Law enforcement's criminal conspiracy to violate David Cox's civil rights

By John Wilkenson

Let me start by saying this essay is in effect an alternative-media op-ed piece consisting 100% of my opinion articulated in political and parody speech, which is NOT to be construed as anything other than educational, and which is specifically protected by the 1st Amendment and by Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution which says:
"Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact."

Mesa County's "Good Old Boy" duopoly corruptocracy has had its way for entirely too long. SOMEBODY has to try to bell the cat. Somebody has to grit their teeth, suck it up, say "the Emperor is a criminal scumbag who has no clothes," and let the political chips fall where they may. David Cox is a friend of mine, so I guess the task falls to your humble author.

This is a hard story to write, precisely because there are so many apparently disconnected dots to connect in the mind of any interested reader/s. The best way to expose the wannabe-clever criminal manipulations of cutesy pie government criminals who are trying to cover their tracks is to deconstruct their web of deceit line by line, sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph, and compare the acts and conditions they are alleging about the person they are trying to destroy with the actual language of the controlling statutes, the controlling case law and provable documented facts. The method I chose to do that was with a series of lettered (A, B, C, D, etc) logically titled subsections. As any good lawyer can tell you, the facts of any given case determine what law applies to that case. (Please feel free to copy and/or quote all or any part of this essay/tutorial and distribute it as far and wide to as many people as possible.)

A. Corruption in government, and the exposure thereof, are nothing new

In an exposition of this sort, one needs to make one's points as briefly as possible so as not to overly interrupt the cohesion of the desired presentation. In this subheading, it suffices to mention a couple of important books: "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice – May 1, 2014, by Sidney Powell, and "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" – June 7, 2011, by Harvey Silverglate (Author), Alan M. Dershowitz (Foreword). I wanted to use some world-class legal minds I admire so the reader (and local prog/lib trolls) wouldn't think the exposition depends solely on the personal believability of one local nonbar "law nerd" who reads appellate court decisions for a hobby.

Because at this point this exposition consists partly of educated logic-based conjecture and hypotheses, I want to clarify my use of the word "corruption", as applied to local law enforcement personnel, in this situation. By "corruption", I mean a combination/conglomeration of deliberate, strategic opaqueness, non-transparency, unaccountability, cutesy spin, manipulation, exaggeration, outright lies, and withholding of information crucial to justice and to the public's right to know how their so-called "servants" are doing (or not doing) their jobs.

At this point, I am not going to say I know to a moral certainty that ___________ (you fill in the blank, there are plenty of judicial horror stories out there) is guilty of violating ______________ (you fill in the blank again) criminal statute. That may come later as more information comes in. At this time, I am only going to give you an overview of what I believe logic dictates is obviously a collective criminal conspiracy by various local law enforcement entities to destroy David Cox by systematically violating his fundamental constitutional rights to both substantive due process and procedural due process of law. The means of destruction, of course, is total disregard for the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions and Rule of Law. The person I blame most for this at the time of this writing is Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein because he is a licensed lawyer and professional prosecutor, and, as such, should know better.

"If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself." ~ Justice Robert H. Jackson.

B. The demonization process by which "the system" tries to dehumanize the people it wants to destroy

Misusing political power to "get" somebody is not new. The "art" of dehumanizing a person government officials want to destroy so the public will be more accepting of that destruction is not new. It began in earnest with the teachings/writings of Hitler's favorite Nazi jurist/philosopher/shrink, Carl Schmitt as implemented against the Jews by Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, and Roland Freisler, judge and president of Hitler's extra-constitutional "People's Court".

Interested persons who want to understand what has popularly become known as "demonization" or "the politics of personal destruction" might want to read two very informative books on the subject, "The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits", by David Horowitz, and "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals", by Saul Alinsky.

