Taxpayers Sue Washington Liquor & Cannabis Board As Fake Cops - 2:20-CV-01494 RAJ

1
2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3

4
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. )
5 A/K/A KINGCAST,
and )
6 JOHN NOVAK,
) CASE NO 2-20-cv-01494-RAJ
7 Taxpayer Plaintiffs,
) JUDGE TANA LIN
8
vs.
9 )
LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD OF THE STATE
10 OF WASHINGTON “LCB”; JANE RUSHFORD, )
CHAIR OF LCB AND RICK GARZA, DIRECTOR OF LCB,
11 In their Individual and Official Capacities, )
12
Defendants. )
13

14 FURTHER NOTICE OF ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MISCONDUCT
GRANTING A LICENSE TO A WHITE MAN UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION:
15 UPDATE ON WILLIAM J. WIDMER

16
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
17 Yesterday we started with the premise that if you are a white man with a pulse you could get
18 and keep a Washington License allowing you to sell Cannabis. If you are Black you are pretty much
done for and that is a statistical and empirical FACT.
19
We then moved on to a specific 2015 email involving licensed Legal Counsel at WSLCB, the
20
most salient portion of which has been reproduced below:
21
RE 401K as a LLC member.msg
22
1. 3
23 RE: 401K as a LLC member
From Hendricks, Sharon A (LCB)To
24 Wambold, Allen G (LCB); Reid, Nicola M (LCB)Recipientsallen.wambold@lcb.wa.gov ;
nicola.reid@lcb.wa.gov
25
Moving on, since it appears that the Widmers didn’t wait for Board approval to change ownership of
26 the LLC with the Secretary of State, you need to decide what you want to do about that. I suggest we
charge him with violating WAC 314-55-120.
27
28
1
30 Plaintiffs’ Further Notice of Arbitary and Caprious Conduct with FBI suspect Widmer Update
31
1 The other thing you need to know is that Aryna and I met with two FBI agents who are carrying on a
year-long investigation of Mr. Widmer, and the various financial transactions he’s been involved in
2 would turn your hair white. He’s involved in bank fraud that has cost the depositers millions in
losses, he’s involved in laundering money for drug transactions, and the agents say they’re
3 somewhere between 6 and 12 months away from federal charges that will put him away for a while.
They both agree he is no one who is going to obey marijuana laws or regulations.
4
They also say he has a long list of legal actions against him, including a bankruptcy that failed
5 because he didn’t disclose everything. They’re going to send us some information, which we should
check against what he disclosed to us because they believe he likely either misrepresented or failed
6 to disclose material information when he applied to us for a license.

7 Kim

8 Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:49 AM To: O'Neal, Kim (ATG) Cc: Reid, Nicola M (LCB);
Hendricks, Sharon A(LCB)
9 Subject: RE: 401K as a LLC member
Greetings Kim,Attached is a copy of William Widmer’s 401(K) plan. Mr. Widmer would like to have
10 the 401(K) named as a member of W&L Holdings, LLC, license#417643 (Kaleafa).

11 *********
12 …… and then Plaintiffs continued on to show all the shops that were somehow rewarded to Mr.
Widmer, who as it turns out Pled the 5th Amendment in Federal Bankruptcy Court prior to the
13
issuance of the above-referenced internal email at WSLCB.
14 With such in mind then, and with our Highest Nature in Course, Plaintiffs proceed with five
15 (5) hours of legal research conducted by Plaintiff King in the wake of the abject horror that he and
16 his friends occasioned on learning of this prior development. His edited summary follows and is
replicated as one of the Attachments to this filing.
17
Cobalt Boats, Porsches, Rolexes, Lies more Lies and Fifth Amendment Dodging with the WSLCB
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5FyNGdNhP4

19 https://www.scribd.com/document/556527230/Kevin-Ben-and-Sami-Green-Wall-Street-v-
WSLCB-and-City-of-Seattle-Thurston-22-2-00198-34
20

21 Haha I got y’all now. And it’s only going to get worse. You give this guy a license and 7 stores?
First the thumbnail is just from the Court ORDER but I have attached links to 3 OTHER cases about
22
this fraudulent ______ that the WSLCB loves so much.
23
Dirty Dealing Primer on William J. Widmer, Jr.
24 https://www.scribd.com/document/559080655/The-Dirty-Dealing-Primer-on-WSLCB-and-the-
White-Widmer-Family
25

26 U.S. Trustee v. Widmer
https://www.scribd.com/document/559080655/The-Dirty-Dealing-Primer-on-WSLCB-and-the-
27 White-Widmer-Family

28
2
31
1 U.S. Trustee v. Widmer ORDER
https://www.scribd.com/document/559083369/U-S-Trustee-v-Widmer-ORDER
2
Green Tree Servicing Relief from Stay
3 https://www.scribd.com/document/559083645/Green-Tree-Servicing-v-Widmer-Relief-From-Stay

4
Wong v. Widmer
5 https://www.scribd.com/document/559083715/Wong-v-Widmer-14-12946

6 Pacific-Fairplay v. Widmer
https://www.scribd.com/document/559083715/Wong-v-Widmer-14-12946
7
….Can you believe it…. The guy rips off a company called Fairplay hahahahaaaaaa……
8
Anyway that’s because they had dirt on him, and dirty whores sleep together and make whore
9 babies. All of those seven (7) stores are whore children. They need good parents; it’s not their fault.

10 Let’s open an orphanage and give these dwarfs to caring Black parents because WSLCB knew ALL OF
THIS prior to the 16 October, 2015 email exchange I sent out yesterday. Small wonder they sua
11 sponte canceled the Board Hearing for this Wednesday LOL.
12
They worked with the Feds to let this creep open recreational and medical stores and then raid his
13 medical customers. I wonder if the creditors left holding the bag consented to him having those
stores so he could pay them back? I’ll be in touch with all of their lawyers.
14
Meanwhile the #WSLCB was busy raping, pillaging and plundering all of the Black-owned medical
15 shops alongside their pal Jenny A. Durkan as then Federal Prosecutor who railroaded one Brionne
Corbray. Just the facts. Well 99% facts, perhaps 1% speculation.
16
********
17
Call this one here the Nigger Revenge folks.
18
It’s a dish best served cold. Here’s an ice cube for ya…….. this guy pled the 5th at least three times in
19
his BK and WSLCB was fully aware of it because it predates the explosive email I sent yesterday. I do
20 my homework folks, been doing it since I took my first reporter job 33 years ago and started
investigating client cases as a lawyer when I left State employment 25 years ago.
21
11 USC §727 - Discharge
22
(a)The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—
23
(3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve
24 any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the
debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or
25 failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case;

26
(5) the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge
27 under this paragraph, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor’s
liabilities;
28
3
31
1 Wherefore, with such in mind and with our Highest Nature In Course:

2 From U.S. Trustee v. Widmers WD WA Case No. 14-12946

3 13. The Initial SOFA filed by the Debtors disclosed two transfers made within the
two years preceding the commencement of the Chapter 7 Case: (a) the December 2013 sale of
4
stock and real estate to W&L Holdings, Inc., and (b) the sale of a 2009 Cobalt 276 boat to an
5 unknown third party. See Initial SOFA, No. 10.

6 25. Mr. Widmer asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when asked at the Examination about the
Unit 301 Transfer. Specifically, Mr. Widmer would not explain why he failed to disclose the Unit 301
7 Transfer on the Initial SOFA, what consideration he received for the Unit 301 Transfer, and whether
or not he transferred Unit 301 to Ataro LLC in satisfaction of a debt
8
31. Mr. Widmer asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at the Examination regarding the source of
9 the funds used for the IndyMac Transfer.

10 36. Mr. Widmer asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at the Examination regarding the source of
the funds used for the Flagstar Transfer.
11
12 48. The Defendants testified at the Examination that in January 2014, three months before the
Petition Date, they sold a 1999 Porsche 911 for $22,500 (the “Porsche Proceeds”) to an unknown
13 third party through Craigslist (the “Porsche Transfer”). 49. The Defendants deposited the Porsche
Proceeds into Union Bank account no. 0423 on or about January 17, 2014. 50. The Porsche Transfer
14 is not disclosed on either the Initial SOFA or the Amended SOFA.

15 51. The Defendants testified at the Examination that they purchased a Rolex watch (the “Rolex”) for
approximately $40,000 in or around March or April 2013.
16
52. The Defendants testified at the Examination that they gave the Rolex to the receiver for Fairplay
17 Financial Inc. in or around November 2013 (the “Rolex Transfer”).

18 53. The Rolex Transfer is not disclosed on either the Initial SOFA or the Amended SOFA.

19
58. In the year prior to the Petition Date, the Defendants withdrew, transferred, or otherwise used at
20 least $360,000 from MWR account nos. 8270 and 2070, and Union Bank account no. 0423 (the
“Missing Funds”).
21
BANKRUPTCY NO. 14-12946-TWD Pacific/Fairplay v. Widmer
22
13. Widmer was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial during all relevant times.
23
14. During the time he was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial, Widmer engaged in multiple
24 transactions that were intended to and did benefit Widmer or third parties to the detriment of
Fairplay, including loans, reconstruction projects, and real estate transactions, examples of which
25 are set forth below.

26
15. During the time he was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial, Widmer directly or
27 indirectly obtained funds from Fairplay through fraudulent means, engaged in transactions with
Fairplay, and/or used the credit of Fairplay to engage in personal financial transactions to the
28 detriment of Fairplay, examples of which are set forth below.
4
31
1 16. During the time he was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial, Widmer made material
misrepresentations to and/or concealed material information from the Fairplay Board of Directors
2 and/or management to the detriment of Fairplay, including his own involvement in certain real
estate transactions, the lack of adequate funding sources to cover Fairplay’s losses, and his repeated
3 approval of loans in violation of company policy and lending regulations. Widmer made such false
and misleading statements with the intent that the Board or management of Fairplay Financial
4
would reasonably rely on the truth thereof in conducting Fairplay’s business. Fairplay suffered
5 damages as a result of its reasonable reliance on Widmer’s false and misleading statements.

6 A. The Boylston Transaction

7 17. In or about August 2013, Widmer submitted a false loan application to Fairplay in the name of
ATR, LLC, an entity that did not exist.
8
18. The loan was to be secured by certain real property located at 2731 Boylston Avenue East, Unit
9 #301, Seattle, WA 98102 (the “Boylston Condo”) which, Widmer represented, was owned by ATR,
LLC when in fact, it was owned by Widmer. 19. The false loan application submitted by Widmer
10 contained the forged signature of Richard Brent Qualls, a purported representative of ATR, LLC….

11
12 B. The Watchtower Transaction

13 32. On or about September 26, 2012, Fairplay funded a loan in the amount of $374,400 (the
“Watchtower Loan”) and disbursed said funds to Watchtower, LLC, approximately $250,000 of
14 which was disbursed to the seller of the Watchtower Property, and the remaining portion of which
was to be used for construction on the Watchtower Property.
15
33. Widmer obtained additional construction funds from Fairplay (in addition to the initial
16 disbursement) that were booked to the Watchtower Loan at his direction, and instructed a
contractor, U.S. Construction, to perform work on his own personal residence and to bill that work
17 to the Watchtower Property by creating and submitting false invoices for work completed on the
Watchtower Property.
18
34. U.S. Construction did not actually perform any construction work on the Watchtower Property.
19
Instead, its principal, Thomas Berk (“Berk”), at Widmer’s instruction, performed a significant
20 amount of construction work on Widmer’s personal residence and billed that work totaling
approximately $73,000 to the Watchtower Property by submitting false invoices that were paid by
21 Fairplay Funding under the Watchtower Loan through additional construction draws.

22 35. Very little construction work was actually completed on the Watchtower Property. It was
completely gutted and reframed from the inside, but remains completely unfinished and gutted
23 down to the studs.

24 ……and soooo much more!

