You are on page 1of 18


COUNTY OF CLARK et. al. Defendant, _______________________________________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT /DECLARATION OF JAMES E. BARBER SR. _________________________________________________ State of Washington ) Clark County Superior Court )SS. ) I, James E. Barber Sr., being duly sworn upon oath hereby declare, depose, and state as follows: 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter. 2. I am over (18) years of age and am competent to testify to the matters herein. 3. This first amended complaint affidavit/declaration(supersedes prior declaration in support) is filed herein in support of a complaint against the defendant county of clark et. al. . praying for relief from this court pursuant to law. 4. I James E. Barber Sr. suffer from lumbar spine Degenerative Disc Disease diagnosed in 1999. In approx. may 2000 I was assaulted by 6 custody officer(s) at the behest of their commanding sgt. while I had handcuffs on, which has resulted in severe disc pain in my back from disc protrusions in my spine from being kicked to the ground and boot stomped without just cause, also causing both severe and chronic feet and leg pains, I was assaulted and severely boot stomped and was denied medical treatment. This condition is covered by both MUCA in which no standard medicine or treatment gives necessary relief too plaintiff. and WLAD. 5. I also experience severe and chronic pain in my left knee from fracture and instability as a result of being crushed between two vehicles at the age of 16, in which no standard medicine or treatment gives necessary relief too plaintiff.

This condition is also covered under MUCA and WLAD. 6. I also suffer from celiac disease since diagnosed with some form of skin lesion in 2002 in the clark county jail , (which turned out to be the external form) and other food triggers which causes severe weight loss and severe auto-immune reactions since my 18 month jail stay, in which no standard medicine or treatment gives necessary relief too plaintiff. These condition(s) are also covered under MUCA and WLAD. 7. I also suffers from Barrettes Esophagus causing the risk of untreatable cancer and does cause severe pain, in which no standard medicine or treatment gives necessary relief too plaintiff. This condition is also covered under MUCA and WLAD. 8. I also suffer from a complex seizure disorder in which I contracted in the Clark county jail from major overdosing plaintiff on anti-seizure meds (for the above noted severe back pain and jail custody staff assault) given by jail custody staff and jail medical staff, ( I also suffered a partial stroke as a result from being double dosed which I ended up in the jail medical ward for because I was found passed out on the floor and medical staff cold turky'd from any meds and denied further medical treatment and I was returned to my cell to suffer the rest of my punishment in agony). This condition(s) are also covered under MUCA and WLAD. 9. I have had to visit the emergency room to have my uninjured right knee put back into place from being dislocated after suffering a grand-mal seizure in my sleep do to the lack of mitigating medicine in my system from the fall out of the county ordinance.. No vulnerable disabled qualifying patients collective gardens access was allowed, and Plaintiff is disabled. His resources of medicine dried up. No more sharing in resources. Plaintiff feels he is knowingly, willingly, intentionally, recklessly, with malicious intent being negligently tortured for being an outspoken disabled person, and whom Now uses cannabis as a medicine .. Plaintiff does not own, have any property interest in, operate, any cooperative organization establishment in clark county for sharing in any of the production, processing or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products

10. I use cannabis as valid medical treatment and I was awarded SSDI permanent unemployable disability on Oct. 28,2010 by ALJ Eleanor Laws, retroactive too Jan. 1,1999. I am also on state disability program through DSHS. 11. The county has also listed my real property interest as maximum 60 % disability tax exemption status as a result of the Oct. 28,2010 order. 12. The US Justice Dept. prosecuting authorities have stated that persons on social security are vulnerable people . .[ press/2013/ June /buchanan.html - U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan. These prosecutions are aimed at preserving the integrity of the Social Security safety net so that it remains available for vulnerable people who need these benefits to survive.]. 13. On March 17th, 2011 I served upon the board of county commissioners a $20 million dollar tort claim notice with many documents attached in relation to the known disabled complainants disabilities found by a federal law judge dated Oct. 28th, 2010, medical record documents from the clark county jail dated 2000-2004, and disabled persons property tax exemption status dated 1999-2001 the county removed without just cause as complainants disabled wife lived in the home of the trust while complainant was in custody. Complainants known disabled wife did not vacate the home until complainant whom had his disability rights removed by said Clark county sheriffs dept. jail local doctor (shown in the medical records mentioned above), was released from custody in 2002. The plaintiff met with the county risk management investigator and the county accepted part and denied part of the claim. The non accepted part I was told to hire a lawyer to address the county, as I was not a lawyer with a bar license, nor had money to hire one. 14. Being a vulnerable disabled person I have now again suffered more injury due to the county ever since the county BOCC enacted it's first emergency moratorium banning at the request in bad faith from the county of clark sheriffs dept. drug task force commander mike cooke. Here's the basic problem in a nutshell:

