IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEVIN S. SHELTON )
BEN SHELTON, III
SAMI SAAD
) CASE NO. 3:22-cv-051351-BHS
Plaintiffs,
) JUDGE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

vs.
)
LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON “LCB”
and )
RICK GARZA, DIRECTOR OF LCB,
)
In his Individual and Official Capacities,

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RULE 59 RELIEF

I. Rule 59 Relief is Warranted.

NEW TRIAL, RECONSIDERATION, AND AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS

(a) Grounds for New Trial or Reconsideration. On the motion of the party aggrieved, a verdict may be
vacated and a new trial granted to all or any of the parties, and on all issues, or on some of the issues
when such issues are clearly and fairly separable and distinct, or any other decision or order may be
vacated and reconsideration granted. Such motion may be granted for any one of the following causes
materially affecting the substantial rights of such parties:

(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of
discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial;

(2) Misconduct of prevailing party or jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors shall have been
induced to assent to any general or special verdict or to a finding on any question or questions submitted
to the jury by the court, other and different from the juror’s own conclusions, and arrived at by a resort to
the determination of chance or lot, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavits of one or more of the
jurors;

(3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;

1
Plaintiffs are troubled that given the depth of their filings none of it was reflected in the Court’s Order nor were
they even granted Oral Argument as specifically requested over these critical issues concerning Washington’s
biggest cash crop.

1
(4) Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which the party could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial;

(5) Damages so excessive or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the
result of passion or prejudice;

(6) Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery whether too large or too small, when the action is
upon a contract, or for the injury or detention of property;

(7) That there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the verdict or the
decision, or that it is contrary to law;

(8) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time by the party making the application; or

(9) That substantial justice has not been done.

II. The General Merits as to Proof of Discrimination.

First of all at a Motion to Dismiss level the uncontroverted Declaration of Michael S. Reid that
was posited before the Court prior to Dismissal is enough to prove that, at a minimum WSLCB and
Agents’ and Officers conduct created a Disparate Impact steeped in racism. He set up 150 out of 600
medical stores and watched the entire process so he is certainly a credible witness who made himself open
to further discussion. Appendix A.
Yet the Court claimed that unlawful collusion under 42 USC §1985 just could never have
happened, to wit: “that claim is implausible…..”
Well not according to Black Excellence in Cannabis’ Peter Manning it isn’t:

“We have them intentionally putting us out of business. Intentionally We have documentations of
them doing that, we have LCB Officers that came forth and given affidavits that this was their
plan and their goal, we also have that they paid an individual $192,000.00 to keep secret that they
had went and met with all the police officers of the south end and Seattle, in the Black areas of
the South End or Black areas of Tacoma, we have evidence of that, before they implemented
i502.”2

Straight from Mr. Manning’s mouth @2:55 et seq:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUHPahv9exI&t
Black Excellence in Cannabis Blasts WSLCB & Seattle Cannabis Racism
with Chris King and Friends
103 views
May 25, 2022

2
Note that Peter Manning’s operation, held with Aaron Barfield and the unwanted, embezzling Jim Buchan (as
claimed by co-founder Aaron Barfield in writing to Christopher King, J.D. and orally to Plaintiffs and as seen via
text messages repeatedly submitted to the Court and resubmitted herein as Appendix A) are the only Blacks to
obtain licenses in the more than two (2) years of so-called cannabis equity meetings. So obviously his word should
be taken seriously by this Honorable Court.

2
 This lawsuit was not a fiction of Mr. Manning’s imagination and the Court must reopen the case.
From Plaintiff’s recently-filed Memorandum in opposition to Discovery Stay:
********
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/judge-liquor-board-broke-open-meetings-law/
Judge: Liquor board broke open meetings law
Originally published November 3, 2014 at 2:56 pm Updated April 25, 2016 at 3:13 pm

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/liquor-board-pays-192k-to-make-public-records-gadfly-go-
away/
Liquor Board pays $192K to make public records gadfly go away
West had accused the board of violating the open public meetings law in early 2013, soon after
voters passed Washington’s legal pot law. As the three board members — Sharon Foster, Chris
Marr and Ruthann Kurose — traveled around the state holding public hearings about the legal
marijuana rules, they also sometimes met quietly with local police, officials and prevention
groups. The private nature of the meetings obscured the information the board was working with
as it developed the rules, which covered nearly every aspect of the new legal pot industry, West
said.3