25 Sincerely,
Christopher King, J.D.
26
In support of all the ripped-off Black Medical and True Medical practitioners and Patients
27

28
5
31
1 Respectfully submitted,
2 __________________________
3 Christopher King, J.D.
Taxpayer
4 Recreational Cannabis Consumer
5
__________________________
6 John Novak
7 Medicinal Cannabis Consumer
8
__________________________
9 Cynjo Raylene Hall
Medicinal Cannabis Consumer
10
Professional Budtender
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
12
I the undersigned solemnly swear that true copies of this Notice were sent via email
13 per agreement to:
14
JONATHAN PITEL, ESQ.
15 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Licensing & Administrative Law Division
16 1125 Washington St SE
Olympia, WA 98504-0110
17
18
This 15th day of February, 2021
19
20
_______________________________________
21 CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
31
1

3

4
5 A/K/A KINGCAST,
and )
6 JOHN NOVAK,
) JUDGE TANA LIN
8
vs.
9 )
10 OF WASHINGTON “LCB”; JANE RUSHFORD, )
12
Defendants. )
13

14 FURTHER NOTICE OF ARBITARY AND CAPRICIOUS MISCONDUCT
GRANTING A LICENSE TO A WHITE MAN UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION
15
16 If you are a white man with a pulse you could get and keep a Washington License allowing
you to sell Cannabis. If you are Black you are pretty much done for and that is a statistical and
17
empirical FACT. By way of further review, WSLCB is so patently Arbitrary, Capricious and otherwise
18 dirty (and racist) that basically any white man with a pulse whom they like may obtain a license…
19 and own seven (7) stores.
20 Meanwhile they are feckless to find a way to get any licenses to the Blacks who got run out of
Medical cannabis, leaving them to wait for watered-down provisions instead of getting their
21
Grandfathered licenses effectively reinstated in the manner of Oscars II restaurant, or even those
22
who lost their Washington Operator’s licenses – cases in which the ACLU and Miller-Nash helped out
23 others:
24 https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/drug-abatement-oscars-ii-restaurant-overturned

25 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/aclu-sues-washington-state-licensing-
department-saying-license-suspensions-over-traffic-fines-punish-poor-people/?amp=1
26

27 Pierce et al v. DOL et al 20-2-02149-34 (Pierce County 2020)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20798910-48_pierce_ordenjoindefendants
28
1
30 Plaintiffs’ Further Notice of Arbitary and Caprious Conduct with FBI suspect
31
1 …. but today they still have not helped out any of the OG Medical Cannabis Blacks forced out
2 by WSLCB Agents posing as real Certified Peace Officers. Some of these individuals have had to
resort to filing their own lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court, 22-2-00198-34 (2022).
3

4 To the point:

5 RE 401K as a LLC member.msg
1. 3
6 RE: 401K as a LLC member
FromHendricks, Sharon A (LCB)To
7
Wambold, Allen G (LCB); Reid, Nicola M (LCB)Recipientsallen.wambold@lcb.wa.gov ;
8 nicola.reid@lcb.wa.gov

9 If this goes to threshold please be sure that any and all AG advice e-mails are included in the blue
folder. Thx
10
From: O'Neal, Kim (ATG)
11 Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:41 AM
To: Wambold, Allen G (LCB) Cc: Reid, Nicola M (LCB); Hendricks, Sharon A(LCB) Subject: RE: 401K
12 as a LLC member

13 Attorney-client advice – should not be disclosed without Board waiver of attorney-client privilege.

14
My reaction to this hasn’t changed after briefly reviewing the very complex plan documents
15 outlining how this 401(k) plan operates. For one thing while Widmer and his wife may be the only
participants at the moment, the plan documents clearly contemplate others can join and participate
16 at any time. For another thing, there is nothing in these plan documents that either contemplates or
explains how the 401(k) “plan” will operate as or carry out the responsibilities of a licensee. It’s the
17 Widmers that the Board is looking to as licensees, and putting another entity between them and
their responsibilities as licensees makes no sense from the Board’s perspective. At its simplest level,
18 under RCW 69.50.331(1)(c) and WAC 314-55-015(12) and WAC 314-55-020(7), a 401(k) is not an
entity that can apply or be a member of an applicant.
19
Moving on, since it appears that the Widmers didn’t wait for Board approval to change ownership of
20 the LLC with the Secretary of State, you need to decide what you want to do about that. I suggest we
charge him with violating WAC 314-55-120.
21

22 The other thing you need to know is that Aryna and I met with two FBI agents who are carrying on a
year-long investigation of Mr. Widmer, and the various financial transactions he’s been involved in
23 would turn your hair white. He’s involved in bank fraud that has cost the depositers millions in
losses, he’s involved in laundering money for drug transactions, and the agents say they’re
24 somewhere between 6 and 12 months away from federal charges that will put him away for a while.
They both agree he is no one who is going to obey marijuana laws or regulations.
25 They also say he has a long list of legal actions against him, including a bankruptcy that failed
because he didn’t disclose everything. They’re going to send us some information, which we should
26 check against what he disclosed to us because they believe he likely either misrepresented or failed
to disclose material information when he applied to us for a license.
27
Kim
28
2
31
1 Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:49 AM To: O'Neal, Kim (ATG) Cc: Reid, Nicola M (LCB);
Hendricks, Sharon A(LCB)
2 Subject: RE: 401K as a LLC member
Greetings Kim,Attached is a copy of William Widmer’s 401(K) plan. Mr. Widmer would like to have
3 the 401(K) named as a member of W&L Holdings, LLC, license#417643 (Kaleafa).

4
Allen Wambold
5 Licensing Investigator
Marijuana Unit
6 360-664-1649

7 *********

8 So then, against that backdrop what do the Arbitrary and Capricious Wizards at WSLCB do?
9 They grant him a license and seven (7) stores, including a medical endorsement almost as soon as
they can, minutes after they forced all the Blacks out. And now we have our little Black/Minority
10
Mafia system in place to sidle up to the Master and accept some nebulous crumbs from the table for
11 the people they claim to represent. Melanie Morgan. Rebecca Saldaña
12 Ollie Garrett. Jim Buchanan. Nate Miles. The list goes on but it is all going to be exposed. This
13 much we know. See Appendix A showing:

Business name Legal name UBI #
14

KALEAFA MT ABERDEEN, LLC 604-624

15

16 KALEAFA STRAWBERRY FIELDS LLC 603-586
17
KALEAFA STRAWBERRY FIELDS LLC 603-586
18
19 KALEAFA STRAWBERRY FIELDS LLC 603-586
20
KALEAFA W & L HOLDINGS LLC 603-322
21
KALEAFA W & L HOLDINGS LLC 603-322
22

23 KALEAFA 2 LLC KALEAFA 2 LLC 603-549

24
KALEAFA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT KALEAFA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT 604-080
25 COMPANY LLC COMPANY LLC
26
KALEAFA PROPERTIES I LLC KALEAFA PROPERTIES I LLC 604-691
27

28
3
31
1 We also know that there is a Consent Decree against Widmer ordering, inter alia,

2 (1) Respondent shall pay restitution to the Bank in the amount of one million four hundred
sixty-four thousand dollars ($1,464,000) upon execution of this Order. See Appendix B.
3 https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2014-163.pdf
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
We also have on speculation that people who sign up on their collective list were then raided
15
mysteriously, but we’ll look past that for now. We’ve already shown enough: The WSLCB is a
16 completely Arbitrary and Capricious Agency, and also racist. Again, while there is not a specific
17 racial component to this litigation the Agency’s actions in that regard may be used to strengthen
Plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
18
Respectfully submitted,
19
__________________________
21 Taxpayer
Recreational Cannabis Consumer
22
23 __________________________
John Novak
24
25
26 __________________________
Cynjo Raylene Hall
28
4
31
1
2
3 I the undersigned solemnly swear that true copies of this Notice were sent via email
per agreement to:
4
7 Olympia, WA 98504-0110
8
This 14th day of February, 2021
9
10
11 _______________________________________
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
31
1

3

4

5 CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. )
A/K/A KINGCAST,
6 and )
JOHN NOVAK,
7 ) CASE NO 2-20-cv-01494-RAJ
Taxpayer Plaintiffs,
8 ) JUDGE TANA LIN

9 vs.
)
10 LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD OF THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON “LCB”; JANE RUSHFORD, )
11 CHAIR OF LCB AND RICK GARZA, DIRECTOR OF LCB,

13 Defendants. )

14

15 NOTICE OF PARTY ADMISSION
ON LACK OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE CRIMINAL AUTHORITY
16

17 NOW COMES LICENSEE to respectfully note that a Control Group WSLCB staffer has finally
18 publicly admitted that Licensee is correct about the Agency’s lack of criminal investigation and
enforcement authority, ab initio. Enforcement and Education Division Director Chandra Brady did
19
for the first time publicly state this week, 27 January 2022 after another act of violence. This time it
20
was at Dockside where Plaintiff King used to shop.
21 https://komonews.com/news/local/cannabis-store-employee-shot-multiple-times-suspects-on-the-run
22
“The LCB does not have emergency response authority or jurisdiction for a criminal
23 investigation. Please review your safety and emergency response plans with your
employees, including calling 911 to report suspicious activities or any attempted burglary
24
or robbery.”1
25
26
27
28 1
See Overleaf for the actual unedited Press Release
1
30 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Rule 801 Party Admission
31
1 LAW AND ARGUMENT
2 Rule 801 reads in pertinent part:
3
The following definitions apply under this article:
4
(a) Statement. A "statement" is
5 (1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.
6
7 (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is
(A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or
8 (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or
(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
9 (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency
or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or
10
(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the
11 conspiracy.
12 Let’s recap shall we? Again:
13 The LCB does not have emergency response authority or jurisdiction for a criminal investigation.
14
Chandra Brady is the Director of WSLCB Enforcement and Education. By dint of her
15 position she is in the Control Group at the Agency, ipso facto. As such, everything that Licensee
16 has argued from Day One about the lack of criminal authority is clearly manifest, albeit after the
17 expenditure of substantial public funds. There really isn’t anything else to say. Plaintiffs have put
the Court on Actual Notice that they have initiated Rule 408 Settlement Discussions and look
18
forward to updating the Court on same as it appears that one (1) of their two (2) Principal points
19
of Law is finally being correctly addressed in a beautiful 180-degree arc. Again: To be a cop, you
20
have to be a cop:
21 Plaintiff King long ago intimated to this Court that the LCB’s old position would be
22 tantamount to him sticking a “Police” badge on his lapel, mounting the proverbial gumball light
23 on his personal BMW as an AAG twenty-five (25) years ago and masquerading about as a
24 Certified Peace Officer: Some Agency employees in Washington are LEO; some are not. Some
AAG’s in Ohio are LEO; some are not. The moral of the story is STAY IN YOUR LANE.
25
Moreover, let’s not forget that former WSLCB Agent John Jung, who recently wished us
26
well in this Federal litigation, addressed these issues at his Deposition that Plaintiff King actually
27 took live on Facebook. Let’s pick up the Action live at page 38 shall we?
28
2
31
1 Q. And was there any concern among your peers in the last few years that you all don't enjoy
qualified immunity?
2
3 A. I know David Stitt and I had many discussions about that when he was here. And when I
started to research and investigate this agency's mishandling of their training, David himself
4 actually was scared of the fact that he was carrying a gun and potentially had to pull it out and
shoot somebody.
5
So he asked for BLEA training, and the chief at the time told him that he was okay as is. And
6 long story short, he ended up just quitting because he wasn't able to continue knowing that.
7 Let’s cruise on into page 39 for the bonus round shall we, as we note that a bud tender I may even
have met was shot and almost killed this month at Dockside Cannabis, another white-owned retail
8 store2
9 Q. Thank you. We're moving along here, hold on. Sir, if you were in the field and you had an
occasion where a theft was going on and let's say you're at a store, a retail store. You're
10
investigating.
11
You're doing your work, and a criminal suspect walks in with a gun, and they hold someone
12 hostage. They hold a budtender hostage, okay? If Cynjo’s at the door working, if she still had a
job, so she’s still at her job working and someone comes in and puts a gun to her head. You're
13 standing there with your service pistol. Do you have pistols or revolvers?
14
A. We have a semiautomatic.
15
Q. Is it a 9 or what?
16
A. 9 mil.
17
Q. Okay. What brand?
18
19 A. Smith and Wesson.
20 Q. That's classic. Okay. Anyway, now, you're standing there. You got your Smith and Wesson,
and you see this going on. What's your response going to be? Are you going to draw your
21 weapon?
22
A. Based on current level of training and experience and my knowledge of my status, I would
23 walk away. I will not jeopardize two families over that.
24
25
26 2
While this case does not center on race, the racist manner in which WSLCB has historically approached BIPOC
medical owners using false police credentials is part of their Arbitrary and Capricious nature; Seattle has zero Black-
27 owned cannabis retail. Plaintiffs personally know several of the Black medicals who were run out of town by
WSLCB and that closet racist former Seattle Mayor Jenny A. Durkan who violated the Ogden Memo as U.S.
28 Prosecutor to prosecute Brionne Corbray because he was a Black Man making too much money in Babylon.
3
31
1 I'd rather be the subject of the incident, but I will not pull my trigger. I had a discussion with the
assistant commander of CJTC too, and you'll see that in the exhibit that I submitted to my
2 counsel…….
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
31
2 __________________________
Taxpayer
4 Recreational Cannabis Consumer
6 __________________________
7 John Novak
8
9
__________________________
10
Cynjo Raylene Hall
12
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14
15 per agreement to:
16 JONATHAN PITEL, ESQ.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
17 Licensing & Administrative Law Division
1125 Washington St SE
18
19
20 This 29th day of January, 2021
21
22
_______________________________________

24
25
26
27
28
5
31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

A/K/A KINGCAST,
and )
JOHN NOVAK,
) JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES

vs.
)
In their Individual and Official Capacities, )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECALL LIMITED DEPOSITION DISCOVERY
OF FORMER WSLCB AGENT JOHN JUNG ON SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

Now Come Plaintiffs to note that while they are having positive communications with
Counsel for Defendants on Discovery and potential settlement, Plaintiffs have reason to believe that
there is absolutely no way that they will ever obtain any text messages from the phone of former
Agent John Jung. See the full testimony of Agent Jung from last week’s testimony on HB5671
regarding a proposed Board expansion at WSLCB as delivered to Plaintiffs after the testimony at
Appendix A. Plaintiff King represented the Plaintiffs’ position at such hearing, arguing:
“we are making two Constitutional claims in Federal Court, including you’re fake cops and
acting as if you are not, and that is a constitutional violation every day and second, your
testing is so poor that people are getting bad pot and that is an interruption in the Doctor-
Patient relationship per Roe v. Wade.”1
1 Furthermore, attendant with this testimony the lawyers at Miller-Nash and Cornell published
Turbulent History of Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement in Washington State, citing a related

plethora of Constitutional and Statutory violations by an Agency that is long overdue for
destruction and overhaul. See full report at Appendix B.
Yesterday's Senate Testimony on SB 5671 proposed expansion for #WSLCB Washington

