1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`RONDA BALDWIN-KENNEDY ESQ. SBN# 302813
`LAW OFFICES OF RONDA BALDWIN-KENNEDY
`5627 Kanan Road, Suite 614
`Agoura Hills, CA 91301
`Telephone: (951) 268-8977
`Facsimile: (702) 974-0147
`Email: ronda@lorbk.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`FREE SPIRIT ORGANICS; AMERICAN STATES
`UNIVERSITY; CANNABIS SCIENCE, INC.; HRM
`FARMS
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`FREE SPIRIT ORGANICS NAC;
`AMERICAN STATES UNIVERSITY;
`CANNABIS SCIENCE, INC. AND
`HRM FARMS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
`SUPERVISORS; SAN JOAQUIN
`COUNTY COUNSEL; ERIN HIROKO
`SAKATA; MIGUEL VILLAPUDUA;
`KATHERINE MILLER; TOM PATTI;
`BOB ELLIOTT; CHUCK WINN; SAN
`JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF; DOES 1-
`10, INCLUSIVE,
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`I.
` Violation Of Supremacy Clause/Preemption
` [U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2]
`II. Unconstitutional Vagueness
` [U.S. Const. Am. 5, 4]
`III. Unlawful Bill of Attainder/Ex Post Facto
` [U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 3]
`IV. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment -
` Substantive / Procedural Due Process
`V. Violation of Fourth Amendment -
` Unlawful Seizure [42 U.S.C. §1983]
`VI. Declaratory Judgment
`VII. Deprivation of Rights [42 U.S.C §1983
`VIII. Violations of the Brown Act
`IX. Violation of the 14th Amendment
` Equal Protection
`
`
`REQUEST FOR
` Return of Property Seized;
` Preliminary Injunction;
` Permanent Injunction;
` Declaration re Ordinance Is Void;
` Declaration re Search Warrant Is Void;
` Declaration re Seizure Was Unlawful;
` Punitive Damages
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`“To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our
`colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No
`field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new
`discoveries cannot yet be made... Teachers and students must
`always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new
`maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate
`and die …”
`
`Chief Justice Earl Warren - Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) 354
`U.S. 234, 250
`
`RULE 8A SHORT PLAIN STATEMENT OF CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`California’s Food and Agriculture Code [“FAC”] expressly excludes Hemp
`
`research institutions from regulation in numerous places. See e.g. FAC § 81002 (a); FAC §81003
`
`(a); FAC §81004 (a); FAC §81005 (a); FAC §81006 (a) (1), (b), (d),(f).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannabis Science Inc. and Free Spirit Organics NAC are partners in the
`
`business of growing and cultivating industrial hemp for research purposes. Each fits the definition
`
`of research organizations given in the Farm and Agriculture Code, Plaintiff American States
`
`University [“ASU’] is an institution of higher learning and a research partner with the other
`
`plaintiffs. Individually and collectively, Plaintiffs and their hemp cultivation activities are
`
`expressly exempted from regulation.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants County Board of Supervisors conducted a secret meeting at which
`
`Plaintiffs’ hemp growing operation was explicitly discussed and targeted. The result of the
`
`meeting was the enactment of Ordinance 4497, which purports to criminalize hemp in San
`
`Joaquin County. In addition to impermissibly regulating research institutions, the Board of
`
`Supervisors impermissibly redefined “Hemp”, and impermissibly redefined “Established
`
`Agricultural Research Organization”, after impermissibly finding the existing definitions within
`
`in California’s Hemp Act to be “vague”.
`
`4.
`
`It will be shown that Ordinance 4497 (The “offending ordinance” or the
`
`“challenged ordinance”) is unconstitutionally violative of the supremacy / preemption doctrines
`
`found in both the United States and California constitutions, as it is in conflict with supreme law
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`found in California’s Food and Agriculture Code, including the Hemp Act (2017), United States
`
`Executive Order 12919 (1994), and 7 U.S.C. § 5940 (Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of
`
`2014.
`
`5.
`
`It will be shown that the offending ordinance is void for vagueness on multiple
`
`counts; and that it constitutes both a bill of attainder and ex post facto legislation, as it
`
`retroactively criminalized plaintiffs’ growing operation, and targeted them for punishment
`
`specifically (or at minimum, impermissibly prevented a defined category of persons – hemp
`
`growers - from practicing their professions).
`
`6.
`
`Acting under the purported authority of the challenged ordinance, and in
`
`10
`
`possession of a defective warrant, law enforcement officers seized the entire crop of hemp,
`
`11
`
`estimated value of $77 M.
