Previous article on legalizing marijuana
Next article on legalizing marijuana
List of all articles on legalizing marijuana
|
Source Also see: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
The Plaintif is suing these defendants
Plaintiff, Mickey Jones, for his complaint against defendants alleges as follows:
Defendant #1, Michelle “Mushee” Westinfield accused the Plaintiff of submitting his resignation from the PCC board, based on some statements made on Facebook. Defendant #1 refused to define what those statements were. The Plaintiff thinks this Facebook “event” may have been staged by Defendant #1 and Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski to create a “Golf of Tokin” type of excuse to kick the Plaintiff off of the PCC board of directors, by members of the Safer Arizona board of directors, rather than the PCC board of directors. When the Plaintiff refused to resign, Defendant #1 quickly called for a PCC board meeting in a matter of a few hours. The board meeting was more of a kangaroo court. The Plaintiff was not invited to the board meeting, or even notified of the board meeting. The Plaintiff suspects this board meeting may have been called improperly. At that board meeting, the Plaintiff was kicked off of the PCC board of directors. Defendant #1 ordered the board members present not to give any reason for their votes. Defendant #1, Defendant #3, Defendant #4, and Defendant #5 voted to kick the Plaintiff off of the PCC board of directors in that meeting. The Plaintiff was not told why he was kicked off the PCC board of directors. Nor was the Plaintiff told of anything that happened in the board meeting. Defendants #3, #4, and #5, probably should have demanded that the Plaintiff be invited to the board meeting, and be giving an opportunity to defend himself against any charges. Defendants #3, #4, and #5, probably should have demanded that the Plaintiff be given a copy of the minutes of the board meeting, and told why he was kicked off the board. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendants #1, #3, #4, and #5 may have violated their fiduciary responsibility as officers of PCC and committed malfeasance of office when as board members they allowed the two prior actions to occur. And that the court should pierce the veil of the corporation and allow Defendants #1, #3, #4, and #5 to be held personally accountable for their actions. The Plaintiff thinks that Defendants #1, #3, #4 and #5 and other members of the PCC board of directors have violated their fiduciary responsibilities as officers of PCC and committed malfeasance of office when as board members they delete posts made by the Plaintiff to the PCC Facebook group. The Plaintiff suspects they are deleting some of his posts, because they want to demonize him for not supporting the Safer Arizona initiative. The
Plaintiff feels are his posts are reasonable and support the group’s goals to legalize marijuana, and end the government's war on marijuana. This should be easily verifiable by looking at the Facebook log files. PCC is supposed to represent its members. And the members of PCC do not have a monolithic set of goals when it comes to what should be done to legalize marijuana. The goals vary from member to member and span a wide range. After the Plaintiff was kicked off the board of directors, he was libeled by Defendants #1, #3, #4 and #5 when Defendant #1 posted a statement on the PCC Facebook page saying the Plaintiff has been kicked off of the PCC board of directors for something like “unprofessional conduct’. The Plaintiff assumes that Defendants #3, #4 and #5 approved of the libelous post by Defendant #1. Defendants #1, #2, #3, #4 and number #5 also violated their fiduciary responsibility as officers of PCC and committed malfeasance of office by allowing this libelous post. Prior to the Plaintiff being kicked off the PCC board, Defendant #1 had made a statement on the PCC board members Facebook page saying something that she was going to get the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff doesn’t remember the exact words, but they can easily be looked up from the Facebook logs. The Plaintiff also captured a screen shot of this post. Prior to the Plaintiff being kicked off the PCC board, Defendant #1 came up with a “code of conduct” or something similar, which only purpose seemed to be aimed at giving Defendant #1 a lame excuse to kick the Plaintiff off of the PCC board of directors. The main gist of the “code of conduct” seemed to be you could not say negative things about other