperatives

    organizations to produce, process and dispense cannabis if the legislature chose to act as shown

    below:

    I have been open,and remain open, to legislation to exempt qualifying patients and their designated

    providers from state criminal penalties when they join in nonprofit cooperative organizations to

    share responsibility for producing, processing and dispensing cannabis for medical use.

    Such exemption from state criminal penalties should be conditioned on compliance with

    local government location and health and safety specifications.

    104. It is crystal clear the legislature did not intend to provide local control over qualifying patients

    collective gardens,( see SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6265 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/

    billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6265-S.pdf , along with the video of the debate

    http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com … 2012010118 ) and it is also clear

    that Governor Gregoire also did not intend to create local control over qualifying patients in any

    collective gardens, except to allow them. ( see Governors veto letter

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdo … S2.VTO.pdf ) .

    105. Any definition of medical cannabis qualifying patient, designated provider and/or collective

    gardens, dispensaries, and/or cultivation sites included in ordinances, laws, rules, codes and/or

    regulations adopted by Defendant MUNICIPALITY that are different than the state law

    definitions of those thus are superseded by such state law definitions and/or decisional law.
    .

    106. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    APPLICABLE STATE DISABILITY PROTECTIONS

    107. Plaintiff PATIENT suffer' from a physical and/or mental condition ("DISABILITY") that

    affects a major life activity within the meaning of the WLAD,WHPA and chapter 69.51A.010.

    108. Plaintiff PATIENT is an individual with disabilities as defined in Social Security Act, ADA,

    Rehabilitation Act, ., which is identical to (SSA),Wa. Health and Safety statute chapter 69.51A

    RCW et seq,WLAD, WHPA a combination of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all

    of them.

    109. The WLAD,WHPA, (SSA)~ protect against "'violation of the right of an individual under"

    the ADA.

    110. The ADA provides, at 42 U.S.C. § 12201(b), that "[n]othing in this Act shall be construed

    to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of ... any State or political subdivision

    of any State or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals

    with disabilities than are afforded by this Act."

    111.The ADA requires only accommodations that are reasonable."[T]he accommodation required

    by the law is limited, not just expanded, by the word `reasonable.'" McGary, 386 F.3d at 1270.

    Where a law is intended to protect the community,an accommodation that threatens the health and

    safety of the community may be unreasonable.Id.Courts generally will not second-guess the public

    health and safety decisions of state legislatures acting within their traditional police powers, but the

    ADA and accompanying regulations require courts to ensure that the decision reached by the state

    authority is appropriate under the law and in light of proposed alternatives.

    Crowder, 81 F.3d at 1485.

    112. Although the ADA provides a floor of disability protection, the state Legislature has

    declared that Washington "law has always, even prior to passage of the [ADA], afforded addi-

    tional protections."

    113. By its plain language, WLAD, WHPA and chapter(s) 69.51A, 4.96 RCW protects against

    violations of rights of the disabled under Title II of the ADA that protect against discriminatory

    state or local laws, rules, policies, and/or procedures.

    114. The WLAD, provides that, for purpose term ~~~disability' means any mental or physical

    disability as defined in 49.60.040(7).

    115. Use of naturally derived THC dronabinol for medical purposes in compliance with the

    MUCA is not "current unlawful use" of drugs under Washington or Federal law.

    116. The DISABILITY for which the Plaintiff PATIENT qualify for protection under WLAD

    AND WHPA is not a disorder resulting from the "current unlawful use of controlled substances

    or other drugs."

    117. Plaintiff PATIENT' respective use of medical cannabis is provided for under and conduc-

    ted in compliance with the MUCA and OTHER FEDERAL LAWS..

    118. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    APPLICABLE FEDERAL DISABILITY PROTECTIONS

    119. F or purposes of those parts of this Complaint that allege violation of and that seek relief

    (including but not limited to damages) under federal disability law, the Plaintiff PATIENT suffers

    from, have a record of,or is regarded as having a physical or mental impainnent that substantially

    limits at least one (1) major life activity including, but not limited to, caring for oneself, perfor-

    ming manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending,

    speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and/or

    working. If such physical or mental impairment suffered by the Plaintiff PATIENT is episodic or

    in remission, the impairment limits a major life activity when active.

    120. For purposes of those parts of this Complaint that allege violation of and seek relief

    (including but not limited to damages) under federal disability law~ Plaintiff PATIENT has a

    disability within the meaning of the SSA, ADA, SEC. 504, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A),

    29 U.S.C. § 794,49 C.F.R. § 37.3, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, a combination of each of the

    aforementioned laws/regulations, or all of them.

    121. For purposes of those parts of this Complaint that allege violation of and seek relief

    (including but not limited to damages) under federal disability law, Plaintiff PATIENT remains

    qualified for protection under the 42 U.S.C. § 12210(d)(1) .

    122. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

    123. MUNICIPALITY has enacted, and is enforcing Vancouver ordinace (M-3988) and

    attempting to apply it to Municipal Code (VMC) TITLE 20, its local MC qualifying patient

    residential premises DE FACTO ban upon specific disabled persons. In addition to attempting

    to change VMC title 20. MUNICIPALITY has enacted laws (contrary to known disability

    laws,) including but not limited to ordinance M-3988, that prohibit, restrict, and/or regulate

    medical cannabis qualifying patients collectives are referred to as the LOCAL ORDINANCE in

    this Complaint. The LOCAL ORDINANCE constitutes a law, rule, policy, and/or procedure

    for purposes of WLAD,WHPA, SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination

    of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all of them.

    124. Defendant MUNICIPALITY's LOCAL ORDINANCE: A) prohibits all

    medical cannabis qualifying patient collective gardens at those DISABLED PERSONS

    residential premises as delineated in state law; B) includes a policy or policies that effectively

    prohibits all disabled persons medical cannabis qualifying patient from accessing collectives at

    any private,unlicensed, non commercial residential premises as are defined in state law; and C)

    facially discriminates against Plaintiff PATIENT and/or their COLLECTIVE ASSOCIATION

    in contravention of MUCA, WLAD, WHPA, SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a

    combination of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all of them.