`
`12
`
`7.
`
`Thus, Plaintiffs will prove violations of their First Amendment right to conduct
`
`13
`
`scientific research in the public interest, their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable
`
`14
`
`search and seizure, their Fourteenth Amendment rights to Equal Protection and Due Process, and
`
`15
`
`their statutory rights under the Brown Act.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28 of
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`18
`
`the United States Code, §§§1331, 1343, and 1367 as well as pursuant to Title 42 and Title 18 of
`
`19
`
`the United States Code, §§§ 1942, 1983 and 1988 and subject matter of Plaintiff’s state claim
`
`20
`
`arising out of California’s common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331, et. seq. for supplemental
`
`21
`
`jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`9.
`
`All the events described herein occurred in San Joaquin County, California.
`
`Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code §1931, Venue is therefore appropriate here in the
`
`VENUE
`
`25
`
`Eastern District Federal Court of California.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Free Spirit Organics, NAC, [“FSO”] is a tribal-owned Native American
`
`company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with tribal sovereignty status, a
`Page 3 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`real party in interest with standing pursuant to FRCP 17(b), and is and at all relevant times leased
`
`managed and operated 250 acre plot located at 11700 West Lower Jones Road in Stockton,
`
`California on which 26.19 acres were allocated exclusively to the growing of only
`
`industrial hemp. FSO fits the definition of a research organization is defined as [FAC
`
`81000(c)(1)] “A public or private institution or organization that maintains land or facilities for
`
`agricultural research, including colleges, universities, agricultural research centers, and
`
`conservation research centers” and is expressly exempted from regulation. As a partner to the
`
`research operation, FSO is an owner of, and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff American States University [“ASU”] is a California institution of higher
`
`10
`
`education as defined under sections 81000 et. seq. of the California Food & Agricultural Code.
`
`11
`
`ASU is a real party in interest, headquartered in Orange County, California, a partner of FSO, and
`
`12
`
`has standing as an unincorporated association pursuant to FRCP 17(b). ASU’s executive staff
`
`13
`
`includes Raymond C. Dabney President, CEO, and Co-Founder as well as Allen A. Herman,
`
`14
`
`M.D., Ch.B., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, both of whom have been published, inter alia, in the
`
`15
`
`medical journal Frontiers in Oncology. At all times material “ASU” has revolutionized higher
`
`16
`
`education by creating a new vertically integrated model of operations to provide jobs throughout
`
`17
`
`the community, full scholarships, and further-subsidized education packages to members of the
`
`18
`
`Native American community and any other economically packages to members of the Native
`
`19
`
`American community and any other economically challenged individuals with the desire to
`
`20
`
`improve their job skills based on ASU’s curricula. As a partner to the research operation, ASU is
`
`21
`
`an owner of, and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`22
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Cannabis Science Inc. [“CSI”] is and at all times material a publicly
`
`23
`
`traded corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with a principal place of
`
`24
`
`business in Orange County, California and CSI is comprised of public health experts who have
`
`25
`
`ongoing research with leading experts in cancer and public health research. CSI fits the definition
`
`26
`
`of a research organization is defined as [FAC 81000(c)(1)] “A public or private institution or
`
`27
`
`organization that maintains land or facilities for agricultural research, including colleges,
`
`28
`
`universities, agricultural research centers, and conservation research centers”and is expressly
`Page 4 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`exempted from regulation. CSI’s initial research has been published in the peer-reviewed medical
`
`journal Frontiers in Oncology with further credits to Raymond C. Dabney, President and CEO of
`
`Cannabis Science Inc., and Dr. Allen A. Herman, Cannabis Science Inc., Chief Medical Officer.