At the national level, a good recent example of a demonization contest involved President Donald Trump, and began when a race-hustling black Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson, despicably falsely accused Trump of disrespecting a fallen black soldier with the language he used in a phone call he made to the wife of that dead soldier. The MSM was enlisted, and jumped on the race-card bandwagon by deliberately omitting the most important part of Trump's statement so as to mislead the public and turn people against Trump. SOP for cutesy demonization tactics. Trump countered with a stunningly devastating video statement by General John F. Kelly, current Whitehouse Chief of Staff. General Kelly's statement was so devastating that other cutesy-pie scumbag demonizers from the Left have jumped to Wilson's defense by falsely and maliciously calling Kelly's statement a "racist" attack on Wilson, herself the race-baiting propaganda scumbag who is taking advantage of a tragedy in a black family to score skin-color-manipulation-based political points. And so the demonization game goes. On and on.

At the local level, in David Cox's situation, the demonization is in two parts. First, the cops, who have ZERO probable cause and at least an appearance of zero actual factual evidence, cleverly make it up as they go along by in effect saying: "David Cox is a child abuser and a bad dad who has lots and lots and lots of guns." That's because demonization is all they have. It would appear they didn't even see the kids next to the guns, they just wanted you to think they did by the way they wrote what they wrote. In his Affidavit In Support of Warrantless Arrest, Mark Post wrote the following sentences: "Inside the residence in plain view on an ottoman was a loaded Glock handgun with one round in the chamber. This handgun was capable of being reached by the children and was located next [to] an area scattered with children's toys and it appeared they had recently been playing in the area." "In the east closet, officers located 2 loaded handguns, 1 unloaded handgun, and 1 unloaded long gun." "In the west closet, officers located an AK47, 1 shotgun, 1 tactical shotgun, 2 long guns multiple boxes of ammunition, and multiple magazines for these weapons." "Upstairs where the children's rooms are located, officers located a rifle scope on the floor next to an abundance of children's toys."

Question: pray tell, just what in the hell does a loose, unattached rifle scope in the middle of a bunch of kid toys on the floor have to do with anything other than cutesy "he has lots and lots and lots of guns" anti-gun propaganda? And what sort of imaginative supposition does Officer Post engage in when he assumes that the gun found near the toys was present when the children were in the room? Just because the gun was placed at the door near the children's living room play area does not mean it was there when the children were playing there - if they had been playing there at all. The children were sleeping in their beds when the officers arrived, as was attested by Cox's ex-wife who arrived to remove the children from the confrontation. Cox asserts that he dropped his personal gun on the chase lounge next to the door prior to exiting the residence to speak with the swat team. Certainly, disarming oneself when going to address a group of 30 assault-weapon-wielding men is wise if attempting to avoid violence is your goal.

The second part of the wannabe-clever demonization occurred in the MSM, in this instance, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, in a story titled "Orchard raided by task force" where, among other things, reporter Charles Ashby said: "Calling the federal government an operation run by criminals, Cox challenged U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton for the GOP nomination for the 3rd Congressional District in 2014, garnering 25 percent of the vote." In response to Ashby's attempt at demonization, I wrote in pertinent part: "Although DEMS and the GOP are not in agreement on the fine print, EVERYBODY these days understands that 'the federal government [is] an operation run by criminals'. Both Trump and Bernie Sanders ran on the 'Crooked Corporate Shill Hillary' platform. But it is interesting to see that Ashby apparently believes Sentinel readers are too stupid to see what (in my opinion) he’s trying to do (pollute the jury pool) with that paragraph."

Interestingly, the demonization tactics tend to work because most of the grassroots peasantry/proletariat/hoi polloi don't really care all that much about the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions and Bills of Rights. They just want "the bad guys to get theirs" without having to do very much independent thinking or work. Too many of our fellow citizens simply naively trust their rulers too much and expect them to "do the right thing".

It is a statistical fact that negative campaigning works. That's why unscrupulous politicians do it.

Unfortunately for the lazy and apathetic folk, it is ONLY by adhering scrupulously to the rules of evidence, substantive due process, procedural due process, and a REAL (not judicially droned propaganda) presumption of innocence that society has any meaningful hope of separating the actually guilty from the actually innocent. I know that's a bummer for some folks, but there you have it.