Regardless of what states say.. Is statement not from a law enforcement officer of the law bound by our Wa. state constitution. This sounds like a statement from a federal agent whom violate state laws, regardless of what they say.. Is he acting as a federal agent regardless of what state laws say? From: Cooke, Mike Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:52 AM To: Cook, Christine; Snell, Marty; Orjiako, Oliver Cc; Gaya, Holly Subject: Marijuana dispensaries and county code Christine, Marty, and Oliver I am currently working with a group of neighborhood associations and neighborhood leaders on drafting some type or ordinance or addition to county code to deal with any potential marijuana dispensaries which may attempt to open in the county. I've recently received two inquiries from potential dispensary owners who want to open up shop in Clark County. All of us are interested in not allowing a business which conducts an illegal activity from opening it's doors in the county. We would rather prevent it on the front end rather than having to deal with it after it opens. We've had some preliminary discussions on what we think needs to be done with the code but we really need to sit down with the experts(you) to work this out. (Edited out a time they didn't meet) Here's the basic problem in a nutshell: 1. Marijauna is illegal under federal law in all cases, regardless of what states say. The US Supreme Court has affirmed this. 2. Unfortunately, local prosecutors don't prosecute federal laws so on the local level medical marijuana is a legal defense which has allowed some individuals to avoid prosecution. 3. Marijuana dispensaries have been sprouting like weeds (pun intended) in all the states which have medical marijuana law. Cities and Counties have been passing emergency moratoriums and ordinances banning dispensaries but have found it extremely difficult to deal with them once they open. It's been much easier to have ordinances in place prior to the first one opening it's doors. Spokane County had in excess of 50 dispensaries at one point. 4. There appears nothing in the Clark County Code which would prevent a dispensary from opening it's doors. 5. The neighborhood associations are interested in a county code addition which would prevent any business, including dispensaries, from being permitted in the county when that business is engaged in activity which is illegal under state OR federal law. This is a priority for neighborhoods so I told them that we would meet soon and come up with a solution. Thanks.. Mike. Commander-Mike Cooke

Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force (The above was followed up by his testimony against ANY gardens period. ) 15. The above email communications occurred after I contacted Bill Baron the county administrator. On 04/15/2011 Axel Swanson replied. Dear Mr. Barber Sr. County Administrator Bill Barron asked me to research your request for information about county regulations pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries. You asked: "Does the County have any regulations on this at this time?" My understanding in consultation with the Community Development Department is no we do not. There is no law yet passed the Legislature and signed by the Governor allowing this use, so we have not begun writing regulations for it nor to my knowledge begun policy discussions with the Board of Commissioners regarding those potential regulations. If you haven't already, you may want to look into SB5073 and contact its primary sponsor Senator Kohl-Welles office at (360) 786-7670 to find out what is happening with the bill and if it is passed what language will be included to direct or not direct counties to promulgate regulations for this use. You asked: "If not, is the county going to make regulations in regards to dispensaries and the like or ban them?" Again, to reiterate what I said above; the law having not yet passed has not triggered any policy discussions that I am aware of at the Board level nor regulations resulting from them. That said, you may be interested in the process that occurred in 2009 for drafting regulations for the locating of Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. You can find that ordinance on the County's website under Clark County Code: 40.260.165, Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. I hope this helps, if you do have some insight into the future of this bill or concerns about its potential impacts to our county please do not hesitate to forward them to me or contact me and I will pass them along to our Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your interest, Axel Swanson, Senior Policy Analyst 16. In early July of 2011 before sb 5073 took legal operational effect, the board instead of electing to file for injunctive and/or declaratory relief under preemption theories in the courts, they elected to use their alleged emergency moratorium authority under RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200 without public notice under the auspice in good faith and within the scope of their ASSIGNED duties under Chapter 69.51A.140 RCW intertwined with (if not bootstrapped to) 69.51A.130 RCW for land use and zoning districts on the use of cannabis by vulnerable disabled qualifying patients and their designated providers, as well as vulnerable disabled qualifying patients collective gardens as necessary to further the public interest, for their health, safety, and welfare. Resolution