`
`Other key management heads include the President of the Cannabis Science Scientific Advisory
`
`Board, retired United States Assistant Surgeon General Roscoe M. Moore, Jr., D.V.M., Ph.D.,
`
`D.Sc. and the President of the Cannabis Science International Government Affairs Board, former
`
`United States House Representative Honorable Ronald V. Dellums (1971-1998). See attached
`
`Exhibit A. At all times material CSI has received U.S. Federal Government clearance,
`
`Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code from the Defense Logistics Agency’s CAGE
`
`10
`
`Program Office at the U.S. Department of Defense, to receive U.S. Federal Government
`
`11
`
`contracts. CSI works with leading experts in drug development and clinical research to develop,
`
`12
`
`produce, and commercialize groundbreaking drugs using cannabinoids extracted and formulated
`
`13
`
`from the hemp or cannabis plant as treatments for: Cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, arthritis,
`
`14
`
`asthma, autism, nearly all of the autoimmune diseases, brain trauma, diabetes, various digestive
`
`15
`
`disorders, glaucoma, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, influenza, pain management,
`
`16
`
`Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Tourette’s Syndrome, infections, and several other
`
`17
`
`neurobehavioral disorders and degenerative neurological conditions. CSI is researching and
`
`18
`
`developing its proprietary cannabinoid-based solutions to optimize treatments with an overall
`
`19
`
`emphasis on accessibility to those most in need of the medical benefits from hemp-derived
`
`20
`
`medicines (collectively “patients”). As a partner to the research operation, CSI is an owner of,
`
`21
`
`and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`22
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff HRM Farms, Inc. (“HRM”) is a California corporation with a principal
`
`23
`
`place of business in Holt, California at the site of the subject grow, and is a partner of FSO, and
`
`24
`
`ASU; a real property in interest; HRM Farms is in the agricultural business they are the growers
`
`25
`
`of varies crops. HRM Farms conducts agricultural research for the best ways to grow varies
`
`26
`
`crops. HRM Farms and has standing pursuant to FRCP 17 (b). As a partner to the research
`
`27
`
`operation, HRM is an owner of, and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`28
`
`14.
`
`Defendants “San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors” including named
`Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`defendants, Miguel Villapudua, Katherine Miller, Tom Patti, Bob Elliott, and Chuck Winn
`
`[collectively “Board”] are and at all times material “public servants” and “trustees” and being
`
`sued in their personal capacity acting under color of state law and entrusted with the duty of
`
`representing the residents of San Joaquin County, and at all times material acting, or purporting to
`
`act, within their official capacities with respect to the events described herein.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Erin Hiroko Sakata [“Sakata”] is and at all times material a California
`
`licensed attorney and employee of County, working in the San Joaquin County Counsel’s office
`
`[County Counsel”]. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Sakata bought this
`
`matter to the Board and presented her alleged evidence at the September 26, 2017 board meeting
`
`10
`
`in support of passage of Ordinance 4479 [“offending ordinance”]. Plaintiffs are informed and
`
`11
`
`believe and thereon allege that Sakata coordinated and conspired with County Sheriff and other
`
`12
`
`County officials to intentionally facilitate the events described Herein with the specific intent to
`
`13
`
`interfere with (a) the ability of plaintiffs to extract the cannabidiol cannabinoid [“CBD”] from
`
`14
`
`their hemp and (b) the ability of plaintiffs to complete their agricultural research.
`
`15
`
`16.
`
`Defendant San Joaquin County Sheriff [“Sheriff”] is a group of public employees
`
`16
`
`charged with enforcement of actions in the unincorporated parts of San Joaquin County.
`
`17
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that members of the Sheriff’s office
`
`18
`
`conspired with County Counsel and the District Attorney’s office to communicate false
`
`19
`
`information and statements to the Board, whether knowingly, recklessly, or otherwise, at the
`
`20
`
`public meeting on September 26, 2017.
`
`21
`
`17.
`
`Defendants Does 1-10 are sued in both their personal and official capacities as
`
`22
`
`employees and/or officials of County and/or the United States Department of Justice [“DOJ”].
`
`23
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all defendants and Does 1-10 are, and
`
`24
`
`each of them is, responsible for the acts alleged herein as the agents and employees of County
`
`25
`
`and/or DOJ. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all defendants were, and
`
`26
`
`each was, when doing the acts herein alleged, acting within the scope of their office, authority,
`
`27
`
`agency and/or employment, under color of law, in representative capacity on behalf of County
`
`28
`
`and/or DOJ, and are therefore individually and collectively responsible for the acts complained of
`Page 6 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`herein. County and/or DOJ defendants acting separately and in unison, directly and through their
`
`agents and subordinates, infringed on the rights of each of plaintiffs are responsible for drafting,
`
`maintaining, and/or administering the policies, procedures and/or practices and/or were
`
`responsible for execution, enforcement, and application of the aforementioned policies,
`
`procedures and/or practices and were each co-participants in the actions and inactions with the
`
`other named defendants herein which constitute violations of Constitutional law, federal law,
`
`and/or California law - most notably the passage, approval, and enforcement of the offending
`
`ordinance.
`
`STANDING
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`18.
