gunDriller
21st November 2012, 03:58 PM
yesterday i was asked to pee in a cup by a "doctor" who was so be-fuddled he told me i was taking 2 drugs i wasn't taking.
he also advocated prescribing 2 more drugs.
it's like the MotherFvcker is on commission.
i felt like telling him HE should be the one peeing in a cup - but it would not have gone over well :)
i asked why they wanted me to pee in a cup. they said it was to test for "street drugs".
they REALLY don't like competition.
in the history of drugs, marijuana, opium, and cocaine were the 3 of the top 5 most widely used & prescribed drugs in the United States (i've heard they were the top 3, i'm trying to be conservative in my statement) - before they were made illegal in about 1937.
that means my mother was conceived and half raised (born in 1929), and my grandparents lived half their life - and those were the drugs they had to cope with pain and other ailments.
cool tech stuff notwithstanding, i would say that America circa 1920 (pre-criminalization, pre-Prohibition - whenever that was, i might have the date wrong) was much healthier than America circa 2012.
long story short, the Pharma & Biotech companies (e.g. Pfizer & Monsanto) have their tentacles wrapped around the US gov. like one of those alien creatures in the movie Prometheus.
i also can't help but wonder if the US gov. recognizes that American society is headed for a Civil War type showdown, so they are maneuvering ahead of the event (hence laws like the NDAA), and the UN interference in (fvcking) pot laws is part of that maneuvering.
makes me thing of Cheech & Chong leading the Battle of ??? - OK, well, my Civil War history is a bit lean.
can someone edumacate me - what Civil War battle makes a good metaphor for the present situation ?
osoab
21st November 2012, 04:06 PM
yesterday i was asked to pee in a cup by a "doctor" who was so be-fuddled he told me i was taking 2 drugs i wasn't taking.
he also advocated prescribing 2 more drugs.
it's like the MotherFvcker is on commission.
i felt like telling him HE should be the one peeing in a cup - but it would not have gone over well :)
i asked why they wanted me to pee in a cup. they said it was to test for "street drugs".
they REALLY don't like competition.
in the history of drugs, marijuana, opium, and cocaine were the 3 of the top 5 most widely used & prescribed drugs in the United States (i've heard they were the top 3, i'm trying to be conservative in my statement) - before they were made illegal in about 1937.
that means my mother was conceived and half raised (born in 1929), and my grandparents lived half their life - and those were the drugs they had to cope with pain and other ailments.
cool tech stuff notwithstanding, i would say that America circa 1920 (pre-criminalization, pre-Prohibition - whenever that was, i might have the date wrong) was much healthier than America circa 2012.
long story short, the Pharma & Biotech companies (e.g. Pfizer & Monsanto) have their tentacles wrapped around the US gov. like one of those alien creatures in the movie Prometheus.
i also can't help but wonder if the US gov. recognizes that American society is headed for a Civil War type showdown, so they are maneuvering ahead of the event (hence laws like the NDAA), and the UN interference in (fvcking) pot laws is part of that maneuvering.
makes me thing of Cheech & Chong leading the Battle of ??? - OK, well, my Civil War history is a bit lean.
can someone edumacate me - what Civil War battle makes a good metaphor for the present situation ?
Is it a condition of your insurance that you piss in a cup?
Bigjon
22nd November 2012, 08:24 AM
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selfhelplegalnetwork/message/41
SUBJECT: LAWFUL POSSESSION AND USE OF MARIJUANA AS THE "ULTIMATE USER."
"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and
keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."
Revelation 1:3
"If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray
and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in
heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: ." 2 Chronicles
7:14.
RON PAUL . . . ON . . . THE WAR ON DRUGS:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY&feature=player_embedded#!>
PROBABLY THE BEST DOCUMENTARY IN THE WORLD:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAC-wzco54E&feature=related&noredirect=1>
LUIS EWING IS THE AUTHOR OF . . . "THE ULTIMATE USER FLYER."
LUIS EWING IS A DANGER TO . . . THE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROWTH INDUSTRY!!!!
LUIS EWING IS A DANGER TO ALL . . . ATTORNEYS!!!!
LUIS EWING IS A DANGER TO ALL . . . IRS SNOOPS!!!!
LUIS EWING IS A DANGER TO ALL . . . COINTELPRO AGENTS!!!!
