DEA playing Games?
- Thread starter MagniKhan
- Start date
Duckmang
Member
I don't know the guy at all and I think his actions were really stupid but the community should still support him the same. Despite being over the state guidelines, the state does and has allowed provisions for excess as necessary. In fact a Boulder jury said that another defendant in a somewhat similar situation (possession well in excess of the allowed limit) "could of had a ton of pot" and they couldn't find him guilty b/c of how the laws are worded. The feds are railroading this guy b/c the state wouldn't be able to.
That's pathetic, we all know they could care less about public safety. It's about the money. Are they gonna bust and seize a crackhouse with armed crackheads inside? What's the payoff there? A rundown house in a bad neighboorhood that may go for 20K$ at auction. That's not worth being shot at. Are they gonna bust and seize a meth house? With all of the dangerous chemicals used the contamination will be a monetary liability and they'd be lucky to break even. Are they gonna bust a legally inteded caregiver.... yes they can seize his 600K house and all of his assets. Now that's a bust worth making.
That's pathetic, we all know they could care less about public safety. It's about the money. Are they gonna bust and seize a crackhouse with armed crackheads inside? What's the payoff there? A rundown house in a bad neighboorhood that may go for 20K$ at auction. That's not worth being shot at. Are they gonna bust and seize a meth house? With all of the dangerous chemicals used the contamination will be a monetary liability and they'd be lucky to break even. Are they gonna bust a legally inteded caregiver.... yes they can seize his 600K house and all of his assets. Now that's a bust worth making.
snowschool
Member
I appreciate you explaining your point. I did not agree with you and used some strong sentences to express my views, but meant no personal negativity. ( opinion, "not heated war" ) I did know Chris years ago, but my some-what emotional response was not due to that personal relationship. Some people are like "Suzy" as you said. Having said that I don't think that the average middle aged person in DENVER (and other places in Colorado) is that mis-informed. In other words I believe that there are not more sheep than us. If that was true than the law would not of been voted in in 2000. I just don't think this was automatically " bad for the movment " depending on how you look at it.
PLEASE HELP!! Today,COLO.SPGS. city council gave the initiative to the city attorney to create a resolution to be voted on tomorrow regarding dispensaries. This initiative proposes a possible moratorium in addition to a number of zoning items to include distances from neighborhoods, schools, etc. This initiative was given today at close of business for the council and they were assured that the city attorney could create this resolution by tomorrow's formal meeting. This seems a bit strange seeing as how they stated it would take months to review the draft proposal introduced only 2 weeks ago but somehow can create a new resolution from scratch in 6 hours. At that time, we were also given the impression that this issue would continue to flow though the public process and that the industry would be included. Tomorrow's initiative is the exact opposite of these statements. This initiative will affect dispensaries, growers, and most importantly, patients.
We need to fill city council chambers will people tomorrow. We need more support than we have ever needed in the past and we need EVERYONE out there. They are trying to shutdown, not only selected dispensaries, but the entire industry.
When we presented our proposal, we were very clear about how appreciative we were for this opportunity from the city. We need to remind them that we have done our part and they need to stick to their part. This initiative tomorrow is an insult to everyone who spent so much time working to make things right.
Email the councilmembers tonight so they see your comments first thing in the morning. Below are also their voicemail box numbers. They claim they are hearing from concerned citizens who oppose our industry, lets make sure they acknowledge how many industry supporters are contacting them as well.
www.springsgov.com for email addresses - email the whole council!!
Tom Gallagher 385-5491 All City
Randy Purvis 578-9800 All City
Jan Martin 385-5486 All City
Larry Small 385-5485 All City
Scott Hente 385-5487 District 1
Darryl Glenn 385-5493 District 2
Sean Paige 385-5470 District 3
Bernie Herpin 385-5492 District 4
See you tomorrow!!!!
Tanya
719-339-8650
We need to fill city council chambers will people tomorrow. We need more support than we have ever needed in the past and we need EVERYONE out there. They are trying to shutdown, not only selected dispensaries, but the entire industry.
When we presented our proposal, we were very clear about how appreciative we were for this opportunity from the city. We need to remind them that we have done our part and they need to stick to their part. This initiative tomorrow is an insult to everyone who spent so much time working to make things right.
Email the councilmembers tonight so they see your comments first thing in the morning. Below are also their voicemail box numbers. They claim they are hearing from concerned citizens who oppose our industry, lets make sure they acknowledge how many industry supporters are contacting them as well.
www.springsgov.com for email addresses - email the whole council!!