`
`Each surviving Plaintiff has standing to pursue these claims because each is a
`
`11
`
`partner in the research operation described throughout. Each Plaintiff is an owner of and has a
`
`12
`
`financial interest in the subject grow, thus has sustained an injury in fact. In addition to the
`
`13
`
`monetary injury, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to recognized constitutional rights without the
`
`14
`
`substantive and procedural due process afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. The injury is
`
`15
`
`remediable by the relief sought restoration of plaintiffs’ rights, compensation in the form of actual
`
`16
`
`and punitive damages, and an injunction prohibiting Defendant’s from enforcing the offending
`
`17
`
`ordinance.
`
`18
`
`19.
`
`This action is brought without prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights to seek monetary
`
`19
`
`compensatory damages in a subsequent action or Amendment to this Complaint once their right
`
`20
`
`to sue has been perfected under the California Government Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs herein
`
`21
`
`specifically reserve that right.
`
`22
`
`20.
`
`This action is, at present, brought for injunctive relief, declaratory relief and
`
`23
`
`punitive damages, declaratory fees with respect to §1983 claims, and for return of the unlawfully
`
`24
`
`seized property, not directly for compensatory damages, and therefore the individual defendants
`
`25
`
`are proper defendants, and none of the defendants acting under color of state law are protected by
`
`26
`
`the Eleventh Amendment. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that there is no immunity, qualified or
`
`27
`
`otherwise, where there is bad faith. Armstrong v. Wilson (9th Cir.1997) 124 F.3d 1019, 1026;
`
`28
`
`Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, 523; Vidmar v. Williams (N.D. Cal. 2005) 367 F.Supp.2d
`Page 7 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1265. Defendants are hereby put on notice that any arguments which unsuccessfully raise these
`
`issues - such as in a 12(b)(6) motion - which are decided based on the aforementioned cases and
`
`their precedent/progeny - will be commented on at trial as further evidence of bad faith in support
`
`of plaintiffs’ punitive damages requests.
`
`21.
`
`This lawsuit joins with the 2014 Farm Bill and the California Industrial Hemp
`
`Farming Act in defining the distinction between hemp and marijuana as turning on the percent of
`
`the tetrahydrocannabinol cannabinoid [“THC”] present in the plant. A plant within the genus
`
`“Cannabis” and species “Sativa L.” possessing 0.3% or lower concentration of THC is defined as
`
`industrial hemp [“hemp”]. A plant within the genus “Cannabis” and species “Sativa L.”
`
`10
`
`possessing greater than 0.3% concentration of THC is defined as marijuana. This definition
`
`11
`
`assures that “hemp” refers to a non-psychoactive plant from which it is impossible to suffer
`
`12
`
`deleterious effects. At no time herein was marijuana involved. The term “cannabis” strictly
`
`13
`
`speaking refers to both hemp and marijuana because they are both “Cannabis Sativa L.” Usage of
`
`14
`
`the term “cannabis” is accordingly nonspecific and fails to distinguish between hemp and
`
`15
`
`marijuana.
`
`16
`
`22.
`
`At all times material throughout the events below parties working on both sides of
`
`17
`
`this case took random samples from the subject grow of 26.19 acres. Plaintiffs are informed and
`
`18
`
`believe and thereon allege that, without exception, every single tested sample has confirmed that
`
`19
`
`there was no “marijuana” in the subject grow and that at all times material every single plant
`
`20
`
`tested was revealed to be hemp. That result was expected because the entire subject crop was at
`
`21
`
`all times purely hemp.
`
`22
`
`23.
`
`Paragraphs 22-25, infra refers to defendants’ knowledge, intent, or state of mind,
`
`23
`
`are alleged on information and belief.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COMMON ALLEGATIONS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`24.
`
`In October of 1863, the United States Government entered into The Treaty of
`
`26
`
`Ruby Valley with the Sosoni tribe of Nevada, ancestors of the Winnemucca plaintiffs
`
`27
`
`28
`
`25.
`
`On or about October 10, 2017, the San Joaquin County Sheriff [“Sheriff”] entered
`
`onto Winnemucca tribal fee land,onto the subject grow. Once there, they removed the lush green
`Page 8 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`hemp plants, the valuable and painstakingly developed topsoil, and the surrounding signage.
`
`What was once a thriving agricultural parcel is now barren, dry, and essentially dead. The
`
`entirety of the Native American grow was taken from them.
`
`26.