    125. “It is almost unnecessary to say, that what the legislature cannot do directly, it cannot do

    indirectly.The stream can mount no higher than its source.”Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 68 U.S. 1

    Wall. 175 175 (1863)

    126. Defendant MUNICIPALITY has and continues to violate federal and/or state disability

    civil rights laws that protect the Plaintiff PATIENTS including WLAD, WHPA, SEC. 11135,

    Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all of

    them thereby causing Plaintiff PATIENT to suffer damages including but not limited to:

    A) physical injuries resulting from Plaintiff PATIENTS' continuous and/or periodic inability to

    access physician recommended medication; B) mental and/or emotional injuries resulting from

    the enforcement of the LOCAL ORDINANCE; C) financial damages resulting from losses

    sustained by Plaintiff lacking any access to private housing because of disability and not

    COLLECTIVES which have only 45 plants, the same amount as 3 qualifying patients in one

    dwelling; and/or D) other physicial, mental, emotional, and/or financia1 damages to be proven at

    time of trial.

    127. Through either 1) facial; and/or 2) disparate impact discrimination suffered by Plaintiff

    PATIENT and caused by provisions of the LOCAL ORDINANCE an/or proposal of new

    LOCAL CODE amendment, Defendant has violated and continues to violate WLAD, WHPA,

    MUCA,SEC. 11135, Title II ofthe ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of the

    aforementioned statutes., or all of them.

    128. Defendant MUNICIPALITY's ongoing enforcement of the discriminatory LOCAL

    ORDINANCE continues to aggrieve Plaintiff. Accordingly, the injunctive

    relief provisions in Wa. Chapter 7.40 RCW apply in this case.

    129.It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    COLLECTIVE ASSOCIATION LAW

    130.At Section 403 codified at chapter 69.51A.085, the GUILDLINES provide that, '~under

    Washington law, medical cannabis patients ONLY may 'associate within the State of

    Washington in order collectively for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting,

    and delivering cannabis for medical use for medical purposes.' (Chapter 69.51A.085.)"

    131.Medical cannabis qualifying patient COLLECTIVE gardens is a group of medical cannabis

    patients who associate together for purposes of mitigating their respective patient classmembers'

    disabilities and serious illnesses through collective producing, processing, transporting, and

    delivering of medical cannabis. Qualifying patients associate together COLLECTIVE' are

    established and operates under Chapter 69.51A.085 subject to specific conditions. Not

    Chapter 69.51A.140 specific Counties, cities, towns -authority to adopt and enforce pertaining to

    the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdiction:

    Zoning requirements,business licensing requirements,health and safety requirements,and business

    taxes requirements conditions.

    132..Pursuant to the GUIDELINES, qualifying patients associate together COLLECTIVE' are

    shared responsability by its patient associate together class-members whom have their valid

    documentation at the residencal premises, including Plaintiff PATIENT. See chapter 69.51A.

    085 (2) definition.

    133.Each and every action and/or inaction complained of herein that has been taken against,

    injured, and/or caused damage to plaintiff preclusion of COLLECTIVE association access thus

    has been taken against, injured, and/or caused damage to Plaintiff PATIENT.

    134. Section 35.130(g) of Title 28 of the Code of Fed. Regs. is part of the ADA

    implementing regulations and explicitly prohibits local governments from discriminating

    against based on association.

    135. Through the LOCAL ORDINANCE, and/or new code amendment proposal Defendant

    has violated Plaintiff PATIENT' right to associate as provided under the law.

    136.Defendant, through the LOCAL ORDINANCE, has violated 28 C.F .R. § 35.130(g),

    WLAD, WHPA, , SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of

    the aforementioned statutes, or all of them, by restricting and/or prohibiting the Plaintiff

    PATIENT from associating in any private dwelling with other medical cannabis patients for

    purposes of mitigating the symptoms and conditions related to Plaintiff PATIENTS' respective

    illnesses, disabilities, and/or permanent injuries. Legislatures may not, under the guise of the police

    power, impose restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the use of private property

    or the pursuit of useful activities. Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S.

    116, 73 L.Ed. 210, 49 S.Ct. 50, 86 A.L.R. 654 (quoted with approval in Hauser v. Arness, 44 Wn.

    (2d) 358, 267 P. (2d) 691).

    Zoning measures must find their justification in the police power exerted in the interest of the public.

    Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra, 387. "The governmental power to interfere by zoning regulations

    with the general rights of the land owner by restricting the character of his use, is not unlimited and,

    other questions aside, such restriction cannot be imposed if it doesnot bear a substantial relation to

    the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Nectow v. Cambridge, supra, p. 188


    137. Defendant, through the LOCAL ORDINANCE, has violated MUCA and GUIDELINES

    by restricting and/or prohibiting the Plaintiff PATIENT from associating with other medical cann-

    abis patients for purposes of mitigating the symptoms and conditions related to Plaintiff

    PATIENTS' respective illnesses, disabilities, and/or permanent injuries.

    138.The defendant violates the right of association of like minded and is fundamentally eliminated
    NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view,
    particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as the U.S. Supreme
    Court hasmore than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of
    speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516,
    530. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and
    ideas is an inseparable aspect ofthe "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
    Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666;
    Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 324; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303; Staub v.
    City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 321. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be
    advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and local
    government action in the name of the federal government which may have the effect of curtailing
    the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny..

    138. The courts have consistently held that medical cannabis laws are a medical practice issue

    since it does not involve a prescription and is premised on the first amendment rights of patient

    and physicians communications for physicians ability to recommend their cannabis use.

