Chico News and Review Examine How Ramsey's Raids on Medical Cannabis have harmed the community.

Where are they now?

Almost 15 months after raids on medical-marijuana collectives, few have been charged and more have suffered

By Meredith J. Graham 
meredithg@newsreview.com

Read 1 reader submitted comment

This article was published on 09.22.11.

Since this photo was taken, Rick Tognoli shut the doors on Scripts Only Service. PHOTO BY MEREDITH J. GRAHAM

Related stories this week: It’s a love/hate thing Our relationship with marijuana—especially here in Butte County—has certainly had its highs and lows. Redding takes on medical cannabis Redding has 16 dispensaries, while Chico has none. Why is that? Dirty business Cartels add danger, environmental degradation to local landscape. Related stories: Co-op owners say they feel ‘violated’ Last week’s raid leaves many with empty hands and heavy hearts. CN&R, 07.08.10. The cannabis conundrum As medical-marijuana grows proliferate, Butte County brings down the hammer on dispensaries.CN&R, 09.02.10. A year after the medical-marijuana dispensary raids, charges are filed Three people from Mountainside Patient Collective charged; DA says more pending. CN&R, 06.30.11.

More than a year ago, law-enforcement officers raided eight medical-marijuana collectives in Butte County, and the lives of those targeted haven’t been the same since. One man nearly lost his trucking business. Another had trouble making his house payment. Several up and left Butte County in the dust (except for occasional appearances in court to try to reclaim seized property).
In the meantime, prosecutors have filed criminal charges in just one case. For everyone else caught up in the raids, it feels like being judged and punished before being brought to the courtroom.
Richard Tognoli is a prime example. As owner of Tognoli Trucking and Grading, he’d done pretty well for himself. Profits from when the economy was healthy were keeping business rolling during recent hard times. He had four trucks and several employees. Then law enforcement raided his collective—Scripts Only Service (SOS)—and, among other things, seized all his bank accounts, including those related to his trucking company and his personal finances.
As of September 2010, Tognoli estimated he’d lost more than $100,000 because of the bank seizures. Now, a year later, he runs just one truck because he wasn’t able to afford fuel and payroll for the other three.
“It’s like I’m back to being a one-truck owner-operator,” he said recently by phone. “It really takes a lot to build a company. It took me years to get where I was. They crippled us.”
As for SOS, Tognoli shut the doors about three months ago.
“What they did to the cannabis club, wiping out the garden and hitting us with zoning-violation fines, there’s no way a small organization working to try to help the disabled community in Butte County is going to be able to stick around,” he said. “We were so completely upside down it wasn’t even funny. We couldn’t pay the phone bill, let alone electric bills and the rest.”
Tognoli has been working all this time, having gone to court on countless occasions to get the physical property seized in the raid returned to him—“We got enough paperwork back so we could file taxes,” he said—and the money has been the toughest nut to crack. A year after the raid and seizure of his bank accounts, Tognoli and his lawyer, Robert MacKenzie, are still fighting to get it all back.
“The judge returned the money but overstepped his authority, in my opinion, by saying that my lawyer had to keep it in his trust account just in case there’s a conviction later on,” Tognoli said. So, the $10,000-plus that could be used to keep his trucking business thriving is instead sitting in a bank account “just in case.”
MacKenzie represents several clients who are trying to get their assets returned to them from the raids—including Tognoli and Paul Fink, who ran Northern California Herbal Collective. Like Tognoli, Fink also runs his own business, an adult bookstore called PlayTime4You. And, also like Tognoli, Fink’s bank accounts were seized (in most other cases bank accounts were frozen but not seized). He also was told he’d get his money back, but it would have to be held in trust by his attorney.
Fink views his decision to open a medical-marijuana collective in Butte County as one of the worst he’s ever made.
“I’ve struggled, big time,” he said during a recent interview in his north Chico home.