State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Brionne Corbray at 26:07 and I'm at 40:25 followed by
Micah Sherman and Kevin Shelton then former LCB Agent John Jung at 49:28.
https://youtu.be/BeQ9IEf2AWw?t=2425
Be that as it may, the chief problem here involves Spoliation of Evidence. Pursuant to
general principles of B.E.R. (Best Evidence Rule) 1002 Plaintiffs are entitled to receive all actual and
unaltered text messages pertaining to criminal enforcement authority made to and from the WSLCB
staff listed below, per Discovery stipulation as noted by way of a Pending Admission Request:
ADMISSION NO. 1
Admit that WSLCB does not possess complete copies of text messages for all of the following staff
members also as contemplated by Appendix A
a. John Jung
b. Robbie Satterly
c. Robbie Raveica
d. Rick Garza
e. Jane Rushford
f. Russ Hauge
g. David Postman
h. Ollie Garrett
i. Brian Smith
j. Chandra Brady
k. Joshua Bolender
Response:
2
The problem is, as noted by the Satterly text message seen at Appendix C, WSLCB does not
have a fixed, permanent retention system in place to maintain these texts. Instead they rely on
agents to now take snapshots of their screens and send them in. This is a Statutory failure in the
RCW §42.56 context and it materially hinders Plaintiffs’ litigation because now they have no ability
to obtain contemporaneous text messages to and from the Agent who pushed the hardest for
reform! These messages that Plaintiffs eventually receive could be altered. Some could have been
deleted accidentally. And frankly, given the glib attitude of former Agent Satterly “LOL why does
King do this?” some could have been even deleted.
That right there is a Bad Cop attitude that leads to Civil Rights violations. Except that
Satterly isn’t even a Cop. Well actually he is now that he left WSLCB of course because he returned
to a General Authority Agency whose name Plaintiffs will not divulge at this juncture out of respect
for the position if not the Officer.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs have clearly proven that there are good grounds for the Court to grant leave to
reopen the John Jung Deposition of March 5, 2021 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) states, in pertinent part:
A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent
with Rule 26(b)(2): (A) if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and: . . . (ii) the
deponent has already been deposed in the case[.]
The presumptive limit for the duration of a deposition is one day of seven hours. See
Rule 30(d)(1). If a party seeks to exceed the presumptive limit, he “is expected to show good
cause to justify such an order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d) advisory committee’s note (2000
Amendment). “The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to
fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance
impedes or delays the examination.” Rule 30(d)(1). Examples that parties or the courts may
consider in determining whether an extension of time is warranted include: a Deponent who
needs an interpreter; an examination that will cover events occurring over a long period of time;
a deponent who reads documents during the deposition because he failed to review them in
advance; a deposition that revealed documents which were not produced and warrant further
3
deposition after production; and the need for multiple parties to question a deponent. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(d) advisory committee’s note (2000 Amendment).
The factors in Rule 26(b)(2) that this Court must consider are:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or
less expensive;
(ii) (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the
information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the
case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving
the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Obviously one cannot foresee every single situation in which a Deposition reopening could
occur but if there was ever a compelling argument to reopen one spoliation of evidence going to the
core issue of a case, involving evidence that the State is mandated to preserve just *MIGHT* qualify.
Plaintiffs had a general idea of the nightmare that WSLCB is or has become but there was no way that
they could anticipate that they weren’t properly retaining text messages: It was only becoming
apparent to a full-on daily newspaper staff the dozens of employees and on-call legal staff that Mayor
Durkan was failing in the same way at the same time, so how could little old Plaintiffs be so prescient?
For the Court to foist this blame unto Plaintiffs would constitute an undue burden-shifting without a
doubt. Meanwhile, as we speak the City of Seattle is knee deep in litigation over this exact issue
because embattled former Mayor Jenny A. Durkan failed to retain her text messages. See generally
Seattle Times v. City of Seattle, 21-2-07268-9 (2021).

4
PENDING NASCENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
As such, should settlement negotiations not pan out as Counsel for Defendant returns from
his period of unavailability Plaintiffs will at such time formally move this Honorable Court to grant
them the limited authority to reopen Agent Jung’s Deposition. The boundary will be to inquire of him
to the best of his recollection what types of discussions he had in his text messages with WSLCB brass
and rank-and-file employees during his tenure with the Agency.2

__________________________
Taxpayer

__________________________
John Novak

__________________________
Cynjo Raylene Hall

2
Moreover, the Parties would need to address whether or not Attorney Pitel would represent Agent Jung at such a
Deposition. When Agent Satterly notified WSLCB he was leaving for greener pastures on the day that his
Deposition Documents were due to Plaintiff former AAG Carr opined that she would represent him. Plaintiffs
ultimately did not take that Deposition after Satterly eventually provided missing documents from the CJTC, in a
tardy fashion, that clearly showed he was still *NOT* a Certified Peace Officer after BLEA training because of his
position at a Limited Authority Agency, i.e. WSLCB. See Appendix D.
That is precisely why Plaintiff King “does this.” It’s the Law. He’s learning. Plaintiff King is here to help.
5

per agreement to:


This 24th day of January, 2021

_______________________________________
6


A/K/A KINGCAST,
and )
JOHN NOVAK,

vs.
)
In their Individual and Official Capacities, )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION UPDATE ON WITHHELD DISCOVERY
The Court may be aware that the prior Law of the Case is materially misleading. To wit, the
Court’s Dismissal Order of September 8, 2021 reads in pertinent part:
Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed federal Defendants
United States Attorney General William Barr and the ONDCP on April 25, 2021. Dkt. # 56.
The remaining defendants are a state agency and state officials. Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of all
federal defendants undermines Plaintiffs’ argument that the “interplay between the State
and Federal authorities clearly shows the presence of a Federal Questions pursuant to 28
USC § 1331.” Dkt. # 32 at 2. (Order at 9).
Here is the problem with this analysis:
First, the Plaintiffs made clear that they only dismissed the Federal Defendants out of
frustration at the complete failure to respond. See Plaintiffs’ Response to Show Cause Order as filed
on or about March 15, 2021 in which Plaintiffs explained that they followed directions during the
COVID-19 Pandemic but received not one single Good Faith response:
1
Meanwhile personnel at the Federal Agencies in the Nation’s Capitol told Plaintiffs that they
would notify Counsel and that such Counsel would be in touch shortly.
Not one single telephone call nor email was received by either Plaintiff after such
conversations approximately one (1) entire week ago.

Next, in welcoming Judge Lin to the case it is crucial that she comprehend that ONDCP is not
an indispensable Party to the Action but rather its presence in formulating policy with the WSLCB
lends substantial credibility that there is a Federal Scheme at hand in the case at bar and the WSLCB
is helping to implement such a scheme (and collects Federal monies from a seizure program) there
is obviously 28 U.S.C. §1331 Subject Matter Jurisdiction in this Honorable Court.1
In sum, despite trying to work with the WSLCB and its Counsel in early November, 2021 in
Rule 26f Conference regarding these material issues, we are no closer to obtaining crucial sets of
messages involving the WSLCB’s purported authority to conduct criminal engagements. As such
one of Plaintiffs’ new Discovery Requests goes right to the heart of it as will likely be seen soon in
Motion Practice2. For example:
ADMISSION NO. 1
Admit that WSLCB does not possess complete copies of text messages for all of the following staff
members also as contemplated by Appendix A
a. John Jung
b. Robbie Satterly
c. Robbie Raveica
d. Rick Garza
e. Jane Rushford
f. Russ Hauge
g. David Postman
h. Ollie Garrett
i. Brian Smith
j. Chandra Brady
k. Joshua Bolender
Response:
1
As if the fact that property and liberty issues and potential jail time didn’t make this issue clear enough ab initio.
2
Plaintiffs also reached out to Counsel for Defendant last week on the possibility of Rule 408 discussions but there
was no response to that either. So here we are.
2
Moreover please review the conversation at Appendix A as being indicative of just how
niggardly the WSLCB responses continue to be when it comes to involvement with the ONDCP.
Frankly this case is one hot mess. But that’s not Plaintiffs’ fault. That fault lies at the hands of the
Defendants and it may take people in Washington to help move this problem toward a meaningful
resolution: We as Plaintiffs encourage President Biden to make certain that all of the shortcomings
at the WSLCB on lack of authority, nepotism, cronyism and racism are all addressed. Plaintiffs know
a lot more than they have discussed at this point in time; that will all come forward at Summary
Judgment as we delve further into these matters.
President Biden knows and trusts Plaintiff well enough and Plaintiff can assure you that he
is impressed with my legal mind if his reaction to my question was any indication.
“You’re a lawyer aren’t you?” He asked. “Correct Sir, and if we can just get to the bottom of
this matter with Greg Floyd continuing to unlawfully carry America would be a better place.”
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/09/kingcast-does-senator-joe-biden-favor.html
3
APPENDIX A

Begin forwarded message:

From: Christopher King <kingcast955@icloud.com>
Subject: Rule 26f Conference on Pending Motion to Compel: Missing Text Msg + Missing
ONDCP Files
Date: Jan 16, 2022 at 1:50 PM
To: "Pitel, Jonathan E. (ATG)" <jonathan.pitel@atg.wa.gov>
Cc: "Pitel, Jonathan E. (ATG)" <jonathan.pitel@atg.wa.gov>, Cynjo Raylene Hall
<cynjoraylene@gmail.com>, John Novak <jmnovak22@outlook.com>, Christopher King
<mortgagemovies007@gmail.com>

Dear Attorney Pitel,

As noted on prior occasion there will be a State lawsuit soon over your client's abject failure to
maintain text messages. As you recall we touched bases on these a couple months ago when
Plaintiffs narrowed our request. See below.

To date all we have are a handful of screen shots from a few employees. That effort doesn't even
come close to passing Statutory muster because it is painfully evidence that WSLCB does not have a
proper text message retention policy. I did note that one of Robbie Satterly's questions on a text
when I corrected the WSLCB Wiki page was "LOL Why does King DO THIS?"

The taxpayers don't see anything funny Counselor. Do you?

I might ask him why did he leave the Agency after he went for Supplemental/Equivalency BLEA
training? Why did he initiate yet fail to sign and swear out a Warrant Affidavit in the botched Levi
Lyon case?

I'm not done yet: I responded to your client thusly:

From: Christopher King <kingcast955@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: King, et al. v. LCB, et al., USDC/WDWA No. 2:20-cv-01494-RAJ | Plaintiffs' Revised
Rule 34 Demand for Production of Documents and Responses Thereto
Date: Dec 10, 2021 at 10:22 AM
To: "Seipel, Melissa K (ATG)" <melissa.seipel@atg.wa.gov>

OMG are you kidding me?

One of these messages is cut off and the other one is almost funny with Robbie Satterly saying "LOL
why does KING do this?" in response to me correcting the WSLCB Wiki page.

I do it because I am a concerned citizen with a fairly keen legal mind that was developed in part at a
top-50 law school and suing and winning, losing and settling dozens of cases since 1993.

What an ass.

*************

4
But I digress:

I don't recall seeing any emails from you with your client's response. so unless I have missed
something your client is about five (5) weeks tardy. Most conspicuous by their absence are text
messages with Former WSLCB Agent John Jung. We all know there are a ton of those. So at this
point I believe a Motion is Ripe this time.

On Nov 10, 2021, at 2:17 PM, "Pitel, Jonathan E. (ATG)" <jonathan.pitel@atg.wa.gov> wrote:

Mr. King, Ms. Hall, and Mr. Novak,

Thank you for taking the time to meet today. As we agreed, you have narrowed your discovery request to
the following:

“Any and all text messages pertaining to matters of cannabis or liquor criminal authority to and from the
following persons between the dates of January 1, 2019, and the present:

d. John Jung
e. Robbie Satterly
f. Robbie Raveica
l. Rick Garza
m. Jane Rushford
n. Russ Hauge
o. David Postman
p. Ollie Garrett
q. Brian Smith
r. Chandra Brady
s. Joshua Bolender
That are within the custody and control of defendants.“

Next, we have the issue of missing ONDCP files, which is a huge problem as either your client
withheld them from prior Counsel or she withheld them from us. See below. Curiously there are
absolutely no documents pertaining to this continued exchange from prior to the meeting; this is
impossible and I don't think we need to baby-step you as to exactly why it is impossible.

As such, we are still waiting for something back from you on that matter as well; so we plan to file a
Motion this week as well as a Stateside lawsuit. We are entitled to obtain these documents from you
and your client in this litigation; not just through an RCW §42.56 Records Request.

In sum:

Your client can't fix the text messages we all know this so consider that a done deal. Motion to
Compel and a State lawsuit.

5
As to the ONDCP files that issue is Ripe for a Motion too... the original violation was months ago --
and it might also comprise a Cause of Action itself along with the text debacle.

Keep us posted on any possibility of Settlement.