    (See,Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 648 (9th Cir. 2002).

    139.It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    ONGOING DISCRIMINATION

    140. Each and every action complained of by Plaintiff in this Complaint are part of an ongoing

    pattern of discriminatory actions Defendant has taken under either the LOCAL ORDINANCE,

    and/or new code amendment proposal, its enforcement, and/or other of its discriminatory laws~

    rules, policies, and/or procedures.

    141.It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    VIOLATION OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS

    142.In 2011, during a public meeting, MUNICIPALITY enacted (M-3988) and thereafter the

    other parts of LOCAL ORDINANCE,and/or code amendment proposal(s) to its zoning and/or

    land use for private residences.

    143. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    before and after enacting the LOCAL ORDINANCE, officials, officers, and/or employees of

    MUNICIPALITY publically stated that the LOCAL ORDINANCE was necessary because,

    without the law, medical cannabis collectives and/or dispensaries would proliferate throughout

    MUNICIPALITY. The aforementioned public statements are evidence of per se discrimination

    under WLAD,WHPA, SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of

    the aforementioned statutes, or all of them. (Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of

    Middletown (2d Cir. 2002) 294 F.3d 35, 45-46 [RECAP]; Horizon House Dev. Servs. Inc. v.

    Twp. ofUpper Southampton (E.n. Pa. 1992) 804 F. Supp. 683, 690 [Horizon]).


    144. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    before and after enacting the LOCAL ORDINANCE, officials, officers, and/or employees of

    MUNICIPALITY publically stated that the LOCAL ORDINANCE was necessary because

    medical cannabis collectives and patients cause crime. The aforementioned pubJic statements

    are evidence ofper se discrimination under WLAD,WHPA,SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA,

    SEC. 504, a combination of each of the aforementioned statutes,or all of them. (RECAP, 294

    F.3d at 45-46; Horizon, 804 F. Supp. at 690).

    145. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and

    belief allege that before and after enacting the LOCAL ORDINANCE, elected officials

    officers, and/or employees of MUNICIPALITY publically stated that the LOCAL

    ORDINANCE and/or new code amendment proposal was necessary because their constituents

    did not want medical cannabis collectives "in their back yard." The aforementioned public

    statements of the elected officials are evidence of per se discrimination under WLAD,WHPA,

    SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination ofeach of the aforementioned

    statutes, or all of them. (RECAP, 294 F.3d at 45-46; Horizon1 804 F. Supp. at 690).

    146. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    before enacting the LOCAL ORDINANCE, elected officials, officers, and/or employees of

    MUNICIPALITY publically stated that the LOCAL ORDINANCE and/or new code

    amendment proposal was necessary because their constituents did not want medical cannabis

    patients near them or "in their back yard." The aforementioned public statements of the elected

    officials are evidence of per se discrimination under WLAD,WHPA, SEC. 11135, Title II of the

    ADA~ SEC. 504, a combination of each of the aforementioned statutes~ or all of them.

    (RECAP, 294 F.3d at 45-46; Horizon, 804 F. Supp. at 690).

    147. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    before enacting the LOCAL ORDINANCE, officials, officers, and/or employees of MUNIC-

    IPALITY publically stated that the LOCAL ORDINANCE was necessary because medical

    cannabis patients are just people who want to get "high" rather than patients with disabilities,

    illnesses, or permanent injuries. The aforementioned public statements are evidence of per se

    discrimination under WLAD,WHPA~ SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combin-

    ation of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all of them. (RECAP, 294 F.3d at 45-46;

    Horizon, 804 F. Supp. at 690).

    148. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that

    before enacting the LOCAL ORDINANCE, officials, officers, and/or employees of MUNIC-

    IPALITY publically stated that the LOCAL ORDINANCE was necessary because medical

    cannabis patients are generally criminals rather than patients with disabilities, illnesses, or

    permanent injuries. The aforementioned public statements are evidence of per se discrimination

    under WLAD,WHPA,SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of

    the aforementioned statutes, or all ofthem. (RECAP, 294 F.3d at 45-46; Horizon, 804 F. Supp.

    at 690).

    149. MUNTCIPALITY has ATTEMPTED to adopt a "zoning" code that defines "uses" of

    property ("LAND USES") and that regulates LAND USES based on zone and activity at

    suspect class of disabled citizens dwellings and/or their association at such dwellings.

    150. LAND USES are not comparable to medical cannabis qualifying patient collectives

    association but, are for non profit org. as the governor is open to.non profit cannabis org.

    include, but are not limited to, pharmacies, methadone clinics, medical clinics, medical

    treatment programs, and organic nutritional providers ("COMPARABLE USES )

    151. The COMPARABLE USES are not subject to the LOCAL ORDINANCE.

    152. The COMPARABLE USES are not prohibited, regulated, or rigidly controlled the same

    way that medical cannabis disabled citizens residence association are under the LOCAL

    ORDINANCE and/or code amendment proposal.

    153. Defendant MUNICIPALITY's total prohibition of all medical cannabis disabled qualifying

    patient residentail premises collectives in light of its less rigid regulation of COMPARABLE

    USES is evidence of per se discrimination under WLAD,WHPA, SEC. 11135, Title II of the

    ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all ofthem.(Bay Area

    Addiction Research and Treatment Inc.v. City of Antioch (9th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 725 [Bay

    Area]; New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading (3d Cir. 2007) 490 F.3d 293, 304

    -05 [New Directions D.]

    154. After it enacted LOCAL ORDINANCE in combination with the county of clark (as noted

    by city legal cousel Ted Gathe), Defendant began enforcing the law by issuing flyovers by law

    enforcement to, dispatching police and/or other law enforcement officers to~ and/or detaining,

    arresting, or harassing patients of dwellings under the [interlocal contract drug fund]. Including

    plaintiff patient.

