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 #2, Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski has libeled, and probably slandered the Plaintiff by posting lies on Facebook, such as claiming that the Plaintiff sells speed, meth or Adderall to grade school children. Defendant #2 usually deletes these lies after posting them. The Plaintiff suspect s Defendant #2 thinks the lies are permanently deleted and can’t be traced back to him if they are deleted. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #2 has also been posting lies on the Safer Arizona web pages, and Safer Arizona Facebook pages, and sending messages demonizing the Plaintiff and claiming the Plaintiff is a government snitch. All which libel the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also suspects that Defendant #2 has also been posting lies on the Safer Arizona web pages, and Safer Arizona Facebook pages and sending messages saying the Plaintiff’s RAD or Relegalize All Drugs initiative is some sort of government plot to prevent marijuana from being legalized. All which libel the Plaintiff. Defendant #2 kicked the Plaintiff off of the Safer Arizona Facebook page after he filed his RAD initiative, so it is impossible for the Plaintiff to see any of these posts. The Plaintiff has read that Facebook does not physically delete any posts and suspects that all the posts made by all of the Defendants can be recovered. In fact the Plaintiff is a computer programmer and suspect that all the posts are records in SQL files, which are marked as deleted by setting a delete flag to TRUE, rather than physically deleting the post. And if that is the case then all of the Defendants posts are recoverable. The Plaintiff also suspects that Defendant #2 is either phoning or messaging people and telling them that the Plaintiff is a government snitch, which is libeling the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1994 or 1995. The Plaintiff was on the in the Arizona Libertarian Party governing board, probably since around 1999 or 2000. The Plaintiff may have been on the Maricopa County Libertarian Party governing board, but doesn’t remember. The Plaintiff was a precinct committee member in the Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. after the ALP lost the lawsuit to the ALP Inc. in the Arizona appeals court. The Plaintiff has also run for office as a member of the Libertarian Party. The position of the Libertarian Party platform is that all victimless crimes should be legalized, that all drugs should be legalized. And that people have the right to own any weapons the need to protect them. The Plaintiff agrees with these positions 100%. The Plaintiff also suspects that Defendant #2 is telling people that the Plaintiff is not a Libertarian and is just claiming to be a Libertarian to cover up the fact that Defendant #2 thinks the Plaintiff is a government snitch. This is a lie, and is libeling and or slandering the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has supported legalizing all drugs since the Plaintiff was in high school. The Plaintiff also has been supported the Second Amendment since high school and thinks anybody should have the right to own any weapon the government owns. The Plaintiff again suspects that Defendant #2 is telling people that the Plaintiff is lying about his positions on those issues, to cover up the fact Defendant #2 thinks the Plaintiff is a government snitch. The Plaintiff suspects this because many of his former friends on Facebook have unfriended the Plaintiff for no apparent reason. Some people are Jason Hein, Joe Gladwin, New Times Reporter Ray Stern, Dennis Bohlke and Len Clark. The Plaintiff has made notes each time he finds a new person that had unfriended him for no apparent reason. The Plaintiff also has evidence that Defendant s #4 and #13, Zachary Ocker and Robert W Clark are spreading a lot of the same lies on Facebook that Defendant #2 is spreading, which are libeling the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff suspects that other members of the Safer Arizona board of directors may be spreading these lies. The Plaintiff suspects that other members of the Safer Arizona organization are spreading these lies. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendants #3, #6 and #7, Michelle “Mushee” Westinfield, Gregory Fox or Arizona Gregory and Eric Johnson have been spreading these same lies to members of PCC or the Phoenix Cannabis Coalition. The Plaintiff suspects that all or many of the Defendants have been spreading these same lies to other groups in Arizona that want to legalize marijuana. Some of these groups are Phoenix NORML, Arizona NORML, the 420 House, and the ERRL cup. And in fact it seems that the Plaintiff has been blacklisted by these other groups. Probably because of the actions of these Safer Arizona defendants. When the rules or constitution for the Safer Arizona political action committee were written, the Plaintiff included a section that said if any of the board of directors were to be removed it would require a three-fourths or ¾’s vote of the total number of board of directors. When the Plaintiff was kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors, that requirement was not met. Defendant #2 ignored that rule and kicked the plaintiff of with only 7 votes of the 12 board members. That is only 58% of the board members, not the required 75% of the board members. Which means Defendant #2 illegally kicked the Plaintiff off of the Safer Arizona board of director. The votes for removal were David Stephen Wisniewski, Michelle “Mushee” Westinfield, Rain Baker, Zachary Ocker, Gregory Fox, Tom Dean and Robert W Clark or Defendants #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #12, #13. The votes against removal were the Plaintiff, Alex Gentry, Patricia Pantel and Eric Johnson or the Plaintiff and Defendants #8, #9 and #7. Defendant #10, Catalina S Vargas did not vote. The Plaintiff did complain to Defendant #8 Alex Gentry that this rule was broken. