NEWS RELEASE - Yes on B Coalition
The detractors of Measure B are making one last ditch effort to spread false information about the ballot initiative on marijuana.
"The last-minute claims by the No on Measure B campaign that Measure B is unconstitutional are absurd," said Yes on B Coalition spokesman Ross Liberty.
"The No on B group knows that the voters of Mendocino County are prepared to take a huge step to limit the negative effects of marijuana production," said Liberty. "The No on B campaign is desperate and they are grasping at straws to try to confuse the voters."
"The recent appellate court decision, People v. Kelly, that is cited by the No on B group is being appealed by the Attorney General to the State Supreme Court where it will likely be reversed or modified because it conflicts with previous Supreme Court decisions," said Liberty.
"Regardless of how the courts and legislature set medical marijuana limits, Measure B simply says that Mendocino County's limits will be the same as the rest of the state instead of being vastly higher, as they are now. Measure B also repeals Measure G which told our law enforcement to make all marijuana laws the lowest priority," said Liberty.
"Repeal of Measure G, which made us a magnet for commercial growers, is the most important part of Measure B," according to Liberty.
The two parts of Measure B--repealing Measure G, and setting medical marijuana limits the same as the state--are "severable" under law, meaning that if either one was found illegal, the other part remains valid.
Liberty added, "For the No on B campaign to say that the appeals court decision makes Measure B unconstitutional is just silly. Since when is it unconstitutional for the voters to fix a mistake they made with Measure G by repealing it?"
"This is just a continuation of the campaign of intentional deception that we have seen from the beginning from the No on B campaign," asserted Liberty.
"They have lied about Measure B by saying it targets medical patients and won't do anything about the large growers.
They misrepresented Sheriff Allman's position in a failed attempt to claim it would be a burden on law enforcement. Their supporters have filed bogus lawsuits and stolen our signs in an effort to prevent the voice of the people from being heard and they have bought space on every phony slate mailer out there.
This has all been an effort to deceive and confuse the voters. But we believe the voters won't be fooled. They are fed up with the damage commercial marijuana growing is doing to our County and they know Measure B is the best solution available," said Liberty.
"We ask the voters to reject the desperate attempts of the No on B campaign and to pass Measure B by a large margin," urged Liberty.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
DON'T be fooled by More false information from No on B Campaign!!!! No on B tries to confuse voters
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Court hears Johnson arguments on Measure B
TWN Staff Writer Independent newspaper publisher and political activist Richard Johnson last Friday argued in Mendocino County Superior Court that a county ballot measure that would limit the number of marijuana plants an individual can possess is illegal and should not be permitted on the June ballot. Judge John Behnke took the case under submission, saying he would rule soon on both Johnson's case and on the Laguna-Hamamoto case Behnke heard last week. Johnson argued Measure B is illegal because it sets guidelines for marijuana cultivation, that mirror those in Senate Bill 420. Johnson maintained only a legislative body has the authority to establish cultivation guidelines. Attempting to do so by ordinance, as Measure B does, is invalid, he said. "Adopting guidelines is not done by ordinance," Johnson said. "The form of Measure B is not an ordinance. These are guidelines, and guidelines are the purview of the Legislature. In the case of our county, the legislative body is the board of supervisors, and attempting to set forth guidelines on marijuana is something...appropriately done by the board of supervisors, not by the people." When Behnke reminded him Measure G, which was authored by Johnson, also set guidelines, Johnson laughed briefly and said, "No one has ever brought Measure G to a court challenge. And I would much rather have you review Measure G here in this court than to have the people of Mendocino County review it, that's for sure." Mendocino County Deputy Counsel Frank Zotter said Johnson was in error, arguing there was nothing in the California Elections Code that indicated guidelines could not be enacted by ordinance or by a voter initiative. "I think that voter initiative is not ruled out," Zotter said. "To bring a lawsuit on the use of terms like 'guidelines' versus 'enact' is a quibble. For example, we have CEQA guidelines and I don't think people would doubt CEQA has the right to enact such guidelines." Johnson also took issue with a finding by County Counsel Jeanine Nadel that "the effect of Measure G has been to increase public safety issues surrounding the uncontrolled production of marijuana either for medical or recreational use, and has jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the people of Mendocino County." Johnson challenged the truthfulness of Nadel's finding, arguing testimony by Mendocino County Undersheriff Gary Hudson would invalidate Nadel's finding. But Behnke refused to allow Hudson to testify because Nadel's finding was not an operative portion of Measure B. "Findings are not an operative part of an ordinance," Behnke said. "They are simply a statement of intent." While complimenting Johnson on the competence of his arguments, Behnke said he is inclined to let the election go forward. "I think we are dealing with a situation where we are being asked to construe the peoples' right to hold elections liberally. This would, of course, not hold good in the instance where we might find an obstacle or an impediment, which sometimes can occur and do occur occasionally. But absent that, I am predisposed to let elections go forward."