2011-07-04. 17. On July 20th, 2011 before the law went into operational effect, I sent an email to the full board of county commissioners in regards to the (FULL MONTY) prohibition moratorium. 18. On August 8th, 2011, I received an email from Tina redline of the commissioners office in relation to my requests submitted. The response made claim the known disabled complainant would receive the requested information by August 12th, 2011. 19. On August 16th, 2011, the board of Clark County Commissioners adopted and enacted resolution/ordinance No. 2011-08-07, after an invitation of special interested persons with prior notice of the public hearing to testify. 20. Notice was given to the public for the hearing by the local media outlet. No copy of the emergency moratorium resolution was included to make the public aware of : the actual material facts and circumstances of why an emergency moratorium was necessary and/or used for private,unlicensed, noncommercial affairs , nor why a design to assault specific disabled persons and violate due process of law, and potentially give premature death penalties to vulnerable disabled terminally ill qualifying patients resolution was being promulgated , nor a planned resolution to disenfranchise the voters of the state, the legislature, usurp the judiciary and outright steal property owners or those whom have interests in property by the clark county-Skamania (now clark vancouver) drug task force agency commander Mike Cooke' group, the defendants political/policy and legal advisors, and other employees as well as the planning commission.. 21. The resolution/ordinance defines by reference relating to land use and zoning, continuing the temporary prohibition of any facilities for the growing or production, processing, or dispensing of marijuana prior to further study and public analysis . The resolution also makes reference to the board needing more time to establish local criteria from churches, schools, bus stops, and other public gatherings sites to ensure that the public is properly protected. The resolution further states by reference the production, processing, dispensing of medical marijuana is an important public

interest issue and the improper location of such facilities could cause serious harm to the public generally and particularly VULNERABLE populations, including youth. The resolution also makes by reference in 2011 the legislature has sought to expand the opportunities to grow, produce, process, and dispense medical marijuana in the state of Washington. 22. On August 21st, 2011, I recontacted the board of county commissioners by email again re-requesting information on the moratorium. Complainant also submitted new requests also. 23. On August 21st, 2011, I sent an email to the clark county prosecutor Tony Golik in regards to amended resolution NO. 2011-08-07. Mr Golik never replied back. 24. The defendant (County of Clark, WA) to date so far :: (A) Claim they do have legal good faith authority under land use and zoning interim moratorium statutes to regulate and/or abate any medical use of cannabis by vulnerable disabled qualifying patients use delineated in RCW 69.51A.025,and RCW 69.51A.085 as it is not state law only regulated but, is federally regulated only , nor does the disabled statute WLAD reasonably apply. [see exhibit communications from commander mike cooke of the drug task force(s)dated June 2nd and 3rd of 2011 before the law went into operational Effect, regardless of what states say] (B) Defendant county Admits and acknowledges I am disabled as defined by both state and federal laws. [see county website (taxable property vs. property value alludes to I am disabled] Admits and acknowledges I have a 60% disability exemption rating in relation to real property interest due to complainants federal disability status. [ see county Website account=20412 ] (D) Admits and acknowledges to be in receipt of a $20 million dollar claim I filed with clark county risk management dated March 17th, 2011 and the county risk management

accepted the claim in part and denied the claim in part after investigating my retroactive social security disability ruling and order [backdating to Jan., 1st 1999] with finding of facts and conclusions of law by a federal administrative law judge containing 8 debilitating medical conditions under state and federal disability laws (3 of which I didnt have before entering the clark county jail but left with them). Accordingly, while using cannabis authorized under state law for my serious medical condition(s) including complex seizure disorder as clearly implicated in the judges order. Attached also, was known disabled complainants medical records from the clark county sheriffs dept. showing my known disability status was removed by jail hired staff without just cause . These records also show my prior medication dosing was switched causing me to overdose having a partial stroke from double dosing plaintiff and further contracting a complex seizure disorder and given no further medical treatment after suffering said partial stroke and seizures. I was left in his cell to suffer in agony alone. 25. Admits and acknowledges I live in a dwelling (in unincorporated county), in which defendant Clark County (Code Enforcement) has already attempted via email to abate me due to my disability status. Which was ultimately resolved internally by then, deputy civil prosecutor Chris Horne. Chris Horne is now chief deputy civil prosecutor of the county of clark whom authored the county ordinances associated with this complaint . 26. Sent with public disclosure request of some county files. NOTICE AND ORDER Attn: James Barber You are notified pursuant to clark county ord. no. 19757-12-51 and amendments thereto, that an "investigation" of the herein described premises has "revealed" the following "violations" of the clark co. code: 1. OCCUPANCY OF A TRAVEL TRAILER IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R5) ZONING OR. NO. 40.210.020 YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE OCCUPANCY OF THE TRAVEL TRAILER WITHIN TEN(10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE AND ORDER. A penalty of $100 per day for each violation will be assessed, beginning ten(10) working days from the date this notice and order is served, until the herein mentioned corrections have been made. In addition, a "criminal" citation may "ordered" if this violation is not "ABATED".