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #2 or Defendants #2 and #8 then deleted the section of the rules which required a ¾ majority to remove board members. Or that Defendant #2 had never included that rule as discussed in the meetings because he had intended to kick the Plaintiff off the board all along. The writing of those rules was videotaped by Defendant #2 and placed on the web, so there should be a copy of it around. This might have happened, but the Plaintiff isn’t sure. The Plaintiff and Defendant #8, Alex Gentry went to lunch at the Chuck Box in Tempe. Normally the Plaintiff keeps WIFI and Bluetooth turned off on his phone. The Plaintiff showed Defendant #8 his cell phone and later the Plaintiff noticed that WIFI and Bluetooth were now turned on. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #8 might have installed some sort of spyware program on the Plaintiffs cell phone using Bluetooth. Defendant #4, Zachary Ocker has made a number of posts on Facebook which seem to be thinly veiled threats to beat up or hurt the Plaintiff. The posts usually start out saying something along the lines of “I would like to meet you in person …” and then are followed by a bunch of hateful comments often laced with 4 letter words. It doesn’t take much to figure out that Defendant #4 seems to be saying he hates the Plaintiff and would like to hurt the Plaintiff. These posts have not caused the Plaintiff any money or other damages. Other than the Plaintiff is afraid that Defendant #4 may attack and hurt the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a small person and Defendant #4 is a large person and could easily hurt the Plaintiff. So the posts have damaged the Plaintiff in that he will be terrified if he ever sees Defendant #4 in public. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #8, Alex Gentry may be posting photos and or videos of the Plaintiff on Facebook and other places on the internet which claim the Plaintiff is a government snitch. The Plaintiff suspect these photos and videos that libel the Plaintiff. That is because Defendant #8 is always taking photos of the Plaintiff. The day Defendant #2 began his effort to kick the Plaintiff out of Safer Arizona; the Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #8 videotaped the Plaintiff in a Fry’s Food store to get this reaction to being kicked out of Safer Arizona. The Plaintiff suspects that video may have been posted on the internet libeling the Plaintiff calling him a government snitch. And so the Safer Arizona group can mock and ridicule the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also suspects that Defendant #2 may have placed a number of videos on Facebook or other internet locations libeling the Plaintiff by calling him a government snitch. The Plaintiff suspects that there may be some sort of plot by Safer Arizona to install Defendant #3, Michelle “Mushee” Westinfield as President of PCC or the Phoenix Cannabis Coalition to demonize the Plaintiff, and kick the Plaintiff out of PCC. The Plaintiff had never seen Defendant #3 at any PCC meetings prior to Defendant #3 being involved in Safer Arizona. Defendant #3 did become President of PCC and kicked the Plaintiff off of the PCC board of directors. As President of PCC, Defendant #3, made a special set of rules, which seemed to be designed to kick the Plaintiff out of PCC. And when those rules didn’t work, kicked him out without a reason. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #3 had been libeling or slandering the Plaintiff and telling other board members of PCC, and normal members of PCC that the Plaintiff is a government snitch. Defendants #6 Gregory Fox or Arizona Gregory and Defendant #7 Eric Johnson, may have been involved in this effort to demonize the Plaintiff in PCC, and may be slandering or libeling the Plaintiff. Defendant #2 and Defendant #7 probably caused the Plaintiff to be removed from being President of PCC. The Plaintiff spent about 160 or so hours writing web based software to keep track of workers in the Safer Arizona group and petitions and signatures collected for Safer Arizona. If Safer Arizona went to a commercial firm it would not have been unreasonable for the firm to charge them $100 an hour for the software or $16,000. The Plaintiff suspects that it would have cost much more then that $16,000 if Safer Arizona were to hire commercial software firm to produce the software. And per Federal software law, the Plaintiff has 100% ownership of the software. Safer Arizona does not own the software. The Plaintiff wrote the software for free was under the impression that the Safer Arizona initiative would call for pretty much 100% legalization of marijuana, with a few minor exceptions. These exceptions were an age limit, labeling requirements, testing requirements and a small sales tax. The Plaintiff would have never written the software, if he had known Defendant #12, Tom Dean was going to turn the initiative into a “jobs program“ for marijuana criminal defense attorneys, or a “jobs program” for lawyers who make money helping the legal medical marijuana cartel, turn itself into the legal recreational marijuana cartel. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #2 and #11, Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski and Manuel Chavez III conspired to steal the software which was worth at least $16,000 from the Plaintiff and use it after the Plaintiff was kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors and group. When the Plaintiff was kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors, Defendant #2 lied and said he could continue his work as a webmaster. But the Plaintiff believes Defendant #2 ordered Defendant #11 to lock the Plaintiff out of the Safer Arizona website by changing the passwords. The Plaintiff asked Defendant #11, to give him a password so he could get in and delete the software the Plaintiff owned, and delete the SQL tables created by the Plaintiff. But according to posts from Defendant #11, Defendant #2, ordered Defendant #11, not to let the Plaintiff back in. From comments Defendant #11, made, the software may have been over his head and he probably was not able to get it working. The Plaintiff suspect this software may have been moved to one of Stacy Theis’s websites to keep the Plaintiff from finding it. Ray Stern wrote about that in the Phoenix New Times. While the software was functionally working, it did need to have a routine written to edit any and all fields of the user data. The Plaintiff would have been able to write that software in a week or so. For somebody like Defendant #11 who had not designed the software it would have taken much longer. That is because Defendant #11 would have to reverse engineer the system and figure out how it worked, before writing the software. Later on Defendant #8, Alex Gentry asked some questions about the software, and even posted a picture of him using the software. That makes the Plaintiff think Safer Arizona was trying to get the software working. Another person messaged the Plaintiff with a message that seemed to say Safer Arizona was trying to get the software working. The Plaintiff isn’t sure if Safer Arizona was successful at stealing the software from the Plaintiff. Under Federal copyright law, it is illegal for Safer Arizona to use the software without permission from the Plaintiff. And the Plaintiff has never given Safer Arizona permission to use the software. The Plaintiff thinks 17 U.S.C. § 1331 and 17 U.S.C. § 1983 are the Federal copyright law that covers this. Marijuana criminal defense attorney Tom Dean, Defendant #12, seems to have a major conflict of interest in writing the Safer Arizona initiative, which he never disclosed either in writing or verbally to the board members of Safer Arizona. The Plaintiff suspects that was a violation of the code of ethics that lawyers are supposed to follow because Defendant #12 never disclosed those conflicts of interest. Defendant #12, Tom Dean makes money representing people who have been arrested by the government for victimless marijuana crimes. So any initiative that completely legalizes marijuana will cause Tom Dean to lose all of his income from representing people accused of marijuana crimes. So Tom Dean has a financial incentive to keep the marijuana criminal laws intact. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #12, Tom Dean, also makes money from helping represent the legal Arizona medical marijuana cartel, or the medical marijuana dispensaries in Arizona. The Plaintiff suspects that Tom Dean also has a financial interest in keeping the restrictive medical marijuana laws in place in Arizona, so he can continue to represent those members of the legal medical marijuana cartel. When the Plaintiff, Defendant #2 and Defendant #8 wrote the initial version of the Safer Arizona initiative it would have put Defendant #12, Tom Dean out of business. It completely legalized marijuana with 3 exceptions. Those exceptions were an age limit on marijuana use, a simple sales tax on marijuana and stuff requiring testing and labeling of marijuana. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #12, Tom Dean violated his legal code of ethics, because of his conflict of interest and wrote a law which would benefit Tom Dean financially, rather than benefit the marijuana community of Arizona. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #12 , Tom Dean invited Demitri Downing to the Safer Arizona meetings to help turn him water down the initiative so he could get an initiative that benefits marijuana criminal defense attorneys like himself, and attorneys who work for the legal medical marijuana cartels. According to a Phoenix Business Journal Demitri Downing, wrote Prop 205, which is hated by most of the board members. Instead of fine tuning the initial Safer Arizona initiative, Defendant #12 constantly watered it down and added items which turned it into an initiative for “marijuana criminal defense attorneys” and an initiative for lawyers that represent the “legal medical marijuana cartel”. Some of those items include a requirement to get a license for growing over 99 plants, a requirement to get a license to sell marijuana, and many other requirements that would allow people to be arrested or ticketed for victimless marijuana crimes. For example requiring an Arizona sales tax license to grow or sell marijuana probably will help the DEA make more marijuana arrests and give Defendant #12, more business clients. The zoning requirements Defendant #12 added in seem to be added to benefit the current legal medical marijuana cartel, and help them prevent new comers from cutting into their medical marijuana monopoly. The Plaintiff was polite and complained that Defendant #12, Tom Dean, was turning the Safer Arizona initiative into a mini-version of Prop 205. The Plaintiff wanted to complain that Defendant #12, Tom Dean, was turning the Safer Arizona