The raid and seizure of his bank accounts marked the first in a string of negative incidents for Fink, a 30-something Hispanic man. Shortly afterward, one of his partners at the collective, Trevor McBride, died suddenly of a brain aneurysm. Not long after that, a fire ravaged PlayTime4You’s Esplanade location. As if that wasn’t enough, a few months ago his other partner, William Burney, was charged with murder in the 2008 killing of a Paradise man.
But, to date, despite being raided not once but three times, Fink still has not been charged with a crime. In the meantime, he believes his good name has been caked with mud. When his house was raided last June, officers spoke about Fink to his neighbors as if he was a convicted drug dealer.
“I’ve busted my ass, working two jobs most of my life. It’s not like I’m living the life—I’m scraping by just like everyone else,” he said, adding that he had trouble making his house payment after his accounts were seized. “Right now, I’m trying to survive. I’ve spent so much money on attorneys. I’m paying to prove my innocence when I am innocent.”
MacKenzie agreed. Despite having requested that assets and property be returned to his clients—he’s currently working seven cases related to last year’s raids—he doubts all of it will be returned until the three-year statute of limitations has expired. And that’s even if charges are never filed against his clients.
“The game that’s played here [on the part of the prosecutors] is, ‘How much are you going to pay to get these assets back?’” he said. “Just about anybody would say that drug dealers shouldn’t be able to profit from their illicit gains. Unfortunately that’s created grossly unfair and draconian exceptions to our constitutional rights [of due process].”
This past June, almost a year to the day after the raids, Butte County Deputy District Attorney Helen Harberts filed charges against three individuals involved with one collective, Mountainside Patients Collective. A press release from the DA’s Office promised more charges against people involved with other collectives were forthcoming, but none has yet been filed.
Brothers Jason and Michael Anderson face six charges each, and Kaitlyn Sanchez faces four, related to the cultivation, possession and sale of marijuana. A preliminary hearing has been set for Monday (Sept. 26), the same day Jason Anderson was hoping to have surgery to remove cancer from his ribs and spine.
“A large part of recovering from cancer is remaining positive,” Jason Anderson wrote in an email. He was feeling too ill after an August surgery that removed one rib to meet with a reporter in person. “I would be lying if I told you that the legal charges against me were not weighing heavily on me and that the stress of it all was not interfering with my ability to heal.”
When doctors found on an X-ray what appeared to be a tumor in his chest cavity, Anderson, who was already a medical-marijuana patient and grew his own plants, decided the timing was right to start a collective. Within two months of opening, however, his health began to decline rapidly. When June came along, “We lost everything in the raids and did not re-open,” Anderson explained. None of their property or assets have been returned.
Others involved in last year’s raids continue to fight—Robert Galia, who runs North Valley Holistic Health, is the only one whose doors have remained open despite the odds—and others have thrown in the towel. Doctor’s Orders, which won last year’s Best of Chico category for Best Medical Marijuana Dispensary, shut down and left Butte County altogether. So did some of the others.
The reality is, whether they’re fighting the seizure of their property in civil court or not, they’re all sitting around waiting, wondering if they’ll be charged with criminal crimes, like those involved with Mountainside Patients Collective.
“They’ll hit rather quickly after the first preliminary hearing, after I see how the court’s going to rule,” Harberts said of future charges related to the raids.
So, this holiday season could be very bleak indeed. Or it could yield nothing, as previous threats have been unfruitful.
“I just want all this behind me,” said Fink. “I want to be able to move on with my life.”
Anderson echoed his thoughts.
“My first hope is to live. That is the reality I currently face,” he wrote. “Beyond that I hope to not go to prison for providing cannabis medicines to qualified patients. … I hope to continue to fight for patient rights until we see the day when the senseless prohibition of this plant is a distant memory and people do not have to go through the pain and suffering I am [going through] due to insane laws and archaic policy.”

Ramsey gets over on Chico City Council with idle threats and friends in high places

Chico City Council gamed on dispensaries

Ramsey harshes its medi-pot high by bringing in a ringer

This article was published on 08.25.11.

