Measure G? Again?

Opponents of Measure B, which repealed Measure G, have announced their intention to re-qualify Measure G for the ballot.

Measure G is unconstitutional because it seeks to direct the budgetary authority of the BOS in violation of the state constitution.

Measure G purports to legalize personal use in Mendocino County but a local measure can not legally change state law.

Measure G is internally inconsistent because it states as a purpose "to provide for the continued enforcement of marijuana laws against those who cultivate, transport and possess marijuana for sale," yet the operative sections of Measure G "give lowest priority to the enforcement and prosecution of marijuana laws."

The opponents of Measure B admitted that there was a problem with commercial growers, but claimed that B was a false solution and that we needed to "bring together all points of view" and find a solution in the "Mendocino County Way."

So much for the rhetoric.

just asking wrote:

Opponents of Measure B, which repealed Measure G, have announced their intention to re-qualify Measure G for the ballot.
Measure G is unconstitutional because it seeks to direct the budgetary authority of the BOS in violation of the state constitution.
Measure G purports to legalize personal use in Mendocino County but a local measure can not legally change state law.
Measure G is internally inconsistent because it states as a purpose "to provide for the continued enforcement of marijuana laws against those who cultivate, transport and possess marijuana for sale," yet the operative sections of Measure G "give lowest priority to the enforcement and prosecution of marijuana laws."
The opponents of Measure B admitted that there was a problem with commercial growers, but claimed that B was a false solution and that we needed to "bring together all points of view" and find a solution in the "Mendocino County Way."
So much for the rhetoric.

Let them lose again...probably that tweeker Richard Johnson again.

On Wednesday July 9, County Counsel Jeanine Nadel filed for declaratory relief seeking a ruling from the court to absolve her of the statutory responsibility to give a ballot title and summary to "Measure G, Again," or whatever its proponents are calling it.

A favorable ruling will confirm that Measure G and anything patterned on it is both illegal and unconstitutional and therefore there is no reason to fool people by letting them sign petitions or vote for it.

just asking wrote:

On Wednesday July 9, County Counsel Jeanine Nadel filed for declaratory relief seeking a ruling from the court to absolve her of the statutory responsibility to give a ballot title and summary to "Measure G, Again," or whatever its proponents are calling it.
A favorable ruling will confirm that Measure G and anything patterned on it is both illegal and unconstitutional and therefore there is no reason to fool people by letting them sign petitions or vote for it.

It's an interesting instance of a County employee attempting to use the power of the County government to thwart the lawful activities of the citizenry.

She's going to spend HOW MUCH of the county's money to attempt to prevent citizens from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Is that a desirable thing for the BoS' attorney to do in a supposed free society?

Like Measure B, the written details of her brief are probably substantially different than the rhetoric with which her cheerleaders promote her anti-American actions.

4 Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
It's an interesting instance of a County employee attempting to use the power of the County government to thwart the lawful activities of the citizenry.
She's going to spend HOW MUCH of the county's money to attempt to prevent citizens from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Is that a desirable thing for the BoS' attorney to do in a supposed free society?
Like Measure B, the written details of her brief are probably substantially different than the rhetoric with which her cheerleaders promote her anti-American actions.

What lawful activities of the citizens and Constitutionally guaranteed rights are thwarted by asking the court to rule, in effect, that we not waste everyone's time by voting on something that is illegal and unconstitutional?

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
What lawful activities of the citizens and Constitutionally guaranteed rights are thwarted by asking the court to rule, in effect, that we not waste everyone's time by voting on something that is illegal and unconstitutional?

Yep, just like Laguna/Hanamoto wanted the judge to rule the 2 separate issue/1 ballot measure case.

Behnke would appear to be a fool if he rules differently. Why not wait until the people possibly pass it? They are trying to stop citizens from gathering signatures, one step the yes on b campaign didn't even do.

they hired a private law firm from Sacramento, and had to have put up one hefty retainer. With the cost of the fires, how are they planning on paying for it? And isn't our county counsel capable enough to handle it themselves?

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, just like Laguna/Hanamoto wanted the judge to rule the 2 separate issue/1 ballot measure case.
Behnke would appear to be a fool if he rules differently. Why not wait until the people possibly pass it? They are trying to stop citizens from gathering signatures, one step the yes on b campaign didn't even do.
they hired a private law firm from Sacramento, and had to have put up one hefty retainer. With the cost of the fires, how are they planning on paying for it? And isn't our county counsel capable enough to handle it themselves?

