Fresno County Bans all Cultivation of Medical Cannabis

tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
When. How many years has it been since city of fresno banned outdoor growing. There is still not trial date for the supreme court hearing.

If this was really about "think of the aptients having to travel" and such excuses, the fact that it can be overruled in a supreme court is completely irrelevant to the patients who have to wait years to be able to grow again. (although they can still grow indoors so i consider the whole argument of think of the patients to be utterly and completely flawed.)
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
it is.. however, it will take a person to say, shove the ban and fines where the sun don't shine... They will need to arrest 1 person for bogus charges and California Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court and California constitution, it will be required by law to hear a local ordinance which conflicts with state law.

Also, The Supreme Court has already ruled a similar case, People VS. Kelly Jan21, 2010. It does not address the outdoor issue but it does address the patients right to grow more than 6, or 12...

The decisions of the Courts of Appeal are binding on the Superior Courts of California, and both the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of California. Notably, all published California appellate decisions are binding on all trial courts[SUP][2][/SUP] (distinct from the practice in the federal courts and in other state court systems in which trial courts are bound only by the appellate decisions from the particular circuit in which it sits, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States or the state supreme court).[SUP][3][/SUP] Court of Appeal decisions are not binding between divisions or even between panels of the same division.[SUP][4][/SUP]

It is customary in federal courts and other state courts to indicate in case citations the particular circuit or district of an intermediate appellate court that issued the decision cited. But because the decisions of all six California appellate districts are equally binding upon all trial courts, district numbers are traditionally omitted in California citation style unless an actual interdistrict conflict is at issue.

All California appellate courts are required by the California Constitution to decide criminal cases in writing with reasons stated (meaning that even in criminal appeals where the defendant's own lawyer has tacitly conceded that the appeal has no merit,[SUP][5][/SUP] the appellate decision must summarize the facts and law of the case and review possible issues independently before concluding that the appeal is without merit).[SUP][6][/SUP] Such procedure is not mandated for civil cases, but for certain types of civil cases where a liberty interest is implicated, the Courts of Appeal may, but are not required to, follow a similar procedure.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Most Court of Appeal opinions are not published and have no precedential value;[SUP][9][/SUP] the opinions that are published are included in the official reporter, California Appellate Reports.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Courts_of_Appeal
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
Every California city may enact and enforce within its limits local ordinances not in conflict
with general laws. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.)


GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.
Classification of counties.
For legislative purposes, counties are divided into 58 classes on
the basis of population by Government Code § 28020 et seq.
2.
Source of county powers.
In terms of powers, counties may be classified as general law
counties and chartered counties.
General law counties operate under California Government Code title 3 (commencing with §
23000) and other applicable California laws. Chartered counties operate under a charter
authorized by Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3 and other applicable California laws.
The provisions of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 1 provides as follows:
Sec. 1. (a) The State is divided into counties which are legal subdivisions of the State. The
Legislature shall prescribe uniform procedure for county formation, consolidation, and
boundary change. Formation or consolidation requires approval by a majority of electors
voting on the question in each affected county. A boundary change requires approval by
the governing body of each affected county. No county seat shall be removed unless
two-thirds of the qualified electors of the county, voting on the proposition at a general
election, shall vote in favor of such removal. A proposition of removal shall not be
submitted in the same county more than once in four years.
(b) The Legislature shall provide for county powers, an elected county sheriff, an elected
district attorney, an elected assessor, and an elected governing body in each county.
Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 4 of this article, each governing body
shall prescribe by ordinance the compensat
ion of its members, but the ordinance
prescribing such compensation shall be subject to referendum. The Legislature or the
governing body may provide for other office
rs whose compensation shall be prescribed
by the governing body. The governing body shal
l provide for the number, compensation,
tenure, and appointment of employees.
The provisions of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 4 provides as follows:
Sec. 4. County charters shall provide for:
(a) A governing body of 5 or more members, elected (1) by district or, (2) at large, or
(3) at large, with a requirement that they reside in a district. Charter counties are
subject to statutes that relate to apportioning population of governing body districts.
(b) The compensation, terms, and removal of members of the governing body. If a
county charter provides for the Legislature to prescribe the salary of the governing
body, such compensation shall be prescri
bed by the governing body by ordinance.
(c) An elected sheriff, an elected district attorney, an elected assessor, other officers,
their election or appointment, compensation, terms and removal.
(d) The performance of functions required by statute.
(e) The powers and duties of governing bodies and all other county officers, and for
consolidation and segregation of county officers, and for the manner of filling all
vacancies occurring therein.
(f) The fixing and regulation by governing bodies, by ordinance, of the appointment
and number of assistants, deputies, clerks, attachés, and other persons to be
employed, and for the prescribing and regulating by such bodies of the powers,
duties, qualifications, and compensation of such persons, the times at which, and
terms for which they shall be appointed,
and the manner of their appointment and
removal.
Page 3 of 8
(g) Whenever any county has framed and adopted a charter, and the same shall have
been approved by the Legislature as herein provided, the general laws adopted by
the Legislature in pursuance of Section 1(b) of this article, shall, as to such county,
be superseded by said charter as to matters for which, under this section it is
competent to make provision in such charter, and for which provision is made
therein, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.
(h) Charter counties shall have all the powers that are provided by this Constitution or
by statute for counties.
The provisions of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7 provide that "a county or city may make and enforce
within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with
general laws."
In Dibbs v. County of San Diego, 8 Cal. 4th 1200, 884 P.2d 1003 (1994), the California
Supreme Court in contracting the home rule authority of charters cities and chartered counties
stated as follows:
Whereas charter county “home rule” authority is limited to matters concerning the structure
and operation of local government, the version of
'home rule' afforded to a charter city is
substantially more expansive. First, in comparis
on with charter counties, article XI, section 5,
subdivision (b), gives charter cities even broader authority to structure and organize their
government; for example, it grants 'plenary authority' over the election, removal, and
compensation of municipal officers and empl
oyees. (Ibid.) In addition, and unlike charter
counties, charter cities are also given broad authority to 'make and enforce all ordinances and
regulations in respect to municipal affairs.... City charters adopted pursuant to this
Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall
supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.' (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (a).) There is no
corresponding grant of authority and autonomy over the 'county affairs' of charter counties.
(Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 389, 406, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 470, 841 P.2d 990; see also
Sato, “Municipal Affairs” in California (1972) 60 Cal. L. Rev. 1055, 1115.) Indeed, as noted
above, the Constitution requires charter counties to provide for '[t]he performance of functions
required by statute.' (Art. XI, § 4, subd. (d).))
8 Cal. 4th at 1206, 884 P.2d at 1007.
3.
Source of city powers.
For purposes of powers, cities may be classified as general law cities
and chartered cities.
General law cities operate under California Government Code title 4 (commencing with §
34000) and other applicable California laws. Chartered cities operate under a charter authorized
by Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3 and other applicable California laws.
The provisions of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7 provide that "a county or city may make and enforce
within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with
general laws."
The provisions of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5 provide as follows:
(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to
provide that the city governed thereunder may
make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject
only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to
other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to
this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal
affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.
(b) It shall be competent in all city charters
to provide, in addition to those provisions
allowable by this Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution,
regulation, and government of the city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a
city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only