LUIS EWING IS A DANGER TO ALL . . . FAKE PATRIOTS!!!!
These ultimate user statutes have been on the law books since the early
1970's!!!!!
LUIS EWING . . . IS SHOWING YOU THINGS . . . THAT NO ATTORNEY . . . WILL EVER
SHOW YOU!!!!
Did you know that . . . NO ATTORNEY . . . in . . . ALL 50 STATES . . . who is a
member in good standing of . . . THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION . . . has ever argued
. . . THE ULTIMATE USER STATUTES . . . in any . . . MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE or
any other criminal case regarding marijuana or any other "controlled
substance"????
WHAT LUIS EWING REVEALS BELOW PROVES THAT ALL ATTORNEYS ARE RIPPING ALL OF US
OFF!!!!
How could any attorney ask you for a $5,000.00 to 10,000.00 to $15,000.00 as a .
. . "RETAINER" . . . when you have . . . THE ANSWER . . . to beating your case
for possession of a few grams or a few ounces of marijuana . . . FOR FREE IN MY
FREE ULTIMATE USER FLYER????
ALL THE DRUG ATTORNEYS IN WASHINGTON STATE ARE PISSED OFF THAT I GAVE THIS
INFORMATION OUT FOR FREE!!!!
ALL THE ATTORNEYS IN WASHINGTON STATE ARE REFUSING TO ARGUE MY ULTIMATE USER
FLYER IN COURT!!!!
THAT PROVES ALL ATTORNEYS ARE RIP OFF ARTISTS AND SCAMMERS WHO ARE TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC!!!!
THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO PUT A BILL BEFORE THE LEGISLATURES TO TAKE AWAY
THE CONTROL OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW FROM ALL STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS!!!!
That FACT standing alone PROVES that . . . ALL PROSECUTORS . . . and . . . ALL
JUDGES . . . and . . . ALL ATTORNEYS . . . who are . . . ALL MEMBERS OF THE VERY
SAME STATE BAR ASSOCIATION . . . are all working together in . . . COLLUSION . .
. and in . . . CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY . . . giving improper training and . . .
FALSE INFORMATION . . . to . . . ALL POLICE OFFICERS . . . in violation of . . .
RCW 9A.76.175 and further all prosecutors have libeled ALL drug possession
defendants in violation of RCW 4.36.120 who were only found in the mere
possession of any controlled substance in all traffic stops, and therefore all
prosecutors are in fact guilty of barratry as defined at RCW 9.12.010 by
instigating ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT to file FALSE CHARGES OF . . . "POSSESSION WITH
INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE" . . . when in FACT ALL PROSECUTORS knew in advance that
ALL POLICE OFFICERS had . . .NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF ANY DISTRIBUTION OR
ATTEMPTED DISTRIBUTION TAKING PLACE of all drivers in all traffic stops in
further violation of the False certification statute RCW 9A.60.050 and the
False Swearing statute RCW 9A.72.040 . . .BECAUSE UNDER BOTH RCW 69.50.302
(c)(3) AND RCW 69.50.101 (b)(b) ANYONE OR EVERYONE WHO IS AN . . . "ULTIMATE
USER" . . . CAN IN FACT . . . LAWFULLY POSSESS MARIJUANA . . . OR ANY OTHER
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IF YOU TELL THE COPS YOU ARE POSSESSING THE DRUGS FOR YOUR
OWN INDIVIDUAL USE AND ARE NOT SELLING OR DISTRIBUTING ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
PERIOD, IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE!!!!
BUT NO ATTORNEY WILL TELL YOU THIS!!!!
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN HONEST ATTORNEY!!!!
AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, EVERY JUDGE, EVERY PROSECUTOR AND EVERY ATTORNEY
SHOULD ALL BE GIVEN A FAIR NUREMBURG STYLE OF A TRIAL AND BE CHARGED AND
CONVICTED WITH TREASON AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND HANGED!
Wake up, . . . IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY . . . and all the attorneys are taking
advantage of the general public's . . . "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND ARE RIPPING
YOU OFF!!!!
DID . . . CPS STEAL YOUR NEWBORN BABY . . . BECAUSE YOU TESTED POSITIVE FOR
DRUGS AT THE HOSPITAL????