Tom Gallagher 385-5491 All City
Randy Purvis 578-9800 All City
Jan Martin 385-5486 All City
Larry Small 385-5485 All City
Scott Hente 385-5487 District 1
Darryl Glenn 385-5493 District 2
Sean Paige 385-5470 District 3
Bernie Herpin 385-5492 District 4
See you tomorrow!!!!
Tanya
719-339-8650
rmccinc719
Member
we had good support out ther tonight. i wasn't there for the final vote but i looks like this inititive was going to get squashed. none of the city councel members including the mayor were very happy with how this intitive was brought before them. the city attorney comletly embarrast herself and her office and the city councel let her know it. atleast untill next time it's biusness as usuall.
fireburner23
Member
You put the nail on the head!
just make it legal. Its getting alot closer.
SHERIFF BOOTS FEDS FROM HIS COUNTY is fake look it up, its hard to read through the crap websites but the jist of it is the sherriff never said that and the case they were refering to was settled not decided.
i've found refrences to it being "decided" in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006
sorry for the long cut and paste but there is no way I can let you guys get yourselves worked up over a hoax
this is from: http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/20000131/wyoming_sheriff_hoax_revealed.txt
(Now, look at this. RECENT decsion, and yet the Case notes below say
"Closed: 29th April 1997". April 1997 is RFECENT in relation to January
2000? Next, let's look at "Sheriff" Dave Mattis. Again, let's see the case
notes say the party is "Case: Castaneda v. USA" not "Mattis v. USA" or even
"Castaneda et. al. v. USA". Now, the case number. Here the case number is
"No 2:96-cv-099-J" below in the case notes it is "Case No: 2:1996cv00099" no
J in sight and "96" becomes "1996". I'll forgo the hyphen problems, that'd
just be petty.)
"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the Constitutional
power and Right to keep them out -or- ask them to leave -or- retain them in
custody."
(Ok, nice quote from this "phantom" Sheriff Castaneda...er...Mattis I mean.
This ability to quote will become important later.)
The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming
Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in
the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections
enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.
(Now, court decision. BUT as has been shown before in other posts, it was
NOT a court decision but a "settlement". Here's a quote from one post: "His
case was settled with a settlement, he says, not a court decision." Now, I
know this is double hearsay, but then again all YOU havei is double hearsay,
so if yours is acceptable, so is mine. AND let's also note that any
Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw search will show NO such suit filed in ANY Wyoming
case. In fact the ONLY case with the Wyoming Sheriff's Association involved
retirement benefits, and was to mention that the petitioner was a member of
the group.)
The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs,
("Castaneda v. USA" not "Castandea et. al. v. USA. Can't keep the story
straight, can they?)
stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of
a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law
enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."
(WHERE IS THIS DOCUMENT? They can quote the document, but NO ONE seems to be
able to provide it. Now, wether it is a settlement, a court order, or some
scribble on a napkin, they seem to be able to quote it. And yet when asked
to provide it, they suddenly say "Well, it is under gag" or "The "Sheriff"
doesn't have it." IF it was a judiciaul determination, a settlement,
WHATEVER, then the parties to the case WOULD have a CERTIFIED copy of the
final order or determination. And CLEARLY they do, since they QUOTED it. But
suddenly when pressed, they cannot produce it? Sounds like something out of
the Clinton playbook: "I don't know where those billing records are,
Senator, but I can assure you as to what they say and can quote them to
you.")
The Wyoming sheriffs are demanding access to all BATF files to verify that
the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibit the
registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners.
(Yep, and those files are the same place as this fictious court
order/settlement. Namely: never never land.)
The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the
seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts - -
- without regard to due process in state courts.
(I have a friend who is a tax attorney. He's going to pull up a few cases
from Wyoming since 1997 for failure to pay income tax liens and seizures by
the Federal Government. When he gives them to me, I'll post here. Suffice to
say this is all but certainly crap.)
Sheriff Mattis stated,
(Shouldn't that be Castaneda?)
"I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to
deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their
property without regard to constitutional safeguards.
(By completely ignoring the supremecy clause of the Constitution)
I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting
their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or
any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of
Constitutional Law.
(Constitutional law as decided by me, not the courts, not the due process of
the judicary and legislature, as defined by me. What a lark.)
Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County
unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law."