Page 4 of 8
to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner
in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several
municipal officers and employees whose com
pensation is paid by the city shall be
elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the
number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the
compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of
such deputies, clerks and other employees.
In Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 209 Cal. Rep. 682, 729, 37 Cal. 3d 644, 693 P.2d 261, 308 (S.
Ct. 1984), the following statement was made about municipal powers.
Every California city possesses the general power to 'make and enforce within its limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
regulations not in conflict with general laws.'
(Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) In addition, charter
cities have even greater authority: they have
exclusive power to legislate ov
er 'municipal affairs.' (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (a).)
In Isaac v. City of Los Angles, 77 Cal. Rep. 2d 752, 760, 66 Cal. App. 4
th
586, 599---600 (2
nd
Dist. 1998), the court presented the following analysis of municipal powers and the effect of
statutes upon them:
Every California city may enact and enforce within its limits local ordinances not in conflict
with general laws. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Chartered cities, such as Los Angeles, are
granted exclusive power to legislate their muni
cipal affairs. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5;
Government Code § 34101.) Under home rule, the state Legislature's authority to intrude into
matters of local concern is curtailed. The benefits of home rule are numerous, because cities
are familiar with their own local problems and can often act more promptly to address
problems than the state Legislature. Therefore, ci
ties are only precluded from enacting laws
on non-local matters if it is the intent of the Legi
slature to occupy the field to the exclusion of
municipal regulation. (See Bishop v. City of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61-62, 81 Cal.
Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d 137.)
Whether a city ordinance is valid therefore requires a determination of whether (1) the local
regulation or ordinance is a 'municipal affair,'
upon which the municipality has the exclusive
authority to regulate, or (2) whether the subject is a matter of statewide concern such that
state legislation preempts any municipal a
ttempt at lawmaking. Because the California
Constitution does not define 'municipal affairs,' it has become a question to be decided on the
facts of each case, as the concept of a municipal affair changes over time as local issues
become issues of statewide concern. (Bishop, supra, at p. 62, 81 Cal. Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d
137; Century Plaza Hotel (1970) 7 Cal. App. 3d 616, 620, 87 Cal. Rptr. 166.) Although the
state Legislature may have attempted to deal with a particular field, this does not
automatically ordain preemption. The Legislature may also express its intent to permit local
legislation in the field, or the statutory scheme may recognize local regulations. (City of Dublin
v. County of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 264, 276, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 845.)
Whether a particular matter is of 'statewide concern' is another way of stating that the matter
is preempted and conflicting local legislation is
prohibited. Fisher recognized a three-part test
to infer a legislative intent to preempt c
onflicting municipal enactments only where (1) the
subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate
it has become exclusively a matter of state conc
ern, (2) the subject matter has been partially
covered by general law stated in such terms as to
indicate clearly a matter of paramount state
concern which will not tolerate further or additional local action, and (3) the subject matter has
been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse
effect of a local ordinance outweighs the possible benefit of the law to the municipality.
(Fisher, supra, at p. 708, 209 Cal. Rptr. 682, 693 P.2d 261.)
In the preparation of this document, the potential inapplicability of a general law to a chartered
city has not been noted.
Click to expand...


http://www.municode.com/webcontent/statelawpamphlets/CA.pdf




The local ordinance is illegal.
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Could you show me where prop 215 or whichever it is that you guys use, falls under the criteria of general law (general law is a specific set of codes, not just laws in general)
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
The police can argue that outdoor cannabis causes: "public health, safety and welfare" issues but a person can argue that a couple plants with neighbor concent is not in violation. This will nullify the argument by the county citing harm of: "public health, safety and welfare".

http://library.municode.com/showDocumentFrame.aspx?clientID=14478&jobId=198245&docID=0

The Council further finds and declares that this Ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Click to expand...
let me find the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).. :)


(3) The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Click to expand...
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art5.html


there it is..
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
It would stand t reason that there is more to public health, safety, and welfare, than environmental impacts. The police could argue that your neighbors consent is irrelevant if criminals wish to put lives at risk through the attempted theft of cannabis.

I'm not saying you are wrong in the idea of the county law being illegal, just that i've not been shown concrete or substantial to prove it. Your first link does not work for me, tells me the site is broken or the content is unavailable, so i cannot comment on what is contained there.

But if the police fear crime due to growing, then your neighbors consent does not really have any bearing on that, the criminal issue still exists, and the CEQA exemption clause is specifically pertaining to environmental impact, which has nothing to do with public safety from the police/sheriffs position. Growing cannabis creates an issue of public safety, CEQA has nothing to do with that, and your neighbors consent has nothing to do with that.
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
tip top toker said:
It would stand t reason that there is more to public health, safety, and welfare, than environmental impacts. The police could argue that your neighbors consent is irrelevant if criminals wish to put lives at risk through the attempted theft of cannabis.

I'm not saying you are wrong in the idea of the county law being illegal, just that i've not been shown concrete or substantial to prove it. Your first link does not work for me, tells me the site is broken or the content is unavailable, so i cannot comment on what is contained there.