When a bunch of political cutesy pies try to dehumanize one of my friends, I tend to make it a personal duty to re-humanize him. Hence this investigative-journalism exposition.

In the process of re-humanizing David Cox, I went to his home for a visit. He lives in a charmingly classic old home with lots of wood, gorgeous hard wood floors, and an overall wonderfully warm feeling.

When you walk in the front door, you are in the living room, and you can see straight back through a formal dining room, back into a country-style kitchen. I absolutely loved the place.

He took me on a tour of the home, through the places cops searched, including upstairs to see the boys bedrooms.

I was reminded of the home of one of my now-deceased high school buddies. When you walked in on a Saturday, there was always a bunch of great smelling clean laundry on the sofas, but the place, although in a bit of disarray, was always clean as a pin and you always felt welcome -- like you were part of the family. Nobody noticed the laundry on the sofas, because Saturday was always laundry day at that house.

That's how I felt in David Cox's house. Sure, there was some disarray from a zillion kid toys everywhere, but the place was clean as a whistle -- so clean, in fact, that I asked David if he employed a housekeeper. He said "No". I was amazed. That showed me what kind of dad Dave was. He was a REAL dad, one who truly cared and had down-home traditional values, not just some partying "Disneyland" dad or a drug-addicted child abuser as maliciously implied by the false allegations of the criminal conspirators.

C. The Federal Government as an "operation run by criminals"

Charles Ashby's wannabe-clever attempt to demonize David Cox by accusing Cox of "calling the federal government an operation run by criminals" needs a little more examination. As it happens, Ashby is telling the truth, but truth was obviously not his motive. You see, Ashby knows that most of the grassroots peasantry/proletariat/hoi polloi don't believe that "the federal government [is] an operation run by criminals", so they will automatically tend to condemn Cox, and view him as a "bad person" for disagreeing with their ignorant, gullible and naive world view. Ashby, not being stupid, understands that a jury made up of Sentinel readers who have been persuaded that David Cox is a "bad person" will be much more likely to render a guilty verdict should the case actually go to trial and they become jurors in the case. I despise such scummy demonization/manipulation tactics. They are anathema to me.

Now, let's take it a little further and probe a little deeper. MSM propaganda hacks like Ashby will never speak/write of such things as the debt-as-legal-tender oligarchy, the "national security" secret police state with its multi-trillion-dollar secret "black budget" Congress has no control over, the use of "crisis actors" in "false flag" operations, the CIA/FBI functioning as the neofeudalistic Ministry of Propaganda, weather engineering, the OKenyan usurpation, the battleship Maine, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Gulf of Tonkin, 9-11, WMD, OKC, TWA800, JFK, RFK, MLK, Ruby Ridge, Waco, ad infinitum. Nah, they aren't interested in truth and history, they're only interested in purveying their employers' political and socio-economic propaganda, including destroying Power's perceived enemies.

Although possessing plenty of marble count to do so, folks like Ashby will never get involved in an intellectual debate on the history and merits (or the lack thereof) of such things as the debt-as-legal-tender fraud, because the documented history that I have set forth in my essay titled "The Big Lie" is irrefutable. The fact is the monetary/tax structure of the United States was dramatically altered in a provably unconstitutional way. So, yes, guys like Ashby feel a lot more confident trying to demonize targets of "the system" than they do getting involved in serious intellectual discussions on the merits.

Most people don't know that the most important generals and admirals -- (Eisenhower, Halsey, LeMay, etc) -- didn't want to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they said WW2 was already won. So, just because the scientists had a new toy and wanted to use it, various criminals at the top of the U.S. government decided to kill many tens of thousands of innocent women and children to test their new toy and "send a message" to the Russians.

