A SIMPLE PLAN FOR THE 420 LAWSUIT: OUTLINE OF A CONTRACT FOR ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS And Constitutional Civil Rights

Litigation California State, County, and municipal officers/agents/ employees in Fresno and Tulare counties, at the very least, and possibly other California counties as well, have been harassing and intimidating individuals and groups engaged in legally growing and harvesting medical marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) throughout 2010-2012. The pretext or color of law under which this campaign of harassment and intimidation (which has driven many out of growers/distributors/dispensers out of business) is that, despite legalization in California, medical marijuana is still forbidden by Federal law enacted under the sole pretext of the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I, 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of 1787 as construed and applied by the Supreme Court since the late 1930s. Under the famous Footnote 4 of U.S.A. v. Carolene Products (1938), however, the Federal Governments power to regulate under the Commerce Clause is limited by the Bill of Rights and other enumerated rights. In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court held that private individuals, and not just the States, have standing to sue for invasion of rights and powers secured to the States and the People by the Tenth (and probably, implicitly, by the Ninth) Amendment to the Constitution, thus, I would argue, bringing the Tenth Amendment into the list of enumerated powers limiting the application of the Commerce Clause under Footnote 4 jurisprudence. To the best of my knowledge, no licensed attorney has yet sought to enjoin the Federal Government from intruding into the Deo Vindice: Proposal for 420 Redemption Litigation in California 1 May 16, 2012

Medical Marijuana field in light of Bond v. United States, nor do I plan on holding my breath until one does. I submit that the victims of harassment by State Actors acting under color of Federal Law have a right to sue for (1) declaratory judgment, (2), injunctive relief, and (3) damages against the State Actors who (in the cases I have heard so far) have never acted to suppress the merely commercial activities of any grower, distributor, or dispenser/dispensary by means of a court order, although frivolous and harassing false arrests and malicious prosecutions have been committed (or are now in progress) against certain key or principal individuals such as, for example, Paul Bethel. The way I see it, the time has come to capitalize on this issue to strike a major blow against Federal overregulation of commerce and suppression of the individual freedom and states rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but especially by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. This will be very difficult, expensive litigation, but as a former attorney and one dedicated to the Southern and Western US traditions of pro-agrarian litigation, and above all to individual freedom outside the bounds of the State Bar Monopoly system, I think I am well-qualified and well-able to design and bring this litigation to fruition. TO EVERY GROWER, DISTRIBUTOR, DISPENSER, PRIVATE DISPENSARY OWNER, I SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING: (1) Assign to me all your right title, and interest in your investment and expectation from any business closed by State Action as described above by formal written assignment and power of attorney. Agree to be a live witness in Court, and to provide me all your documentary and photographic evidence of your compliance with California law, and of your investment in your (now closed) business. 2

(2)

Deo Vindice: Proposal for 420 Redemption Litigation in California May 16, 2012

(3)

(4) (5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

I will provide you with a contract that, if successful, I will return to you 100% of your provable actual cash or labor investment in your business, plus interest accruing since the closure of your business. You will not have to pay anything except your own expenses for this part of the contract. For Every $2,500.00 you invest in supporting the case, I promise 1% of the total net take in the planned litigation (including all California licensed growers, distributors, and dispensers/dispensaries) for expectation damages based on you (all growers, distributors, etc.) cumulative fair estimate of future income over the time elapsed between closing and final judgment, plus punitive and exemplary damages for violation of your civil rights against all State-Actor defendants. I anticipate that a total take of millions could be recovered in this litigation, but the costs will be extensive, including expert witness and, at some stage or other, the at least occasional employment of California State Bar Card Carrying Attorneys. Among the theories of recovery will be Civil Rights Action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, Declaratory Judgment and Civil Rights under 28 U.S.C. 1343, 2201-2202, 15 U.S.C. 1-16 (Antitrust), and, just possibly, Civil damages for Racketeering 18 U.S.C. 1961-1964(c). The United States Supreme Court has very broadly construed the right to assign rights to mean that this sort of assignment of rights for collection and or litigation purposes is permissible in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services, Inc., decided June 25, 2008. By your assignment of rights and our contract, we will potentially save a great deal of frustration and disappointment by not depending on California BarCard Carrying Attorneys who are known for their subservience to the Status Quo and not doing anything 3

Deo Vindice: Proposal for 420 Redemption Litigation in California May 16, 2012

risky (i.e. out of the ordinary), or on the cutting edge as this case undoubtedly is. (10) Please contact me by telephone or e-mail: Charles Edward Lincoln III at 512-968-2500 or my assistant Peyton Yates Freiman at 512-968-2666 or by e-mail at charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com or freimanthird@gmail.com This kind of litigation may well-be opposed by the State of California acting by and through its Governor and Attorney General in person, and certainly by all state and local sheriffs named as Defendants. It may be necessary to bring more than one case---possibly one in every county involved, or at least one in every one of the Four Federal Districts in California. The time is right, the political mood in the state is right, the issue is one that can bring together both conservatives and liberals in California, plus the opportunity to win a really significant constitutional case and collect really significant monetary damages all at the same time.

Deo Vindice: Proposal for 420 Redemption Litigation in California May 16, 2012