    155.Defendant MUNICIPALITY's enforcement of LOCAL ORDINANCE has caused the

    interim,periodic, and/or continuous continued prohibition of specific suspect class of disabled

    citizens from accessing any residential premises in the city which has any association called and/

    or defined QUALIFYING PATIENTS COLLECTIVE GARDENS conduct and/or activity.

    156.Plaintiffs have notified Defendant, through its employees and/or elected officers, that the

    LOCAL ORDINANCE and/or new code amendment proposal and enforcement of it violate

    WLAD,WHPA,SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA~ SEC. 504, a combination of each of the

    aforementioned statutes, or all of them and that such enforcement causes Plaintiffs to suffer

    physical, mental, and/or financial injuries.

    157. Plaintiffs have asked Defendant, through its employees and/or elected officers, to cease

    enforcement of and to repeal/revise LOCAL ORDINANCE.

    158. Despite the aforementioned requests to cease enforcement of LOCAL ORDINANCE

    made by Planintiffs to Defendant, Defendant continues to enforce the ordinance using the

    methods, mechanisms, and personnel set forth previously in this Complaint.

    159. MUNICIPALITY's enactment and enforcement of the LOCAL ORDINANCE as well as

    its refusal to stop enforcement, suspend, or repeal the ordinance, is evidence of per se discrimi-

    nation under either the WLAD,WHPA, SEC. 504, Title II of the ADA, or all of them. (Bay

    Area, 179 F.3d 734-735; New Directions, 490 F.3d 304-05).

    160. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    DENIAL OF USE OF AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES

    161. The LOCAL ORDINANCE, its enforcement~ and the actions and/or inactions of Defen-

    dant MUNICIPALITY as set forth in this Complaint have prevented, hindered,and/or interfered

    with Plaintiff PATIENT' ability to access and obtain medical cannabis recommended by Plaintiff

    PATIENTS' licensed physician and used by the Patient PLAlNTIFF to mitigate, control, cure,

    and/or alleviate symtoms associated with or caused by their respective DISABILITIES.

    164. When Plaintiff PATIENT is unable to access and obtain medical cannabis to mitigage,con-

    trol, cure,and/or alleviate symtoms associated with DISABILITY,Patient PLAINTIFF movem-

    ents, freedom, and functions are severely limited in a manner that prevents meaningful access to

    and use of public services including but not limited to roads, sidewalks, libraries, and health care

    services.

    162. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    THREAT OF IMMEDIATE HARM

    163. The Plaintiff PATIENT will suffer immediate and irreparable continuing harm if access to

    housing are left shut-down and/or precluded at anyone's residencal PREMISES in that he will

    continue to lose access to his day-to-day life medication,he will continually be denied association

    with one another at a residence of any COLLECTIVE GARDENS, which provides some type

    of health care, counseling, activities, and patient support services, and he will lose immediate

    access to public services, including vital health care services.

    164. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Injunctive Relief Wa. Chapter 7.40 RCW)

    165. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding and the remainder of the

    allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

    166. As set forth in this Complaint, the Plaintiffs continue to be aggrieved and harmed by the

    actions and inactions of Defendant MUNICIPALITY because MUNICIPALITY continues to

    enforce its discriminatory LOCAL ORDINANCE.

    167. The MUCA statute requires residential premises associate collective' operate in full

    compliance with state law.

    168. The harm suffered by the Plaintiffs includes loss of access to medication for individuals

    suffering from severe physical disabilities and serious/terminal illnesses. The harm the City will

    suffer is deminumis should injunctive relief be granted. Accordingly, the balance of hardships

    weighs heavily in favor of Plaintiff.

    169. As a result of MUNICIPALITY's continuing discrimination that is harming the Plaintiff and

    violates the WLAD,WHPA, Plaintiffs pray for a preliminary injunction pending trial and for a

    permanent injunction thereafter under Chapter 7.40 RCW.

    170. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of

    lack of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons

    never qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Injunctive Relief Wa. 4.96 RCW )

    171. In Washington, only the state is sovereign --cities and counties exist only at

    the state's sufferance.Here, MUNICIPALITY is a subdivision of the State of

    Washington.

    172. Defendant MUNICIPALITY is a subdivision of the state and "not the

    federal government.just as in ,., (Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187

    Ca1.AppAth 734, 754 [Qualified Patients].)

    173. Under the Tenth Amendment, ''the federal government may not compel

    States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs."

    (Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 925; Qualified Patients~ 187 CaLApp.4th at

    754, 762.) .

    174. Cannabis is alleged to be prohibited under federal law. (21 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq.)

    Washington recognizes that cannabis has medical value and thus provides for its use and

    possession as well as provides the collective cannabis cultivation, transportation, and

    delivery system set forth in the MUCA. (Wa. long-term health statutes 69.51A et. seq..)

    175. In Qualified Patients, the appellate court held the City of Anaheim could

    not base its ban of dispensaries solely on federal law.

    176. In Qualified Patients, the appellate court held the City of Anaheim, as a

    '''creature'' of the state, could not enforce federal law that is inapposite to state law.

    177. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and

    belief allege that's MUNICIPALITY has expended taxpayer money to conduct

    investigations of the medical cannabis qualifying patients residential premises within and

    notwithin its border under the state/federal drug fund interlocal agreement(s) and,

    following such investigations, determined the qualifying patients residential premises collectives

    cannot be prohibited/precluded through MUNICIPALITY's local law enforcement agencies

    because the residential premises collectives are operating in accordance with state law.

    178. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and

    belief allege that MUNICIPALITY has expended taxpayer money in unsuccessful

    attempts to gain any vote of the planning commission recommending that patient collectives

    in its border be subjected through civil lawsuits including, but not limited to, nuissance abatement

    actions.