Saturday, April 19, 2008
County begins printing ballots; no ruling yet on Measure B
The Mendocino County Election Office began printing ballots this week despite the fact that a judge has yet to decide whether Measure B will remain on the ballot.
Two lawsuits, one filed by Green Party member Richard Johnson and the other filed by George Hanamoto and Paula Laguna, are aimed at knocking Measure B off the ballot.
Mendocino Superior Court Judge John Behnke has heard arguments in both suits, but has not made a ruling on either. Plaintiffs in both suits have been hoping for a quick decision before the ballots were printed.
Mendocino County Assessor-Clerk-Recorder Susan Ranochak said the county began printing the ballots this week because its vendor likes to have them two weeks before the date they have to be mailed. Ballots will be mailed May 5.
Measure B, which was placed on the ballot by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in January, would repeal Measure G, the county's personal use marijuana law, and set medical marijuana limits in Mendocino County at the state limits of six mature or 12 immature plants and eight ounces of dried marijuana.
Measure G, which was passed by Mendocino County voters in 2000, instructed law enforcement to make the prosecution of marijuana gardens of 25 plants or fewer the lowest possible priority.
Ben Brown can be reached at udjbb@pacific.net.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Pot war goes to court
A second lawsuit seeking to block Measure B from appearing on the June ballot was filed last week. The suit, filed by independent newspaper publisher Richard Johnson, follows an earlier lawsuit by Mendocino attorney E. D. Lerman on behalf of medical marijuana clients Paula Laguna and George Hanamoto. The Lerman suit was filed March 26; Johnson's lawsuit the following day. Both lawsuits contend Measure B is unconstitutional because it violates the "single subject rule." According to Johnson, that rule "is implicit in the state constitution. The state constitution forbids ballot initiatives from having more than one subject in order to prevent 'log rolling,' or the inclusion of high-profile subjects in an initiative merely to attract votes. "The logic is that voters deserve the opportunity to consider matters separately, and some may want to reject one while accepting the other," Johnson said. As written, Measure B contains two items. The first states that voters wish to nullify Measure G, which was approved in November 2000 and sought to make cultivation, possession and transportation of marijuana the lowest priority for county law enforcement. Measure G stated law enforcement was to lay off any grow operation that had 25 or fewer plants or the equivalent amount of dried pot. The second section of Measure B states that the California minimum limits for marijuana cultivation and possession would also apply in Mendocino County. Although not explicitly stated in the measure, those standards state that six mature plants, 12 immature plants and eight ounces of processed marijuana may be possessed by an individual at any one time. Tuesday, Mendocino County Superior Court Judge John Behnke rejected Johnson's pre-emptive request that Measure B not be allowed to go to the printer's for publication in the June ballot. Johnson had requested a temporary restraining order (TRO). At a hearing on the matter, Behnke rejected Johnson's claim that a hurried judgment was in order. Instead, he set the date for a hearing on Johnson's suit for April 18. The court will hear the arguments on the Lerman/Laguna/Hanamoto suit on April 11 at 9:30 a.m. Both sides have been blitzing the press with a barrage of press releases. "A carefully coordinated scare campaign has smeared marijuana farmers as environmental monsters, foreign criminals and violent thieves," Johnson said in one press release. "They claim to be responding to neighborhood complaints about noises, smells and a generalized sensation of losing control of the community. Their real agenda is to eviscerate marijuana as an economic engine and as a political force before it threatens the existing establishment." On the other side of the issue, Ukiah businessman Ross Liberty has emerged as a spokesman for the Yes On B Coalition. "The opponents of Measure B are trying to prevent voters from taking