Marijuana farmers sue the county (Calavaras)

The marijuana industry in Calavaras County are suing for the right to operate.  While this deals with pot, it is really a far reaching challenge to the irrational, subjective, often political environmental reports—based on junk science and possibilities, not truth.

“Marijuana farmers have filed a number of challenges to the cannabis ban. Allegations include the invalidity of an environmental impact report, Ralph M. Brown Act violations and California Public Records Request violations.

Marijuana farmers have undertaken a number of challenges to the recently enacted ban on cannabis cultivation, including lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban and challenges to the county’s refusal to produce a memorandum sent to all supervisors that was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request.

The most direct attack on the ban is a lawsuit filed to challenge the validity of an environmental impact report allegedly used as the basis for precluding all cannabis cultivation in the county.”

If the marijuana industry wins this battle, all Californians win—we stop the blackmail of unions, Al Gore and his buddies and the Luddites that hate living in 2018 instead of 218 A.D.  We all win if the pot folks win this court battle.  EIRS is a tool used by special interests and government to tax and blackmail us.

Marijuana Store

Marijuana farmers sue the county

By Jason Cowan Jason, Calavaras Enterprise,  2/22/18

Marijuana farmers have filed a number of challenges to the cannabis ban. Allegations include the invalidity of an environmental impact report, Ralph M. Brown Act violations and California Public Records Request violations.

Marijuana farmers have undertaken a number of challenges to the recently enacted ban on cannabis cultivation, including lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban and challenges to the county’s refusal to produce a memorandum sent to all supervisors that was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request.

The most direct attack on the ban is a lawsuit filed to challenge the validity of an environmental impact report allegedly used as the basis for precluding all cannabis cultivation in the county.

That lawsuit is presented in the form of a writ petition that was submitted Feb. 14 by attorneys from the Archer Norris law firm of Walnut Creek on behalf of Beth Wittke and Thomas Griffing. The petition lists 13 causes of action in support of their request for the court to void the environmental report, eliminate the ban, require the Board of Supervisors to “properly” consider the ordinance moving forward and provide other relief.

Representatives from the county did not respond to requests for comment regarding the allegations made in the petition.

Among the reasons for challenging the report, the writ maintains officials used faulty “baseline” assertions for existing conditions, which distorted the ultimate findings. According to the petition, the report made unsupported factual assertions to make a regulatory option listed in the document appear “worse” for the environment than the ban.

The petition also claims that after a draft of the report had been revised, officials failed to “recirculate” the final draft “as required by the (California Environmental Quality Act).”

When officials did circulate the report for comments, the writ asserts they did not consider “good faith comments.” They allegedly neglected remarks about decay resulting from the ban and comments addressing traffic impacts under a regulatory system.

A number of “cure and correct” letters were also submitted the same day as the writ petition.

One in particular, also filed by Jason Molinelli by Archer Norris of Walnut Creek, alleges that supervisors acknowledged last March they met individually with county staff, using various methods of communication, to discuss the creation of an Environmental Hazmat Registry Database and to support the writing of a research paper to influence cannabis policy.

Molinelli’s letter condemns “closed discussions” between members of the board, staff and community that allegedly occurred outside the public eye after a cannabis Ad Hoc Advisory Committee was created by the supervisors.

Calaveras Cannabis Alliance Executive Director Trevor Witte also submitted separate claims concerning alleged violations of the Brown Act, as well as allegations that the county violated the California Public Records Act when it “withheld” a memo sent to all five supervisors requesting details regarding the financial impacts of a cannabis ban.

Wittke said during a Feb. 13 interview that the county improperly declined to produce the memo, based upon a claim that it contained confidential legal advice. He said any truly privileged information could have been deleted and the remainder of the document produced.

 

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.