    179. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based upon such information and

    belief allege that MUNICIPALITY, despite it being a subdivision of the State of

    Washington and not part of the federal government, has expended taxpayer money to

    conduct investigations of residential premises within and outside its border solely for

    purposes of providing the results of such investigations to drug task force i.e. the federal

    government.

    180. The expenditure of taxpayer money by MUNICIPALITY, a subdivision of

    the state, to thwart the MUMA (I-692), a voter-passed initiative, which calls upon

    the state to implement a system for affordable and safe delivery of medical cannabis

    to patients, violates the state constitution and is an illegal expenditure .

    181. The expenditure of taxpayer money by MUNICIPALITY to undermine

    state voters and state law in a manner that harms disabled and seriously ill patients

    violates WLAD,WHPA and is an illegal expenditure.

    182. The expenditure of MUNICIPALITY's local/state taxpayer funds to call-in

    and assist the drug task force i.e. federal government to enforce federal law when the federal

    government conditions its enforcement on: 1) MUNICIPALITY's interlocal agreeing contract(s);

    and 2) MUNICIPALITY's expenditures to conduct and complete investigation, violates the

    MUCA, and other provisions of state law and is illegal.

    183. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be harmed by the aforementioned illegal actions of

    MUNICIPALITY that violate the state laws and constitution Accordingly, Plaintiff pray' for

    injunctive relief as set forth below.

    184. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of

    lack of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Declaratory Relief Wa. Chapter 7.24)

    185. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding and the

    remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

    186. Defendant MUNICIPALITY contends that LOCAL ORDINANCE is valid

    and enforceable.

    187. Plaintiffs contend that LOCAL ORDINANCE is void, invalid, and/or

    unenforceable. Specifically~ Plaintiff contend' that LOCAL ORDINANCE: 1) violates

    WLAD,WHPA,MUCA; 2) conflicts with state law WLAD,WHPA,MUCA ;

    and 3) conflicts with state law in contravention of art.XI sec.11, art. I sec. 7, art. I sec. 14 of

    the Washington Constitution.

    188. Defendant MUNICIPALITY contends that LOCAL ORDINANCE does

    not violate WLAD,WHPA,MUCA, the ADA, or SEC. 504. Nor conflicts with state law in

    contravention of art.XI sec.11, art. I sec. 7, art. I sec. 14 of the Washington Constitution

    189. Plaintiffs contend that LOCAL ORDINANCE is discriminatory, violates

    the WLAD,WHPA, the ADA, or SEC. 504, and is void, invalid, and/or unenforceable.

    Plaintiff content' that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to call in the drug task force i.e.

    federal government to thwart state law constitutes a violation of good faith withi their scope of

    assigned duties Defendant contends it may use taxpayer funds to call in the drug task force i.e.

    federal government to stop collectives operating fully within the requirements of state law despite

    state law providing for those residential uses. Defendant further contends it may use taxpayer

    funds to do investigative work that cannot be used and would not operate to show a

    violation of state law and then use additional funds to transmit the results of such

    investigation to the drug task force i.e. federal government so as to assist the federal government

    in stopping all collectives and dispensaries within its border when such closure cannot be

    accomplished because the collectives are operating in conformance with state law.

    190. Defendant quotes the provisions RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW35.63.200 repeatedly yet,
    provides no reasonable emergency to effectively usurp the state exemptions and the state
    legislature without ANY "valid" court order to do so.

    191. Wa. Chapter 7.48.160 RCW provides that "[n]othing that is done or maintained under the

    express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.'~
    [Code 1881 § 1238; 1875 p 79 § 4; RRS § 9916.]

    192. The command in ordinance M-3988 and any proposals that all medical cannabis qualifying

    patients associate collectives in residentail zones are prohibited violates Chapter 7.48.160 RCW ,

    WLAD,WHPA, MUCA, art.XI sec.11, art. I sec. 7, art. I sec. 14 of the Washington Constitution.

    193. The proposed command In VMC 20, et seq. that al1 medical cannabis qualifying patients

    residential premises collective gardens are per se public nuisances violates Chapter 7.48.160 RCW

    , WLAD,WHPA, MUCA, art.XI sec.11, art. I sec. 7, art. I sec. 14 of the Washington

    Constitution.

    194. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendant MUNI-

    CIPALITY concerning LOCAL ORDINANCE, enforcement of that ordinance, state and federal

    disability laws, the City's use of taxpayer funds to call-in and assist federal enforcement of a fed-

    eral law by using the drug task force [drug fund],and the parties' respective rights as to each issue.

    195. Plaintiffs request a judicial determination regarding the validity of current LOCAL ORD-

    INANCE and further request a declaration of the respective rights of the parties.

    196. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.)

    197. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding and the

    remainder ofthe allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

    198. Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability

    shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

    benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity ~ or be subjected to

    discrimination by any such entity. (42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.; 28 C.F.R. pt. 35; 49

    C.F.R. pts. 37 and 38.)

    199. Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against

    disabled individuals.

    200. For purposes of the ADA~ Plaintiff PATIENT remain qualified for

    protection under the 42 U.S.C. § 12210(d)(I) exception for ''use of a THC dronabinol isomer drug

    taken under supervision by a licensed healthcare professional."

    201. Plaintiff IS a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 and

    may seek relief under Title II of the ADA through 28 C.F.R. § 35.l30(g).

    202. Defendant MUNICIPALITY is a public entity within the meaning of 42

    U.S.C. § 12131(1).

    203. Defendant MUNICIPALITY has violated the ADA: A) by intentionally

    discriminating against the Plaintiff; B) through overprotective rules, policies,

    procedures, and actions; and C) through laws, rules, policies, procedures, and actions that

    have a disparate and adverse impact on the Plaintiff thereby denying Plaintiff the

    benefits of its services, programs, and activities as more fully set forth above. The

    aforementioned discrimination has interfered with, reduced, or prevented access to

    medication used by the Plaintiffs to mitigate the symptoms and conditions related to his

    (known by MUNICIPALITY) respective disabilities and serious illnesses thereby precluding or

    severely restricting Plaintiffs' meaningful access to and use of public services.