Another thing Ashby won't do is get into a discussion with the likes of now-deceased J. Allan Crockett, former Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, who said:
"The foregoing is said in awareness of the proliferations that have occurred on the First Ten Amendments, and particularly by the use of the Fourteenth Amendment, to extend and engraft upon the sovereign states, limitations intended only for the federal government. This has resulted in a constant and seemingly endless process of arrogating to the federal government more and more of the powers, not only not granted to it, but expressly forbidden to it, and in disparagement of the powers properly belonging to the sovereign states and the people. This development is a clear vindication of the forebodings of the founding fathers and their fears of centralization of power. This was but natural because of the conditions out of which our form of government came into being and because history is strewn with other examples which demonstrate that undue, uncontrolled and unwieldy concentrations of power in any individual or institution tends to destroy itself. It is our opinion that this is the evil which the founders feared so keenly and tried so zealously to guard against, but which is now rife upon us. It is plainly evident that it was their desire and purpose to avoid this by providing for what they believed to be an essential and desirable balance of power between the sovereignties of the states and of the federal government." ~ State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (Utah 1975)

See also the FoxNews story titled "Declassified CIA report concluded director led 'cover up' of Kennedy assassination investigation."

But David Cox is a "bad person" for "calling the federal government an operation run by criminals". Yeh, right, Ashby.

D. The Criminal Conspiracy

David Cox went to a Republican dinner and spoke with a couple of well-connected political activists who didn't like what David had to say or his heart-on-his-sleeve -- (some might say "pushy") -- way of saying it. He called a couple of self-perceived bigshots names such as "traitor" and "coward". The aforementioned (for now anonymous) politicos, ostensibly after talking things over with a couple of their cronies in local law enforcement, made a decision to "get" David Cox.

Now, politicos like Mesa County Sheriff, Matt Lewis, and Mesa County District Attorney, Dan Rubinstein, will no doubt deny what I am saying. And, you might well ask, "Did you talk to those men?" The answer is "obviously not." Both men being intelligent professionals, they would undoubtedly say something mealy-mouthed and political like "we can't comment on ongoing investigations." So I didn't bother talking to them because 1) under the circumstances they don't deserve it, and 2) I didn't want them to be able to say I had personally contacted them and tried to influence, intimidate them, or otherwise interfere with and/or influence their pursuit of their official duties, which conceivably bootstrapped/spun into a crime under C.R.S. § 18-8-306 Attempt to influence a public servant.

But this isn't Columbia, Venezuela or Mexico where professional big-time drug cartel gangs armed with machine guns are killing professional gangs of military personnel and cops armed with machine guns and where information regarding witnesses and whistleblowers needs to be kept secret to prevent deadly retaliation. This is a much simpler case of a couple of local "Good Old Boys" (who don't like David Cox) trying to get their local law enforcement cronies to destroy David Cox on their behalf.

E. There was no probable cause for the bad bust and false arrest because probable cause was impossible under the circumstances

I hate words which are uselessly unspecific, self-contradictory or manipulative. "Hemp" and "marijuana" (an FBI-coined propaganda word) are two such words. The reason I say that is because both words refer to Cannabis sativa, the exact same plant. Cannabis is the genus, and there are three species, Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis. There are hundreds of varieties within the Sativa species. More technical information on this amazingly useful plant later.

Right now I want to point out the question: are we talking about Cannabis sativa "hemp" or Cannabis sativa "marijuana"? The point is, they look and smell the same. It is impossible to tell the difference without a lab test determining the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of the plant in question. For you newbies out there, THC is the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis which gets you "high" if you smoke it or eat it (in, say, brownies like the hippies used to do).

Since both recreational and medicinal Cannabis are legal in Colorado, there is no probable cause to believe any particular Cannabis plant, or group of plants, a law enforcement officer might see is illegally high in THC without a lab test. At this point, it is only legal for an officer to find the owner of the property and say something like, "Nice cannabis plants you have growing there. Are they 'hemp' or 'marijuana'? Do you have a license to grow them?" At that point the grower could either decline to speak further or go get his license/s to show the officer. And the officer could decide what to do at that point.

That did not happen in this case. In the case of David Cox, a task force of OathBreakers which had obviously been given their marching orders by OathBreaker superiors who had already made up their minds and planned their strategy decided to disregard David's duly licensed paper work and arrest him on false charges without probable cause. The reason it is fair to logically surmise that is because the arresting officers completely ignored David's urgent requests to go get his licenses to show them that he was a legally registered grower.