But if the police fear crime due to growing, then your neighbors consent does not really have any bearing on that, the criminal issue still exists, and the CEQA exemption clause is specifically pertaining to environmental impact, which has nothing to do with public safety from the police/sheriffs position. Growing cannabis creates an issue of public safety, CEQA has nothing to do with that, and your neighbors consent has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...


and nor can they prove, "significant effect on the environment". If they cannot prove, "significant effect on the environment", then they are making an illegal ordinance as it conflicts with General Law of California, Health and Safety Code.


Theft: is a city problem, not medical cannabis, and they need to boost their citizen awareness. Having a nice house and car is also prone to theft, we don't ban money.. See.. Mute point.

Exemption: The reason they believe the ordinance is legal is because they think it applies to the Environmental code. Eliminate the environmental code citing, "No Harm", and the ordinance is illegal. IT CAN BE APPLIED TO AN AREA WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ROBBED OR ABUSE FACTORS ARE PRESENT AND NOTED. i.e. complaining neighbors, I can see how the smell can be annoying. Other than that... lack of evidence on both sides except General Law.


edit: all of the links work but one is a PDF. Are you having issues with that one? I can try to scan the information from a different source. Please identify the link in question. Thank You.
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
http://library.municode.com/showDocu...198245&docID=0

That one.

Surely public health and safety involves a lot more than environmental health and safety though? If the police are able to site it for public health and safety, surely the police are citing it for "policing" reasons, as opposed to for ground water pollution reasons, just as an example. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
tip top toker said:
http://library.municode.com/showDocu...198245&docID=0

That one.

Surely public health and safety involves a lot more than environmental health and safety though? If the police are able to site it for public health and safety, surely the police are citing it for "policing" reasons, as opposed to for ground water pollution reasons, just as an example. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Click to expand...

man, they were citing exemption of General Law due to that simple line in the environmental code, 15061 or w/e.. thats it.. It sure looks shaky to me, man.

I copied and pasted the code here, your link does not work for me but mine does.. weird.. here in the info:

[h=3]ARTICLE 21 OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
[/h] SEC. 12-2101. PURPOSE.
SEC. 12-2102. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 12-2103. OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITED.
SEC. 12-2104. PENALTY AND ABATEMENT.

SEC. 12-2101. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this section is to prohibit the outdoor cultivation of marijuana in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Without this prohibition, plantings of new crops of marijuana will occur without the City's ability to control the negative effects to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Fresno. Those negative effects include, but are not limited to, offensive odors, alerting people to the location of valuable marijuana plants and creating an increased risk of crime such as trespassing and burglary, and acts of violence in connection with the commission of such crimes or the occupants' attempts to prevent such crimes. ​
The Council further finds and declares that this Ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).​
(Added Ord. 2012-13, § 1, eff. 8-3-12).​
SEC. 12-2102. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning given them in this Section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:​
(a)
"City" shall mean the City of Fresno, California.
(b)
"Cultivation" shall mean the planting, growing, harvesting, drying or processing of marijuana plants, or any parts thereof.
(c)
"Fully enclosed and secure structure" shall mean a space within a building, greenhouse or other structure which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, which is secure against unauthorized entry, and which is accessible only through one or more lockable doors.
(d)
"Outdoor" shall mean any location that is not totally contained within a "fully enclosed and secure building" that has been approved by special permit, pursuant to section 12-405 of the Fresno Municipal Code, and has been issued by the Development and Resource Management Department. All proposed buildings and structures constructed on the property must comply with the prevailing California Building Code Standards.
(e)
"Person" shall mean any individual, group of two or more individuals, collective as defined in the Compassionate Use Act, corporation, partnership or any other legal entity.
(Added Ord. 2012-13, § 1, eff. 8-3-12).​
SEC. 12-2103. OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITED.

No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any real property within the City limits shall cause or allow such real property to be used for the outdoor cultivation of marijuana. ​
(Added Ord. 2012-13, § 1, eff. 8-3-12).​
SEC. 12-2104. PENALTY AND ABATEMENT.

(a)
A violation of this chapter shall be prosecuted by the City Attorney through the civil enforcement process, including injunctive relief. Each day a person is in violation of this Article shall be considered a separate violation.
(b)
Any property upon which a violation of this Article is found shall be subject to immediate abatement by the City.
(c)
In addition to any administrative penalty assessed for a violation of this Article, any person found in violation of this article will be charged abatement, actual, administrative and enforcement costs as defined in Section 1-503, calculated to recover the total costs incurred by the City in enforcing this Article.
(Added Ord. 2012-13, § 1, eff. 8-3-12).​
Click to expand...