    204. Defendant MUNICIPALITY's violations of the ADA has harmed and will

    continue to harm Plaintiff in the future.

    205. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 42 U .S.C. §

    12133~ Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

    206. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

    (SEC. 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.)

    207.Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding and the

    remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

    208. SEC. 504 prohibits recipients of federal funding from denying to persons

    with disabilities, on the basis of disability, the benefits provided by the federal funds

    recipient, or from subjecting persons with disabilities to discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794;

    49 C.F.R. Pt. 27.

    209. Defendant MUNICIPALITY receives federal funding.

    210. Defendant MUNICIPALITY has violated SEC. 504 by discriminating

    against the Plaintiffs in the manner described herein.

    211. Defendant MUNICIPALITY's violations of SEC. 504 have harmed and

    will continue to harm Plaintiff in the future.

    212. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 29 U.S.C. §

    794a, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

    213. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who,because of lack

    of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never

    qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Wa. WLAD )

    214. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding and the

    remainder ofthe allegations set forth in this Complaint as iffully set forth herein.

    215.As set forth herein, Defendant MUNICIPALITY receives state funding.

    216.As set forth herein, Defendant MUNICIPALITY has discriminated against

    Plaintiffs in violation of WLAD.

    217. Plaintiffs pray for the relief provide under and referenced in WLAD

    including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and relief as set forth below.

    SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Wa. WHPA)

    218. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding and the

    remainder ofthe allegations set forth in this Complaint as iffully set forth herein.

    219. As set forth herein, Defendant MUNICIPALITY receives state and federal funding.

    220. As set forth herein, Defendant MUNICIPALITY has discriminated against

    Plaintiffs in violation the Housing Policy Act..

    221. It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those who, because of

    lack of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons

    never qualified for or admitted to the bar."

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

    l. That this Court declare LOCAL ORDINANCE is preempted by state law and federal law(s)

    against disability discrimination;therefore void, invalid, and/or unenforceable;


    2. That this Court declare that ordinance M 3988 or any similar proposed ordinance

    facially and/or by operation discriminates against the Plaintiffs in contravention of WLAD,

    WHPA,MUCA, SEC. 11135, Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of the

    aforementioned statutes, or all of them and are therefore void, invalid, and/or

    unenforceable;

    3. That this Court declare that LOCAL ORDINANCE facially and/or by

    operation discriminates against the Plaintiffs in contravention of WLAD,WHPA,MUCA

    Title II of the ADA, SEC. 504, a combination of each of the aforementioned statutes, or all

    of them;therefore void, invalid, and/or unenforceable;


    4. That this Court declare VMC 20 qualifying patients residential premises collective gardens

    preclusion/ prohibition amendments void, invalid, and/or unenforceable ,under Chapter 7.48.160

    RCW , WLAD,WHPA, MUCA, art.XI sec.11, art. I sec. 7, art. I sec. 14 of the Washington

    Constitution and/or other provisions of state law.

    5. That this Court issue a preliminary injunction under chapter 7.40 RCW

    prohibiting enforcement of LOCAL ORDINANCE until and through trial in this matter;

    6. That this Court issue a permanent injunction under chapter 7.40 RCW

    prohibiting enforcement of LOCAL ORDINANCE following trial in this matter;

    7. That this Court declare MUNICIPALITY's expenditure of city/state

    taxpayer funds to call-in, assist-in, and support federal government enforcement of a

    federal law violates state law and contravenes Wa. state constitution;therefore void, invalid, and/or

    unenforceable;



    8. That this Court issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendant MUNICIPALITY,

    MAYOR, and/or CITY FINANCIAL OFFICER from allowing or authorizing

    MUNICIPALITY to further expend taxpayer funds to call-in, assist-in, through the drug task

    force[drug fund] interlocal contract supporting federal government enforcement of a federal law

    that is contrary to state law under MUCA;

    9. That this Court award money damages in an amount to be proven at time of

    trial under applicable provisions ofthe Rehabilitation Act (SEC. 504);

    10. That this Court award money damages in an amount to be proven at time of

    trial under applicable provisions of the federal ADA;

    11. That this Court find that LOCAL ORDINANCE and the actions of MUNICIPALITY violate

    Chapter 7.48.160 RCW , WLAD,WHPA, MUCA, art.XI sec.11, art. I sec. 7, art. I sec.14 of the

    Washington Constitution and/or other provisions of state law and issue an injunction barring

    enforcement of the ordinance pending trial;

    12. That this Court award such additional, alternative, or further relief as maybe just, proper, and

    equitable.

    13. That this Court find that LOCAL ORDINANCE and the actions of MUNICIPALITY there-

    fore prohibits any activity allowed by state law when conducted pursuant to a valid recommend-

    ation of a medical practitioner for the use of cannabis for medical treatment at or on property in a

    zoning district for private, non commercial use, and causes by design such pain and agony as to be

    equivalent of that produced by torture. Because it prohibits what state law permits and causes

    substantial bodily harm, and even has the potential of causing death to a suspect class of citizens, it

    is in violation of article XI, section 11, article I section of the Washington State Constitution.

    14. This court is empowered to enter a declaratory judgment under Chapter RCW 7.24 et. Seq .

    Injunctive relief is authorized by RCW 7.40.010,.050 with a low burden ofproof threshold of actual

    threat or actual harm .020. Thus, any further relief is within the proper discretion of the court

    specifically authorized by .080. The court in its sound discretion may waive the required bond in

    certain situations.

    15. Plaintiff requests discretion of the court for waiver of said bond with an order from the court

    signed and delivered to the clerk. Said plaintiff is a disabled man with scant financial means. The

    burden of reimbursement to the City for costs associated herein would undoubtedly have dire

    consequences to the plaintiff’s housing, health, safety and welfare.