On July 5, following “almost 30 months of research, deliberations, discussions, and consideration,” as City Manager Dave Burkland described it in a memo to the Chico City Council, the council approved an ordinance that would have allowed establishment of two medical-cannabis dispensaries in the city.
Two councilmen, Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen, voted against it on principle, and Mayor Ann Schwab opposed it because she thought that, at up to 10,000 square feet each, the dispensaries would be too large.
On Aug. 16, the council did an about-face and repealed the ordinance on a 5-2 vote, with Mary Flynn and Scott Gruendl dissenting.
What happened? In a nutshell, the council got gamed.
The big winner was Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey, who brought in a ringer in the person of U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner. Wagner issued a veiled threat to prosecute council members and even city staff for “facilitating” commercial cultivation activities by passing the ordinance.
Mind you, nobody thought Wagner would follow through on the threat. Most cities in California allow dispensaries, and none of their officials have been prosecuted. Redding, for example, has an estimated 17 dispensaries. Chico is small potatoes.
Besides, imagine the uproar that would result from arresting elected officials for doing something that is perfectly legal under California law. It wasn’t going to happen.
But the threat was sufficient to scare City Manager Dave Burkland, who recommended repeal, and at least two council members, Jim Walker and Andy Holcombe, who voted for it after supporting the original ordinance.
To his credit, Holcombe was willing to support an ordinance allowing smaller dispensaries (1,500 square feet) that could fly under Wagner’s radar. He also noted the city wasn’t repealing its ordinance allowing cultivation, which is also illegal under federal law. And he wondered where “seriously ill” people who had legitimate recommendations for cannabis but who were disabled or lived in apartments were going to obtain their medicine.
This is a question Mike Ramsey has failed to answer. Now he’s been joined by the Chico City Council.

Maybe Mike Ramsey is not the only one needing a recall. Seems like 3 other Supervisors lie to waste County resources on non-problems too

Pot ordinance going to the voters

By ROGER H. AYLWORTH-Staff Writer

Posted: 08/10/2011 12:18:26 AM PDT

OROVILLE — Butte County's controversial marijuana cultivation ordinance is slated to go to the voters next June, due to a successful referendum petition drive.

In a 21-minute hearing Tuesday, a divided Butte County Board of Supervisors voted to put the ordinance on the ballot in the June primary.

The decision came on a 3-2 vote, with Chico Supervisor Larry Wahl, Oroville Supervisor Bill Connelly, and Paradise Supervisor Kim Yamaguchi voting to put the ordinance before the voters for an up or down decision.

The ordinance prohibited marijuana cultivation on any lot smaller than a half-acre, required growers to register with the county and provide the names of all those for whom they were growing. Additionally, it put limitations on the number of plants that could be cultivated on a parcel based on property size, and forbade the growing of any plants within 1,000 feet of a school, church, childcare facility, or a drug and/or alcohol treatment center.

The ordinance had been the topic of intense debate since March, with three massive public hearings and more than 15 hours of often rancorous public testimony. The supervisors approved it during a special meeting May 24, conducted in a pavilion at the Butte County Fairgrounds to accommodate the massive crowd.

An organization called Citizens for Compassionate Use, was immediately formed and it launched a petition drive to block the ordinance. 

On July 27, the county Clerk/Recorder Office certified the referendum petitions had sufficient signatures to halt enforcement of the ordinance and to force the board to take one of three options:
* It could repeal the measure; 
* It could vote to put it on the ballot for the next planned election, in this case the June 2012 primary; or,petitions had sufficient signatures to halt enforcement of the ordinance and to force the board to take one of three options:


* It could schedule a special election of its own.

Before the board voted, County Chief Administrative Officer Paul Hahn, said a special election would cost Butte between $450,000 and $500,000. Piggy-backing the referendum on the June primary would cost $50,000 "or substantially less," Hahn said.