`
`On that day and subsequent days, Plaintiffs alleged that the “County” acted
`
`improperly at all times material. County Counsel specifically intended to target plaintiffs and
`
`interpreted the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act in such a manner to reach the purposeful
`
`conclusion that plaintiffs were in violation. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
`
`that “County Officials” intentionally drafted the offending ordinance, ex post facto as new
`
`“emergency” law criminalizing plaintiffs’ existing grow (specifically tailored to allow for its
`
`10
`
`seizure), lied at a public meeting to justify both the passage of the offending ordinance and the
`
`11
`
`urgent need such that plaintiffs would never have adequate notice or be prepared for the seizure.
`
`12
`
`Once approved, Sheriff, under color of state law punished the plaintiffs, effectively acting as all
`
`13
`
`three branches of government that included a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the United
`
`14
`
`States Constitution.
`
`15
`
`27.
`
`As if this weren’t enough, plaintiffs specifically asked for an opportunity to be
`
`16
`
`heard after learning about the offending ordinance just before noon on Thursday, October 5,
`
`17
`
`2017. Within the hour, they were invited to come and share their side of the story at the next
`
`18
`
`public meeting on November 7, 2017. In the meantime, two business days later, on October 10,
`
`19
`
`2017 in violation of the terms on the face of the warrant, the Sheriff personnel were at the grow,
`
`20
`
`“eradicating” the “dangerous” grow they had just criminalized two weeks prior. The most
`
`21
`
`creative among us would be hard pressed to imagine a better set of facts to demonstrate bad faith
`
`22
`
`then telling a party it will be given due process, and purposefully acting before any process was to
`
`23
`
`salvage what they can in order to get thousands of patients back to receiving the cannabidiol
`
`24
`
`cannabinoid [“CBD”] which had finally gave thousands of them hope of one day living
`
`25
`
`asymptomatically. Plaintiffs want the right to grow hemp on their land, consistent with the laws
`
`26
`
`of the United States in violation of the Brown Act pursuant to California Government Code
`
`27
`
`54950, et. seq.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs FSO and HRM Farms leased a wholly tribal member owned 250-acre
`
`parcel of land in San Joaquin County. On a 26.19 acre portion of that land, plaintiffs planned to
`
`sow hemp. The cultivation of industrial hemp is legal in California, as it is in many other states,
`
`as it in on a federal level. The DEA has announced that hemp falls under the purview of the U.S.
`
`Department of Agriculture. Plaintiffs moved forward with their plans and applied for any and all
`
`paperwork necessary to be permitted to conduct such a grow.
`
`29.
`
`On March 21, 2016 the Nevada Department of Agriculture approved FSO as an
`
`industrial hemp cultivar. A Declaration of Certification of Industrial Hemp Production pursuant to
`
`that approval was issued to FSO on June 20, 2016.
`
`30.
`
`On July 31, 2017, despite technically being exempt from registration, in an effort
`
`to be both transparent to and cooperate with San Joaquin County, plaintiffs registered HRM as a
`
`grower of hemp with the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commission.
`
`31.
`
`Prior to planting the seed, concerned about maximizing yields, about ensuring the
`
`plants thrived without pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides1 and about the many other challenges
`
`involved, plaintiffs, experts in growing (the Winnemucca plaintiffs are descendants of the
`
`Shoshoni - a name which comes from “sosoni” and means “high growing grass”), contacted S.G.
`
`Farms, to purchase, headquartered in Marin County, California.
`
`32.
`
`County Counsel’s allegation that plaintiffs are not within the definition of Food &
`
`Agricultural Code section 81000(c)(2), even if true, would fail to justify County’s actions,
`
`because plaintiffs are authorized to grow hemp pursuant to S.G. Farms’ qualifications under
`
`section 81000(c)(1). This fact would never have been discovered by County Counsel because,
`
`plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, it was never genuinely sought in the first
`
`place. Had County Counsel afforded plaintiffs a true opportunity to be heard, or had this case
`
`been brought before an independent judiciary on the legality issue, the above facts would have
`
`been disclosed - and County Counsel would not have been able to punish plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
`
`1 Both marijuana and hemp are accumulator crops, and it would be dangerous to use chemicals
`when cultivating them because the concentrated derivatives would be quite toxic if consumed in
`plant form.
`
`
`Page 10 of 34
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`informed and believe this is why there was no process afforded - because County Counsel or
`
`someone influencing Sakata had malicious intent to seize the subject grow at any cost, without
`
`notice, either to intentionally punish plaintiffs or to convert it to their own financial profit, but in
`
`any case in reckless disregard for plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the thousands of patients
`
`affected who will have no relief from their respective conditions, including each of the
`
`individually named plaintiffs.
`
`33.