​
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
Here is the Environmental Code: 15061 (b) (3) again, this is what they are basing the ordinance as being exempt from conflict of State General Law.

(3) The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Click to expand...

man.. evidence for lack of harm will make those officials look real bad. Maybe they should try cleaning up their town rather than harassing medical cannabis patients.
 
B

biglungs

Active Member
pSi007 said:
Here is the Environmental Code: 15061 (b) (3) again, this is what they are basing the ordinance as being exempt from conflict of State General Law.




man.. evidence for lack of harm will make those officials look real bad. Maybe they should try cleaning up their town rather than harassing medical cannabis patients.
Click to expand...
amen to that. get rid of all the bums downtowns, clean up west fresno, get all the hookers off belmont and over off 99, make it so ppl can go to the park and not step on needles or passed out bums
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
biglungs said:
amen to that. get rid of all the bums downtowns, clean up west fresno, get all the hookers off belmont and over off 99, make it so ppl can go to the park and not step on needles or passed out bums
Click to expand...

and they think the problem is a responsible home-owner with a couple medical plants in his backyard, never any crime... Oh yeah, Fresno is shit and a $100,000s on a big lawyer would send one hell of a legal bill to the city.
 
tobinates559

tobinates559

Well-Known Member
bullshit!! central and southern CA are cracking down, i live in SanLuisObispo county now and there is not 1 dispensary only delivery services, same in SB county...they HATE weed here, grow it either way fuck them some pretentious corrupt ass politician does not represent me! power to the people, THEY are supposed to be there for US
 
ltecato

ltecato

Well-Known Member
tobinates559 said:
bullshit!! central and southern CA are cracking down, i live in SanLuisObispo county now and there is not 1 dispensary only delivery services, same in SB county...they HATE weed here, grow it either way fuck them some pretentious corrupt ass politician does not represent me! power to the people, THEY are supposed to be there for US
Click to expand...
No dispensaries in Monterey County, either, but Santa Cruz County is cool. I moved to Salinas from LA a few months ago, and the dispensaries I've tried in Cruz are generally much nicer than those in the 818 where I was living before.
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
I sure would like to see someone attack the Environmental CEQA code: 15061 (b)(3)...

I would combat the local ordinance citing, "Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.", as being in conflict with General Law of the State of California: Health and Safety code 11362.5.





edit: If anyone wants to grow their own medical cannabis in an area which has been deemed illegal through local ordinance will need a copy of the California Environmental code: 15061 (b) (3). keep it posted in your garden and cite, "NO HARM and not subject to CEQA"..

By citing this, it will make the local ordinance illegal as it conflicts with the general law of the State of California - Health and Safety code: 11362.5.

Please copy and print this information, place it in your garden.
(3) The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Click to expand...
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
some are considering putting this measure on the ballot in lake county...
how about putting a measure like this on the ballot in other counties?

The Lake County 'Right to Grow Plants' Human Rights Initiative.


Whereas on this day in the State of California the people of the County of Lake do hereby find that:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to reaffirm and reestablish the fundamental human rights that they are endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's origins entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to come forward in reestablishment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are naturally endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to re-declare and reestablish the inherent human rights that would intrinsically correct such governmental negligence, and to reconstitute such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, and in accordance with the 9th amendment of the constitution of the United State of America:
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, it has become necessary to reaffirm and specifically constitute that:
1.(a)
Humans are naturally endowed with the fundamental right to posses seeds of and partner with and grow the plants of this earth for their own uses as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights exist and are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of government to protect an individuals right to engage in commerce.
1.(b)
Any and all existing County, State or Federal laws where such conflicts may arise with the herein declared human rights are to be set aside depending on if the individual circumstance determines that such conflicts are occurring outside of a 'commerce' related activity as defined herein, and so for the expressed purposes of this document the word "commerce" shall be taken to mean:

'The buying and selling of goods in any form, as between individual humans, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency for such goods or services.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top