Compared to previous hearings, a relative handful of individuals spoke to the board, mostly urging the supervisors to repeal the ordinance and be done with it.

Robert MacKenzie, who described himself as the attorney for the Citizens for Compassionate Use, said the group had a substitute ordinance for the board to consider, if they chose to repeal the existing measure.

"I would like to repeal the ordinance and come up with another ordinance that works," said Chico Supervisor Maureen Kirk.

She made her proposal a motion.

Board Chairman Steve Lambert, whose district stretches from the southwest corner of the county to parts of Chico, seconded the motion.

"My thing is, we need to address this now," explained Lambert.

He said if the county waited until June for a resolution of the situation, the county would again be in the middle of a marijuana growing season. Lambert said he didn't want to wait another year or spend $50,000 to deal with this concern.

The motion died when Connelly, Wahl, and Yamaguchi voted no.

Wahl said the opponents of the ordinance asked for a referendum, "They asked that it be put before the entire people of Butte County, and I think we should honor their wishes."

Kirk said, "I don't think our ordinance is legally defensible even if it passes ... I think if we put it to a ballot we will waste the money and then face a lawsuit."

Yamaguchi, Connelly, and Wahl then voted to put it on the ballot.

Staff writer Roger H. Aylworth can be reached at 896-7762 or raylworth@chicoer.com.

Will Butte County waste taxayer money trying to uphold Ramsey's restrictive ordinance?

Medical Marijuana Advocates Prepare for Possible Election

POSTED: 5:21 pm PDT August 8, 2011

EmailPrint

AAAText Size

UPDATED: 6:42 pm PDT August 8, 2011

CHICO, Calif. -- Medical marijuana advocates in Butte County will soon find out if the county's ordinance regulating growing and distribution will go before the voters.
Tomorrow the Board of Supervisors will discuss the ordinance passed last May.
Opponents of the ordinance successfully gathered enough signatures on a petition to keep the ordinance from going into effect.
Now the Board must either repeal the ordinance or put it on the ballot.
Citizens for Compassionate use, which circulated the petition, will be at the meeting with a proposal of their own.
“We're not against having an ordinance here in Butte County, just ordinance 4029,” said Weston Mickey. “We're all just anticipating that they rescind. Hopefully they do, but if not it will be an uphill battle, but it is a battle we're willing to take on and we feel that we can win.”
The Board will take up the ordinance at tomorrow's meeting at 1 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers in Oroville.

CN&R on ordinance repeal Ramsey orchestrated. Council feels "bullied..."

City Council back-pedals on medi-pot ordinance

Panel also votes to retain redevelopment agency

By Meredith J. Graham 
meredithg@newsreview.com
More stories by this author... 

This article was published on 08.04.11.

Related stories: City Council approves dispensary ordinance Decides to take “baby steps” by allowing only two businesses to operate. CN&R, 06.09.11. Chico cops revolt against pot ordinance The medical-marijuana law will allow for two dispensaries in town, but police say it violates federal law. CN&R, 07.28.11.