Best regards,
C
J
C

On Nov 14, 2021, at 11:49 AM, John Novak <jmnovak22@outlook.com> wrote:

Jonathan,
Here’s are the links to the files on the ONDCP that re stored on my Box . com account. Not sure why
Michelle Carr did not see these and why it was claimed that no records exist in the
500005a_King_Pltfs'Rule34_ThirdDemand_ProductionDocs_ThirdSuppResp_[13435]
https://app.box.com/s/j8846bp63tfhyxp2s1gwlugh3gvmhaow
However, 15 pages were sent to us in this file from 5/26/21 “LCB3675-LCB4093.pdf”. I have it
copied in my Box . com account at this link:
https://app.box.com/s/ccp9yqlmsfxkl33o73zobynjcrz43fmu

These emails discuss a meeting between WA state officials and the ONDCP in Washington D.C.
I also sent a PRR (21-10-076) to the LCB on this meeting that is discussed in the thread
and the first instalment (#21-10-076) showed more to the conversation with the ONDCP
and other WA state agencies, perhaps some from California on other policy discussions,
with even more files coming as stated in the LCB’s last response to me.
https://app.box.com/s/lra1g07q32orq3kpowi9rf08w5aqps2j
Also, the text files from David Postman that Christopher spoke in our last meeting that
involved a discussion on LCB authority is on page 6 of this document:
https://app.box.com/s/wqqw07yiyqctegb4ove0q59sn7lvkrwc
Thanks and hope you enjoy the time away from work this month,
-John
7
__________________________
Taxpayer

__________________________
John Novak

__________________________
Cynjo Raylene Hall


I the undersigned solemnly swear that true copies of these Demands were sent via email
per agreement to


This 16th day of January, 2021

_______________________________________

8

2

3

4 A/K/A KINGCAST,
and )
5 JOHN NOVAK,
and
6 CYNJO RAYLENE HALL, ) CASE NO 2-20-cv-01494-RAJ

8 vs.

9
JANE RUSHFORD AND DAVID POSTMAN,
10
CHAIRS OF LCB )
AND RICK GARZA, DIRECTOR OF LCB,
11 AND GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE, )


13 Defendants. )

14
DECLARATION OF FORMER MEDICAL CANNABIS PROFESSIONAL
15
KEVIN SHELTON ON ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
16
WSCLB UNDUE INFLUENCE ON LIBERTY INTEREST
17 Plaintiffs present one Kevin Shelton, former co-owner of Lifetree Medical Cannabis. As
18 noted throughout this litigation Defendants have led WSLCB down a road chock full of
antipathy for medical cannabis and for Blacks.1
19
In furtherance of this evil agenda they used the same phony badges and phony authority
20
– and real guns – to run people out of medical cannabis and the same threat continues
21
unlawfully today. We have attached the Affidavit of Mr. Shelton, several emails from Mr.
22 Shelton and a September 13, 2021 letter of support for Mr. Shelton from the NAACP to
23 Defendant Inslee, WA State Legislature and applicable State agencies and entities.
24 https://www.scribd.com/document/545410468/Kevin-Shelton-and-NAACP-to-Jay-Inslee-
WSLCB-et-al-on-Cannabis-Equity
25
1
Plaintiffs note that WSLCB having been busted and outed for lack of testing, the Agency has now announced the
26
establishment of such testing. Better late than never we suppose.
1
Writes Mr. Shelton:
1
2
On or about July 2015, LIFETREE received the first of several threatening letters from the
Washington State Liquor Cannabis Board (WSLCB) ordering us to close LIFETREE. The
3 final letter was received the following year, around June 1, 2016. The letter read, “medical
marijuana outlets, also known as dispensaries, must be licensed by July 1, 2016 or will face
4 closure by local authorities.” The letter and its quote can be found on the current WSLCB
website. We later discovered that the “Local Authorities” mentioned in the letter were
5 unlicensed, untrained WSLCB employees, “agents”, parading as police officers. They wore
WSLCB badges and guns on their hips. On many occasions, we were visited by the
6 WSLCB agents at our LIFETREE dispensary and verbally told to that we must close our
business doors by July 1, 2016.
7
Upon receiving the final cease-and-desist letter on or around June 20, 2016 we temporarily
8 closed our collective garden/dispensary known as LIFETREE under fear of being removed
by armed forces, resulting in our bankruptcy by the WSLCB and its agents. According to
9 RCW 18.118.020 we are grandfathered in. Thus, the forced closure was unjust.
10
In April of 2020, I was approached by a community leader, Nate Miles, via a family
11
referral. During the phone conversation with Miles, he told me he could help me to get our
license back as he was working closely with Ollie Garrett of the LCB (Previously
12 WSLCB). The only catch was I would have to split the license with their family members.
13 Months later the deal was off. We were told that there were too many hands in the pot and
it wouldn’t be worth it for Ollie Garrett and Nate Miles to proceed with us.
14
Writes the NAACP:
15
Therefore, we’re calling on Governor Inslee, the State Legislature and all state agencies to
16 develop and implement anti-racist policies to allow equal economic opportunities for
African-Americans and communities of color. Meanwhile, the NAACP will remain
17
diligent and disrupt all state-wide efforts that continue to disenfranchise our community
18
from the economic benefits of the cannabis industry. We can no longer wait, nor anticipate
true equity from restrictive cannabis policies built on institutional racism and white
19 supremacy laws. We are done begging for what we have earned, and deserve.

20 Sadly, as noted in this weekend’s video Mr. Shelton was not able to exercise his full voice and Plaintiff King had to
read the NAACP letter into the Public Record because of the wall of oppression that brings people to rudely
21
interrupt Plaintiff King’s broadcasts as noted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bAlRC5OQw&t=659s
22
23
24
25
26

2

1
Once again the ongoing and pervasive presence of unlawful Arbitrary and Capricious
2 misconduct by WSLCB rears its ugly head. Even if the agency and its cronies could escape joinder
3
in this case owing to Statute of Limitations the State statute on RICO RCW §9a.82 has not yet
run. Further, the information may be used to demonstrate the plan and pattern of arbitrary and
4
capricious misconduct: Instead of helping Mr. Shelton they oppressed him so that they could
5
usher in the money-making (for whites) recreational cannabis market. The truth hurts Your
6 Honor but it is what it is, and long after you retire you will never forget the things you have
7 learned in this litigation. We won’t either.2
8 CONCLUSION
9 Plaintiff King is a former NAACP Legal Chair who bore the brunt of racism in an illegal failed
prosecution attempt. He could not agree more with the NAACP and offers his assistance in
10
helping them to investigate any and all salient aspects of this case. In fact, he and Mr. Shelton
11
encourage the NAACP Legal Fund to become engaged. This is nothing more than a continuation
12 of the massacre and destruction manifest at Black Wall Street as noted in the household video
13 produced by Plaintiff several years ago. We further note that Mr. Shelton is actually from Tulsa.
14
Spot the similarities:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2019/02/kingcast-is-celebrating-seattle.html
15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGhH_H7qLTo
16


18 ____________________________
19
____________________________
20 John Novak

21 _____________________________
Cynjo Raylene Hall
22

23
24
2
In point of fact, Plaintiff, Mr. Shelton and others are shocked at how their zoom/live Facebook discussion on Wednesday’s
25 Weedwraps #21 was bombarded by outsiders just as they were about to discuss the corruption in his situation. See the
thumbnail on the overleaf and the video as posted, supra. This is one nasty legacy, none of it being Plaintiffs’ fault nor.
Mr. Shelton’s, nor anyone who has been harmed by Defendants’ willful and abusive arbitrary and capricious actions that
26
trammel their Fundamental liberty and property interests.
3
1
10
11
12
13

14
15
I the undersigned solemnly swear that true copies of this Supplemental Memorandum
16 were sent via email
and ECF filing system to:
17
18 jonathan.pitel@atg.wa.gov

20
21

22
This 13th Day of December, 2021
23

24 _________________________________
25
26
4
A緬.davit of Trfu
On Apri= 3, 201 l, I, James Kevin Shelton and my business pa血er Ben Shelton fomed our camabis
co=ective garden, `Cannabis Dispensa-y’; LTFETR髄TNC before丁nitiative-502 was passed (UBT Numbel●:
603 104 854). It was located at 12409 Renton Ave S, Seattle, Washington 98178. During the entire time of our
business operations, from Apri= 3, 20 1 1 - June 20, 20 1 6工IFETR髄ope重・ated honorably and inside ofthe
legal framework of血itiative置692/ the Medical Use o士’Marijuana Act・ We never had an issue, COmPlaint, Or
violation with law ellforcement, unincorporated Killg Co脚.ty; nOr any State agencies or agents.
On or al,Out July 201 5, L岬ETR髄「eceived the first ofseve重・al threatening letters from the Washington State
Liquor Cannabis Board (WSLCB) 0’.det・ing us to cIose LTFETREE・ The血al letter was '“eCeived the剛owing
year, arOund June l , 201 6. The letter read, “medical ma再uana outlets, also known as dispensaries, muSt be
licensedby July l , 2016 0r Wi‖ face closure by local authorities." The Iette一・ and its quote can be found on the
current wsLCB website. We later discovel.ed that the “Locai Authorities’’mentioned in the lettel. Were
un=censed, untrained WSLCB empIoyees, “agentS”, Parading as police o用cers. They wore WSLCB badges
and guns on theil. hips. On many occasions, We Wel・e Visited by tlle WSLCB agents at our L岬E丁R班
dispensary and verba11y told to that we must cIose our business dool.S by July l, 2016.
Upon receiving the final cease-and-desis=etter on or al・O皿d June 20, 201 6 we temporarily cIosed our
collective garden他spensary known as LIFETREE under fear of being removed by armed forces, reSulting in
our bankruptcy by the WSLCB and its agents. According to RCW 18. 1 18.020 we are grandfathered in. Thus’
the forced cIosu・e WaS u互ust.
血April of2020, I was approached by a cormu正ty leader’Nate Miles’Via a family referral. rmng the phone
conversation with Miles, he told me he could help me to get our license back as he was working cIosely with
Ollie Garrett of血e LCB (Previously WSLCB). T血e only catc血was I would have to split the license with their
family members.
Mon血s later the deal was off. We were told that there were too many hands in the pot and it woul血,t be woIth
it for Ollie Garrett and Nate Miles to proceed with us.
My business partner, Ben Shelton, and I created a viable business by li統ng ouselves up by our own
bootstraps, With help and resources from our family, Only to have the oppo心血dy taken away wi血the sfroke
ofa pen & h狐ded over to our more “a捌uent” couutapaJrtS. We would still be operating today had we not
been upjustly forced out of business.
Everything represented in也e online Notice posted by Christopher K上ng’J.D・ i§ aCCurate and調e and I
encourage也e NAACP to engage血e NAACP Legal Fund to investigate and to help fund or manage litigation.
h嘩‥//wⅥ′Ⅴ立SCr]bd,…ll /docmlCll埴451 1 0+68/′’Kc¥′i世上Cl10冊で1d帝人∧CP-しo-Jav-TnslじC-WSLCB患et-al置O陣
笠型1となbうs-胃叩i捜
I hereby state, a縦m, and declare血e fo11owing to be血ueブCOrreCt, nOt misleadingブand not intended or
Pl・eSented for misl・ePreSented;coIored’, Ol. improper use o一・ PurPOSe.
On this /∂詔珂__座必定2。21
All Rights
DEBRA J STIKA
認諾溜醤00
NOTARY PJBLIC #203731
釣融鵬稔範o調喧迎蓮華 STATE OF WASHINGTON
のけI eゝ Sんe姐へ CO酬刷SSION EXPIRES
NOVEMBER l, 2022
鬼¥J、__
From: Gerald Hankerson <gerhank9@gmail.com>
To: James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021, 05:48:22 PM PDT
Subject: Re: kevin s./ info on the liquor board
Thanks Bro. See attached
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:00 PM James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hey G. this is Kevin I'm one of the founding fathers of black cannabis in Wa State, we spoke a couple
days ago (I'm Aaron Bosset's friend).
Below is a letter I wrote to the LCB in 2020, I was approached in April 2020 by some well known
''Community leaders'' who told me they could help me get my cannabis license back because they
were working with members of the LCB & that I would have to split the licenses with their family
members. I hope this is a good starting point to expose these crooks & I DO have evidence & a paper
trail but I'm working with Attorney Michael Reid (206) 973-6640 / michaelreidsf@yahoo.com if you
need further info.
From: James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com>

Subject: Fw: letter to Ollie Garrett
Date: Dec 7, 2021 at 12:57 PM
To: "kingcast955@icloud.com" <kingcast955@icloud.com>
Here is the letter that we were instructed to send to Ollie Garrett by Chris,Nate & Thomas (my father in law)
From: James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com>