If I were in charge of selecting a lawyer to represent David Cox, I would not choose one unless s/he was willing to file a motion to suppress all the so-called "evidence" because the initial search was without probable cause.

Most people are unaware that in Colorado, whether you are involved in a civil case or a criminal case, "all [C.R.Civ.P. Rule 12, C.R.Crim.P. Rule 12 — JRW] defenses and objections not entered are deemed waived," see Mora v. People, 172 Colo. 261, 472 P.2d 142 (1970) and County Comm'rs v. District Court, 172 Colo. 311, 472 P.2d 128 (1970). Additionally, in the case of Simmons v. United States - 390 U.S. 377 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held, "It is intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."

NO WAY would I want a lawyer who was willing to waive that point just to make life more comfortable for the criminal conspirators. This is all the more true in a situation where the prosecutors appear to be trying to cover up the truthful threshhold facts about how this whole mess got started.

F. Why was an Assistant DA along on the raid?

David Cox asked Officer Baker of the Palisade Police Department who the woman going into the house was and Officer Baker told David, "that's the DA". David protested what appeared to be a random civilian strutting into his house in plain clothes. Which prompted Baker to inform Cox that it was the DA. Question: do DA's normally attend police swat raids? I don't think so. My guess is she was there to provide legal guidance to a bunch of bumbling, ignorant, on-a-fishing-expedition OathBreakers who were hoping to use the warrant as pretext to enter David's home and "happen to encounter" a slew of other charge-worthy violations which would then provide felony charges they thought would stick, since, considering relevant law, and considering that Cox is a registered hemp grower, there couldn't have been a single non-brain-dead participant in the circus who genuinely believed that there were legitimate marijuana charges which would stick.

G. Butane hash-oil generation and Yeulin Willet's Law

Before getting into the legal aspects of a butane hash-oil generator, let me just say that the simple approach to this aspect of David Cox's case is that the butane hash oil operation was outside of the control, ownership, or access of David and his employees and, as such, cannot be legitimately linked to David since the ostensible and stated purpose of the equipment and operations were reasonably believed to be lawful based on the proprietor of the rented space being solidly situated in the hemp industry and the proprietor possessing licenses and permits for the operation suggesting that his claims of legality to be true and honest in the face of one's examination of documentation.

Still more troubling is the fact that the admitted owners of the property, who, in the hours following Cox's arrest, were allowed to remove their equipment and materials without any sort of detainment or harassment from the police, who, in turn, were supposedly there to bust the operators and owners of the alleged illegal operation. Why would the cops arrest David Cox yet let his supposed "primary co-conspirators" go? If the cops were going to arrest David for renting space to an "illegal hash oil" operation, would they not also arrest the self identified owners of the "illegal hash oil" operation who arrived, confirmed to the police they were the owners of the "illegal hash oil" operation, and then proceeded to remove the entire operation? Certainly it seems like that would be the normal law enforcement thing to do - unless, of course, by design and intent, they were just there to harrass, intimidate and "get" David Cox.

The so-called Yeulin Willett's Law is codified at CRS § 18-18-406(2)(a)(I) Offenses relating to marijuana and marijuana concentrate - definitions:
"(2) (a) (I) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly process or manufacture any marijuana or marijuana concentrate or knowingly allow to be processed or manufactured on land owned, occupied, or controlled by him or her any marijuana or marijuana concentrate except as authorized pursuant to part 1 of article 42.5 of title 12, C.R.S., or part 2 of article 80 of title 27, C.R.S."
"(II) A person who violates the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) commits a level 3 drug felony."

I have already commented at some length on Charles Ashby's story (Wednesday, July 1, 2015) in the Sentinel titled "Making hash oil without a license a felony offense." So as to not overly interrupt the logical flow of this essay, I have included that 3-part comment in footnote 1 at the bottom of this page. I have also included at footnote 2 a 6-part comment I made on Paul Shockley's story (Thursday, January 8, 2015) in the Sentinel titled "Mesa County judge upholds homemade hash oil ban."