“We’re being bullied.”
That was the general feeling conveyed at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting related to medical marijuana, the “we” being the city and the bully being the federal government. Under vague threats of prosecution—city staff, including council members, could go to jail for conspiracy, according to U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner—the council backed down, voting to repeal the dispensary ordinance it passed just last month.
“When you get a letter from the U.S. attorney addressed to yourself, that really opens your eyes,” said Mayor Ann Schwab. She was referring to the letter Wagner sent her just days before the council approved the ordinance July 5. “The eyes of the federal government are on us as elected officials.”
City staff tended to agree. City Manager Dave Burkland and City Attorney Lori Barker made a trip last month to Wagner’s Sacramento office to try to understand better what the city could do to keep from being prosecuted. Neither could offer any specifics gleaned from the meeting, other than the dispensaries’ facility size seemed to be an important factor. The message that did get through, loud and clear, was that city officials could face prosecution for conspiracy by allowing for facilities meant for the manufacture and distribution of marijuana.
“I don’t understand how a conspiracy charge could be held up,” countered Councilman Andy Holcombe, also an attorney. He pointed to several ways in which the ordinance could be reworded to clearly state the intent of the law is to provide safe access to medicine for seriously ill patients. “It really comes down to intent.”
Surprisingly, only 16 members of the public showed up to offer their opinions on the matter, and they varied from members of the Chico Police Officers Association, which has already come out publicly against the ordinance, to those involved in local dispensaries, who pleaded for the ability to offer a safe, legal way for patients to obtain their medicine.
Some, like Chamber of Commerce President Jolene Francis, suggested that not repealing the ordinance would be “calling their bluff.” Others, like local blogger Quentin Colgan, considered repeal nothing short of cowardice. “This is when we need the City Council to stand up for us—stand up to the bully,” he said.
“We are being bullied. But we’re being bullied by the federal government,” acknowledged Vice Mayor Jim Walker. “I don’t like this at all. I think we should take a breath and revisit this—maybe six months is the right amount of time to do that.”
Holcombe shot back: “We’ve taken enough breaths; it’s time to exhale. We’re not thumbing our noses at anyone—this is about protecting sick people. I think we can—and should—stand up to the bully.”
In the end, though a majority of the council seemed to agree that some sort of similar ordinance ought to be in place at some point, a motion to repeal by Councilman Mark Sorensen carried 4-3, with council members Holcombe, Scott Gruendl and Mary Flynn—who posed the curious question of how Chico happened on the U.S. Attorney’s radar in the first place—dissenting.

DA Mike Ramsey Uses Fed Connection to Bully Chico City Council to denying patients access

Giving in to bullying

DA Ramsey gets his way—but at what cost?

This article was published on 08.04.11.

With their decision (see Newslines, page 9) to repeal their medical-marijuana ordinancepertaining to collectives and dispensaries, members of the Chico City Council who supported the ordinance because it provided safe access to cannabis for qualified patients lost a round to District Attorney Mike Ramsey and the Obama administration.

Basically, they gave into bullying by U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, who threatened city staff with prosecution if they facilitated dispensaries. It’s obvious he did so at Ramsey’s behest.

Credit the DA with consistency on this front. He’s opposed dispensaries from day one and has done everything in his power to get rid of them.

President Obama and the U.S. Department of Justice have been anything but consistent, however. The president campaigned promising to end the war on drugs and establish a progressive policy designed, as much as possible, to take the profits out of the drug trade. Early on, Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear that his agency would not enforce federal laws against marijuana in states where medical-cannabis use was legal.

That’s all changed. Now a U.S. attorney is threatening to prosecute local officials for trying to implement California law. It’s shameful.

Mind you, we have no illusions about medical marijuana. Proposition 215 is widely abused. But there are many people who have a legitimate need and use for medical cannabis. Not all of them can grow their own. Some are disabled. Some live in apartments. How are they now supposed to obtain their medicine?

That’s a question Mike Ramsey has yet to answer.

Source: http://www.newsreview.com/chico/giving-in-to-bullying/content?oid=3088214

IT IS CLEAR MIKE RAMSEY DOES NOT INTEND ON FOLLOWING STATE LAW AND COULD CARE LESS WHERE PATIENTS IN NEED GET THEIR MEDICINE. WHY IS HE WASTING THE COUNTY RESOURCES ON THIS FIGHT?

