On April 04, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
City Of Agoura Hills,
City Of Angels Camp,
City Of Arcadia,
City Of Atwater,
City Of Beverly Hills,
City Of Ceres,
City Of Clovis,
City Of Covina,
City Of Dixon,
City Of Downey,
City Of Mcfarland,
City Of Newman,
City Of Oakdale,
City Of Palmdale,
City Of Patterson,
City Of Riverbank,
City Of Riverside,
City Of San Pablo,
City Of Sonora,
City Of Tehachapi,
City Of Temecula,
City Of Tracy,
City Of Turlock,
City Of Vacaville,
County Of Santa Cruz,
and
Ajax, Lori,
Bureau Of Cannibas Control,
for 39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review
in the District Court of Fresno County.
Preview
Stephen Zyszkiewicz
10446 W Sylvia St
FHLE.
AUG 1 0 2020
Milwaukee,‘WI 53224
FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT
415-471-8522 By
stevez@me.corn DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; CITY Case No.: 19CECG01224
OF AGOURA HILLS; CITY OF
'
1'6
‘
ANGELS CAMP; CITY OF"
ARCADIA; CITY OF ATWATER; APPLICATION T0 FILE AMICUS
11
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS; CITY OF CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF
12 CERES; CITY OF CLOVIS; CITY OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
13
COVINA; CITY OF DIXON; CITY OF DEFENDANTS BUREAU 0F
DOWNEY; CITY OF MCFARLAND; CANNABIS CONTROL; LORI
14
CITY OF NEWMAN; CITY OF AJAX, in her official capacity as
15 OAKDALE; CITY OF PALlVIDALE; Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis
CITY OF PATTERSON; CITY OF Control; and DOES l through 10,
16
RIVERBANK; CITY OF RIVERSIDE; inclusive
17
CITY OF SAN PABLO; CITY OF
18 SONORA; CITY OF TEHACHAPI;
CITY OF TENIECULA; CITY OF
19
TRACY; CITY OF TURLOCK; and
20 CITY OF VACAVILLE,
21
Plaintiffs,
22
23 vs.
24
BUREAU OF CANNABIS
25 CONTROL; LORI AJAX, in her
26 official capacity as Chief ofthe Bureau
of Cannabis Control; and DOES 1
27
through 10, inclusive,
28
Defendants.
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AIVIICUS CURIAE- l
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(c) amicus curiae is a medical
cannabis patient and religious (First Amendment) user of cannabis and previous
resident of the City of Clovis (one of the Plaintifi's) who respectfully requests
permission to file the attached brief in support of defendants Bureau of Cannabis
Control, Lori Ajax, DOES l through 10, et a1. Amicus curiae has seen long
10 standing opposition to the legalization of cannabis by cities and their law
11
enforcement despite many of their residents partaking in the medical or adult use
12
l3
of cannabis. The most recent opposition is seen in this case aimed against the
l4
statewide delivery of cannabis fiom jurisdictions where the sale is licensed to any
15
other jurisdiction.
16
17
The ongoing opposition by many cities to regulating cannabis production and
18
sale results in an underground market on one level or another and continued
19
20 criminalization of many of the residents of these cities. Amicus curiae has
21
personally tried to go through the process to bring an underground/gray market
22
23 nonprofit medical collective into the legal regulated market licensed With the City
24
of Clovis and the State of California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control.
25
26 Amicus curiae as sufi‘ered criminal prosecution on two occasions including one
27
for activity in the City of Clovis resulting in a felony for opening and maintaining a
28
place for sale or use of marijuana.
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 2
Amicus curiae disagrees with the ban on commercial cannabis activity in the City
of Clovis and other California cities and counties. Amicus curiae disagrees with
other jurisdictions who license cannabis business but aim to ban outside services
fiom serving their local market.
No party or counsel for a party has authored the accompanying brief in whole or
in part, nor made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or
submission thereof. No person or entity, other than the amicus curiae, have made
any monetary contribution intended to fimd the preparation or submission of the
accompanying brief.
Amicus respectfillly submit that consideration of the accompanying brief will
15
16
assist the Court in deciding this matter, and respectfully request that the Court
17
grant leave to file.