When the WSLCB decided to limit retail licenses and auction off the territories they created illegal
horizontal monopolies, which is per se illegal. Under the Parker Immunity doctrine the state can do this if they
are state stores or if the licensed monopolies are supervised by state managers as to pricing, but under Cal. Liquor
Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980) the WSLCB cannot just delegate all the pricing authority
to private parties while simultaneously limiting access to government licenses. The retail markets were divided
among a limited number of licensees and the State of Washington takes no role in reviewing prices or production
levels, other than enforcing pricing decisions made by private parties in their own economic interests, without
regard to anti- competitive effect. It is basically an economic free-for-all; a shootout at the OK Corral if you will,
where the Privateers with the most money, power and influence manhandle the markets at their individual and
collective whimsy.
Significantly, this wanton robber baron approach dovetails with the documented allegations of cronyism
set forth in both the GAI Report and the Cornell/Miller-Nash Reports, and that cronyism allowed for inclusion of
hundreds of whites but only a couple of selected blacks, i.e. those connected with WSLCB’s Ollie Garrett, Paula
Sardinas or Nate Miles (until Mr. Shelton’s father in law got greedy). Somehow Plaintiffs find this entire process
to be in violation of Equal Protection, Due Process, Racial Civil Rights actions and the Sherman Act. Held:
1. California's wine pricing system constitutes resale price maintenance in violation of the Sherman
Act, since the wine producer holds the power to prevent price competition by dictating the prices
charged by wholesalers. And the State's involvement in the system is insufficient to establish

3
So given what Mr. Manning stated how could this Honorable Court possibly deny further Discovery into what was
said and done at these secret meetings that completely violated known law and protocol. And further, if they are
going to blatantly violate such protocol how on Earth could it then be “implausible” for them to have exhibited
racial animus? That is an implausible assertion in and of itself.

3
 antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown, supra. While the system satisfies the first requirement for
such immunity that the challenged restraint be "one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed
as state policy," it does not meet the other requirement that the policy be "actively supervised" by the
State itself.
Under the system, the State simply authorizes price setting and enforces the prices established by
private parties, and it does not establish prices, review the reasonableness of price schedules,
regulate the terms of fair trade contracts, monitor market conditions, or engage in any "pointed
reexamination" of the program.

The national policy in favor of competition cannot be thwarted by casting such a gauzy cloak of
state involvement over what is essentially a private price-fixing arrangement. Pp. 445 U. S. 102-106.

Exactly. This is also how the State ended up with entities like previously-mentioned Kaleafa -- $4M in
fraud cases and other conduct “that would make your hair turn white” according to the WSLCB internal
memorandum accidentally leaked and failed with this Court succeeding. Right now they are running
amok at WSLCB and opening up yet more stores right in my neighborhood while my family and I sit
and suffer It is indisputable and we need a Jury Trial to address it.
********
Another Attorney echoed similar sentiments concerning racist policies as clearly noted in
Plaintiff’s Opposition to 12(b)(6) Relief:
https://www.thestranger.com/news/pot/2015/11/04/23103975/dispensary-files-an-injunction-to-
stopseattles-medical-marijuana-ordinance
NEWSNOV 4, 2015
Dispensary Files an Injunction to Stop Seattle's Medical Marijuana Ordinance

Columbia City Holistic Health recently filed an injunction in King County Superior Court in
hopes of stopping the city from enforcing its medical marijuana licensing law.

Attorney Douglas Hiatt, who's representing the dispensary, said he asked city officials to stop
enforcing the ordinance until the courts rule on their lawsuit, which was filed
The lawsuit alleges that the city's regulation of medical marijuana businesses is unlawful. But city
officials declined Hiatt's request. "Big fuckin' surprise," he said. "They're not going to stop
enforcing it while we litigate it, so I'm filing an injunction."