To: nate_miles@lilly.com <nate_miles@lilly.com>; natemilesama@aol.com <natemilesama@aol.com>; MILES_
NATHANIEL_R@LILLY.COM <MILES_NATHANIEL_R@LILLY.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020, 09:29:04 PM PDT
Subject: letter to Ollie Garrett
Hello Nate,
This is Kevin Shelton. I'm Thomas Williams' son in law. I'm not sure if you remember me but we spoke several
years ago about a sales position at Eli Lilly. I was unqualified for that position due to my lack of a college degree,
so I decided to venture into my own business after our conversations.
Fast forward to now, my brother Ben Shelton and I are the ones that Thomas has been speaking to you about
concerning the cannabis business that we were forced out of.
I've attached the letter to Ollie Garrett. I'll mail her a copy of the letter tomorrow.
Thank You for your time and attention Nate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Kevin Shelton
206.313.6586
Washington State Liquor Cannabis Board
1025 Union Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504
360.664.1713
Dear Ms. Garrett:
I am writing to you on behalf of myself and fellow business partner concerning the forced
closure of our cannabis collective garden, LIFETREE INC, by Washington State Liquor
Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and asking that the WSLCB restore our right to do business in the
retail cannabis industry.
On April 13, 201l, I, Ben Shelton III and my business partner James Kevin Shelton formed our cannabis
collective garden; LIFETREE INC, (before Initiative-502 was passed). UBI Number: 603 104 854. It was
located at 12409 Renton Ave S, Seattle, Washington 98178. During the entire time of our business
operations, from April 13, 2011 – June 20, 2016, LIFETREE operated honorably; inside of the legal
framework of Initiative-692/ the Medical Use of Marijuana Act. We never had an issue, complaint, or
violation with law enforcement, unincorporated King County, nor any State agencies or agents.
On or about July 2015, LIFETREE received the first of several threatening letters from the Washington
State Liquor Cannabis Board (WSLCB) ordering us to close LIFETREE. The final letter was received the
following year, around June 1, 2016. The letter read, “medical marijuana outlets, also known as
dispensaries, must be licensed by July 1, 2016 or will face closure by local authorities.” The letter and its
quote can be found on the current WSLCB website.
Upon receiving a cease and desist letter on or around June 20, 2016 we temporarily closed our collective
garden/dispensary known as LIFETREE under fear of being removed by armed forces, resulting in our
bankruptcy by the WSLCB and its agents. According to RCW 18.118.020 we are grandfathered in. Thus,
the forced closure was unjust.
My business partner and I created a viable business by lifting ourselves up by our own bootstraps, with
help and resources from our family, only to have the opportunity taken away with the stroke of a pen &
handed over to our more “affluent” counterparts. Therefore, I ask that WSLCB restore five years’ worth
of hard work and resources that was taken from us, by granting us three retail cannabis licenses in the
King County area where we would still be operating today had we not been unjustly forced out of
business.
I’m not asking for an opportunity, only asking that WSLCB restore to us the opportunity which we
created for ourselves prior to the formation of your cannabis board.
Kind regards,
Ben Shelton
bshelton500@hotmail.com
206.683.0508
NAACP
Alaska Oregon Washington State Area Conference
September 13, 2021
Dear Governor Jay Inslee, WA State Legislature and applicable State agencies and entities:
It has been 9 years since the voters passed Initiative 502, legalizing cannabis in WA. State. Since then, the
War on Drug policies has shifted from locking up our community to locking us out of the industry’s
economic opportunities.
For nearly 70 years, African-Americans were targeted, arrested and convicted at alarming rates, and
labeled criminals for selling dime bags on street corners in WA State. Today, on that same street corner,
privileged entrepreneurs are allowed to legally sell pounds for profit as long as the State get its cut, while
further suppressing the very communities previously targeted by War on Drug policies that led to mass
incarceration Currently there are 560 retail licenses allotted in WA state, but less than 5 is awarded to
African-American. In 2020, Washington State Cannabis Industry generated $8 billion in revenue, earning
$2 billion for WA State general fund.
In 2020, Washington State enacted E2SHB 2870, allowing the issuance of marijuana retail licenses under
a social equity program. In its policy, not one mention of racial equity nor its intent to make equal the
disproportionate impact its drug policies have on African-Americans. Instead, it assembles State agencies
to help facilitate gate-keeping policies designed to benefit the industry, not the people.
As the nation’s oldest Civil Rights organization, the NAACP is well-versed on racial inequity, and its
impact on communities, as well as economic oppression driven by institutions & industries that benefit &
profit off the backs of our people. In 2011, African –Americans made up 4.4% of state population, but
18% prison population. Now that cannabis is legal in Washington State, for the State to enact strategic
policies that further restricts our community from equal economic opportunities is egregious and
underscores the systemic racial inequities that continue to exist in many of our state-wide economic
policies.
Therefore, we’re calling on Governor Inslee, the State Legislature and all state agencies to develop and
implement anti-racist policies to allow equal economic opportunities for African-Americans and
communities of color. Meanwhile, the NAACP will remain diligent and disrupt all state-wide efforts that
continue to disenfranchise our community from the economic benefits of the cannabis industry. We can
no longer wait, nor anticipate true equity from restrictive cannabis policies built on institutional racism
and white supremacy laws. We are done begging for what we have earned, and deserve!
In sincerity,
Gerald Hankerson, President NAACP

Washington, Oregon & Alaska
http://www.naacpaowsac.org
PO BOX 12686, SALEM, OR 97309 • PRESIDENT@NAACPAOWSAC.ORG • PRESIDENT GERALD HANKERSON

1
2 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3 CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D. )
A/K/A KINGCAST,
4
and )
5 JOHN NOVAK,
7 vs.
)
8 LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD OF THE STATE
9 CHAIR OF LCB AND RICK GARZA, DIRECTOR OF LCB,
In their Individual and Official Capacities, ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
10
Defendants. )
11
12 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT1
13

14 NOW COME THE PLAINTIFFS to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as
15 follows. The key factor here is that the State has not and cannot demonstrate that it is primarily a
16 law enforcement agency yet Jay Inslee and AG Robert Ferguson lie in order to get money from
17 Federal programs; nor may it demonstrate that it has law enforcement authority with respect to
18 cannabis, nor may it deny that its policies have materially interfered with the relationship between
19
Plaintiff Novak and his attending physician. This is just like a zoning case that turns on State Law
20
initially but involves Arbitrary and Capricious application and interpretation of same, providing for
21
Federal Jurisdiction pursuant to 42 USC §1983.
22
Also, as to Plaintiff Hall, Defendants prattle on about how she is not yet a Plaintiff officially. It
23
is perfectly logical that she be a Plaintiff and Plaintiffs sought Joinder on her some time ago and
24
there are grounds for Public Injunctions against the Constitutional violations occasioned by her, Levi
25
Lyon and others as noted herein, pursuant to well-established Ninth Circuit Law.
26
27
1
Plaintiffs again assert that the State entity of WSLCB was wrongly removed from this case by prior ORDER of the
28 Court.
30 1
31
1 I. Analysis of Forfeiture Asset Programs Vests Federal Jurisdiction.
2 Plaintiffs will not attempt to remove the cloud of obfuscation that the Defendants have
3 attempted to place over this case: Right off the bat Plaintiffs cited to a specific Federal program that
WSLCB, by and through the Defendants, is engaged in. See below. Contrary to the implication of
4
Defense Counsel at our preliminary conference a month ago, there is indeed relevant indicia that
5
WSLCB is involved in the Federal Asset Equitable Sharing Program involving cannabis even though
6 they themselves (and the State Patrol and others) have stated that WSLCB is not primarily a Law
7 Enforcement Agency. From Plaintiffs’ FAC:
48. In spite of these clear-cut facts, the LCB engaged in, and continues to engage in an
8
unlawful arrangement in the Asset Forfeiture Program, a Federal program that
9
requires that all participating State Agencies be primarily law enforcement agencies:
10
11 II. Which Non-Federal Agencies Are Eligible to Participate in the Equitable Sharing
Program?
12

13
14 A. State, Local, or Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies
15 Any state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency that is a participant in the Program
and directly participates in an investigation or prosecution resulting in a federal
16 forfeiture may request an equitable share of the net proceeds of the forfeiture. In
order for a state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency to receive shared funds, the
17 agency must be compliant with the Program guidelines and reporting requirements.
For purposes of equitable sharing, a law enforcement agency is defined as a state,
18 local, or tribal government organization authorized to engage as its primary function
in the investigation and apprehension, or the prosecution of individuals suspected or
19
convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States or of any state,
20 county, municipality, or territory of the United States. Furthermore, a law
enforcement agency is primarily composed of or employs individuals designated or
21 qualified under state statutes as peace officers or those who are authorized to
prosecute criminal violations or to exercise police powers such as making arrests,
22 seizing property, executing warrants and court orders, and carrying firearms.

23 Defendant Inslee (and State Attorney General Bob Ferguson) assists in this endeavor with
24 actual knowledge of its material illegality. This must Cease and Desist immediately because the State
Patrol thumbnail below clearly reads that LCB is “a non-criminal justice agency.”2
25
26
2 Defendant Ferguson is not a named Defendant in this case but perhaps he should be. Defendants have not moved to have him
27 named as a Necessary Party but as more Discovery is obtained a final Amended Complaint will be requested. This is also true
with respect to Defendant WSLCB. Also how on Earth could the LCB have a “primary” criminal function when as we see below
28 Justin Nordhorn admits that it employs no Certified Peace Officers?
30 2
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Defense Counsel indicated that Plaintiffs have no proof of Federal Cannabis interplay, citing
10
to a different MOU with the ATF. That Memo is not even necessary to prove Plaintiffs’ point as
11
sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and as the Court reads this section there is plenty of
12 indicia of Federal involvement including a $192,000.00 Award for a Public Records violation for
13 secret meetings with Federal entities! Let us begin our inquiry with a general note from the
Institute for Justice up through 2013: https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-washington/
14
“Policing for Profit” The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture 2nd Edition, noting, inter alia:
15
Washington earns a D- for its civil forfeiture laws:
16
• Low bar to forfeit and no conviction required
17
• Poor protections for innocent third-party property owners
18 • 90% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement
19
State Forfeiture Laws
20 Washington’s civil forfeiture laws are among the nation’s worst, earning a D-. State law only
requires the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that property is associated
21 with criminal activity in order to forfeit it. Furthermore, innocent owners bear the burden of
demonstrating that they had nothing to do with the criminal activity associated with their property
22 in order to recover it. Washington law enforcement agencies retain 90 percent of forfeiture
23 proceeds—a considerable incentive to police for profit.
24 Meanwhile, Crosscut brings things into focus with an excellent exposé discussing the matter just a
25
few scant months ago, in July of this year:
26

27
28 The strange, failed fight to rein in civil forfeiture in Washington
30 3
31
1 Washington police sell or use millions of dollars’ worth of seized property each year.
Legislators haven’t managed to change the rules.
2
by Eric Scigliano
3 July 13, 2021
https://crosscut.com/news/2021/07/strange-failed-fight-rein-civil-forfeiture-washington
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
See the nice pretty Tier 3 indoor grow in the lower right hand corner? Odds are pretty high that
20 WSLCB had a hand in that bust, and many others as well, precipitating Discovery in order to flush it
21 all out. Furthermore Plaintiffs have directly referenced the Levi Lyon case, in which LCB Agents had
fast-tracked the Seattle Hempfest Entertainment Director’s RV’s for Forfeiture until Plaintiff King
22
and a handful of others came along and halted that process and turned their research over to his
23
licensed Attorneys who earned a Dismissal. In a blog entry Plaintiff King cited to the DEA’s own
24 documents regarding the Marijuana Eradication Program showing that Washington was responsible
25 for 48% of the Country’s $52M in Seizure proceeds as noted in the thumbnail below:

26
27
28
30 4
31
1
2
3
4
5
This means that a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss must fail of course because Plaintiffs are reasonably
6
entitled to full Discovery on this, and it is a Federal Issue involving a Federal program. In point of
7
fact, if Remanded the State Court would have no Jurisdiction to assess such Federal programs.3
8 Further, Discovery will take some time and Plaintiff’s have long since asked the DEA for related
9 information but it has taken months to obtain nothing. Perhaps once the Motion to Dismiss is
denied and Plaintiffs get some Subpoenas and other Third Party Discovery in motion this
10
issue may be fully exfoliated but at a PLEADINGS STAGE the matter is hardly ripe for
11
dismissal as there is a serious material fact question at issue.
12 Note that all of this fits neatly with the former Fish and Game and Cannabis/Hemp Expert
13 Witness Frank Giese stating that I-502 legalization was strictly a cash-cow for the State after the sale
of its liquor stores and WAMU/financial Mortgage Crisis fallout as submitted in his sworn
14
Declaration as filed with Plaintiffs’ FAC and attached yet again as (Appendix A). As noted in
15
Plaintiffs’ pending Rule 201 Motion:
16 1. First and foremost I know from direct experience that the State needed a cash cow as a
result of the impact of the 2008 financial crisis and selling off the State Liquor Stores,
17
which terminated a revenue stream;
18 2. In my experience and belief, I-502 was created primarily because of that purpose and for
no true altruistic purpose;
19 40. I am well aware that no LCB Agents have true Police powers on any level. This I knew
prior to meeting or speaking with either Plaintiff, who in point of fact showed me a letter
20 from the CJTC informing Agent Robbie Satterly that he was not a Certified Peace Officer
after his supplemental BLEA training;4,5
21

22
23
3 Plaintiffs were all present at the zoom conference with Opposing Counsel when Plaintiff King expressly made this point to said
24 Counsel.
25 2
I find it odd and likely discriminatory that two of Agent Jung’s peers – white men – requested and obtained such
supplemental training but Agent Jung – an Asian – did not. (From the Giese Declaration).
26
27 5 Plaintiff as of 7:48pm, 1 November 2021 Plaintiff king just completed a phone call with Mr. Giese who will clarify his statement
at para. 40 to mean “no police powers at any level in Cannabis.” WSLCB’s police authority on Liquor is debatable in some
28 measure as well but that is not truly before us today.
30 5
31
1 While we are not yet at a Summary Judgment posture – a fact that must remail clear – the
2 heretofore uncontroverted analysis of a someone who clearly qualifies as an Expert Witness

