An Atascadero woman has filed a pro per lawsuit against San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges, alleging that he violated the California Constitution when he invited federal law enforcement officials to raid a medical marijuana dispensary.
Reporter Leslie Parilla writes:
The case filed June 20 by Elaine McKellips, 56, illustrates an ongoing legal battle between conflicting state and federal laws surrounding medical marijuana use.
In her lawsuit, McKellips alleges that Hedges: •violated the state constitutional right of her and others to medical marijuana;
• illegally raided the Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers marijuana dispensary on March 29 using a federal search warrant instead of a state search warrant; • violated confidentiality laws by seizing medical records; and • inflicted emotional distress on her and other patients when denying them access to medical marijuana.
... McKellips, who suffers from chronic medical conditions including degenerative disc disease, gastroparesis, seizure disorder and spastic esophagus, is basing her lawsuit on California law that permits the use of marijuana for prescribed medical purposes.
A pdf of McKellips' complaint is here. McKellips' name does not show up on the California Bar website, but she's written a heck of a lawsuit! Not only that: a quick Google search shows that she already exhausted her administrative remedies, meaning that this suit could be going places.
An inquiry into a few pertinent quotes might be instructive in this case.
"Let He Who Is Without Sin..."
by Wayne Blank
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm
The "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" incident is one of the most well-known lessons of the Bible. A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God. In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites. He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin:
"Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Revelation 22:14-15 KJV)
The Woman, the Scribes and the Pharisees Were All Caught In The Act
It seems, perhaps, that Jesus Christ wasn't the only one who was "set up" that day. While they used the woman caught in adultery as the means to try to entrap Him through His answer, the woman herself may have been partly entrapped - the man that she was "taken in adultery, in the very act" with (by definition, if she was "caught in the act," the man had to have been caught too) was not brought to Him with her. Whoever he was, he was just as guilty and just as subject to "the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10 KJV) that the scribes and Pharisees quoted in condemning the woman. Letting him go was more hypocrisy on the part of the themselves-adulterous scribes and Pharisees.
Another interesting quote and some of the lore about it:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm
The Dogs of War or Dogs of War may refer to:
In literature:
In English, an archaic term for soldiers, ‘dogs of war’ is a phrase from line 270, scene 1, Act III of Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar; Cry 'Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war.
Thomas Jefferson uses the term 'Dog of war' as a metaphorical embodiment of war itself in a letter to James Madison -- "We have already given...one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the Legislative body... ." (Sept. 6, 1789).
That reasonable leaders in San Luis Obispo, men and women, within or without the public leadership would allow this kind of unfortunate sacrifice of innocent care givers and infirm at the hands of dubious laws, preemptive intent and questionable procedures administered by a broad dull edged sword cannot possibly bode well for the region.
Posted by: Denis Farley | August 09, 2008 at 01:10 AM