DID YOU LOSE YOUR JOB, BECAUSE YOU . . . TESTED POSITIVE FOR DRUGS????
Did you know that you . . .CANNOT BE PENALIZED UNDER THE LAW . . . for what both
. . . STATE & FEDERAL STATUTES ALLOW????
There are . . . two 2 . . . different . . . types of . . . Marijuana Possession!
One is Legal and the other is Illegal!!!!
1.) Possession with Intent to Deliver is Illegal.
2.) Possession with Intent to smoke it yourself and NOT for distribution is NOT
Illegal!
Possession by itself is NOT illegal if you are the ULTIMATE USER "or"
disjunctively if you are a person who has a medical authorization i.e. a
"prescription."
Possession with Intent to Deliver a "controlled substance" is the LESSOR BUT
INCLUDED OFFENSE of the MAIN OFFENSE of Manufacturing with Intent to Deliver a
"controlled substance" other than marijuana.
However, you cannot MANUFACTURE Marijuana because it GROWS in Nature.
QUESTION: How do you Manufacture a Tree?
ANSWER: You cannot manufacture a tree, because it grows naturally!
QUESTION: Can you Manufacture Dandylions?
ANSWER: Dandylions grow naturally, they are not manufactured.
QUESTION: Can you Manufacture crab grass?
ANSWER: NO, crab grass grows, it is not manufactured.
QUESTION: Can you Manufacture Roses?
ANSWER: NO, roses grow, they are not manufactured.
You cannot Manufacture a Plant!
A Plant grows in nature, it is NOT manufactured.
METH AMPHETAMINES for example is a MAN MADE DRUG and has to be MANUFACTURED!!!!
METH AMPHETAMINES does NOT grow in nature, it has to be MANUFACTURED!!!!
That means that the cops must first charge you with the MAIN OFFENSE OF
MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DELIVER a "controlled substance" other than
marijuana before they can charge you with the LESSOR BUT INCLUDED OFFENSE OF
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER a "controlled substance" other than marijuana.
That's right, the cops must have EVIDENCE that you are MANUFACTURING MARIJUANA
(AN IMPOSSIBILITY) in the first instance before they can charge you with the
"lessor but included" offense of "possession with intent to deliver."
However, pot cannot be "manufactured" because it "grows."
Therefore, you cannot be charged with MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE
MARIJUANA, because it is growing, it is NOT being manufactured!
To state it another way, you cannot be charged with POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO
DELIVER ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN MARIJUANA unless they first have
EVIDENCE that you are MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DELIVER.
However, those charges do NOT apply to the GROWING of marijuana!
Those charges only apply to the MANUFACTURING of a controlled substance other
than marijuana!
In fact there is a Statute in every State that prohibits and makes it illegal to
Manufacture with Intent to distribute "controlled substances" except for
California which has unlawfully deviated from the Federal Standard found at 21
U.S.C. et seq.
But there is NO statute that prohibits the mere GROWING of marijuana for your
own personal an recreational use as an "ultimate user" in State or Federal law,
except for California which has unlawfully deviated from the Federal Law as
codified at 21 U.S.C. et seq., without Congressional approval as required by
law.
There is NO Statute in existence in any State that prohibits and makes it
illegal to Grow your own pot for your own individual use and consumption as a
recreational and ULTIMATE USER and NOT for distribution, except for California
which has illegally changed the wording of the Federal Law which only prohibits
"Manufacturing With Intent to Deliver or Distribute" a controlled substance.
That's right, you can legally grow your own pot for your own individual use "or"
recreational use and NOT for distribution as the ULTIMATE USER and there is not
a damn thing that the cops can do about it!
Don't believe it?
Send a RCW 42.17 et seq. & RCW 42.56 et seq. Public Disclosure Request to your
local County Prosecutor and/or your local County Sheriff and to your local Chief
of Police for the city that you live in and ask them to provide you a copy of
any RCW ______________statute that PROHIBITS ANYONE FROM "GROWING" MARIJUANA FOR
THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE and watch ALL of them come up with ZERO, ZIP and NADA.