Hiatt also says the city's law is being applied unevenly and that minority businesses have
received the brunt of the enforcement. "The places that have actually suffered the raids, those
are all minority businesses," he said. "The ones that we have seen take the most egregious hit
are all minority-owned or they are serving the minority community."

Earlier this month, Pierce County Superior Court judge Frank Cuthbertson issued an injunction
forcing the City of Tacoma to stop its enforcement campaign against medical pot shops until its
pending lawsuits are settled. Hiatt said he's hopeful that his clients will get a similar reprieve here
in Seattle.
Then there was a statement from an internal staffer also from Plaintiff’s Opposition Memo:

4
The public statement of a current WSLCB Licensing staffer who, as if on Oath publicly stated that the
agency is racist in terms of licensing;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=fMRNz0gPgUw
#Deepthroat #WSLCB #LCB Whistleblower Decries Agency as "Arbitrary & Capricious"
Fake Cops, Racist.

William Clark Licensing Specialist Senior +15 years in regulatory.

The Agency has a bias against people who use cannabis to start with and the bias runs “incredibly
deep.” They have been biased and it is cronyism… there has been a major drive to try to appear
as if they are being fair and that equity inclusion is their big issue, however my experiences have
led me to believe that the cronyism and ineptitude are a cover for maliciousness….. cooperation,
fair treatment, treating people as individuals not biased by their gender, their skin color,
absolutely these things exist. They say that they don’t but I’ve experienced them myself….”

He went on to say “you will not speak in a manner that disparages the agency or you will not get
a promotion.” They definitely don’t have any standards…. Arbitrary and Capricious, the whole
agency is all over the place. Arbitrary and Capricious that is the most truthful part about them.

Regulatory standards? Forget about it. Integrity? There is none.

II. Plaintiff’s 42 USC §1983 Claims of Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment.

The Court wrote:

“It is not clear what substantive rights claims Plaintiffs are asserting via § 1983. To state
a plausible § 1983 claim, Plaintiffs would need to clearly state what constitutional or
legal rights Defendants violated.”

The Court was well-aware that the Complaint read “Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment.
Everyone knows that these are Fourteenth Amendment Claims. Note further for example that there were
internal reviews conducted at WSLCB that indicated Agents had violated Constitutional Rights by their
own staff! So if that be the case how could it possibly be “implausible” that they committed racist actions.
See generally.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 1:
Plaintiffs sought production of “two reports” identified in footnotes 64 and 65 of a law review
article, specifically:
Samuel J. Young, 2018 IA Report (Feb. 1, 2019).
Samuel J. Young, Enforcement Investigations Outcomes (2017−19) (May 10, 2019).

5
III. Plaintiff’s Claims are Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Next, now that it is clear that there are plausible claims for discrimination as noted repeatedly prior to last
week’s Dismissal Order. From Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition that as not addressed at all in the
Court’s Ruling which read pretty much identically to the 12(b)(6) Motion issued by the State.

If the Grandfather Clause Does Not Protect Plaintiffs’ Claims the Misconduct in the Wake of
SSB 5052 Section 6 Certainly Does.

There is a Conflict of Laws here and as the Court will see the Grandfather Clause has been
materially changed effective July, 2022 to clarify it: SSB 5052 did not explicitly mention the
Grandfather Clause, which is now materially changed to eliminate confusion.

The City recognized the below chapters §18.71 in its 2015 Ordinance 124807 that allegedly
provided a priority for Plaintiffs who owned shops prior to Jan 1, 2013.

Under RCW 18.120.020 et seq:

(4) "Health professions" means and includes the following health and health-related licensed or
regulated professions and occupations: ......medicine under chapters 18.71 and 18.71A RCW...

…………. NEWSJUL 13, 2016

How Washington State Screwed Over Its Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
A Loophole in the Recreational License Application Process Created a Black Market for
Dispensary Employee Pay Stubs and Left Longtime Dispensary Operators in the Dust
by Tobias Coughlin-Bogue

As a result of SB 5052, which mandated that the medical marijuana market be folded into the
recreational one, the WSLCB was instructed to open a new round of retail cannabis licensing and
"develop a competitive, merit-based application process that includes, at a minimum, the
opportunity for an applicant to demonstrate experience and qualifications in the marijuana
industry." Applicants were broken into three levels of priority based on a list of criteria, including
whether or not they had operated or were employed by a dispensary before January 1, 2013.94

But alas this is not what happened. What happened was widespread cronyism, racism and
malfeasance and the bottom line is as follows, developed fully in Section VII below.