Reaction to Repeal of Chico's Medical Marijuana Ordinance

Advocates are calling the repeal of Chico’s medical marijuana ordinance a "major setback," but city officials say it was necessary after local police refused to enforce it and federal prosecutors threatened to press charges.
After much discussion, the Chico City Council voted 4 to 3 to repeal the medical marijuana ordinance just weeks after the ordinance passed by the same margin. Vice Mayor Jim Walker, who changed his vote from last month, says he felt bullied by federal prosecutors.
"I knew going in that we would have to make changes, wasn't sure what those changes would be. I knew that we would we would have to make amendments somehow," Walker said.
Those changes came in the form of an outright repeal of the medical marijuana ordinance the Chico City Council had been fine tuning for nearly three years.
The move came less than a month the council approved the ordinance despite a letter from the U.S. Attorney who warned the ordinance violated federal law. Council members say after reading the letter and talking with the U.S. Attorney, they felt it was best to take a step back.
"It was very clearly said what you are doing is illegal and we will prosecute, and I think they are looking for a place to make a case,” Walker said.
Proponents of the ordinance say they are disappointed that the council let themselves be bullied by the federal government, but say they accept the decision.
"If they reiterate a threat, it's going to scare people. Obviously it scared our city and that's understandable. I'm scared of the federal government and the district attorney. They have power I don't," Dylan Tellesen of the Citizen Collective said.
Even though the ordinance was repealed, both sides say they will continue working toward a plan that can satisfy local, state and federal law enforcement.
"We just need to step back, reconsider it but I'd really like to move forward with the intent of Prop 215 in the future," Walker said.
"Every time a challenge comes up, it's an opportunity for more clarity. Time to come back and represent the facts, get everyone in a comfortable place," Tellesen said.
There is word that council members are discussing plans to tweak the ordinance.
The city attorney is also researching the law and will present her findings in six months.


Source: http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/Reaction-to-Repeal-of-Chicos-Medical-Marijuana/93CqlRIsM0mJs0BMZ_fahg.cspx

Drug task force shortages due to funding cuts, yet Ramsey continues quest to prosecute legal providers of medical cannabis. Does he get paid per felony filed?

State Drug and Gang Task Forces at Risk

Reported by: Britt Carlson Email: bcarlson@khsltv.com Last Update: 7/06 9:25 pm

Print Story | Share

A critical law enforcement tool in California is at risk for closure.     All of the north state's drug and gang task forces are in limbo because of a $71 million cut to the Division of Law Enforcement within the Attorney General's Office. Butte, Glenn and Shasta Counties all have these interagency task forces that are dedicated to keeping drug and gang-related crimes at bay.     But they're all at risk of shutting down, which could have a major impact on public safety.  California's first line of defense against drug cartels and gangs has taken a hit. Chief of the Chico Police Department Mike Maloney says, “The one dedicated resource we have in Butte County that focuses on those higher level drug offenders is BINTF, and if we end up in a position where they're gone, the impact will be profound.”  50 state drug and gang task forces had state funding eliminated in the current budget.     It calls for a $35 million reduction this fiscal year, totaling $71 million the next.    It could also result in the loss of $40 million in Federal funding.  Maloney adds, “If you combine the absence of those task forces with the impact of prison realignment that we're about to experience, we're looking for some difficult times public safety wise.”  And rural areas like the north state will feel the most significant impacts.  Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey says, “They don't have the resources, we've leveraged these resources by coming together with the Department of Justice’s help.”  Just two years ago, these task forces were in the same position, but enough protests from voters made legislators reconsider.  “There’s negotiations that are going on with the Attorney General, the Governor, and the Legislature that they will find other sources of funds rather than cut the public's number one priority: that being public safety,” says Ramsey.  Without all the investigations, surveillance and arrests these task forces make, officials fear it will only lead to more crime.  Both Chief Maloney and Ramsey say they've already written letters to north state legislators protesting the cuts and they encourage citizens to do the same.

Mike Ramsey encourages law enforcement to not do their job....

Petulant Police Refuse To 'Participate In' Medical Marijuana

Comments (18) 

By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ in Medical, News

Friday, July 22, 2011, at 12:20 pm

Share

4digg

Graphic: Chico Police Officers' Association

​Members of the Chico Police Officers' Association have revealed themselves to be some real grandstanding hot-doggers. These "public servants," the lowest-paidof whom makes $70,000 a year straight out of your taxpayer pocket, are refusing to do their jobs.