The criminally corrupt WSBA ATTORNEYS will MISSTATE THE LAW and tell you that
you can't grow pot and then cite RCW 69.50.401 which clearly ONLY PROHIBITS
MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE . . . which Luis Ewing and Kurt Riggin
beat in the Snohomish County Superior Court Cause No. 02-1-01835-6 PRE-TRIAL and
was . . . "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE" . . . and this court case has been . . .
SEALED!!!!
My legal partner Kurt Riggin won his Multiple Felony Count Prosecution for
Manufacturing 166 Marijuana Plants that were all over Six Feet Tall of the best
. . . PURPLE BUD . . . you ever smoked in your life in the Snohomish County
Superior Court Cause No. 02-1-01835-6 PRE-TRIAL.
That was a case that well known . . . SEATTLE ATTORNEY JEFFREY STEINBORN . . .
the lead attorney for . . .NORML . . . and allegedly . . . THE BEST DRUG
ATTORNEY . . . in the State of Washington . . . and Jeffrey Steinborn said that
could not beat this case without Kurt Riggin doing some jail time and he would
have to agree to work with the cops as an . . . INFORMANT . . . A NARC . . . A
SNITCH . . . TO RAT OUT OTHER DRUG DEALERS . . . in cooperation with . . . LAW
ENFORCEMENT . . . if he had any hopes of getting out of jail early as part of
probation agreement!!!!
But bottom line is that . . . JEFFREY STEINBORN SAID HE COULD NOT BEAT THIS
CASE!!!!
What does that mean?
IT MEANS THAT LUIS EWING AND KURT RIGGIN ARE THE BEST DRUG ATTORNEYS IN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON!
This Snohomish County Superior Court case has been . . . SEALED!!!!
Why is that you ask????
Answer: Because this case set the threshold at a "minimum" of 166 POT PLANTS TO
BE A VALID 60 DAY SUPPLY . . . and we left open the question that there may be
other patients who have a much greater need to have even more plants depending
on how much the individual user could smoke!!!!!
This is the main reason why the legislature has been making such a big stink
about trying to pass RCW statutes setting the 60 day supply to the ridiculously
low quantity of plants to 15 or 20 plants, etc.
IF YOU GET CAUGHT GROWING MORE POT PLANTS THAN THE STATUTORY LIMIT, WE CAN BEAT
YOUR MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE CASE EVEN IF YOU HAVE SEVERAL
HUNDRED OR THOUSANDS OF PLANTS!!!!
THE RCW MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE ANY
LANGUAGE PROHIBITING . . . MANUFACTURING OR GROWING WITH INTENT TO SMOKE IT
YOURSELF, . . . IT CLEARLY ONLY . . . PROHIBITS MANUFACTURING . . . WITH INTENT
. . . TO . . . "DELIVER."
RCW 69.50.401 clearly states in part . . . "Except as authorized by this
chapter, it is unlawful for any person to MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESS WITH
INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER, A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. . . ."
It is UNDISPUTED that NO part of RCW 69.50.401 says that anyone is PROHIBITED
from GROWING their own pot for their own personal and recreational use as an . .
. ULTIMATE USER . . . and NOT for distribution! (All emphasis added).
MARIJUANA IS NOT ILLEGAL, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE!
Marijuana is NOT a crime and is NOT listed in Title 9 Crimes & Punishment's of
the Revised Code of Washington!
Marijuana is NOT a crime and is NOT listed in Title 9A Washington Criminal Code
of the Revised Code of Washington!
Marijuana is NOT a crime and is NOT listed in Title 10 Criminal Proceeding's of
the Revised Code of Washington!
Marijuana Offenses have been listed in THE PHARMACEUTICAL CODE in every State
and NOT in the criminal code in any State.
Marijuana Offenses under the Void for Vagueness Doctrine not naming any other
class of persons that a LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER or LICENSED PHARMACIST
therefore should only apply to a LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER or a LICENSED
PHARMACIST who is prescribing the Marijuana as some type of cure for some
disease. (Research is being done in this area to prove this point.)
A Statute to be Constitutional must name the class of persons it is applicable
to and make a reasonable distinction as to which class of people or classes of
people that fall within and without the scope and authority of the Statute. RCW
69 et seq. clearly only applies to a LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER OR LICENSED
PHARMACIST! (See United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394 (June 5, 1916.)
I am doing the research and writing of a legal motion in between doing other
legal work to prove the above argument!