initiative into a jobs program for Defendant #12, Tom Dean, but the Plaintiff was too polite to do that. The Plaintiff suspects that one of the reasons he was kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors was because of Defendant #12, Tom Dean’s conflict of interest. Defendant #12, Tom Dean, didn’t want the Plaintiff to make the Safer Arizona an initiative that would put Defendant #12, Tom Dean out of work. The final Safer Arizona initiative Defendant #12, Tom Dean wrote, after the Plaintiff was kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors seems to be an initiative not to legalize marijuana, for the marijuana community, but an initiative written for lawyers who specialize in marijuana, like Defendant #12, Tom Dean. The Plaintiff thinks that Defendant #12, Tom Dean, sold out the Safer Arizona board of directors and the Arizona marijuana community by writing the Safer Arizona initiative the way he did. The Plaintiff suspects that Defendant #5 Rain Baker, and her husband or boyfriend, John Hahn have been spreading lies around that the Plaintiff is a government snitch since at least March 2014, and probably a lot longer. ( http://tempe-cesspool-for-the-arts.tripod.com/rain_baker_camp420.html, http://la.indymedia.org/news/2014/03/263539.php ) The Plaintiff and Mike Templeton were circulating petitions to legalize marijuana at the Spring 2014 Tempe Festival of Arts and John Hahn took the Plaintiff’s photo. In that photo the Plaintiff is wearing a t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it that says “I love my country, but I fear my government”. The Plaintiff got the t-shirt from Ed Forchion in Washington, D.C. around the year 2000. In that incident Defendant #5 accused the Plaintiff of wanting Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman’s autograph. The Plaintiff thinks that John Hahn took the Plaintiff’s photo and posted it on the internet saying the Plaintiff was a government snitch. John Hahn lied, and told the Plaintiff to get a Facebook account and he would show him the photo. The Plaintiff did get a Facebook account, but John Hahn never showed him the photo. The Plaintiff suspect that’s Defendant #5, along with Defendant #12, Tom Dean accused the Plaintiff of being a government snitch and had the Plaintiff kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors for that reason. And those actions libeled and / or slandered the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff doesn’t think that any of the members of the Safer Arizona board of directors made up the lie that the Plaintiff is a government snitch. The Plaintiff thinks that lie was made up around 20 years ago, by someone in the Arizona Libertarian Party. The Plaintiff suspects three people may be responsible for that fantastic lie, all of them are good friends with each other. The first person is Ernest Hancock, who is also a big time Libertarian publicity hound, kind of like Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a publicity hound. The second person is Marc Victor, who was the Plaintiff’s lawyer two times. Marc Victor is also a publicity hound. The third person is David Dorn. David Dorn owns an insurance business named Dorn Agency. Ernie Hancock told the Plaintiff that David Dorn was spreading lies around that the Plaintiff was a snitch who infiltrated his F.R.E.E. Supper Club. Marc Victor’s law firm, Victor & Hall owes the Plaintiff $3,000. The Plaintiff suspects Marc Victor cheated the Plaintiff because he thinks the Plaintiff is a government snitch. The Plaintiff suspects that publicity hound Ernie Hancock has spread this lie all over the planet to every group of people that the Plaintiff knows. From anti-war groups, atheist groups, Amnesty International, jury nullification groups, gun groups (Alan Korwin), ACLU, IJ or Justice Institute and groups that want to legalize marijuana, literally destroying the Plaintiff’s life by labeling the Plaintiff a snitch. From Google, the Plaintiff knows that Defendant #5, Kathy Inman, Stacy Theis, and Defendant #12, Tom Dean have dealt with both Marc Victor and Ernie Hancock in the past and suspects they got the lie from one of them and have been spreading the lie around for years. Of course just because they picked up the lie from someone else, does not justify them from spreading around false information and slandering or libeling the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff suspects that the real reason he was kicked off the PCC board of directors was because Defendants #2, #13, #5, #7 and #12 or Sergeant David Stephen Wisniewski, Robert W Clark, Rain Baker, Eric Johnson, Tom Dean and maybe other board members suspected the Plaintiff was a government snitch and were falsely calling him a “government snitch”, either slandering or libeling the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also suspects he was kicked off the board of directors because Defendant #12, Tom Dean didn’t want the Plaintiff to turn the Safer Arizona into an initiative that would put him out of work representing people arrested for marijuana crimes, and representing the members of the legal medical marijuana cartel. That is a violation Tom Dean lawyer/client relationship with the Plaintiff. That is also a conflict of interest violation. The Plaintiff suspects that all of the Safer Arizona board members may have been spreading lies saying the Plaintiff is a government snitch or police informant, which have slandered and libeled the Plaintiff. This action arises out of ARS 12-541. Wherefore the Plaintiff respectfully requests the court:
Dated this 14 day of February, 2018 Mickey Jones Homeless Plaintiff in Pro Per
|