3 must carry substantial weight at this point per Farrakhan v. Gregoire, 623 F.3d 990(2010):
4
5 Likewise, Rule 56.1(b) of the Local Rules of the East- ern District of Washington (“Local
Rule”) provides that “[a]ny party opposing a motion for summary judgment must file with its
6 responsive memorandum a statement . . . setting forth the specific facts which the opposing
party asserts establishes a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
7 Each fact must explicitly identify any fact(s) asserted by the moving party which the
opposing party disputes or clarifies.” If the moving party’s statement of facts are not
8 controverted in this manner, “the Court may assume that the facts as claimed by the moving
party are admitted to exist without controversy.” Local Rule 56.1(d); see also Beard, 548 U.S.
9 at 527.
10
[11] Here, Defendants failed specifically to challenge the facts identified in Plaintiffs’
11 statement of undisputed facts as required by the rules. Defendants did, in their Supplemental
Statement of Material Facts, raise some questions about Plain- tiffs’ expert’s reports, but
12 those questions were not supported by affidavit or counter-experts. Moreover, none of the
questions raised by Defendants in their Supplemental Statement contradicts, or even
13 suggests that there is some dispute about the ultimate conclusions of Plaintiffs’ experts’
reports. Therefore, “by failing specifically to challenge the facts identified in [Plaintiffs’]
14 statement of undisputed facts, [Defendants are] deemed to have admitted the validity of the
facts contained in the [Plaintiffs’] statement.” Beard, 548 U.S. at 527.
15
Plaintiffs remind Defendants and the Court that at this point we are not yet even at a
16
Summary Judgment posture yet Plaintiffs have gone well beyond their required initial burden to use
17
a long-term State staffer and Cannabis/Hemp Expert Geneticist in their filings while Defendants
18 cannot counter same. Farrakhan then, dictates the outcome immediately on this key issue: Remand
19 is DENIED and any pendant State issues continue on pursuant to Erie. It should probably be noted
here that the Federal entities were often at LCB implementing Federal Policy on Cannabis. From the
20
Jung Deposition:
21
22
Q. Have you ever seen the LCB coordinate cases with the
23 federal authorities?
A. Yeah.
24 Q. Okay. Would they -- and how often does this happen?
Well, never -- strike that. So when the agents came down to
25
work with you all on these cases, was it your belief that
26 they were working to implement federal policy? They weren't
there for high tea and crumpets, were they?
27
28
30 6
31
1 A. When you say agents, are you referring to the federal
or the state agents federal?
2 Q. Just federal, yeah.
3
A. No. I believe they came down. Obviously, it had
4 some federal implications to the cases they were
working on. Otherwise, they would not be with us.6
5
6 Also as noted in Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Rule 201 judicial Notice is the fact that Defendant
7 Inslee and his Attorney Robert Ferguson are developing a pattern of willful disregard for clear Black
8 Letter Law as witnessed in Fisheries Engineers v. Washington, Inslee, Ferguson et al, 18-2-045658-34.
9
(Appendix B).
10
Plaintiffs have clearly claimed that the Defendants in this case, including Defendant Inslee,
11 conspired to knowingly fabricate a false notion that WSLCB is a Law Enforcement Agency in order to
12 participate in a Federal Program, as noted at SAC para 48, supra.
13 With such in mind let us turn now to Fisheries Engineers v. Washington, Inslee, Ferguson et al,
18-2-045658-34, a case that demonstrates the State Governor and AG propensity and cavalier
14
attitude towards this exact same sort of arbitrary and capricious misconduct that they engage in to
15 illegally exert control and influence in ultra vires manner. In Fisheries the Court clearly ruled, inter
16 alia:
17 11. The Court finds that at one point both the Board and Attorney General properly interpreted
the Act.
18
12. The Court finds that the Board’s and Attorney General’s current adopted interpretation and
19 enforcement policy violates the Act.
20 13. The Court further finds that Respondent State of Washington has violated the Act by
21 Advertising and providing Engineer titles to its employees who are not duly licensed under
the Act.
22
Further, along the line the Court found not in dicta but in a specific ruling that their actions
23
were “unlawful and inconsistent with the Plain Text of the Act,” and “Judgment for Injunctive Relief
24 is hereby entered against the State of Washington, enjoining the State from allowing its employees
25 to use the title “Engineer” in a manner that violates the Act’s requirements as set forth herein.”
26
6 In a prior Dismissal Order the Court stated that Plaintiffs’ Rule 41 Dismissal of Federal Defendants militated in favor of
27 Remand. Plaintiffs pointed out however that the only reason for the Dismissal was because of attrition: Contrary to instruction
given to Plaintiffs regarding COVID Service of Process the Federal entities William Barr and the Office of National Drug Contol
28 Policy (ONDCP) failed to respond.
30 7
31
1 There is no such thing in their scheme as a “Forest Practices Engineer” just as there is no
2 such thing as an LCB Agent with Criminal Jurisdiction. And surely enough, the Board of Registration
for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors initially made the same error that this Court is making,
3
noting lack of evidence of any violation of the PERA and stated it would only pursue investigations
4
when an unregistered person was using the titles “professional engineer,” “structural engineer,” or
5 “professional land surveyor.” As it turns out in both cases there are plenty of actual violations as
6 noted in Plaintiffs’ FAC and in Section III, infra.

Lastly there is this information that Plaintiffs obtained in late June, 2021:
7
From: OFM mi Public Disclosure
8 Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 3:45 PM
To: John Novak
9 Subject: FW: Public records request

10 Good afternoon Mr. Novak.

11 Here is the link for you to be able to retrieve the emails for the public records request below.
12
https://ofmwagov.box.com/s/mgamoghvb8lgr3qmpp7v33gs6plrcdqu
13
This request is now complete. Thank you for your patience.
14
Tina Lymath
15 Public Records Officer
Office of Financial Management
16 PO Box 43113
17 tina.lymath@ofm.wa.gov
360-870-8731
18
And this is what is specifically stated:
19
20 “The governing body head is individual within the city, county, or state who approves the
agency’s budget such as the Mayor, City Manager, Governor, or County Commissioner. The
21 agency head is the head of the law enforcement agency such as Police Chief, Sheriff, or
District Attorney. Please provide an explanation if there are temporary extenuating
22 circumstance for this. If you have determined that one or both ESAC approvers is incorrect,
please advise so that I can send an amendment request for your ESAC to be
23 updated. Additional examples of agency and governing body heads are provided on the
Affidavit for the ESAC.”
24
25 Note that the cited examples of law enforcement only includes peace officer agencies (Police
Chief, Sheriff, or District Attorney and their prosecutor/DA). Once again Defendant Garza’s wife’s
26
email is included in the thread, and she is a special liaison in the Office of Financial Management in
27 one of many cozy relationships the LCB and its cronies have as noted by the aforementioned
28 Government Accountability institute (GAI) in its article on “Cannabis Cronyism” attached to
30 8
31
1 Plaintiffs’ FAC and again herein at (Appendix C) for the prospect that the LCB is indeed acting in an
2 Arbitrary and Capricious manner with regard to Cannabis:

Just weeks later, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), a nonprofit that represents
3 Washington’s cities and towns, met behind closed doors with the LCB and many other
“partners,” including the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC), the Washington
4
Association of Sheriffs & Policy Chiefs, and several other agencies that were receiving federal
5 grant money.348

6 Two state residents, John Worthington and Arthur West, took the LCB to court in separate
filings over breaking open meeting laws, specifically citing the board’s meetings with AWC in
7
2013.349
8 The three-member LCB board had traveled around Washington to hold public hearings, but
would use the trips to meet privately with “local police, officials and prevention groups.
9 $192,000 to settle the West suit in late 2014.352

10 Plaintiffs – and presumably the Court – stand at a loss as to how this conduct involving
11 cannabis (and Federal Grant Monies) is not indeed “Arbitrary and Capricious” thus meeting
12 the Rule 56 threshold much less a Rule 12 threshold. Once again a picture tells a thousand
13 stories when we see below the LCB having secret meetings with U.S. Border Patrol, U.S.
Marshals, the U.S. Secret Service, and the DEA --- who again still sits on Plaintiffs’ FOIA
14
requests as to where all of that $25M 2018 seizure proceeds went.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 s
27
28
30 9
31
1 This sentiment is echoed by the ten (10) State Representatives whose summation of LCB
2 actions supports a finding of Arbitrary and Capricious conduct, when Counsel for LCB acknowledged
in our conference a month ago that Arbitrary and Capricious conduct can and does provide for a
3
Substantive and/or Procedural Due Process violation as noted in Section II, supra. And even those
4
Statespeople know that LCB is not a Primary Crime Enforcement Agency (and therefore not eligible
5 to participate in the Federal Asset Forfeiture Program as contemplated by their angry February
6 2013 2019 letter as filed with Plaintiffs’ FAC and as (Appendix D) herein.
We are united in our belief that you must hold the leaders at the top of the LCB accountable.
7 Rejection of the toxic culture at LCB should start with not reappointing Mr. Hauge. As the
industry evolves, we do better as we know better. Here is an instance where we definitely know
8 we can do better. The LCB has cultivated a culture of enforcement that centers around violations
9 and license removals as if it was a full jurisdiction law enforcement agency closing down drug
cartels. The LCB itself describes its values as, “Respect and courtesy, Professionalism, Open
10 communication, Accountability and integrity, Continuous improvement, meaningful results and
Customer focus,” and we are asking you to please hold them to these principles before the LCB’s
11 enforcement culture undermines the industry so many have worked so long and hard to build.
(emphasis added).
12
In any event it appears that Defendant Inslee signed off on it even though he knows full well
13
that Defendant LCB DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA and Washington AG Ferguson cannot bootstrap
14 LCB into the effective arena by relying on his position as a Statewide General AG. The noncompliant
15 status referred to in prior filling Supplement no. 4 was unlawfully circumvented in order for the
State of Washington to continue to line its coffers while suppressing individual rights. This is also a
16
violation of International Law, to wit the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
17
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
18 (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have
an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
19 official capacity;
20 (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by
competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority
21 provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
22 (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
23
24
25
26
27
28
30 10
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9
10 In contrast the City of Burien PD does meet the requirement and we can see that by the
11 attached (at Appendix E) – a real and true primary police agency. Just to be clear – again – Plaintiffs
pointed out the Defendant Agency’s Constitutional shortcomings above and in their FAC with LCB
12
Public Affairs Director Brian Smith, WSP and State Public Safety Director Roger Goodman, as noted
13 in the uncontroverted Sworn Testimony of LCB Agent and Whistleblower John Jung in his
14 Deposition, filed with Plaintiffs’ FAC and again herein where Goodman aborted the lunch after he
15 admitted that HB 1626 was yet another attempt to gain criminal cannabis authority
Mr. Jung of course reiterated the breakfast meeting recollection of Plaintiff Novak in his
16
Deposition at pp. 29-30: (Appendix I)
17
18
A. Mr. Novak, myself and Mr. Goodman.
19
Q. And where was it if you remember?
20
A. It was -- it was -- it was in Kirkland at a restaurant.
21
Q. That's good enough. Based -- what was the subject of
22
your conversation?
23
A. It was just an overall to discuss about the lack of
24 proper authority of LCB, and again this was just a
casual meeting for me to engage in a conversation to
25 make things right in terms of legal authority.
And that's when I found out -- Mr. Goodman said
26
that, oh, you know, the liquor board's trying to seek the
27 same legal criminal investigation authority in marijuana,
vape and tobacco.
28
30 11
31
1 A. And at that point I had no idea that we did not have that
authority, and Roger Goodman quickly finished up his
2 breakfast and left the premises using the backdoor. And I
ended up paying for his meal, and I -- to this day, I have
3
that receipt to prove that he was there.
4
Q. Wow, huh.
5
A. And he told me that he wanted to work to, you know,
6 fix this, so what I did was -- he provided or he asked me to
draft up an email, which I followed up next day to him and
7 his assistant and to the state. I haven't heard anything.7
8

9 II. This Case is no Different Than an Arbitrary and Capricious Zoning Matter, Predicating
Federal Jurisdiction Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
10
Counsel for Defendants conceded one month ago that Arbitrary and Capricious malfeasance
11
provides a sustainable Cause of Action under 42 USC §1983. See the zoning cases of Robinson v.
12 Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 (1992) 830 P.2d 318; Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 712-713, 934
13 P.2d 1179 (1997) a case that Plaintiff King noted during the Jung Deposition that will soon appear
on YouTube as well, however with the actual zoom recording as opposed to this Facebook live
14
download: https://www.facebook.com/KingCast/videos/10219477798675212
15