(As laid out in this phantom court order, I mean settlement, that I just can't see to provide right now.)
Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
(Again, hit the computers folks. Look for cases of Castaneda [there are
thousands, it is a popular name in California] in Wyoming. THERE ARE NONE.
Not to mention that they provide ALL this info, but WHERE is the judge's
name? Ever case once filed is given to a specific judge. WHERE'S the judge's
name. A call to that judge's clerk could clear this up in 5 minutes. But of
course, if they did THAT then anyone who checked would find this is a HOAX
inside of 5 minutes.)
Class dismissed.
i've found refrences to it being "decided" in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006
sorry for the long cut and paste but there is no way I can let you guys get yourselves worked up over a hoax
this is from: http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/20000131/wyoming_sheriff_hoax_revealed.txt
(Now, look at this. RECENT decsion, and yet the Case notes below say
"Closed: 29th April 1997". April 1997 is RFECENT in relation to January
2000? Next, let's look at "Sheriff" Dave Mattis. Again, let's see the case
notes say the party is "Case: Castaneda v. USA" not "Mattis v. USA" or even
"Castaneda et. al. v. USA". Now, the case number. Here the case number is
"No 2:96-cv-099-J" below in the case notes it is "Case No: 2:1996cv00099" no
J in sight and "96" becomes "1996". I'll forgo the hyphen problems, that'd
just be petty.)
"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the Constitutional
power and Right to keep them out -or- ask them to leave -or- retain them in
custody."
(Ok, nice quote from this "phantom" Sheriff Castaneda...er...Mattis I mean.
This ability to quote will become important later.)
The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming
Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in
the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections
enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.
(Now, court decision. BUT as has been shown before in other posts, it was
NOT a court decision but a "settlement". Here's a quote from one post: "His
case was settled with a settlement, he says, not a court decision." Now, I
know this is double hearsay, but then again all YOU havei is double hearsay,
so if yours is acceptable, so is mine. AND let's also note that any
Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw search will show NO such suit filed in ANY Wyoming
case. In fact the ONLY case with the Wyoming Sheriff's Association involved
retirement benefits, and was to mention that the petitioner was a member of
the group.)
The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs,
("Castaneda v. USA" not "Castandea et. al. v. USA. Can't keep the story
straight, can they?)
stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of
a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law
enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."
(WHERE IS THIS DOCUMENT? They can quote the document, but NO ONE seems to be
able to provide it. Now, wether it is a settlement, a court order, or some
scribble on a napkin, they seem to be able to quote it. And yet when asked
to provide it, they suddenly say "Well, it is under gag" or "The "Sheriff"
doesn't have it." IF it was a judiciaul determination, a settlement,
WHATEVER, then the parties to the case WOULD have a CERTIFIED copy of the
final order or determination. And CLEARLY they do, since they QUOTED it. But
suddenly when pressed, they cannot produce it? Sounds like something out of
the Clinton playbook: "I don't know where those billing records are,
Senator, but I can assure you as to what they say and can quote them to
you.")
The Wyoming sheriffs are demanding access to all BATF files to verify that
the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibit the
registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners.
(Yep, and those files are the same place as this fictious court
order/settlement. Namely: never never land.)
The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the
seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts - -
- without regard to due process in state courts.
(I have a friend who is a tax attorney. He's going to pull up a few cases
from Wyoming since 1997 for failure to pay income tax liens and seizures by
the Federal Government. When he gives them to me, I'll post here. Suffice to
say this is all but certainly crap.)
Sheriff Mattis stated,
(Shouldn't that be Castaneda?)
"I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to
deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their
property without regard to constitutional safeguards.
(By completely ignoring the supremecy clause of the Constitution)
I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting
their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or
any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of
Constitutional Law.
(Constitutional law as decided by me, not the courts, not the due process of
the judicary and legislature, as defined by me. What a lark.)
Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County
unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law."
(As laid out in this phantom court order, I mean settlement, that I just can't see to provide right now.)
Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
(Again, hit the computers folks. Look for cases of Castaneda [there are
thousands, it is a popular name in California] in Wyoming. THERE ARE NONE.
Not to mention that they provide ALL this info, but WHERE is the judge's
name? Ever case once filed is given to a specific judge. WHERE'S the judge's
name. A call to that judge's clerk could clear this up in 5 minutes. But of
course, if they did THAT then anyone who checked would find this is a HOAX
inside of 5 minutes.)
Class dismissed.