18
19 DATED: August 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
20
21
STEPHEN ZYSZKIEWICZ
22
Amicus curiae
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BREF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 3
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
The medical use of cannabis has been legal since 1996 with the Compassionate
Use Act (Proposition 215). Since that time, there has been much debate and
controversy over how the demand for medical cannabis should be handled. The
cannabis industry has been underground since before the Compassionate Use Act
of 1996 and continues in the present time with many small indoor grows
10 throughout California and large outdoor grows typically hidden in the mountains oi;
11
Northern California to meet the demand. It goes without saying that it would make
12
l3
common sense to allow growing cannabis outdoors on agricultural land, indoors in
14
industrial zones, and distribution, testing, production of products, and sales in
15
every city and county of California. It is obvious that there is a demand for medical
16
17
and adult use cannabis in every city and county of California. Attempts are made
18
time and time again by jurisdictions and law enforcement to pretend the residents
19
20 of these jurisdictions are somehow puritanical and would never consume cannabis
21
has failed. These policies of banning commercial activity only reinforce the black
22
23 market demand and create more Violence and crime in our communities, the
24
complete opposite of what law enforcement and municipalities claim. Some
25
26 jurisdictions license cannabis activity but oppose competition fiom services
27
licensed by other jurisdictions, contrary to common supply and demand market
28
competition.
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 4
There has been longstanding pushback in one form or the other fiom cities and
counties and their top law enforcement officials, Chiefs of Police and County
Sherifi‘s who say that the legalization of cannabis encourages the use of
“narcotics”, “controlled substances”, and profiteering fiom drugs including Fresno
County and the City of Clovis. Their position is completely contrary to common
sense which would dictate that legalizing cannabis and its associated activities
10 would actually remove the underground market completely fiom their jurisdictions.
11
The ongoing opposition by many cities to regulating cannabis production and
12
13
sale results in an underground market on one level or another and continued
14
criminalization of many of the residents of these cities. Amicus curiae has
15
personally tn'ed to go through the process to bring an underground/gray market
16
17
nonprofit medical collective into the legal regulated market licensed with the City
18
of Clovis and the State of California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control.
19
20 Amicus curiae as sufi'ered criminal prosecution on two occasions including one
21
for activity in the City of Clovis resulting in a felony for opening and maintaining a
22
23 place for sale or use of marijuana.
24
As a previous resident of the City of Clovis, Iknow there are many cannabis
25
26 consumers in the city who would like to not only continue to receive deliveries
27
from out of town services, but be able to purchase cannabis fiom a local dispensary
28
in the City of Clovis as well. Many plots of land in the City of Clovis are
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE— 5
appropriate for agricultural use and would be well suited to growing cannabis
legally through commercial licenses. Many residents would like to move their
underground delivery services and black market drug dealing activities into the
regulated market, so they could operate without fear of arrest and prosecution.
Many residents would benefit from being able to create business and jobs locally
instead of exporting these funds to legal businesses in the bay area or illegal
10 cannabis grows far north.
11
As a past resident and business owner of a cannabis business in the City of
12
l3
Clovis, I would like to return to the City of Clovis under a regular or “social
14
equity” license intended for people with criminal convictions like myself Who
15
16
faced prosecution and incarceration under the failed War on Drugs.
17
It does not make sense for cities and counties to try to outright ban legal licensed
18
delivery services fi'om their city or county simple because they want to ban the sale
19
20 of cannabis or only allow the sale fiom businesses operating in their own
21
jurisdiction. Neither the want to ban cannabis sales or to control them completely
22
23 make any logical sense in providing their residents safe access to cannabis and a
24
competitive market from which to purchase.
25
26
27
28
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE— 6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amicus urges the Court to find that statewide delivery
from other jurisdictions shall remain legal in the entire State of California.
Furthermore, Amicus urges the Court to find that no jurisdiction shall ban cannabis
businesses. It is not the will ofthe residents of these municipalities to participate in
a lawsuit against statewide cannabis licensing and delivery. It is not the will of the
1o people of California to continue the War on Drugs.
11
12
DATED: August 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
13
14
STEfiN ZYSZ WICZ
15
Amicus’dfiae
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 7
PROOF F ERVICE
I, Stephen Zyszkiewicz, state:
My residential address is 10446 W Sylvia St, Milwaukee, WI 53224. I am a
resident in the County of Milwaukee where this service occurs or mailing occurred.
I am over the age of eighteen and am not a party to the within action. On August 5,
2020, I mailed the following documents described as:
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF 0F
“"“ '
AMICfJfi EIJR"“IAE I‘N‘SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS BURE’AU‘GF
10 CANNABIS CONTROL; LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Chief of the
11 Bureau 0f Cannabis Control; and DOES l through 10, inclusive
12
13 on the following person(s) by and by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in an
l4 envelope with certified mail postage prepaid and depositing the envelope With the
15 United States Postal Service in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
l6
17 The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19 Steven G. Churchwell (SBN 110346)
20 Douglas L. White (SBN 206705)
21 Nubia I. Goldstein (SBN 2723 05)
22 CHURCHWELL WHITE LLP
23 1414 K Street, 3rd Floor
24 Sacramento, CA 95814
25
26 Defendant
27 Bureau of Cannabis Control (Lori Aj ax)
28 ATTN: Tamara Colson —— Assistant Chief Counsel
2920 Kilgore Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Fresno County Superior Court
1100 Van Ness Ave
Fresno, CA 93 724
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cortect and
‘7
7thaIt thTs’deblmZtiEfi ?vasfiex‘ec-fi'tiefla’fllis déte at Milwafikée, Wisconsin.»