Did you know police officers got to pickwhich laws they enforce? Did you know these big-bellied buffoons in blue, if they personally disapprove of a law, feel entitled to ignore the damn thing? Hell, maybe we should have all gone into law enforcement, if it's that cushy a gig.

These drama queens, apparently trying to make some sort of point but mostly just ending up with "we're a bunch of unprofessional ass-bags," have sent a letter to Chico, California City Councilman Mark Sorensen stating that under federal law, they cannot be involved in any part of the city's recent commercial growing and marijuana selling ordinance.

The letter, according to KHSL, states:

  The members of the Chico Police Officers' Association will not participate in any part of the medical marijuana ordinance that involves commercial marijuana growing or selling operations.  We will not assist in any way in any activity that normalizes, standardizes, expedites, or assists in the establishment of facilities set up for the commercial growing and selling of marijuana.  It is our sworn duty to enforce all laws regarding controlled substances, and we will continue to do so.

Photo: PDG

​The association claims the city ordinance, which was opposed by the Butte County District Attorney and not supported by Chico's mayor or chief of police, violates federal law, reports the Central Valley Business Times.

Of course, these half-wit douche bags aren't expected, empowered or authorized to enforce federal law, and since they're refusing to do their jobs in a clear dereliction of duty, all of their dimwit asses should be out on the street and into the unemployment line so fast it would make their porcine heads spin.

Keep in mind, this is the same bunch of greed-heads who, last December, rejected a 5 percent pay cut which would have saved the jobs of 10 fellow police officers. So apparently, they get to pick which parts of their duties they actually perform, but heaven forbid you should mention them getting paid any less!

After that particularly unseemly episode, Jack Lee at NorCal Blogs observed, "This looks bad, guys - it looks like you are putting self interest ahead of public safety." So this propensity of theirs to do whatever they want, the public be damned, is a pattern of behavior.

The cops' letter points to a July 1 letter from U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner that warned adopting an ordinance that violated federal prohibitions against marijuana could bring federal criminal penalties on city workers whose responsibilities would include administering the ordinance.

"The problem we have as police officers is that the marijuana trade is a huge safety issue," said Will Clark, who obviously should seek another line of work, like maybe flipping burgers. "We've had home invasion robberies, we've had people shot and killed over marijuana, we've had residential burglaries, robberies, over marijuana."

What Clark didn't mention was that a good portion of the people "shot and killed over marijuana" were victims of police violence.

Clark, who taxpayers pay $140,000 a year but who still refuses to do his job if it makes him feel uncomfortable, said that the officers feel that rather than easing the problems, the new ordinance will "just make a bigger mess."

The Chico Police Officers' Association said that if any of its 89 members get their porky little hands dirty by participating in the administration or enforcement of the city's pot ordinance, "we will be breaking federal law, the oath we swore to the city, the Municipal Code of the City of Chico, and the General Orders of our department. This is not acceptable."

No, Officer Clark. What is not acceptable is when public servants -- apparently unaware of their own webpage -- feel they have the right to ignore the will of the voters, the law of the State of California, and the City Council. Your hubris and arrogance -- and your apparent feeling of entitlement in picking which laws you feel comfortable enforcing -- is vastly unbecoming, entirely unprofessional, and grounds for your immediate dismissal and unceremonious expulsion from polite society forever.

If you'd like to offer some constructive feedback to the Chico Police Officers' Association, perhaps you should "Like" their Facebook page and then leave some choice comments for them.

And if you want to offer some feedback to the Chico City Council -- as in, what are they waiting for, to fire these insubordinate sons of bitches -- here's their contact info.

Contact Chico City Council by e-mail (just click on the names):

• Bob Evans
• Mary Flynn
• Scott Gruendl
• Andy Holcombe 
• Ann Schwab (Mayor)
• Mark Sorensen
• Jim Walker (Vice Mayor)

Written materials may be sent to the City Council at PO Box 3420, Chico, CA  95927.