From: Ellinger, Susan ( Sent: Tue 4/19/11 11:50 AM To: james sr 6 attachments Case # CD PDF content from Mr. Barber Please find the additional information we received from archives with the exception of one file. Due to the size of the documents, I will second a second e-mail with the last file. If you desire data that has not been provided or find that the files do not contain the information you requested, please contact me immediately. Otherwise, please accept the additional attachment as a formal close of your records request for the county. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of these materials. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan Ellinger Administrative Services Manager Clark County Community Development 1300 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA 98660 360-397-2375 ext 5122 27. The above clearly describes and establishes the county of clark zoning abatement process to any violation of their ordinances.. Unambiguous Penalty of Excessive fines, and unambiguous threat of criminal prosecution. Unambiguously a true potential threat of a death penalty to a select group within a class of vulnerable terminally ill disabled Persons, And seizure/forfeiture of property without due process of law.[/b] 28. On December 2nd, 2011 the board of clark county commissioners presumably with the assistance of the clark county prosecutors office and county staff, wrote a letter and sent it too US Attorney General Eric Holder, in pertinent part [ download/get/file/ 1102365101278 241/AG+Doc0001.pdf]; Quote : Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5073 in part became Washington law on July 22, 2011. Section 403 of the new law allows qualifying patients and designated providers to "create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting and delivering cannabis for medical use." Gov. Chris Gregoire, in her statement explaining a partial veto of the bill, wrote the gardens "should be conditioned on compliance with local government location and health and safety specifications." 29. As pointed out below in the governors letter she never ever made the claims the

defendant(county) make to the Attorney General of the United States of America knowingly, willingly, recklessly, negligently, with malicious intent in total disregard of the material Known facts and circumstances. Our own Wa. State US Assistant Attorney general letter to the governor do not refer to the collective gardens with any specificity (except qualifying patients) but, the conduct and activity under the Dept. of Agriculture and DOH licensing schemes which conflict with federal laws. It was specific to licensing of producers, processors and dispensers of cannabis and cannabis products. Their was no relation to provisions of the new clarifying law chapter 69.51A.005,.025, .040, .045, .085 exemption(s) being in conflict with federal law nor enforcement duties. The Federal prosecutors under this district charging discretion have chosen not to prosecute vulnerable disabled qualifying patients following state law. 30. The letter sent to Gov. Chris Gregoire on April 14, 2011 by the WA. State USAAG in reference to Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5073 [ 13050453232855.pdf ] was in part due to the huge amounts of cannabis plants and product to be located on one tax lot known as "FACILITIES" which would be then sold on an open retail commercial market involving many state agencies which could pose criminal liability for employees depending on the circumstances. The letter made no reference to qualifying patients collective gardens located in section 403 now codified under .085 which as noted by the codified plain language is not for designated providers which should be conditioned with local compliance as claimed by the county commissioners letter dated December 2, 2011 to USAG Eric Holder which he relied upon in his official duties. All done after the law became into operational effect. How does the county claim it was just looking for advice for something not even factual in its content or applicability ? This is abuse of the public trust too do such a thing. And misrepresentation to a court to carry on these masquerades . 31. Gov. Gregoire never wrote in her statement explaining a partial veto of the bill: the gardens "should be conditioned on compliance with local government location and health and safety specifications." This arguably was a plan devised by commander mike cooke