Part of the problem for the criminal conspirators is that, as 4th District Attorney Dan May said in a KOAANews5 story titled "Colorado hash oil law goes into effect Wednesday", "You can't ban making hash oil because it's in our constitution." "They (lawmakers) felt they could ban the most volatile way of making it or the one that endangers the public the most."

Reasonable minds could argue that you can't even make an all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all ban on a particular METHOD of making hash oil, but only ban SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES (e.g. in a rented building close to the general public) which endanger the public.

I would argue that if the purpose of Yeulin Willett's Law was actually to protect the public instead of advance the prohibitionist's agenda of restricting the public's legal rights under Amendment 64, or maximize government's revenue stream from cannabis at the expense of poor sick people, there would have been a thorough and comprehensive discussion of the exact distance in feet or meters between a butane hash-oil generator and the general public which might constitute a genuine danger to the public. I have been able to find no such discussion even though due process of law -- see, e.g. United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812) and Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) -- requires criminal statutes to be specific so the public is given fair notice and can reasonably be expected to know what act or omission is prohibited or required.

The primary legal reason, (if I were in David Cox's shoes), that there is NO WAY I would waive the threshhold probable cause issue is because of the butane hash-oil operation the cops found on David's property. Since threshhold probable cause is impossible, under the circumstances, with Cannabis Sativa "hemp", the information about the hash-oil operation, allegedly being run by some of Cox's renters should be suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

If I were David's lawyer, I would NOT want to be forced to get into all the "he-said-she-said" fine points of whether or not David should have been more diligent in demanding to see his tenants' hash-oil licensing paperwork.

I would not want to be getting into the way in which lawyer Yeulin Willett's wannabe-cleverly-designed-as-intentionally-overreaching law is unconstitutional as applied in David Cox's case.

To understand Yeulin Willett's Law, you have to understand that Yeulin Willett is at heart a Cannabis prohibitionist, at least in regards to recreational use, so he would ostensibly repeal Amendment 64 if he could.

A statute can be unconstitutional on its face, as written, as explained [by the lower courts -- JRW], and as applied [by local law enforcement -- JRW]. See Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (1966).

It is my personal opinion that "Yeulin Willett's Law", sold under the deceptive rubric that renters should not be allowed to blow up their landlords' property while attempting to manufacture hash oil with a butane generator is unconstitutional AS APPLIED to poor people trying to make their own hash-oil medicine on their own property from their own plants they have LEGALLY grown on their own property a safe distance from the general public.

As applied to that class/category/demographic of people, Yeulin Willett's cutesy little prohibitionist-designed deliberately-overreaching law is squarely in irreconcilable conflict both the letter and the intent of Amendment 64.

Complicating the obvious constitutional argument is the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court, in the June 19, 2017 divided (5-2) decision of People v. Lente, No. 15SA331, 2017 CO 74, held (wrongly in my opinion and in the opinions of Chief Justice Nancy E. Rice and Associate Justice Richard L. Gabriel) that "Lente’s As-Applied Challenge Fails Because Amendment 64 Does Not Protect Unlicensed Hash-Oil Extraction". (The majority's opinion is on page 1-12, the dissenting opinion is on page 13-18. To see Findlaw's version of the decision CLICK HERE.)

In my view, Chief Justice Rice was FAR too kind when she said: "Finally, this is a case in which the intents of the electorate and the General Assembly remain obscured after 'utilizing the various aids of statutory construction,' and therefore I believe we should turn to the rule of lenity. See People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251, 258 (Colo. 2009). 'The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.' United States v. Santos , 553 U.S. 507, 514 (2008). In this case there exist “two competing and viable alternatives” to interpreting the statutory language and Amendment 64. Therefore we should apply the rule of lenity in favor of Lente. See Summers, 208 P.3d at 258. For these reasons, I would vacate Lente’s conviction for manufacturing marijuana or marijuana concentrate. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. I therefore respectfully dissent."

