Bill Panzer and Chris Conrad, persists Facebook is Misleading You Not Them

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube

george-soros  George Soros’ minions, including, sadly, Bill Panzer and Chris Conrad, persist, on Facebook, in misleading the public by claiming that Prop. 215 did not give patients a protected right to cultivate marijuana as medicine. Facebook is an arena from which Sean Parker’s buddies recently have managed to exclude me, so people keep sending screen shots of what these traitors to Prop. 215 are doing.

    Because I cannot refute them in person, it’s up to everyone with Facebook access to spread the word that these guys are lying about the legal effects and benefits of Prop. 215.  Why would they lie?  Guess.  In order to get people to vote for that Trojan Horse, that Newsom crony capitalism slush fund, Prop. 64.
     Both Panzer and Conrad have now claimed that there is no right for patients to grow marijuana under Prop. 215.  That is a bald-faced lie, and they all know it; I’ve pointed this out to them on more than one occasion, and they cannot refute my points. Once again I am sending this email to them, too.bill-panzerChris Conrad
  The California Supreme Court in People v. Kelly specifically stated that patients have a California-constitutionally-protected right to grow, possess and use marijuana.
     The City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Health & Safety had nothing to do with patients’ personal right to grow, but with the right of cities and counties to ban “storefront dispensaries,’ which were not true Prop. 215 collectives but businesses that, like all businesses, could be required to get city licenses to operate.
    The appellate opinion in Maral, and in other recent appellate decisions, is simply wrong when it says there is no constitutionally-protected right to grow.  That is because (1) Maral, and the other such opinions, never cited or tried to distinguish the holding in People v, Kelly and (2) Maral and the others, as inferior courts, are all bound to follow the California Supreme court opinion in Kelly.  The only way they can avoid following the law is to ignore it.
     In cases in which pro-NORML attorneys were involved, in which attoneys who favor ongoing legal battles over Prop. 215, I am forced to wonder it they have intentionally failed to point out the lower courts’ failure to cite or distinguish Kelly?  The ability of Dale Gierenger and Bill Panzer, an associate of NORML, to lie about that actual constitutional state of the law, can only be explained, I fear, by this kind of intentional desire to foment the drug war by encouraging the arrest of patients for cultivation. ccpr-dale-gieringer1
     Furthermore, as I’ve already noted, no city nor county can do what the State itself cannot do. Since the State of California could not lawfully ban patients from cultivating marijuana — a right protected by the California Constitution — it cannot give its political subdivisions a right it does not have itself.  Additionally, cities and counties cannot use the police power to forbid an activity protected by the California Constitution, so they cannot ban cultivation.
    Nor may cities and counties impair such a right by the imposition of taxes and similar controls. Under Prop. 215 this is a right; under Prop. 64 it will be a revocable privilege, and therefore subject to being taxed and permitted out of reach.  For example, the right to travel is constitutional, so no one can stop you moving from place to place, but driving on a public street is a privilege, and subject to taxation and other forms of control.
    The right to feed, cloth, and treat one’s self for illness is all dependent on the right to grow plants..  It is this most fundamental need and right of human beings that is under attack by the people who are called by many names: the One Percent, the Global Elite, the Electronic Robber Barons, the Descendants of Cain, the minions of George Soros and Monsanto, the One-World Order, etc.  This attack on Prop. 215 and the rights it created is by them.
     Attached to this email is a “Notice of Unconstitutionality etc.” that explains, with citations, the legal points about Kelly and the cases that fail to refer to it.  It is an even-hundred, neutral and correct analysis of the law.
    Please remember that for most of my legal career, I was not an attorney who worked for specific clients with their own agendas. I worked for the People of the State of California, and I was fired because I refused to promote a judge’s special interests and agenda rather than the People’s interest in truth and justice.
words  don't add up
PS — My computer was hacked, more than once, my email account was compromised and I lost most of my contacts, and, as I noted above, Facebook refuses to recognize my password, and every time I create a new password, I get stuck in a loop that never lets me get to the final step that gives me access.
      Is this a coincidence?  I do not think so, given Sean Parker and friends’ involvement in trying to pass this POS Prop. 64.  So please pass this info on to FB by posting it to your pages.  Thanks!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube

Leave a Reply