10
11 Dated: August 5, 2020 W%’
12 Stephen Zyszkiewicz
l3
l4
15
l6
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
Stephen Zyszkiewicz 10446 W Sylvia St FHLE. AUG 1 0 2020 Milwaukee,‘WI 53224 FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT 415-471-8522 By stevez@me.corn DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; CITY Case No.: 19CECG01224 OF AGOURA HILLS; CITY OF ' 1'6 ‘ ANGELS CAMP; CITY OF" ARCADIA; CITY OF ATWATER; APPLICATION T0 FILE AMICUS 11 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS; CITY OF CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF 12 CERES; CITY OF CLOVIS; CITY OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF 13 COVINA; CITY OF DIXON; CITY OF DEFENDANTS BUREAU 0F DOWNEY; CITY OF MCFARLAND; CANNABIS CONTROL; LORI 14 CITY OF NEWMAN; CITY OF AJAX, in her official capacity as 15 OAKDALE; CITY OF PALlVIDALE; Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis CITY OF PATTERSON; CITY OF Control; and DOES l through 10, 16 RIVERBANK; CITY OF RIVERSIDE; inclusive 17 CITY OF SAN PABLO; CITY OF 18 SONORA; CITY OF TEHACHAPI; CITY OF TENIECULA; CITY OF 19 TRACY; CITY OF TURLOCK; and 20 CITY OF VACAVILLE, 21 Plaintiffs, 22 23 vs. 24 BUREAU OF CANNABIS 25 CONTROL; LORI AJAX, in her 26 official capacity as Chief ofthe Bureau of Cannabis Control; and DOES 1 27 through 10, inclusive, 28 Defendants. APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AIVIICUS CURIAE- l APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(c) amicus curiae is a medical cannabis patient and religious (First Amendment) user of cannabis and previous resident of the City of Clovis (one of the Plaintifi's) who respectfully requests permission to file the attached brief in support of defendants Bureau of Cannabis Control, Lori Ajax, DOES l through 10, et a1. Amicus curiae has seen long 10 standing opposition to the legalization of cannabis by cities and their law 11 enforcement despite many of their residents partaking in the medical or adult use 12 l3 of cannabis. The most recent opposition is seen in this case aimed against the l4 statewide delivery of cannabis fiom jurisdictions where the sale is licensed to any 15 other jurisdiction. 16 17 The ongoing opposition by many cities to regulating cannabis production and 18 sale results in an underground market on one level or another and continued 19 20 criminalization of many of the residents of these cities. Amicus curiae has 21 personally tried to go through the process to bring an underground/gray market 22 23 nonprofit medical collective into the legal regulated market licensed With the City 24 of Clovis and the State of California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control. 25 26 Amicus curiae as sufi‘ered criminal prosecution on two occasions including one 27 for activity in the City of Clovis resulting in a felony for opening and maintaining a 28 place for sale or use of marijuana. APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 2 Amicus curiae disagrees with the ban on commercial cannabis activity in the City of Clovis and other California cities and counties. Amicus curiae disagrees with other jurisdictions who license cannabis business but aim to ban outside services fiom serving their local market. No party or counsel for a party has authored the accompanying brief in whole or in part, nor made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission thereof. No person or entity, other than the amicus curiae, have made any monetary contribution intended to fimd the preparation or submission of the accompanying brief. Amicus respectfillly submit that consideration of the accompanying brief will 15 16 assist the Court in deciding this matter, and respectfully request that the Court 17 grant leave to file. 18 19 DATED: August 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 20 21 STEPHEN ZYSZKIEWICZ 22 Amicus curiae 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BREF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 3 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE The medical use of cannabis has been legal since 1996 with the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215). Since that time, there has been much debate and controversy over how the demand for medical cannabis should be handled. The cannabis industry has been underground since before the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and continues in the present time with many small indoor grows 10 throughout California and large outdoor grows typically hidden in the mountains oi; 11 Northern California to meet the demand. It goes without saying that it would make 12 l3 common sense to allow growing cannabis outdoors on agricultural land, indoors in 14 industrial zones, and distribution, testing, production of products, and sales in 15 every city and county of California. It is obvious that there is a demand for medical 16 17 and adult use cannabis in every city and county of California. Attempts are made 18 time and time again by jurisdictions and law enforcement to pretend the residents 19 20 of these jurisdictions are somehow puritanical and would never consume cannabis 21 has failed. These policies of banning commercial activity only reinforce the black 22 23 market demand and create more Violence and crime in our communities, the 24 complete opposite of what law enforcement and municipalities claim. Some 25 26 jurisdictions license cannabis activity but oppose competition fiom services 27 licensed by other jurisdictions, contrary to common supply and demand market 28 competition. APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 4 There has been longstanding pushback in one form or the other fiom cities and counties and their top law enforcement officials, Chiefs of Police and County Sherifi‘s who say that the legalization of cannabis encourages the use of “narcotics”, “controlled substances”, and profiteering fiom drugs including Fresno County and the City of Clovis. Their position is completely contrary to common sense which would dictate that legalizing cannabis and its associated activities 10 would actually remove the underground market completely fiom their jurisdictions. 