`
`In June of 2017, plaintiffs began cultivation of hemp on the subject grow. This was
`
`known - and on July 31, 2017 it was approved - by the County Agricultural Commission,
`
`identifying HRM as a grower of hemp on that parcel on a maps as “IHEMP.” S.G. Farms went
`
`10
`
`onto the parcel regularly - measuring, sampling, testing moisture, adjusting drainage, etc., then
`
`11
`
`would record its findings. Chief Bills, as operator of the location, was responsible to the rest of
`
`12
`
`plaintiffs for overseeing the grow.
`
`13
`
`34.
`
`On July 18, 2017, after overhearing concerns their parcel may contain an illegal
`
`14
`
`grow, plaintiffs retained Steep Hill Testing Labs, an industry leader, located in Oakland
`
`15
`
`California, to test another hemp sample. Analysis on that sample found THC at 0.21%,
`
`16
`
`comfortably below the 0.3% limit.
`
`17
`
`35.
`
`To minimize the potential for criminal activity, at S.G. Farms suggestion, plaintiffs
`
`18
`
`erected large, clear signage to any whom would come near the parcel making it clear that there
`
`19
`
`was no marijuana growing there - unmistakably identifying it as industrial hemp.
`
`20
`
`36.
`
`From the date the crop were first planted through August 29, 2017, plaintiffs did
`
`21
`
`not receive one complaint, citation, or any other indication that they were causing injury or hazard
`
`22
`
`to anyone, nor were they informed that there was any legal concern with the subject grow. Then,
`
`23
`
`on August 29, 2017, Sakata sent plaintiffs a letter referencing an August 17, 2017 investigation of
`
`24
`
`a “cannabis grow” within the unincorporated area of County, claiming it was prohibited pursuant
`
`25
`
`to County law. The letter further stated that “signage alone is not sufficient to establish an
`
`26
`
`institution’s ability to cultivate industrial hemp for agricultural or academic research in San
`
`27
`
`Joaquin County.” The letter demanded evidence supporting plaintiffs’ claim of being an
`
`28
`
`established research cultivar by September 11, 2017. Because the County can’t quite understand
`Page 11 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that the word “cannabis” - which may be colloquially used interchangeably with “marijuana” -
`
`doesn’t actually mean “marijuana”, this letter was on its face confusing.
`
`37.
`
`On September 11, 2017, plaintiffs responded to the letter addressing the County's
`
`position at length, disputing both the factual and legal basis for the County’s letter. See Exhibit B,
`
`attached hereto. No one vested Sakata with the power to preside over any qualification
`
`determination hearings. In fact, under the newly enacted California law, this was properly the
`
`domain of the newly established Industrial Hemp Advisory Board. Plaintiffs nonetheless, in their
`
`responsive letter, diligently addressed each request County Counsel made.
`
`38.
`
`On September 12, 2017, San Joaquin County responded to plaintiffs’ letter,
`
`10
`
`declaring the September 11, 2017 letter non-responsive and insufficient to demonstrate an
`
`11
`
`“Established Agricultural Research Institution for the purposes of agricultural or academic
`
`12
`
`research.”
`
`13
`
`39.
`
`On September 15, 2017, plaintiffs again replied offering specific information to
`
`14
`
`support and substantiate, attaching a plethora of documentation as exhibits, including but not
`
`15
`
`limited to: California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education showing American States
`
`16
`
`University as offering a number of “currently approved [educational] programs.”
`
`17
`
`40.
`
`Apparently this third letter was not adequate because on September 26, 2017, the
`
`18
`
`San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the offending ordinance.
`
`19
`
`41.
`
`The video record of the meeting of September 26, 2017 speaks for itself- and the
`
`20
`
`number of falsehoods disclosed at that meeting was substantial. To identify a few:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- The subject grow was described as 500 or 600 acres, considerably more than the
`
`actual 26.19 acres actually grown, causing it to fall under a commercial
`
`category;
`
`- The suggestion that hemp is indistinguishable from marijuana was also made,
`
`when there is a measurable distinction, notably the THC content;
`
`- The notable omission of the fact that hundreds if not thousands of patients have
`
`come to depend on CBD for their health as the only medication that gives them
`
`relief, and there’s a shortage of CBD as a result of the DEA ban on imports;
`Page 12 of 34
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`- The implication that laboratories are difficult to find when plaintiffs have
`
`handed defendants a binder with test results from local labs all over the bay area
`
`on multiple occasions;
`
`- The statement that the plant must be taken to a lab to test despite that there are
`
`countless products on the market, including on Am