16
Also there is an Eighth Circuit case of Tri-County Landfill v. Brule County, SD (2000 SD 148)
17
[¶11.] Under a 42 USC § 1983 cause of action, a party may recover damages for the
18 “‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of
the United States caused by any person acting ‘under color of any statute, ordinance,
19 regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.’” See Michigan Envtl. Resources
Assocs., Inc. v. County of Macomb, 669 F.Supp 158, 159 (EDMich 1987) (quotation omitted).
20 In a § 1983 action, plaintiff must prove two elements. Id. First, a plaintiff must prove “that
the defendant acted under color of state law.” Id. Second, the plaintiff must prove that “the
21
defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, either statutory or constitutional.” Id.
22 (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635, 100 SCt 1920, 64 LEd2d 572 (1980)). The parties do
not dispute that County’s conduct was under “color of state law”; therefore, the first element
23 of a § 1983 cause of action is clearly satisfied. As such, the crux of our review focuses on
whether Landfill was deprived of any “statutory or constitutional right.”
24
[¶12.] Landfill originally alleged in its complaint in this case that “revocation by [County]
25 was without prior notice to the [Landfill] and was arbitrary, capricious, willful, malicious,
and an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, due process and denied the
26
27 7 That letter of course has now been provided to the Court – it is the one that was produced just hours AFTER the Jung
Deposition when LCB knew the scheduled time of the Jung Deposition. Can we connect the dots to spell GAMESMANSHIP
28 on this? Plaintiffs respectfully submit such is the case.
30 12
31
1 [Landfill] equal protection under both the South Dakota and United States Constitutions and
is actionable under [42] USC 1983 and 1985.”
2
The Court went on to elaborate on whether the standard is “arbitrary and capricious,” “a
3
shock of the conscience” or “completely irrational.” Plaintiffs contend that whether it be “arbitrary
4
5 and capricious” or “a shock of the conscience” or “completely irrational” Plaintiffs have more than
6 clearly met their burden to move forward not only at a 12(b)(1) level but also at a 12(b)(6) and Rule
7 56 level as well when that time comes around.
8 As in any zoning matter and “aggrieved party” i.e. Ms. Cynjo Hall at a minimum has Standing
9 to raise Federal concerns in Federal Court from Tri Country Landfill at 763:
10 The concept of an "aggrieved party" is not new to this Court ... the first in-depth analysis of
"aggrieved party" regarding a test for standing was made by this Court in an appeal from a
11 board of county commissioners' decision. Barnum v. Ewing, 53 S.D. 47, 220 N.W. 135 (1928).
12 In Barnum we set forth the following test: "[W]e think [`any person aggrieved'] can only
include such persons when they are able affirmatively to show that they are `aggrieved' in
13 the sense that [...] they suffer the denial of some claim of right either of person or property...."
Id. at 53, 220 N.W. at 138.
14
15 In its analysis of whether the conduct of State Actors provides the basis for a Federal
claim the 9th Circuit ruled that the Court is to apply the law as the State High Court would apply
16
it. Edgerly v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 713 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2013).
17 Moreoever when a Federal Court can clearly see that there are other attendant violations
18 of Law for like classes of people and for others (i.e. people such as Levi Lyon and situations such
19 as the failed hot pursuit case witnessed by Agent Stitt) it has inherent authority to issue Public
Prospective Injunctive relief as well. See Hodges v. Comcast (No. 19-16483) 9th Cir. June 1, 2020
20
citing McGill v. Citibank (2 Cal.5th 945)(2017).
21 It must be noted that Plaintiffs have also shown on prior occasion that in addition to a lack of
22 criminal authority, LCB cannot even demonstrate that any of its Agents have completed the required
23 six month training to hold Peace Officer positions as required by WAC 139-05-200.
Yet and still the Agents carry badges around that say the word “Police” on them when
24
working on Liquor as well as Cannabis cases. Police of what, exactly? That word and that badge
25
connote something that LCB Agents are not, particularly when it comes to cannabis.
26
27
28
30 13
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Plaintiffs resolutely state that LCB certainly is not the Police of them: Recall the three (3)
13 distinct scenarios presented by Plaintiffs in their FAC, one of which involved a hot pursuit of a drug
suspect in which the local Licensed Peace Officer Agency – A/K/A the real Police – declined to take
14
action because of this very issue as noted by former Agent and eyeball witness David Stitt. He will
15
swear to it later for Rule 56 proceedings but again at this PLEADINGS STAGE Plaintiffs have met the
16 burden.
17 Given the multiple attempts to obtain Cannabis Criminal Authority detailed here and in the
Plaintiffs’ FAC and testimony of LCB Officials in public proceedings it is patently clear that they know
18
they lacked authority and that takes this case beyond the mere notion that it turns on analysis of
19
State Law: No. The State Law was and is clear – there was no authority. Plaintiffs provided the
20 preceding case law in Supplemental Pleadings that were not reflected in the Court’s Decision, but
21 now that they are squarely before the Court in this specific Memorandum a different result must
follow.
22

23

24
25
26
III. California and the WSLCB’S Justin Nordhorn and Washington Safety Director Roger
27 Goodman Acknowledge the Deficiency as Well.
28
30 14
31
1 i. California.
2
California cannabis regulator requests staffing help for enforcement
3
Published June 2, 2020
4
The California Bureau of Cannabis Control, which oversees all sectors of the legal marijuana industry
5 in the state except for cultivators and manufacturers, has requested more funding to greatly
expand its enforcement capabilities.
6
According to the Sacramento Bee, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) put forth a budget request
7
to state lawmakers for an 87-member police force to ensure operators are properly following
8 regulations.

9 If the funding request is approved, the pivot would allow the BCC to absorb 58 positions from the
Department of Consumer Affairs’ Cannabis Enforcement Unit and hire another 29 sworn peace
10 officers. The BCC anticipates having to deal with roughly 2,000 cases each year, the Bee reported,
and the agency currently has a lengthy backlog of investigations.
11
In addition, many of the investigators currently on staff at the BCC are not sworn peace officers, so
12 they are unable to arrest lawbreaking individuals, write search warrants, access criminal databases
or perform similar key functions in investigations.
13
That’s left many of the BCC’s investigations into alleged industry violations either neutered or on
14 hold until officers of some other law enforcement agency can assist, a loophole the budget request
15 aims to fix.
https://mjbizdaily.com/california-cannabis-regulator-requests-staffing-help-for-enforcement/?cn-
16 reloaded=1

17 For Defendants’ edification:
18 “In addition, many of the investigators currently on staff at the BCC are not sworn peace officers,
so they are unable to arrest lawbreaking individuals, write search warrants, access criminal
19
databases or perform similar key functions in investigations.”8
20
21
22
23
8 That is precisely Plaintiff’s Major Premise. But instead LCB actually allows just about anyone to draft
24 warrant affidavits, participate in criminal investigations of sorts and grants them access to the private criminal
database without being Certified Peace Officers. It is tantamount to a local police dept allowing its janitors
25 access to criminal database simply because they are employees of the Dept. Or it would be as if Plaintiff King
as a Law Enforcement Attorney as an AAG working on employment and post-conviction civil analysis matters
26 (which he was) usurped more authority and started conceal carrying a firearm and put on a badge proclaiming
himself a Cop when he was no such thing. Such governmental largesse is indeed a problem of serious
27 Constitutional import, simple and done. The only question is damages, declaratory judgment language and
prospective relief. You have to be a Cop…. To be a Cop.
28
30 15
31
1 ii. Cynjo Raylene Hall.
2 For the Court’s edification this is precisely why Plaintiff Cynjo Raylene Hall’s criminal “case”
brought by Agent John Jung, under the direct orders of Defendants, was dismissed. Recall from
3
Plaintiffs’ FAC that Plaintiff King and Ms. Hall had numerous zoom calls and sent emails of legal
4
analysis to her Public Defender, proximately and foreseeably resulting in dismissal of her case after
5 he agreed and sent the following email seen now as (Appendix F.)
6
Re: Cynjo Hall 18580A19D... “I’d just request dismissal; I think she made a mistake,
7 but it was a mistake that she got fired for and being fired was the appropriate
consequence for the mistake she made. You might also look at RCW 66.44.010: Local
8 officers to enforce law—Authority of board—Liquor enforcement officers. (wa.gov).
This statute is the subject of some house bills which update it to include language
9 indicating that enforcement of Cannabis rules is also within the jurisdiction of Liquor
and Cannabis enforcement officers, but as it currently exists it hasn’t been updated
10 such that they have authority to investigate and charge criminal issues, at least that’s
my reading. Initially I thought of this as more of a Knapsted motion, but now I think
11 it’s a 3.6 suppression issue since the search would have been illegal if they didn’t
12 have authority to investigate in the first place. It’s a narrow issue but I think it’s
there.”
13 **********
14 This message was sent from myself to the State’s representative in the matter on
15 8/17/2021.
16 The State Defendants in this case did it anyway. That is unlawful and it must stop. As noted
17 in yet another prior filing from Plaintiffs involving Justin Nordhorn and Roger Goodman:
18 HB 2394/SB 6130 (2014): to amend 43.101 RCW to require all current LEOs who had not
19 completed BLEA academy to "complete an equivalency course approved and conducted by the
20 criminal justice training commission," and "upon successful completion, those officers will be
granted their basic peace officers' certification as defined in RCW 43.101.010."
21
iii. WSLCB’s own Justin Nordhorn.
22
With such firmly in mind Plaintiff’s Direct the Court and Opposing Counsel to a precious set
23 of Hearing comments on this Bill on a State-hosted website from events that occurred in the
24 Ordinary Course of Business and are therefore Exempt from Hearsay considerations the last time
Plaintiffs checked the Law: None other than Roger Goodman – the man who ducked out on Plaintiff
25
Novak and Agent Jung calls it “The Main Event.”
26
https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2014011322&startStreamAt=4625
27 &autoStartStream=true
28
30 16
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
• At 1:23:00 Justin Nordhorn talks about the lack of BLEA training and how it hurts them in
16 the field (because they are not Certified Peace Officers of course) but yet the Agency refused
17 to send the Asian whistleblower John Jung to a real BLEA Course of training.9
18 • At 1:24:00 Nordhorn states that he wants to be able to partner up with local law
enforcement Agencies…. But yet and still despite not getting this authority… they… did it
19
anyway as Plaintiffs have shown for example in Thurston County, or in Levi Lyons’ case and
20 many others, writing Warrant Affidavits….. He expands on this at 1:25.
21 • At 1:43:00 Don Pierce with Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Association “Unnecessary and even
22 dangerous…” and “Bad Public Policy” on Certification and must be down-voted. “We’ve tried
to understand why this change is even needed.” They have authority for license compliance…
23
and that should be their focus. We can handle other matters with our task forces.”
24
• At 1:45:00 he is followed by Sue Rohr who states, inter alia, “It's our commitment to quality
25 control over our Police Officers. It's our Before they have authority take away someone's
26 liberty we have to know the Officer has been fully-trained to respect their Civil Rights....
27 9 They sent that white man Robbie Satterly though…. And it still didn’t go any good as noted for reasons previously-explained
and confirmed in the CJTC letter to Satterly before he took a powder and went to a General Authority Agency immediately when
28 Plaintiffs noticed him for Deposition.
30 17
31
1 • She then goes on to describe the exact scenario that Plaintiffs have noted with respect to
2 someone like Agent Satterly when LE come from other Jurisdictions vis a vis the
supplemental training that LCB offers its Agents. That training is of no moment when it
3
comes to establishing LCB Agents as LEOs.
4
• At 1:48:00 Nordhorn admits “none of our Agents are General Authority Peace Officers” but
5 then states that they are sworn to uphold the Constitution, etc. But of course none of that
6 matters because as Ms. Rohr pointed out they still have to be specifically-trained. They are
not. But yet they have clearly acted as if they are actual LEOs and they have done it Under
7
Color of Law and that is a Constitutional Violation, ipso facto. It cannot be any clearer than
8
this, and as such the Defendants’ 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss is specious on that measure
9 alone, and of course on many others as well.
10 • In addition to a subsequent lightning round at 1:50:00 Julia Gordon of the Restaurant
11 Association with 8,000 subjects under LCB review opposes the Bill because it changes the
focus of the agency into a criminal agency. (emphasis added).
12

13

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30 18
31
1 IV. Defendants Waived Jurisdiction by way of Perry Failing v. WSLCB 2:20-CV-26TOR (ED WA).
2 The Plaintiffs interpreted the Court’s Dismissal Order of September 8, 2021 to state that the
3 State entity of WSLCB could not be sued, however based on Perry Failing v. WSLCB 2:20-CV-26TOR
4
(ED WA), removed by Defendant WSLCB Jan 16, 2020, this is not true. Failing, just like Plaintiffs, filed
5
suit for Constitutional Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations by LCB Agents without authority to
6
do what they did and continue to do:
7
1.5 This is a civil action seeping damages against the above-listed defendants for committing
8 acts, under color of State law, which deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights secured
under the Constitution and Laws of the United States. Defendants acted arbitrarily and
9 capriciously in depriving plaintiff of his rights under the Constitution and Laws of the United
States.10
10
Plaintiffs claim exactly the same thing:
11
12 38. By and through Defendants Arbitrary and Capricious misconduct the LCB continues to
subject hundreds of people to unlawful law enforcement efforts, when such conduct of
13 course violates Substantive and Procedural Protections afforded by the United States
Constitution, i.e. Fourth and Fifth Amendments. To wit:
14
In immediate response to Failing’s lawsuit the State, by and through Counsel, wrote in its Removal:
15
4. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated
16 as a result of a search and seizure which he alleges was unlawful as well as possible
related state law claims. Id.
17
In Plaintiffs’ prior request for Judicial Notice that was not ruled on, Defendants claimed:
18
Because there is no direct relationship between Failing and this case, any issues in
19
Failing are irrelevant to the current controversy and judicial notice is improper. U.S.
20 ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council, 971 F.2d at 248.