11 The ongoing opposition by many cities to regulating cannabis production and 12 13 sale results in an underground market on one level or another and continued 14 criminalization of many of the residents of these cities. Amicus curiae has 15 personally tn'ed to go through the process to bring an underground/gray market 16 17 nonprofit medical collective into the legal regulated market licensed with the City 18 of Clovis and the State of California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control. 19 20 Amicus curiae as sufi'ered criminal prosecution on two occasions including one 21 for activity in the City of Clovis resulting in a felony for opening and maintaining a 22 23 place for sale or use of marijuana. 24 As a previous resident of the City of Clovis, Iknow there are many cannabis 25 26 consumers in the city who would like to not only continue to receive deliveries 27 from out of town services, but be able to purchase cannabis fiom a local dispensary 28 in the City of Clovis as well. Many plots of land in the City of Clovis are APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE— 5 appropriate for agricultural use and would be well suited to growing cannabis legally through commercial licenses. Many residents would like to move their underground delivery services and black market drug dealing activities into the regulated market, so they could operate without fear of arrest and prosecution. Many residents would benefit from being able to create business and jobs locally instead of exporting these funds to legal businesses in the bay area or illegal 10 cannabis grows far north. 11 As a past resident and business owner of a cannabis business in the City of 12 l3 Clovis, I would like to return to the City of Clovis under a regular or “social 14 equity” license intended for people with criminal convictions like myself Who 15 16 faced prosecution and incarceration under the failed War on Drugs. 17 It does not make sense for cities and counties to try to outright ban legal licensed 18 delivery services fi'om their city or county simple because they want to ban the sale 19 20 of cannabis or only allow the sale fiom businesses operating in their own 21 jurisdiction. Neither the want to ban cannabis sales or to control them completely 22 23 make any logical sense in providing their residents safe access to cannabis and a 24 competitive market from which to purchase. 25 26 27 28 APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE— 6 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Amicus urges the Court to find that statewide delivery from other jurisdictions shall remain legal in the entire State of California. Furthermore, Amicus urges the Court to find that no jurisdiction shall ban cannabis businesses. It is not the will ofthe residents of these municipalities to participate in a lawsuit against statewide cannabis licensing and delivery. It is not the will of the 1o people of California to continue the War on Drugs. 11 12 DATED: August 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 STEfiN ZYSZ WICZ 15 Amicus’dfiae 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE- 7 PROOF F ERVICE I, Stephen Zyszkiewicz, state: My residential address is 10446 W Sylvia St, Milwaukee, WI 53224. I am a resident in the County of Milwaukee where this service occurs or mailing occurred. I am over the age of eighteen and am not a party to the within action. On August 5, 2020, I mailed the following documents described as: APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF 0F “"“ ' AMICfJfi EIJR"“IAE I‘N‘SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS BURE’AU‘GF 10 CANNABIS CONTROL; LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Chief of the 11 Bureau 0f Cannabis Control; and DOES l through 10, inclusive 12 13 on the following person(s) by and by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in an l4 envelope with certified mail postage prepaid and depositing the envelope With the 15 United States Postal Service in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. l6 17 The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 Steven G. Churchwell (SBN 110346) 20 Douglas L. White (SBN 206705) 21 Nubia I. Goldstein (SBN 2723 05) 22 CHURCHWELL WHITE LLP 23 1414 K Street, 3rd Floor 24 Sacramento, CA 95814 25 26 Defendant 27 Bureau of Cannabis Control (Lori Aj ax) 28 ATTN: Tamara Colson —— Assistant Chief Counsel 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Fresno County Superior Court 1100 Van Ness Ave Fresno, CA 93 724 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cortect and ‘7 7thaIt thTs’deblmZtiEfi ?vasfiex‘ec-fi'tiefla’fllis déte at Milwafikée, Wisconsin.» 10 11 Dated: August 5, 2020 W%’ 12 Stephen Zyszkiewicz l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28