First, the Plaintiffs are certainly allowed to engage in the process that provides licenses without
unlawful discrimination. That’s a fact regardless of whether Cannabis is protected Federally.
There is absolutely no construct of Law that eliminates economic damages from Civil Rights
violations, which are in and of themselves remedial Statutes designed to be liberally-construed.

4
9 Sec. 6. RCW 69.50.331 and 2013 c 3 s 6 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) For the purpose of considering any application for a license to produce, process, or sell marijuana, or for the
renewal of a license to produce, process, or sell marijuana, the state liquor ((control)) and cannabis board must
conduct a comprehensive, fair, and impartial evaluation of the applications timely received.
(a) The state liquor and cannabis board must develop a competitive, merit-based application process that includes, at
a minimum, the opportunity for an applicant to demonstrate experience and qualifications in the marijuana industry.

6
 None. The same goes for economic zoning violations that prohibit Plaintiffs from earning
income, as noted in the case law provided in this Brief.

Second, even if the Ogden and Cole Memos (conveniently and completely ignored by both
Defendants mind you) don’t Confer a Federal Right (which Plaintiffs reasonably contend they do)
then they certainly provide for the parallel State Right so Plaintiffs will address such a Claim in
their First Amended Complaint, including Joinder Plaintiff Libby Haines-Marchel. See Section
VIII, Substantive and Procedural Due Process Violations; Privileges and Immunities.

And what then, did Plaintiffs discuss in Section VII? Equal Protection, Procedural and
Substantive Due Process Violations:

VII. Substantive and Procedural Due Process Violations; Privileges and Immunities.

Plaintiffs refer the Court back to the bullet points made in the Statute of Limitations section,
again with the maxim in mind that Defendants’ concealment of key information means that there
could not have been any discovery of information that could provide the basis for the lawsuit. But
that means that the Statute of Limitations NEVER COMMENCED until the past year when this
information surfaced.

The fact is Defendants conspired to shut down most of the medical and ALL of the Blacks, with
the first Recreational/Medical licenses going to people who actually had no experience in the
industry!

Meanwhile one Black person got into the lottery in Seattle to Plaintiffs’ knowledge and she has a
whitesounding name (Libby Haines-Marchel) and was not known to WSLCB or to the City as she
did not have a pre-existing medical dispensary. Now that she is aware of the Widmer/Kaleafa
fiasco she seeks to join us in an Amended Complaint arguing Disparate Treatment and Disparate
Impact.

The ability to pursue one’s profession or “common calling” is one of the limited number of
foundational rights protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334
U.S. 385, 396 (1948); see also United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Camden, 465 U.S. 208,
219 (1984) (“Certainly, the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those
privileges protected by the Clause.”). Indeed, “[m]any, if not most, of [the Supreme Court’s]
cases expounding the Privileges and Immunities Clause have dealt with this basic and essential
activity.” Camden, 465 U.S. at 219.

The Defendants engaged in a sophistry by artificially claiming that there is no ordered liberty
interest in dispensing cannabis. That is not the gravamen. The issue is whether or not they have a
right to apply for and to run a business lawfully without built in headwinds of unlawful
discrimination; also an Equal Protection violation. This is why the Defendants refuse to
acknowledge both the Ogden and Cole Memos and simply try to shade Cannabis as being
“Federally illegal” but that does not work here:

7
 Since the Federal structure purportedly allows the citizens of this State (and many others) to
engage in cannabis culture if the State fails to allow that to happen in an even-handed manner
then there is a Constitutional violation. The Defendants threatened them out of existence before
they could even get to the lottery itself. Therefore at once there is both a substantive and
procedural Due Process violation.125
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/memorandum-selected-united-state-attorneys-
investigationsand-prosecutions-states