ARE YOU A LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER OR LICENSED PHARMACIST?
Are you a LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER or a LICENSED PHARMACIST prescribing or
advertising Marijuana as some type of a cure for some type of a disease?
We do NOT need to LEGALIZE MARIJUANA because it already is LEGAL in the first
place.
Simply because the mere possession is NOT illegal in the 1st place!
Simply because it's only the delivery or attempted delivery that is prohibited
by the statutes!
Who is really behind the MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION MOVEMENT?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THAT'S WHO! ARE YOU SHOCKED YET?
To understand this argument, we need to remember Al Capone, the Moonshiners and
Bootleggers during the times of ALCOHOL PROHIBITION!
Basically, Dope Dealers are in the same position as the bootleggers were during
the times of prohibition.
The Federal Government, i.e. the Federal Mafia used their Executive Police
Powers to harass the Moonshiners and Bootleggers until their was enough of a
public outcry to have a Constitutional Convention to Amend the Constitution to
make the Sale of Alcohol Legal and that is why we have State Regulated Liquor
Stores Today!
And you can see the State Liquor License's are conspicuously posted on the wall
by any walk in cooler in any Albertson's, Safeway and QFC.
The Federal Government, i.e. the Federal Mafia was pissed off because they were
not getting what they perceived as their "cut of the action" and today the
Federal Mafia is again using their executive police powers to harass dope
dealers, because they wish to "legalize" marijuana and give themselves the
authority to regulate and tax the shit out of marijuana and make themselves your
ONE (1) AND ONLY DOPE DEALER AND CORNER THE MARKET ON SELLING POT!
Right now the sale of Marijuana is an unregulated industry that they have NO
authority to regulate or tax and the Federal Mafia is basically after their form
of "LEGALIZED PROTECTION MONEY," i.e. they are going to raid your homes, beat
you up, trump up bogus charges of "Manufacturing With Intent to Distribute
Marijuana" against you even though the cops and prosecutors and judges know that
they cannot make this type of charge stick without evidence or proof of a sale
and delivery or attempted delivery and they will keep putting you into jail
until you are dumb enough to "vote" to give them authority to be your ONE (1)
and only DOPE DEALER in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which prohibits
Illegal Monopolies.
That's right, the crooked and corrupt WSBA ATTORNEYS all want you to vote to
legalize Marijuana which effectively will give them an exclusive Monopoly to be
your ONE (1) AND ONLY POT DEALER!
The 1 and ONLY place you will be able to buy pot will be at a . . . STATE LIQUOR
STORE . . . or authorized . . . SMOKE SHOP . . . who will collect some type of .
. . NEW MARIJUANA STAMP TAX.
Then you will have to pay $20.00 to $30.00 to purchase 1 marijuana joint at THE
STATE LIQUOR STORE instead of $10.00 to your local pot dealer!
Then the attorneys, prosecutors and judges who are ALL in collusion and
conspiracy will also work together to get more . . . NEW LAWS . . . passed that
will make the civil fines higher and the . . . JAIL TIME MORE LENGTHY . . . for
anyone who is NOT an . . . AUTHORIZED STATE LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROWER .
. . in furtherance of the . . . ILLEGAL POT GROWING MONOPOLY . . . that they
want to set up!
Did you know that NOT even 1 single ATTORNEY in any of the 50 States has ever
argued the . . . ULTIMATE USER STATUTES . . . in any case in any of the 50
States????
Did you know that NOT even 1 single ATTORNEY in any of the 50 States in a
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE has ever raised the . . . ULTIMATE USER STATUTES . . . as
an affirmative defense????
Question: WHY IS THAT????
Answer: It's called . . . "JOB SECURITY."
How could any ATTORNEY in any of the 50 States expect to ask you for a
$10,000.00 to a $20,000.00 RETAINER or more IF you have the ANSWER how to beat
your own case which is (MY FREE ULTIMATE USER FLYERS) in your hands ????
The Federal Mafia hopes to sell "their" Marijuana Joints in every local liquor
store right next to your bottle of Tequila and Vodka and they will TAX THE SHIT
OUT OF IT and make the penalties even more severe for those who are growing and
selling without their LICENSE'S so to do. (All Emphasis added.)
Here is the Flyer you must hand to cops if you get caught with any amount of
marijuana, as it does not matter if it is one joint or ten pounds or a hundred
pounds.