No, not just like the two subject rule. Measure B consists of two provisions,(repeal of Measure G and adoption of state limits), both of which deal with the single subject of allowable plant and possession limits for marijuana.

Behnke ruled against Laguna/Hanomoto on April 23rd. The Kelly decision has now called into question the state limits, but that case was not handed down until about a month after Behnke's ruling.

And regardless of how the Kelly decision shakes out, the limit in Mendocino County will be the same as the state limits. Either the limit in Mendocino County and the state will be six plants or it will be an amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient.

PS: Now you are beating up Nadel for getting outside counsel. Before you were beating her up for acting as her own attorney. Make up your mind.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
No, not just like the two subject rule. Measure B consists of two provisions,(repeal of Measure G and adoption of state limits), both of which deal with the single subject of allowable plant and possession limits for marijuana.
Behnke ruled against Laguna/Hanomoto on April 23rd. The Kelly decision has now called into question the state limits, but that case was not handed down until about a month after Behnke's ruling.
And regardless of how the Kelly decision shakes out, the limit in Mendocino County will be the same as the state limits. Either the limit in Mendocino County and the state will be six plants or it will be an amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient.
PS: Now you are beating up Nadel for getting outside counsel. Before you were beating her up for acting as her own attorney. Make up your mind.

when did I beat up Nadel for acting as her her own counsel? Please point that out.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
when did I beat up Nadel for acting as her her own counsel? Please point that out.

You never criticized her for acting as her own consel in defending against the lawsuits brought by Laguna/Hanomoto, Richard Johnson or Ross Liberty? Pardon me if I mistakenly lumped you in with the other No on B stalwarts.

But so typical of you to jump on the off topic PS and omit any response to the subject at hand. You and many of your friends seem focused on scoring rhetorical points on the frayed edge of the argument instead of dealing with the real heart of the matter.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
You never criticized her for acting as her own consel in defending against the lawsuits brought by Laguna/Hanomoto, Richard Johnson or Ross Liberty? Pardon me if I mistakenly lumped you in with the other No on B stalwarts.
But so typical of you to jump on the off topic PS and omit any response to the subject at hand. You and many of your friends seem focused on scoring rhetorical points on the frayed edge of the argument instead of dealing with the real heart of the matter.

No, I didn't. but that is your problem, you lump everyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you do into the same basket. these issues are not black and white. You fail to understand that.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I didn't. but that is your problem, you lump everyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you do into the same basket. these issues are not black and white. You fail to understand that.

And once again, you fail to respond to the substance of my original remarks, so I assume you agree with them. The only issue in play with Laguna/Hanomoto is that of state limits, as per the Kelly decision.

Measure B does not violate the two subject rule. B consists of two provisions,(repeal of Measure G and adoption of state limits), both of which deal with the single subject of allowable plant and possession limits for marijuana.

Behnke ruled against Laguna/Hanomoto on April 23rd.

And regardless of how the Kelly decision shakes out, the limit in Mendocino County will be the same as the state limits. Either the limit in Mendocino County and the state will be six plants or it will be an amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
And once again, you fail to respond to the substance of my original remarks, so I assume you agree with them. The only issue in play with Laguna/Hanomoto is that of state limits, as per the Kelly decision.
Measure B does not violate the two subject rule. B consists of two provisions,(repeal of Measure G and adoption of state limits), both of which deal with the single subject of allowable plant and possession limits for marijuana.
Behnke ruled against Laguna/Hanomoto on April 23rd.
And regardless of how the Kelly decision shakes out, the limit in Mendocino County will be the same as the state limits. Either the limit in Mendocino County and the state will be six plants or it will be an amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient.

laguna/hanamoto was refiled in July. Behnke has stayed his ruling until they decide Kelly.

You are aware that "an amount consistend with the personal medical needs of the patient" means that someone could legitimately need 25 plants, or need 30 pounds of dried flowers?
And the Yes on b campaign, with its Selzer realty-sponsored hotline, wants to double report complaints, and then follow up with the sheriff's department about those complaints? does the yes on b campaign have a full time staff for that?