which needed experts to make it happen. And happen It did, regardless of what the state law says. !! 32. In vetoing portions of this bill, the then governor of Washington released a letter of her understanding to ALL constituents : April 29, 2011 To the Honorable President and Members, The Senate of the State of Washington Ladies and Gentlemen: I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 101, 201, 407, 410, 411, 412, 601,602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804,805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104, 1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 entitled: AN ACT Relating to medical use of cannabis.. in pertinent part stating on page 3 : 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 possibility of siting licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction are without meaning in light of the vetoes of sections providing for such licensed dispensers. It is with this understanding that I approve Section 1102. 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. The above notation from the then governor suggests concurrent jurisdiction presumptively over the same subject matter is not factually nor for public interest reasons over vulnerable disabled qualifying patients private affairs in their resource sharing in collective gardens conduct and/or activity but non profit cooperative organizations which garner ONLY state criminal exemptions and not civil zoning abatement law(s) exemptions. All doubt is Herein resolved. 33. All uses of cannabis period under the expired ordinance(s), except possession per Clark county prosecutor office Chris Horne was prohibited. Vulnerable disabled qualifying patients had to travel out of the county, procure their usable cannabis, then transport it into the county to be used at one residence, plaintiff does not own a vehicle. Plaintiff testified too this fact in the public hearing(s) held, with no rebuttal to deny this

occurred but just the opposite occurred by staff member Axel Swanson requesting a change in language and intent. The moratorium was amended for clarification purposes because it was overly oppressive.- (collective gardens for commercial facilities purposes was banned, and non commercial collective gardens for principal and/or accessory use was presumably allowed.) 34. On Jan. 17th, 2012 the DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator of office of Diversion Control received the letter dated December 2nd, 2011 sent to Eric Holder for a response. (This is now the 2nd United States of America public official relying on such known, willful, reckless, negligently, with malicious intent, false and misleading statements in the discharge of their official duties.) 35. On Feb. 2nd, 2012 the entire board of Clark county commissioners received the response letter from Deputy Assistant Administrator of office of Diversion Control Joseph T. Rannazzisi in the discharge of his official duties,(not the US Attorney's office as delineated in the whereas section of the ordinance 2013-07-08). [http://library.constant ; and -13-2011.pdf ] 36. Both letters sent and received have now been either sent or is accessible to most all of the local jurisdictions and is also being relied upon in the discharge of their official and/or association duties of other officials in the state of Washington. [ see 239/Medical+ Cannabis+Implementation+Issues+ Powerpoint.pdf ; and, - Letter to Board of Clark County Commissioners (Adobe Acrobat Document), from the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, re application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the Board of Clark County Commissioners and Clark County Employees, 01/17/2012 - This letter appears to be a response to the extensive medical marijuana statutory changes originally passed by the 2011 legislature, many of which were vetoed by Governor Gregoire ; and, Medical-marijuana.aspxMarijuana

(the below ArchivesMedical marijuana 2/17/12 has since been removed from public access) All articles | Archives Medical marijuana 2/17/12 The medical marijuana legislation, SB 6265, failed to advance out of the Senate before Tuesdays cutoff. The bill included some provisions clarifying local governments authority over collective gardens. It also prohibited cities from precluding the siting of collective gardens. That provision sparked serious disagreement among cities. The bill was subject to some potential floor amendments, and the time necessary to negotiate the amendments, coupled with the rush of cutoff, meant that the bill did not make it to the floor for a vote before the deadline. This means that there will not be any additional guidance from the state on m5dical marijuana for cities, and we must continue to operate under the existing law that took effect in 2011. Additionally, Clark County has been considering the issue of collective gardens and recently asked the Department of Justice for further clarification on the federal stance. The Department of Justice reiterated its position that marijuana is illegal and those facilitating illegal activity may be subject to legal action. For more information, contact Serena Dolly or Candice Bock.] 37. The county commissioners whom signed the material misrepresentations of fact and those whom assisted in this letter which has cause a tsunami of bans, moratoriums, regulations on private affairs should be admonished or charged for their violations of the public trust. 38. On May 30th, 2012 I sent an email to the then chief civil deputy county prosecutor Bronson Potter in regards to illegal county policy and no lawful local authority under the new codified cannabis act in regards to the vulnerable disabled qualifying patients collective gardens and vulnerable disabled qualifying patients use exemptions. On June 6th, 2012 Mr. Potter responded I believes the county has the legal authority to to enforce zoning, business licensing, and health/safety regulations pertaining to the production, processing or dispensing of marijuana. He completely ignores and brushes off the known disabled complainants issues brought forth. 39. On June 12th, 2012 I sent an email to the all 3 commissioners, Axel Swanson, Chris Horne, and Linda Roberts in regards to section rcw 69.51A.055 showing the jurisdiction and authority is over licensed producers, processors, and dispensers located in subsection provision (3), not (2) collective gardens located in provision .085, .040, .025, nor provisions located in .043, .045, .047.