people in the Arizona marijuana community. The “code of conduct” seemed to be designed by Defendant #1 to prevent the Plaintiff from saying negative things about Safer Arizona, the Safer Arizona initiative and Safer Arizona board members. If the “code of conduct” was enforced equally on all members of PCC it would prevent free speech and make it impossible to have discussions on the subject of the right course of action to take in our efforts to legalize marijuana. The “code of conduct” was published by Defendant #5, the PCC secretary in an email. The Plaintiff does not think he violated any of this so called “code of conduct”. Nor did Defendants #1, #3, #4, and #5 accuse the Plaintiff of violating the “code of conduct”. Oddly Defendant #1 almost certainly violated her own “code of conduct” when she posted the message libeling the Plaintiff accusing him of “unprofessional conduct”. The Plaintiff thinks that Defendant #1 may have also staged a fake event with former Mesa City Councilman Ryan WInkle who was kicked off the Mesa City Council for drunken driving. The Plaintiff thinks this fake event with Ryan Winkle may have been put on by Defendant #1 as some sort of silly test to figure out if the Plaintiff was a narc or government snitch. Ryan Winkle contacted the Plaintiff and asked him to call him and talk to him about legalizing marijuana. The Plaintiff suspects that the real reason he was kicked off the PCC board of directors because Defendant #1, Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski, maybe Arizona Gregory or Greg Fox, and Eric Johnson were falsely calling him a “government snitch”. And for exposing problems with the Safer Arizona initiative, which doesn’t completely legalize marijuana. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #1, Eric Johnson, Arizona Gregory or Greg Fox and Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski have been spreading lies slandering the Plaintiff saying he is a government snitch, police informant or something like that. This action arises out of ARS 12-541. These lies have probably not new and been going on for around 20+ years. Around the year 2000 or so the Plaintiff discovered that David Dorn, the owner of an insurance company, Dorn Agency was spreading lies that the Plaintiff was a government snitch or something like that. The Plaintiff was told this by Ernie Hancock. The Plaintiff suspects that Ernie Hancock, or Ernest Hancock who is a Libertarian “publicity hound” is the person who has been spreading these lies for 20 years. Ernest Hancock can talk for hours and say next to nothing, usually repeating the same thing over and over. Ernest Hancock is a Libertarian equivalent of Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who seems to love publicity, and can talk for hours on end and say nothing. The Plaintiff also suspects that his lawyer Marc Victor has violated his lawyer/client relationship with his client and has been spreading these lies around for around 20 years or so. In fact Marc Victor’s law firm Victor and Hall owes the Plaintiff $3,000 they won for him. The Plaintiff thinks that Marc Victor’s law firm used these lies as an excuse to cheat the Plaintiff out of the $3,000. Marc Victor is a good friend of Ernie Hancock and David Dorn. The Plaintiff suspects that marijuana criminal defense attorney; Tom Dean has also been spreading these lies around. The Plaintiff suspects that marijuana criminal defense attorney; Tom Dean has violated his lawyer/client relationship, because Tom Dean was the Plaintiffs attorney at Safer Arizona. The Plaintiff suspects that Rain Baker, Stacy Theis, Kathy Inman, and Dave Inman have been spreading these lies around. And in fact the Plaintiff has evidence that Kathy Inman and Dave Inman have been spreading these lies around. Rain Baker, Stacy Theis and Kathy Inman have all dealt with Marc Victor and Tom Dean in the past. The Plaintiff suspects Rain Baker, Stacy Theis and Kathy Inman were told these lies by Ernest Hancock, Marc Victor, Tom Dean or all of them. The Plaintiff doesn’t think Defendant #1, Eric Johnson and Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski made up the lies on their own, but rather heard these lies from Tom Dean and/or Rain Baker and are just repeating them without verifying them. But that still is malfeasance of office for Defendant #1, #3, #4, and #5, and a reason to pierce the veil of the corporation. Wherefore the Plaintiff respectfully requests the court:
Dated this 1 day of February, 2018 Mickey Jones Homeless Plaintiff in Pro Per
|