Tags: california, chico, police

Chico police union says officers will not enforce medical marijuana ordinance

By GREG WELTER -- Staff Writer

Posted: 07/22/2011 11:11:19 AM PDT

Updated: 07/22/2011 06:16:30 PM PDT

CHICO — The executive board of the Chico Police Officers Association said today they believe plans to allow two large marijuana dispensaries in the city are illegal, and they want no part of it.

The Chico City Council approved an ordinance establishing two dispensaries of up to 10,000 square-feet at its meeting July 5, although the vote was not unanimous.

Today CPOA board members delivered two versions of a letter to councilors expressing their concerns about dispensaries, and stated in the letters that members of the association "will not participate in any part of the medical marijuana ordinance that involves commercial marijuana growing or selling operations."

CPOA spokesman Will Clark said if the ordinance results in dispensaries being established, officers will follow federal and state laws, and the directives of the district attorney, in enforcing the law.

"To do otherwise would violate our oath as officers to follow the constitution of the United States, the California constitution, and our pledge to protect the citizens of this community," Clark said.

"We want to be known as the city of trees, not the city of weed," he stated.

Clark noted there is no formal opposition to another ordinance, which will allow citizens with a Proposition 215 medical marijuana card to grow up to 50 square-feet of pot plants on private property, or indoor grows of the same size with a permit, for personal medicinal use.

There is no limit on the number of plants allowed within that plot size, nor is there a limit on the number of patients who can share in the crop.

Clark said the CPOA's stance on city-authorized dispensaries is in line with Police Chief Mike Maloney and Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey, who have long warned they could lead to federal action taken against city officials.

A July 1 letter from Benjamin Wagner, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, put an exclamation mark on the warnings, but Maloney, Chico City Manager Dave Burkland and City Attorney Lori Barker met with Wagner July 14 in Sacramento to get clarification on certain points in the letter.

Burkland said he plans to tell the City Council at its meeting Aug. 2 that Wagner said some city officials could face action from federal authorities, and said he hopes the dispensary part of the ordinance will be rescinded.

Other cities in California have authorized dispensaries in operation, including some within Wagner's jurisdicton. It's unknown why Chico and Isleton, in Sacramento County, are so far the only two in the Eastern District to receive warning letters.

Ramsey confirmed today that any dispensary operation would be considered "a marijuana store" and would therefore be illegal.
He said prosecutions connected to such operations would be handled by federal authorities, and not his office.

Clark pointed out that the City Council will, ironically, be considering the fate of the pot dispensary ordinance on Aug. 2, which is National Night Out.

"We'll be out telling citizens they should obey the law and report unlawful activity, while city leaders will be deciding if it's OK to not follow it."

Should dispensaries begin operation, Clark said officers would be duty-bound to respond to incidents and emergencies on the property.

"We will not assist in any way in any activity that normalizes, standardizes, expedites or assists in the establishment of facilities set up for the commercial growing and selling of marijuana," the letter to council members reads.

Mayor Ann Schwab and councilors Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen voted against the ordinance. In a Norcal blog posted Friday, Sorensen opined that if the state really wants to authorize pot dispensaries, it should task an organization such as Alcoholic Beverage Control to create a proper regulatory environment, operational guidelines, product quality testing, product potency testing and standards, legal impairment and intoxication standards. "We have the cart so far ahead of the horse, that the horse can't even see the cart," he wrote.

Mary Flynn, Andy Holcombe, Scott Gruendl and Jim Walker voted in favor of the ordinance.

WHY DOES MIKE RAMSEY WANT CANCER PATIENTS TO HAVE TO LEARN TO GARDEN WHILE THEY ARE GOING THROUGH CHEMO? DO THEY HAVE 3 MONTHS TO WAIT FOR MEDICINE? SHOULD THEY BUY IT IN A WAL-MART PARKING LOT?