a stand against marijuana abuses that cause a public nuisance, endanger public safety and trash the environment," said Liberty. "The opponents won't be able to block a vote on Measure B because there are no legal grounds to do so. Measure B was drafted by the county counsel at the direction of the board of supervisors and meets all legal requirements. The opponents waited two and a half months to file this lawsuit. It is a blatant attempt to circumvent the right of the people to decide this critical issue," Liberty said. According to former Mendocino County sheriff's Deputy D.J. Miller, the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office reported 1106 marijuana-related offenses in the year 2000. In 2006, there were 1535 such offenses. According to Liberty, the term "marijuana-related offenses" means incidents noted in police and sheriff's reports including crimes involving marijuana and incidents for which law enforcement responded to a call, and at which marijuana was noted as being present at the scene and judged by officers to be related to or involved with the dispute in question.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Anti-Measure B argument heard
Mendocino County Superior Court Judge John Behnke will take under advisement arguments presented in court Friday that, if successful, could remove Measure B from the June ballot.
The lawsuit, filed by Paula Laguna and George Hanamoto, asked for a writ to stop Measure B from being put on the ballot, arguing that it usurps the budgetary authority of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and that it violates SB 420, which set minimum medical marijuana limits in the state.
Measure B, which was approved for the ballot by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in January, would repeal Measure G and set medical marijuana limits in Mendocino County at the state limits of six mature or 12 immature plants and eight ounces of dried marijuana.
Measure G, which was passed by a majority of Mendocino County voters in 2000, instructed law enforcement to make the prosecution of marijuana gardens of 25 plants or fewer the lowest possible priority.
David Nick, the attorney representing Hanamoto, said the Board of Supervisors adopted Measure G as an ordinance late last year, making it something that cannot be repealed by the voters without usurping the board's budgetary authority. Nick said voters have the right to repeal an initiative, but not an ordinance.
"This measure is unlawful on its face," Nick said.
Deputy County Counsel Frank Zotter said the Board of Supervisors decision to adopt Measure G as an ordinance was administrative.
"The board does not feel its authority was usurped; they put it on the ballot themselves," Zotter said.
Nick also argued that Health and Safety Code 11362.77, which set the six-plant limit, did not allow the county to set medical marijuana plant limits at the same level as state limits, only at a higher limit. Nick also said Measure B duplicates state law, which is illegal and could cause later problems.
"This measure is going to receive a different interpretation by the courts in the future," Nick said.
Zotter said 11362.77 did not bar counties from setting medical marijuana limits equal to the state limits, only less than.
The same health and safety code also says that a medical marijuana patient can grow more than that with a doctor's note, which Zotter said he believes is incorporated in Measure B.
Nick said, even if the language about plant limits was stripped out of Measure B, he would still oppose it because the repeal of Measure G would have several policy and budgetary consequences that Measure B does not address.
Behnke said he would take the arguments under advisement but said he would likely not make a decision until after the April 18 hearing of Green Party member Richard Johnson's suit, which aims to stop the county from printing the June 3 ballots.
Ben Brown can be reached at udjbb@pacific.net.
Friday, April 11, 2008
In other Yes on Mendocino County Measure B news....
After making some remarks about how he would be very reluctant to deny the voters the opportunity to consider a ballot measure, he stated that he would rule on the legal motion after hearing arguments on a parallel lawsuit on April 18.
It was all a waste of their hundred dollar bills...