    16. That this Court find It is the duty of the court "to protect the public from the activity of those

    who, because of lack of professional skills, may cause injury whether they are members of the bar

    or persons never qualified for or admitted to the bar."



    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    IN THE COUNTY OF CLARK


    NO.

    JAMES E. BARBER SR. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
    PLAINTIFF, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    WLAD ACTION RCW 49.60
    TITLE II ADA VIOLATION
    HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
    DAMAGES 4.96 RCW
    BOND WAIVER REQUEST
    (M-3988/VMC 20)
    Civil Rule 65

    JURY TRIAL DEMAND
    v.

    CITY OF VANCOUVER, WA. ET. AL,
    A WASHINGTON STATE POLITICAL
    SUBDIVISION. ,DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive
    DEFENDANT(S),
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DECLARATION OF JAMES E. BARBER SR.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I, JAMES E. BARBER SR declare and state as follows:

    1. I am at least 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this declaration hereby declare:

    2. I am the declarant and also a resident of the State of Washington.

    3. On October 28, 2010 the social security administration found the palintiff suffers from 8 qualifying

    conditions under federal laws retroactive to January 1, 1999 and listed plaintiff as both 100%

    disabled under SSD and SSI and unemployable.

    At the hearing, the ALJ conducted an indepth discussion of the plaintiffs cannabis use and approved

    of such use upon viewing the plaintiffs state derived medical records and medcial cannabis

    recommendations from both washington state and oregon state. The plaintiffs washington state

    medical cannabis recommendation was signed in 2009 and does not have any expiration date or

    start dates, the legislature has made these valid recommendations a specific grandfather status.

    Plaintiffs conditions are perminent and not subject to any cure. No other known medicine addresses

    plainfiffs medical conditions as found by the social security ALJ.


    4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of City of Vancouver M-3988, staff

    report and amendments dated 07/16/12, 07/16/12, and 09/12/11. Noted in the staff report

    07/16/12 page 1 paragraph 3 quote: " The Act delegates to cities the authority to impliment

    zoning requirements, business license requirements, and health and safety requirements as those

    requirements relate to the production, processing, or dispensing of medical marijuana.Specifically,

    the Act would allow local government to address ambiguities concerning the location and

    operation of collective gardens.

    Page 2 Advantage(s):1.Provides the City with the time neccessary to complete work on proposed

    set of use and development standards for collective gardens to ensure the health, safety, and

    welfare of the community is adequately protected; and 2. Provides quaifying medical marijuana

    patients with a clear process that is in accordance with the new Act.

    Disadvantage(s): May initially limit qualifying medical marijuana patients from immediately

    establishing collective gardens as that term is defined in the Act but following the enactment of

    appropriate regulatory requirements will establish a clear process for establishing such gardens as

    allowed by law.


    5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of City of Vancouver staff report and

    proposed amendment recommendation(s) to the City Planning Commission dated October 11, 2012

    and slated for public hearing on October 23, 2012.

    Front page 1:

    Project name Medical Marijauna Collective Gardens Code Amendments
    PRJ2012-1505/CPZ2012-00008/SEP2012-00032

    Request To hold a public hearing and recommend approval to the City Council of the text

    amendments to VMC Title 20 (Land Use and Delelopment Code) that will govern the siting and

    operational standards of medical marijuana collective gardens, as allowed by state law.

    neighborhood associations All

    Page 2 SUMMARY

    Paragraph 1 (2nd) sentence states, quote: In 2011, the Washington State Legislature passed

    ESSB 5073, which adopted a number of additional provisions related to medical cannabis, including

    regulations for marijuana dispensaries and a preclusion of local municipal governments from

    prohibiting collective gardens (e.g. grow operations that also may include the retail sale of

    medical cannabis). Chapter 69.51A.085 has no such provisions to allow for retail sale of medical

    cannabis. The Act does not mention or even aver to dispensaries being on the same preempted

    and thus vetoed commercial business conduct and/or activity threshhold footing as a licensed

    dispenser located in section 1102 codified at chapter 69.51A.140.

    Paragraph 3 states, quote: On July 18, 2011 the City Council enacted a six-month moratorium

    on collective gardens being established in the City of Vancouver, and the moratorium was extended

    to December 31, 2012 in order to determine appropriate zoning districts, siting criteria, and

    standards to address potential secondary impacts(noise, lights,odors,ect.).

    Paragraph 4 states, quote: The proposed set of amendments to VMC Title 20 :"Land Use and

    Development Code" would allow collective gardens, as defined by state law, to locate in the IL,

    Light Industrial District subject to a number of location restrictions and special standards, including:

    must be located entirely indoors within a secure structure; must be located no closer than 1,000

    feet to any school, daycare, community center, park, residential care facility, or other collective

    garden... members of the collective must comply with the registration and identification

    requirements.

    Paragraph 5 states, quote: The topic of medical marijuana collective gardens was discussed by

    the planning commission at a work session on june 12,2012 prior to extention of the moratorium.

    The attached draft ordinance (Exhibit C) reflects the most recent proposed changes reviewed by

    the Planning Commission at their workshop on October 10,2012.

    MEMORANDUM

    This memorandum highlights the changes since the ordinance was presented to the Planning

    Commission in workshop on October 9,2012. The changes are as follows:

    6. Proposed New Subsection (P) 20.883 (page48).

    The addition sets hours for distribution of cannabis from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.

    Chapter 69.51A.085 is berif of the notion, intent, implication(s) or words of distribution of cannabis

    to be having hours of restricting, precluding disabled qualifying patients members class

    association(s). This is evidence of 1st amendment encroachment and text book violation. This is

    distinct text book discrimination and violates due process, and equal protections.