40. On June 13th, 2012 @ approx. 10 am the board of clark county commissioners held a workshop in which prior to the work shop I spoke with civil Deputy prosecutor Chris Horne in regards to the moratorium and lack of authority. Mr. Horne responded it was his belief the state laws are preempted by federal laws because they interfere with the duties of the state drug task forces. 41. On 7-29-2012 law enforcement spent approx. 30 minutes flying back and forth across my property with a low flying helicopter using a FLIR thermal imaging device. 42. Plaintiff was present when The County passed a emergency moratorium resolution on qualifying patients collective gardens hearing Aug. 16, 2011, 2011_Events/August_2011/08-16-11/4_Medical_Marijuana.wmv in which it extended for over 1 yr. and all amendments Clark_County_Board_of_Commissioners/2012_Events/July_2012/07-1012/4_Medical_Cannabis_Moratorium.wmv upto June 10, 2013, expired. And On June 25, 2013 the Board enacted an ordinance cvtvarchive2/ Clark_County_Board_of_Commissioners/2013_Events/June_2013/06-25-13/4_ Medical_Marijuana_Collective_Gardens.mp4 , the County of Clark, in which its County Commissioners deliberated, ending in a vote of 2-1 in favor, adopted Ordinance No. 2013-07-08 - County_Board_of_ Commissioners/2013_Events/July_2013/07-09-13/7_Medical_Marijuana_ Collective_ Gardens.mp4 and of_Commissioners/2013_Events/July_2013/07-09 13/8_Commissioner_ Communications.mp4 The ordinance adds Section 15. Amendatory. Ordinance 2006-05-04 as Codified in CCC 40.340.110 is hereby amended, as follows: Collective Gardens as defined in CCC 40.100.70 43. The state believes cannabis has bneficial uses RCW 69.51A.005

44. Because the cultivation, possession, delivery, transportation and use of cannabis generally remains illegal under federal law, the ordinance operates as a complete ban on the medical use of cannabis including but not limited to plaintiff, by all vulnerable disabled persons suffering from either a debilitating and/or terminal medical condition under MUCA and/or WLAD whom are vulnerable Qualifying patients wanting to create and/or participate in collective garden lawful conduct and activity with exemptions, such as sharing their resources. The ban within the county of Clark is on sharing such resources with a alleged non conforming use masquerading face under an alleged valid land use ordinance. The ordinance clearly conflicts with state statute(s), is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and accordingly, is unconstitutional, thus, null and void . 45. Operational Effect(s) of the county ordinance is to make sharing resources in the cultivation, possession, delivery, transportation and use of medical cannabis violation of the zoning ordinance so that plaintiff,a vulnerable disabled qualifying patient, and said patients like him with either a debilitating and/or terminally ill, are subject to the result of seizure with an automatic forfeiture of ANY property/resources they share, civil penalty including excessive fines, costs, and/or injunction, arrest and/or prosecution. The ordinance has the real potential of causing premature death of terminally ill vulnerable disabled qualifying patients. Thus, relaxing the elements of a death sentence requirements contrary too state law and legislative/ Administrative/Executive authority mandates of serious harm too the public be found before a jury may enact ANY form of the death penalty or a prosecutor seeking a death sentence penalty. The county commissioners lack authority to lax such elements, yet, we have a lax in operational effect written into a local ordinance no. 2013-07-08 authorized by the Clark County prosecutors office as too form, and recorded by an action of the clerk of the board. This ordinance, thus, works to invalidate specific state law exemptions that allegedly conflicts with federal law, regardless of the validity of the state statute. The county oversteps its powers granted under the Washington constitution by disregarding state law in favor of federal law.