21 With all due respect, exactly what part of Failing do the State Defendants not understand?
22 It is a live case proceeding right now in the Eastern District alleging ultra vires acts by WSLCB
23 actors that deprived Plaintiff of Constitutionally-protected rights and interests, i.e. Fourth and Fifth,
the same sort of protections of which Plaintiffs are noting in this litigation as stated above. And in
24
the face of those facts Defendants moved for Removal that was GRANTED and AFFIRMED whilst
25 Defending a case in which their “Officer” Agent was accused of exceeding the scope of his authority
26
27
10 Failing also cited to an improper Warrant just as Plaintiffs did with respect to Agent Satterly and the Levi Lyon case in which
28 Plaintiff King was instrumental in obtaining a Dismissal after referring that matter out to local licensed Counsel.
30 19
31
1 in an ultra vires fashion (including a Negligence Cause of Action) as specifically noted on Plaintiffs’
2 social media and Television and now (again) to this Honorable Court.11
Thus, there is absolutely no tortured construction of fact or Law that can be used to deny
3
Judicial Notice or Jurisdiction in this case, particularly in light of last week’s development in the
4
Engineers case that clearly show now a pattern and practice on the part of the State to create false
5 authority for financial gain, basically defrauding the United States Government. These issues,
6 particularly at a 12(b)(1) posture, must be interpreted in the light most favorable not to Defendants
– which is what the Court did previously – but rather to Plaintiffs.12
7
In defeating Plaintiff Perry’s attempt to Remand these same Defendants wrote:
8
9 C. Defendants Properly Removed This Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
10 The district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §
11 1331. The district courts also have original jurisdiction of any civil action to redress the
deprivation, under color of any State law, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the
12 U.S. Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants’ Notice of Removal expressly cited 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 as grounds for the removal. See Notice (Dkt. 2 at ⁋⁋ 4-6). These
13 statutes provide the proper grounds for removal given Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging
violations of his civil righs[sic] under the Fourth Amendment concerns federal questions. See
14
Complaint (Dkt. 3 at 4-16). (Appendix E).
15
Chief District Judge Rice spelled it out for us in denying Remand:
16
Defendants concede that the citation to the diversity statute was in error and note that the
17 correct citation was to the federal question statute which was also included in the Notice of
Removal. ECF No. 7 at 9-10. In turn, Plaintiff concedes that his Section 1983 claims properly
18 support federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 9 at 3. (Appendix G).13

19

20
21
22 11 Furthermore Plaintiffs anticipate filing a Successful Motion to Compel based on WSLCB’s abject RCW §42.56 failure to
retain email communications pursuant to Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015) as part of its over-arching
23 scheme. LCB is sending emails and promising these documents to Plaintiffs and we all know that they don’t really have
them even though there is technology available to them. Interestingly enough, this is exactly what Jenny Durkan is facing in
Seattle Times v. Durkan et al., 21-2-07268-9 SEA (2021). Plaintiffs will be sending relevant Federal Discovery Requests by
24 tomorrow, 5 October 2021 and in 30 days when they can’t produce the goods a Motion to Compel will be waiting for them.
And an Amendment to add the RCW §42.56 Claim in this Court. None of this, again, is Plaintiffs’ fault and we really don’t
25 appreciate being treated as if it is.
12 Plaintiff again retender their request for this Honorable Court to utilize its plenary and/or penumbral authority to call for a
26 Federal investigation as obviously three (3) mere Civilians lack the resources and authority to conduct such a criminal
investigation: Unlike Defendants, Plaintiffs recognize that they are not actually Law Enforcement. It is a simple concept and
Defendant Agency, the Washington State Highway Patrol and others have repeatedly stated that WSLCB is not a Law
27 Enforcement Agency as clearly shown by several Appendices to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendants are engaged in a bit of
invidious forum shopping to minimize the impact of this case because it rocks the entire underpinnings of said Agency.
28 13 Failing continues with WSLCB on and potentially liable at least for Injunctive Relief which is Plaintiffs’ argument.
30 20
31
1 Meanwhile, recall that during the pendency of the case, Plaintiffs noted that even after BLEA
2 Training, Agent Robbie Satterly was not a Certified Peace Officer and he then immediately exited the
Agency right after he belatedly provided a certain denial letter from the Criminal Justice Training
3
Center (CJTC). (Appendix H).. It is a fact that Plaintiffs canceled a Deposition because Satterly was
4
tardy in providing this pivotal document. Also recall that former Counsel Michelle Carr stated in
5 Open Court that the CJTC is the sole arbiter of whether or not an Agent is a Certified Peace Officer.
6 Recall also that Plaintiffs’ Complaint cited three (3) distinct examples of how this
materially affects the public in dozens of occasions as underage sales are a huge cash cow.
7
i. The former Agent David Stitt witnessed it in the field when a valid Seattle LE Agency
8
refused to accept any information on a pursuit case with a drug suspect;14
9 ii. Levi Lyon was subject to seizure of his very expensive RVs until that case was dismissed
10 after allegations that Agent Satterly acted without authority;
iii. Bud Tender Cynjo Raylene Hall saw her criminal case dismissed after Plaintiff King
11
participated in zoom calls and issued emails to her Public Defendant on repeated
12
occasion. This is borne out by her Declaration and the proof of Dismissal and the direct
13 communication from Public Defender Samuel Backman to the Prosecutor the same day
14 as the final zoom call, and one day prior to Trial. Those undeniable FACTS are filed with
Plaintiffs’ SAC and so contrary to prior implication from the Court in its prior Dismissal
15
Order this is not a case of speculative harms. Not at all. These are real harms, real cases
16
and real people and they are being repeated regularly throughout the State.
17
In sum, as noted in Plaintiffs’ Objection to Dismissal filed on September 18, 2021:
18
No reasonable State Actor would believe that they had authority to proceed in a Criminal
19
Proceeding yet LCB Officials and all named Defendants did so and implored their underlings such as
20 Agents Jung and Satterly to do so or risk their employment at LCB.
21 Given the multiple attempts to obtain Cannabis Criminal Authority and testimony of LCB
Officials in such proceedings it is patently clear that they know they lacked authority and that takes
22
this case beyond the mere notion that it turns on analysis of State Law: No.
23
The State Law was and is clear – there was no authority. And with the quantum of proof even
24 presented to this point the Court must be taken in favor of Plaintiffs as opposed to Defendants.
25

26
27 14 The Court, in its dismissal, failed to fully address the facts behind Agent Stitt’s proclamation that he knew he was a “fake cop.”
By only mentioning the part about the “fake cop” the Court did not recognize the full gravity of this specific set of facts that will
28 be sworn under Oath when it is required -- at Summary Judgment.
30 21
31
1 V. The Constitutional Denials Against Medical Cannabis Patients Warrants Federal Jurisdiction.

2 Plaintiffs need not reiterate all of the facts regarding the paucity of testing and destruction of
3 tainted cannabis in this section. Suffice it to say that in approximately nine (9) years there was not
one single mandatory impound until Plaintiffs’ filed this lawsuit and demanded to see records. That
4
is particularly shameful and as we shall soon see in Discovery this is because the LCB plays Arbitrary
5
and Capricious games. The GAI report called them on it using those exact words!
6 Arbitrary and Unfair Licensing Practices
7 The legislation passed in April 2015 gave the board authority to license new stores in the
recreational industry. Priority for licensing was to be given to established medical players
8 that were seen as “good actors.” Several longtime medical marijuana retailers that were
denied recreational licenses sued the LCB in early 2016. These retailers argued they all had a
9 good track record of obeying rules and paying taxes, but claimed regulators were instead
giving priority to brand new applicants.395
10
Ty Camp, the owner of Sifton-based cannabis farm Sunshine Farms, has been in a legal
11 dispute with the LCB for several years.397 In 2017, an LCB officer wrote a report suggesting
12 that Camp was connected with drug cartels, involved in money laundering, and had made
fraudulent bank deposits. Camp sued, saying the LCB gave him no chance to tell his side, but
13 nevertheless agreed to pay a $125,000 settlement:

14 The three-member board rejected this settlement offer, taking it to trial which Camp’s
attorney says, “will cost more than $150,000 and could result in the loss of his grower’s
15 license.”399 The LCB officer’s allegations also cost his wife her job. She was fired from her
position as assistant VP and financial center manager at Bank of America because of the
16 money-laundering accusations against her husband.400 Camp made three settlement offers,
all of which were rejected by the LCB’s board.401 Following a trial that was held at the end
17 of June 2020, three years after the initial alleged violations, a superior court judge granted
Mr. Camp his stay. His dispensary is now allowed to operate.402
18
That having been said, Plaintiff Novak clearly stated this his physician will testify that his
19
condition, involving epilepsy and cranial injuries, has been compromised by the way that LCB
20
administers (read: fails to administer) its testing programs. This goes beyond the province of mere
21 Stateside testing and enters the realm of Civil Rights violation because with the LCB eliminating
22 virtually all of the carefully-cultivated medical cannabis and its known, curated strains, he is left to
23 suffer. This violates his Due Process rights as noted in the seminal Learned Treatise from a Professor
at Plaintiff King’s Alma Mater, Case Western Reserve School of Law so it is hardly as if Plaintiffs are
24
before this Court making naked assertions without substantial weight behind them. CWRU law is at
25 present, ranked 72nd in the Country, down a bit from the top 50 when Plaintiff graduated but
26 nonetheless a solid law school:
27
28
30 22
31
1 The Constitutional Right to Make Medical Treatment Decisions: A
2 Tale of Two Doctrines
3 B. Jessie Hill
Case Western University School of Law, jessie.hill@case.edu (2006).
4
5 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects the right of seriously ill
patients to choose marijuana, in consultation with their physicians, to alleviate their suffering.
6
See United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1102–03 (N.D. Cal. 1998)
7
(citing Defendants’ Supplemental Opposition Memorandum at 9, Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F.
8 Supp. 2d 1086 (No. 98-0085)), rev’d sub nom. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop.,
9 190 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), rev’d, 532 U.S. 483 (2001).
The federal government had brought suit against the cooperative and its executive
10
director, seeking an injunction against the cooperative’s activities. The suit against the Oakland
11
Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative was one of six suits against cannabis dispensaries in California
12 brought by the federal government and consolidated into one case in the district court. Cannabis
13 Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092–93.
14
The question of when the state can dictate that certain forms of medical treatment are off-
15 limits—or, put differently, when the individual has a constitutional right to protect her
health by making autonomous decisions about medical treatment—spans a number of
16 doctrinal categories, often themselves considered airtight compartments that are to some
extent sui generis. It arises in the contexts of abortion, medical marijuana, right to die, and
17 access to non-FDA-approved drugs, among others. Some of these cases obviously invoke
clearly established constitutional rights, such as the right to privacy, which require courts to
18 apply heightened scrutiny. Others involve important governmental interests, such as the
“war on drugs,” which tend to provoke almost knee-jerk reactions from courts in a rush to
19
defer to legislative judgments.11 Yet the tendency to see each of these doctrinal categories
20 as unique and self-contained has perhaps obscured the reality that all of them raise the
common question of when the government can permissibly intervene in the doctor–patient
21 relationship to dictate an individual’s medical treatment options.12
22
Author Hill cites Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 197 (1973) in support of the proposition then,
23 that it is the Patient-Physician relationship that is sacrosanct. And the Defendants in this case have
24 materially thwarted that relationship by their Arbitrary and Capricious malfeasance as manifest by
and through the WSLCB.15
25
26
15 Plaintiffs acknowledge that this position differs from the Equal Protection argument postulated in the Stated Complaint and as
27 such they take no issue with Defendants addressing it in their Reply Memorandum, and of course as additional evidence comes
forth in this case one final Amendment is most certainly foreseeable. Plaintiffs King and Novak have watched Court cases for
28 years and in cases such as these the filing of a Second Amended Complaint is nothing out of the ordinary.
30 23
31
1 VI. Conclusion.
2
Defendants’ Motion starts out with a material mistruth and continues from there in a
3
downward spiral: “Plaintiffs make no effort to address the issues of personal jurisdiction this Court
4
raised.” As we can readily determine by this filing – with specific citation to case law and to
5 Plaintiffs’ Complaint – Plaintiffs have addressed everything they need to in order to demonstrate the
6 fact that Federal Questions, Dereliction of testing duties and Arbitrary and Capricious application of
State law has resulted in Civil Rights violations.
7
Therefore, and just as with the zoning cases that turn on State Law, this Court has the duty
8
now to apply its review of the State Law per Edgerly, supra and this case must go forward into
9 Discovery before this Honorable Court.

11
____________________________

13 /s/John Novak
____________________________
14 John Novak

15
/s/Cynjo
Raylene Hall
16 _____________________________
Cynjo Raylene Hall
17

18
19

20 I the undersigned solemnly swear that true copies of this Motion were sent via email
and ECF filing system to:
21
24
This 2nd Day of October, 2021
25

26
_________________________________
28
30 24
31

Taxpayers Sue Washington Liquor & Cannabis Board As Fake Cops - 2:20-CV-01494 RAJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taxpayers Sue Washington Liquor & Cannabis Board As Fake Cops - 2:20-CV-01494 RAJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 much we know. See Appendix A showing:

KALEAFA MT ABERDEEN, LLC 604-624

16 KALEAFA STRAWBERRY FIELDS LLC 603-586

19 KALEAFA STRAWBERRY FIELDS LLC 603-586

23 KALEAFA 2 LLC KALEAFA 2 LLC 603-549

12 Let’s recap shall we? Again:

19 A. Smith and Wesson.

16 JONATHAN PITEL, ESQ.

Turbulent History of Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement in Washington State, citing a related

Yesterday's Senate Testimony on SB 5671 proposed expansion for #WSLCB Washington

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) states, in pertinent part:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION UPDATE ON WITHHELD DISCOVERY

Court’s Dismissal Order of September 8, 2021 reads in pertinent part:

Here is the problem with this analysis:

That are within the custody and control of defendants.“

7 learned in this litigation. We won’t either.2

the forced cIosu・e WaS u互ust.

it for Ollie Garrett and Nate Miles to proceed with us.

been upjustly forced out of business.

Pl・eSented for misl・ePreSented;coIored’, Ol. improper use o一・ PurPOSe.

Thanks Bro. See attached

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:00 PM James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com>

From: James s <jameskshelton@yahoo.com>

Dear Ms. Garrett:

September 13, 2021

Gerald Hankerson, President NAACP

PO BOX 12686, SALEM, OR 97309 • PRESIDENT@NAACPAOWSAC.ORG • PRESIDENT GERALD HANKERSON

14 A. State, Local, or Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies

2 heretofore uncontroverted analysis of a someone who clearly qualifies as an Expert Witness

6 noted in Plaintiffs’ FAC and in Section III, infra.

2 Arbitrary and Capricious manner with regard to Cannabis:

7 56 level as well when that time comes around.

You might also like