    6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of emails sent to various City of Vancouver

    officials and employees informing them they have no purview over collective gardens and what

    they are doing is illegal by torturing and assaulting qualifying cannabis patients. I also informed the

    same persons the ordinance is unconstitutional.

    7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the "cities and clark county" [drug fund]

    interlocal government contract which violates washington state cannabis act, WHPA, WLAD,

    ADA, FHAA, SEC. 504 as the drug task force members, and/or associations are mandated to

    follow federal drug laws which do not recognize state laws on the lawful use of cannabis yet, these

    persons are all city,town,county and/or state employees. These employees swore upon employment

    to uphold Washington state laws now are charged with enforcing federal laws, not state laws as

    required by the state and/or local government which employees them. SEC. 504 requirements are

    written ito each contract as mandated to follow.

    8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a copy of Chapter 69.51A.025, 040, 085, .130,.140 RCW.

    Chapter(s) 35.63.220, 35A.63.240, 36.70A.410, 36.70.990 RCW.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of washington that the foregoing is

    true and correct.

    Dated this 30th day of October, 2012, at Brush Prairie, Washington.

    ____________________
    James E. Barber Sr.

    -----------------------------------------------------



    The following transactions happened 11/8/12 in Case # 3:12-cv-05961-RBL

    Minute order regarding discovery and depositions..

    It is hereby ordered : discovery and depositions

    order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report and early settlement

    joint status report due 2/6/13

    frcp 26f conference deadline is 1/23/13

    initial dislosure deadline is 1/30/13

    by Judge Ronald B. Leighton
    --------------------------------------------------

    James v. City of Costa Mesa amended 11/1/12

    Footenote: 8
    “ ‘If the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme
    is coherent and consistent,’ judicial inquiry must cease.” Miranda v.
    Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Ferrell, 539
    F.3d 1186, 1190 n.10 (9th Cir. 2008)). If the statute is ambiguous, how-
    ever, “we may use canons of construction, legislative history, and the stat-
    ute’s overall purpose to illuminate Congress’s intent.” Probert v. Family
    Centered Servs. of Alaska, Inc., 651 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (quoting Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1133 (9th Cir. 2009)) (inter-
    nal quotation marks omitted). “We may also look to other related statutes
    because ‘statutes dealing with similar subjects should be interpreted har-
    moniously.’ ” Tides v. Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809, 814 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (quoting United States v. Nader, 542 F.3d 713, 717 (9th Cir. 2008)); see
    also Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151, 157-58 (1972)
    (stating that it is essential that we place the words of a statute in their
    proper context by resort to the legislative history,” including related con-
    gressional activity addressing the same subject matter).

    -------------------------
    United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936); Knowlton v.
    Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 59-60 (1900) (holding that Congress can tax inheritances, even if it could
    not regulate them under the Commerce Clause).

    To be sure, Congress must use its power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to “provide
    for the . . . general Welfare.” As the Supreme Court held 75 years ago with regard to the Social
    Security Act, however, decisions of how best to provide for the general welfare are for the
    representative branches, not for the courts. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 645 & n.10
    (1937); see South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987).

    Generally, in construing the Social Security Act, our court has favored that interpretation
    which gives effect to the beneficent purposes of the Act. Ewing v. Black, 172 F.2d 331, 335,
    6 A.L.R.2d 948 (C.A.6 1949); Lietz v. Flemming, 264 F.2d 311, 313 (C.A.6 1959).
    See also Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57 S.Ct. 904, 81 L. Ed. 1307 (1937).

    The beneficent purpose of Congress in the enactment of the Social Security Act must not be ignored.
    After painstaking investigation and elaborate research through experts, Congress reached the conclusion,
    upon which it acted, that the award of old-age benefits is conducive to the general welfare.
    See opinion of Mr. Justice Cardozo in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641-645, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909,
    81 L.Ed. 1307, 109 A.L.R. 1319, where the legislative history of the Social Security Act is reviewed.
    In his logical reasoning, the eminent jurist did not strain eloquence when he said: "The hope behind
    this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting
    fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near."


    Congress acted well within its authority to integrate the provision into the interrelated revenue and
    spending provisions of the Act, and to treat it as necessary and proper to the overall goal of advancing
    the general welfare. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976) (grant of power under General Welfare
    Clause “is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause”).
  2.  
    buckets

    buckets Active Member

    Holy crap that's a hell of a read. I hope things work out for you.
  3.  
    charface

    charface Well-Known Member

    I can not believe I started reading and kept on and kept on until I finally scrolled down to find it was never ending.
    Can you sum it up?
  4.  
    Adonis

    Adonis Member

    Ya a simple summary would have sufficed. He's perpetuating the same system he's complaining about by making us all have to suffer through the BS
  5.  
    Victom

    Victom Active Member

    lmao holy 1st post of thread.
  6.  
    bsemaj

    bsemaj Member

    Summary is in the 1st part of this post.

    So I went to the planning commission hearing 11/6/12 @ 4 PM and got served with notice the city has motioned the federal court in Tacoma to transfer because my request for damages is a federal question.

    Plaintiffs 66 page compliant seeks injunctive relief and money damages against defendant based on inter alia, the following authority: (a) the ADA title II of usc sec. 12101 et. seq.(4th cause of action); (b) sec. 504 rehabilitation act of 1973 29 usc sec. 701 et. seq. (5th cause of action); © 1st amendment right freedom of association(11th cause of action); (d) 14th amendment, for alleged deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law(12th cause of action).

    I served the city on Nov. 1 and they wasted no time.... after I went to the superior court and requested an emergency TRO which got denied by the drunk judge ... and she made me pay a $ 20 surcharge being on social security... poverty level... putting me below poverty level.

    Some judges need to leave office for doing stupid stuff like that ... denying access to the courts is a no-no.

    And denied me bond waiver... stupid is as stupid does..



    Hope that helps.. :D

Share This Page