Why do you think measure G won't pass Behnke's court? It contains a severability clause, which, as in laguna/hanamoto ruling, would be moot if the measure failed. If it passed, the budgetary authority section could be severed. Same rule applied in Laguna/Hananmoto. Measure B had a severability clause.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
You are aware that "an amount consistend with the personal medical needs of the patient" means that someone could legitimately need 25 plants, or need 30 pounds of dried flowers?
And the Yes on b campaign, with its Selzer realty-sponsored hotline, wants to double report complaints, and then follow up with the sheriff's department about those complaints? does the yes on b campaign have a full time staff for that?
Why do you think measure G won't pass Behnke's court? It contains a severability clause, which, as in laguna/hanamoto ruling, would be moot if the measure failed. If it passed, the budgetary authority section could be severed. Same rule applied in Laguna/Hananmoto. Measure B had a severability clause.

An amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient could also be zero in the opinion of the responding police officer. There will be no more shield if the SB 420 limits are thrown out.

The severability clause may be the only section in Measure G that is constitutional. It isn't just one section that has the wrong language. So G will be thrown out.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
An amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient could also be zero in the opinion of the responding police officer. There will be no more shield if the SB 420 limits are thrown out.
The severability clause may be the only section in Measure G that is constitutional. It isn't just one section that has the wrong language. So G will be thrown out.

are the cops going to be cannabis consultants now? Its not up to the cops to determine that.
What you are suggesting is let the cops arrest them. The judge can sort it out in court.
That's not right.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
are the cops going to be cannabis consultants now? Its not up to the cops to determine that.
What you are suggesting is let the cops arrest them. The judge can sort it out in court.
That's not right.

Thats not right in your opinion but thats the law. Your dope dealing friend in LA got the state limits thrown out to save his own sorry ****, but the unintended consequence was to throw out the protection the state limits gave to every patient.

No state limits equals no safe level and each patient will have to be able to justify even one plant or one ounce on the basis of medical need.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
An amount consistent with the personal medical needs of the patient could also be zero in the opinion of the responding police officer. There will be no more shield if the SB 420 limits are thrown out.
The severability clause may be the only section in Measure G that is constitutional. It isn't just one section that has the wrong language. So G will be thrown out.

I doubt Behnke wants to make that call. He didn't in Laguna/hanamoto, why now? and until a court declares or rules G unconstitutional, it isn't, legally.
So we need to vote it in again, then you can have it challenged in court and declared unconsitutional, which then prevents anyone from bringing it again.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
are the cops going to be cannabis consultants now? Its not up to the cops to determine that.
What you are suggesting is let the cops arrest them. The judge can sort it out in court.
That's not right.

I am not suggesting to let the police arrest them and let the judge sort it out. I am saying that is the reality of what you will get with no state limits. It will be up to each individual officer to make a determination based on the evidence for each case.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
I doubt Behnke wants to make that call. He didn't in Laguna/hanamoto, why now? and until a court declares or rules G unconstitutional, it isn't, legally.
So we need to vote it in again, then you can have it challenged in court and declared unconsitutional, which then prevents anyone from bringing it again.

Behnke threw out the Rickel initiative which had the same constitutional flaws as Measure G. Therefore, how could he not rule that the return of Measure G is unconstitutional and therefore not a fit subject for an initiative?

If you have ever read the Rickel initiative, Measure G and the Liberty decision, you would know there is no room for doubt that Measure G is unconstitutional. Before you keep bleating about voting on Measure G you really ought to check the law. Then come back and give us your opinion. Because right now you are either uninformed or intentionally dense.

And you yourself have already admitted that Measure G is illegal in that it can't change state law. Why do you want us to vote on something that you admit is illegal and which is also unconstitutional?

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you want us to vote on something that you admit is illegal and which is also unconstitutional?

That did not stop the B people from pushing through their illegal and unconstitutional measure. You didn't seem to have a problem with it then. I think that like much of the Yes on B crowd, you have no problems bending or breaking the law so long as it serves you and not the other guy.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
Behnke threw out the Rickel initiative which had the same constitutional flaws as Measure G. Therefore, how could he not rule that the return of Measure G is unconstitutional and therefore not a fit subject for an initiative?
If you have ever read the Rickel initiative, Measure G and the Liberty decision, you would know there is no room for doubt that Measure G is unconstitutional. Before you keep bleating about voting on Measure G you really ought to check the law. Then come back and give us your opinion. Because right now you are either uninformed or intentionally dense.
And you yourself have already admitted that Measure G is illegal in that it can't change state law. Why do you want us to vote on something that you admit is illegal and which is also unconstitutional?

But I am not a judge, appellate judge, supreme court judge, or an attorney for that matter. It is not up to me to determine what is constitutional and what is not. I can only form my own opinion. Perhaps you are a judge?