If you get caught with Marijuana be sure to ask the cops the following:
1.) Officer, is it true that you are wearing a hidden microphone on your person
and that you are recording everything that I say?
2.) Officer, is it true that if I ask you to write down every question that I
am going to ask you, that you are required to write it down in your police
narrative report?
3.) Officer, is it true that your Police Department has a written policy that
if anyone demands that you call your Supervisor, that you are required to do so
at the risk of losing your job?
4.) Officer, do you see any Pot Plants growing in my car?
5.) Officer, does my car look like a rolling Pot Farm?
6.) Officer, you cannot charge me with the Lessor but Included Offense of
Possession with Intent to Deliver unless you first charge me with the Main
Offense of Manufacturing With Intent to Deliver.
7.) Officer, I demand that you write all of these questions that I have asked
you in your police report and if you are recording me, I would like to repeat
these questions for the record so that I can have proof that I have asked you
these questions.
8.) Officer, did you see me selling or distributing this marijuana?
9.) Officer, do you have any evidence or proof that I sold or attempted to sell
any marijuana?
10.) Officer, do you have any evidence or proof that I delivered or attempted
to deliver marijuana to you or anybody else?
11.) Officer, I am now going to hand you a copy of this Free Flyer from Tribal
Court Lawyers Luis Ewing and Kurt Riggin that shows you the specific RCW State
Statute that allows me to LAWFULLY POSSESS MARIJUANA FOR MY OWN INDIVIDUAL USE
AND PURPOSES AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IF I AM THE ULTIMATE USER.
12.) Officer, did you know that both Federal Law at 21 U.S.C. 822(2)(C)(3) and
the Revised Code of Washington at RCW 69.50.302(c)(3) ALLOWS ME TO "POSSESS"
MARIJUANA BECAUSE I AM THE "ULTIMATE USER."
RCW 69.50.302(c)(3) Registration requirements properly reworded clearly reads:
"(c) The following persons need NOT register and MAY LAWFULLY POSSESS
controlled substances under this chapter: . . (3) AN ULTIMATE USER or a person
in possession of any controlled substance pursuant to a lawful order of a
practitioner or in lawful possession of a substance included in Schedule V."
The Ultimate User Statutes clearly say that you can LAWFULLY POSSESS CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES if you are 1 of 2 distinct and separate classes of person(s).
The ULTIMATE USER "or" a person who has a prescription!
The word OR is a DISJUNCTIVE WORD!
The affirmation of 1 word eliminates the other word!
I CAN BE ONE OR THE OTHER!
For example, RCW 46.20.308 is worded in the disjunctive "or" and provides the
choice to all defendant's to consent or not consent to a . . . "test or tests of
breath" . . . unless the person is incapable of providing a breath sample or is
being treated for a medical condition in a facility in which a breath testing
instrument is not present.
The CrRLJ 1.1 decisional law of this state clearly shows that the word . . .
"or" . . . is a disjunctive word and provides a . . . "choice" and conjunctively
provides that . . . "the use of the term "or" suggests the phrases separated by
the "or' are alternatives. In re Marriage of Caven, 136 Wn.2d 800, 807, 966
P.2d 1247 (1988). The term "or' is a coordinating particle which signifies an
alternative. The placement of the word "or" in the statute is presumed to be
disjunctive unless there is a clear legislative intent to the contrary. Town of
Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez, 65 Wn.App. 778, 782, 831 P.2d 149 (construing "or" in
DUI statute and citing Childers v. Childers, 89 Wn.2d 592, 595, 575 P.2d 201
(1978)), review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1022 (1992); State v. Sigman, 118 Wn.2d 442,
448, 826 P.2d 144 (1992) (construing "or" in criminal statute); 1A Norman J.
Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction sec. 21.14 n.1 (5th ed. 1992). The
word "or" does not mean "and"
"When the term `or' is used it is presumed to be used in the conjunctive
sense, unless the legislative intent is clearly contrary 1A C. Sands, Statutes
and Statutory Construction section 21.14 n.1 (4th ed. 1972) (cases cited). We
have said "or" does not mean "and". State v. Tiffany, 44 Wash. 602, 87 P.932
(Dec. 8, 1906). Childers v. Childers, 89 Wn.2d 592, 575 P.2d 201 (Feb. 2,
1978); Black's 6th Edition, (1891-1991); State v. Williams, 29 Wn. App. 86, 627
P.2d 581 (April 23, 1981); State v. Carr, 97 Wn. 2d. 436, 645 P.2d 1098 (June
1982); Ski Acres v. Kittitas County, 118 Wn.2d 852, 855, 856, 827 P.2d 1000
[No. 57593-2. En Banc. April 16, 1992.]; Tacoma v. Vance, 6 Wn. App. 785,
793 (April 25, 1972); State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165, 174, 691 P.2d 197 [No.
50216-1. En Banc. November 26, 1984.].
"It would be a distortion of the judicial function for us, in the guise of
statutory construction, to change a clearly expressed disjunctive element of the
crime and declare it to be a conjunctive element. Courts may not modify a
statute by construction. Anderson v. Seattle, 78 Wn.2d 201, 471 P.2d 87 (1970).
Furthermore, the rule that criminal statutes must be strictly construed
dissuades us from making such a declaration. See In re Carson, 84 Wn.2d 969,
530 P.2d 331 (1975)." State v. Martell, 22 Wn.App. 415, 518, 419 (January 16,
1979). And;
Likewise, . . . "It would be a distortion of the judicial function for us, in
the guise of statutory construction, to change a clearly expressed disjunctive
element of the crime and declare it to be a conjunctive element. Courts may not
modify a statute by construction. Anderson v. Seattle, 78 Wn.2d 201, 471 P.2d
87 (1970). Furthermore, the rule that criminal statutes must be strictly
construed dissuades us from making such a declaration. See In re Carson, 84
Wn.2d 969, 530 P.2d 331 (1975)." State v. Martell, 22 Wn.App. 415, 518, 419
(January 16, 1979), therefore, under Anderson v. Seattle, supra, In re Carson,
supra, and State v. Martell, supra, this honorable court is required under the
CrRLJ 1.1 decisional law of this State to follow the specific holding of the
Division One Court of Appeals in O'Neill v. Dep't of Licensing, 62 Wn.App. 112,
at page 120 which specifically provides that . . . "RCW 56.20.308 (2) provides
that a breath test should be administered unless the person is incapable of
providing a breath sample or is being treated for a medical condition in a
facility in which a breath testing instrument is not present.
O'Neill v. Dep't of Licensing, supra, at page 120 clearly provides that . . .
"although the statute allows an arresting office to request both breath and
blood tests, it does not leave the choice between the two to the arresting
officer's discretion. Instead, it states specific conditions which must be met
before a blood test may be administered in lieu of a less intrusive breath
test." O'Neill v. Dep't of Licensing, 62 Wn.App. 112, at page 120, 813 P.2d 166
(July 29, 1991).
THE CHOICE TO PROVIDE EITHER A BREATH OR BLOOD TEST IS MY CHOICE!!!!
I CAN CHOOSE TO NOT PROVIDE ANY . . . "EVIDENCE" . . . THAT COULD BE USED
AGAINST ME IN COURT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE
CONSTITUTION WHICH READS:
"SECTION 9 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS. No person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to give evidence against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for
the same offense."
It is undisputed that my giving a breath test would be . . . "EVIDENCE AGAINST
HIMSELF."
The Ultimate User Statutes clearly say that you can LAWFULLY POSSESS CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES if you are 1 of 2 distinct and separate classes of person(s).
The ULTIMATE USER "or" a person who has a prescription!
The word OR is a DISJUNCTIVE WORD!
The affirmation of 1 word eliminates the other word!
I CAN BE ONE OR THE OTHER!
An ULTIMATE USE is defined as the person who uses the controlled substance for
his or her own INDIVIDUAL USE and NOT for DISTRIBUTION!
An ULTIMATE USER can LAWFULLY administer the controlled substance to a member of
his HOUSEHOLD!
An ULTIMATE USER can LAWFULLY administer the controlled substances to an animal
or pet owned by him!
THAT'S RIGHT, WASHINGTON LAW AND THE LAW FROM MANY OTHERS STATES PROVIDES THAT
I CAN LAWFULLY GET MY DOGS AND CATS STONED!
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selfhelplegalnetwork/message/41
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.