IV. Sami Saad’s Declaration filed in April in opposition to the State’s Motion to Dismiss clearly
noted that he Applied for a license:

8. The WSLCB Agents who came to my store were mean-spirited and offensive and threatened me
with Federal tax prosecution for past medical activity whether or not it was donation-based or
from any source, a threat that I now know to be false and unlawful;
9. Nonetheless I took a chance and accepted the risk and applied for the so-called “lottery”;
10. I know many others felt too intimidated and recently I met my co-Plaintiff Kevin Shelton felt that
way and decided to walk away under duress;
11. When I applied I received the same icy response from the licensing staff. I had made a slight
mistake on my application and needed to note that I should have been a Priority 1 instead of
Priority 3 and as I was trying to set that straight they told me initially that they could help me
correct that “no problem” but then flipped and the person working my file initially said was OK
but came back and flat out even though my application was still active: “Mr. Abdalla you are not
going to get any endorsement you need to withdraw your application” calling me by my Muslim
name as an insult;
12. The WSLCB then immediately gave two white Applicants successful applications not 500 feet
from where I once stood;

Mr. Saad’s case needs further review.

V. Racketeering.

The evidence presented in this case as to the unrebutted allegations of Kevin Shelton, Ben
Shelton and Michelle Shelton dovetail with the unrebutted allegations written in Appendix B to
Christopher King, J.D. and reiterated in person from Mr. Barfield to Messrs King, Shelton and Saad over
coffee in Kirkland, WA: The same powerful Black people who are friends with Ollie Garrett at the
WSLCB and her friend Paula Sardinas direct and control everything and that’s not lawful.
The situation has become so dire for them in their coverup that their lawyers Ben York and David
first tried to obtain a Cease and Desist against Plaintiff Shelton and Mr. King, and when that failed they
ganged up with Sardinas and labeled King a “violent hateful animal” in a failed attempt to criminalize his
conduct in exposing this corruption and to even prevent him from speaking at any public meeting where

5
In the event Plaintiffs need to file a State Constitutional argument they will be more than happy to do so but equal
protection and due process violations are clearly manifest in this case and they are actionable.

8
Sardinas might be present. See generally King County District Court Sardinas v. King 22CVI08804KCX
and King County Superior Court King v. Sardinas 22-2-09748-5.
In so doing in order to keep the truths of this and other cases from coming forward they cut his
sentences in half to misrepresent to the Court what he really said, and in any event that would have been a
clearly Unlawful Prior Restraint on speech from a trained journalist who edited a weekly statewide Black-
owned newspaper (Ohio Call & Post) and who wrote for a large metropolitan newspaper (Indianapolis
Star).
Even if this claim is not directly actionable by Plaintiffs the Court is fully aware that it has
plenary and penumbral authority to initiate an investigation sua sponte, or it can simply sit by and watch
and thereby tacitly agree and support this sort of abuse.

VI. Conclusion.

Plaintiffs feel inappropriately disadvantaged here: This is now the third time that Plaintiffs
Shelton have come before the WSLCB as exemplary black candidates. NateGate was followed by
attempts by Attorney Michael S. Reid and M. Scott Sotebeer, pHD. as documented, now this time Peter
Manning approached Plaintiff Kevin Shelton and told him he could get a license if he retracted everything
he said about Nate Miles taking 49% of his company to give to his daughter in exchange for getting him a
license. And yet and still months on we have NO CLUE as to what happened to the Certified U.S. Mail
package Plaintiffs Shelton sent to Ollie Garrett and the WSLCB and nobody seems to care. We still seek
public documentation as to how Emerald Haze obtained their licenses and can’t obtain that either, but
apparently there’s nothing to see there either. Well there is, but we’re not allowed to see it for some
reason.

At this point all we can do is respectfully move this Court to address what we really argued and
continue on our path with our International podcast to expose the Truth. It is a Faith-based initiative out
of the East Coast, far away from the incestuous politics and media that continues to willfully stifle shared
mutuality of Black Excellence in Cannabis. Will this Honorable Court follow suit with that, or will it Do
the Right Thing and allow this situation to be truly heard?

9
10
11
12
13
14