46.Plaintiff, like all vulnerable disabled qualifying patients having valid documentation on premises with either a debilitating and/or terminally ill medical condition(s), is entitled to grow, possess, deliver, transport, administer and use medical cannabis in accordance with the Washington Medical Use of Cannabis Act which include sharing resources for a collective garden at their residential premises without being subject to ANY masquerading Discriminatory face zoning resulting in civil and/or criminal penalty and/or seizure and/or forfeiture of ANY property in ANY manner by the defendant county and/or in conjunction with any government employees under any drug trafficking contract(s)/grants/agreements and the like with the federal government. 47. Although the possession, cultivation, and use of cannabis may violate the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801et seq., the United States Department of Justice has an official policy of not enforcing federal drug laws against vulnerable disabled medical cannabis patients, their designated providers and others who comply with their states marijuana law. Therefore, qualifying patients and their providers and other assistants or those who comply with the state laws will not be prosecuted under federal law. [ see ; ; -According to the facts admitted in CORBRAYs plea agreement, undercover agents were able to purchase marijuana at his establishments on multiple occasions without a valid medical authorization...These drug fronts had little to do with compassionate care and everything to do with lining their own pockets, said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan...While we will not prosecute ill people or their true care providers, we also will not let common drug dealers masquerade as something they are not. In the plea agreements for DIEFFENBACH and MO, each admits operating the marijuana stores for profit, selling pound quantities of marijuana to people who presented no medical authorization card; have made clear that truly sick people and their caregivers will not be targets of

our enforcement efforts. This defendant was neither, said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan. A green cross in the front window does not grant a license to sell pounds of drugs out the back door.; Both admitted selling marijuana for profit under the guise of running a cooperative for sick people. At sentencing, Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman said the defendants abused the public trust when they distributed marijuana to people without medical authorizations and in large amounts. They did it for greed, Chief Judge Pechman said.] 48. Plaintiffs ability to use medical cannabis as valid treatment noted in his SSA order and share his resources under state law, is realistically threatened by Clark County's discriminating vulnerable qualifying patients collective gardens ordinance no. 2013-0708, that makes it in operational effects, illegal and actionable,(including by law enforcement) nder non conforming uses for plaintiff to create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose sharing resources for private, unlicensed, noncommercial producing, processing, transporting, delivering ,administration, use of cannabis for medical use subject to the following conditions of RCW 69.51A.085: at his premises for PRINCIPAL and/or accessory uses under state law without civil and/or criminal actions or threats/harassment by the county or law enforcement. The county ordinance is contrary too state laws of nuisance abatement unambiguously delineated in RCW 69.51A .005, .040, Chapter 7.48, 9.66 RCW and seizure/forfeiture under RCW 69.51A.050 legislative intent to field preempt ALL such actions against all qualifying patients, including those associated within the definition, conduct and activity under section .085. These gardens are not intended for commercial business uses, section .055(2) is clear evidence that section .025,.040 and .085 unambiguously are to be read in harmony, and reasonably suggests treatment by the court, corrections agency or department, including local governments as such.

49. I desire and have a right to create and participate in vulnerable disabled qualifying patients collective ardens as defined in the means provision subsection .085 (2) of MUCA statute and intent of the legislature, at his principal residence within the county of Clark with others for private, unlicensed, noncommercial medical uses under provision section .RCW 69.51A.085 et. Seq. , ACCORDINGLY, constitutes sharing of resources SHALL BE protected from local government controls, specifications, intrusions or discrimination over such private affairs. 50. More disturbing, is that if this court allows clark county ordinance no. 2013-07-08 to set this ( masquerading Discriminatory on its face zoning resulting in civil and/or criminal penalty and/or seizure and/or forfeiture of ANY property in ANY manner by the defendant county and/or in conjunction with the government employees under any drug trafficking contract(s)/grants/agreements and the like with the federal government) public policy precedent(FINDING the actors acted within the scope of their assigned duties in good faith), it would not be limited to medical cannabis,allowing municipalities and/or political subdivisions to contravene state law in an area and on any topic they choose, potentially undermining all manner of personal conduct and freedoms. If the county of clark prevails, municipalities and/or political subdivisions conceivably would be able to regulate or legalize anything not prohibited by federal law. Municipalities and/or political subdivisions would be able to argue that they could zone for conduct and/or activities despite contrary state law so long as the federal laws do not prohibit such conduct and/or activity. Plaintiff prays this court for plaintiffs CLAIM(S) FOR RELIEF be granted in full.