From a political/opinion point of view, I would say that Associate Justices Nathan B. Coats, Allison H. Eid, Monica M. Márquez, Brian D. Boatright, William W. Hood III are pro-prohibition liars/cronies who, on behalf of an unspoken pro-Big-Pharma and pro-Big-Medicine agenda, and in direct irreconcilable conflict with the self-evident self-ownership-oriented will of the people of Colorado as expressed in Amendment 64 have deliberately created a situation where the proponents of Amendment 64 are going to have to either 1) accept a tyrannical prohibitionistic restriction on their intent in passing Amendment 64, or 2) do the hard work of amending Amendment 64 to overrule the pro-prohibitionist, pro-cannabis-as-a-cash-cow Lente majority and unequivocally give unlicensed private individuals the right to make their own hash oil medicine out of their own LEGAL cannabis plants grown on their own property and processed a safe distance from the general public.

H. The "Rule of Lenity" deserves its own subheading

In dissent in People v. Lente, No. 15SA331, 2017 CO 74, Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice, Nancy E. Rice cited the case of United States v. Santos , 553 U.S. 507, 514 (2008). But, in my view, for the edification of interested readers, her comments could use more background.

The majority opinion in Santos was written by Justice Antonin Scalia who, among other things, said, "When interpreting a criminal statute, we do not play the part of a mind reader. In our seminal rule-of-lenity decision, Chief Justice Marshall rejected the impulse to speculate regarding a dubious congressional intent. “[P]robability is not a guide which a court, in construing a penal statute, can safely take.” United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76 (5 Wheaton) 76, 105 (1820). And Justice Frankfurter, writing for the Court in another case, said the following: “When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83 (1955)."

Scalia goes on in Santos: "The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476, 485 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931); United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347–349 (1971). This venerable rule not only vindicates the fundamental principle that no citizen should be held accountable for a violation of a statute whose commands are uncertain, or subjected to punishment that is not clearly prescribed. It also places the weight of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress’s stead." "If anything, the rule of lenity is an additional reason to remain consistent, lest those subject to the criminal law be misled. And even if, as Justice Stevens contends, post, at 1, statutory ambiguity “effectively” licenses us to write a brand-new law, we cannot accept that power in a criminal case, where the law must be written by Congress. See United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34 (1812)."

In Wiltberger, John Marshall also said: "It is said that notwithstanding this rule, the intention of the lawmaker must govern in the construction of penal as well as other statutes. This is true. But this is not a new independent rule which subverts the old. It is a modification of the ancient maxim, and amounts to this that though penal laws are to be construed strictly, they are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature. The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases which those words in their ordinary acceptation or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend. The intention of the legislature is to be collected from the words they employ. Where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction. The case must be a strong one indeed which would justify a court in departing from the plain meaning of words, especially in a penal act, in search of an intention which the words themselves did not suggest. To determine that a case is within the intention of a statute, its language must authorize us to say so. It would be dangerous indeed to carry the principle that a case which is within the reason or mischief of a statute is within its provisions so far as to punish a crime not enumerated in the statute because it is of equal atrocity or of kindred character with those which are enumerated. If this principle has ever been recognized in expounding criminal law, it has been in cases of considerable irritation which it would be unsafe to consider as precedents forming a general rule for other cases."

In the Bell decision, Justice Frankfurter's complete quote was: "It is not to be denied that argumentative skill, as was shown at the Bar, could persuasively and not unreasonably reach either of the conflicting constructions. About only one aspect of the problem can one be dogmatic. When Congress has the will, it has no difficulty in expressing it -- when it has the will, that is, of defining what it desires to make the unit of prosecution and, more particularly, to make each stick in a faggot a single criminal unit. When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. And this not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of Congress in proscribing evil or antisocial conduct. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment. This in no wise implies that language used in criminal statutes should not be read with the saving grace of common sense with which other enactments, not cast in technical language, are to be read. Nor does it assume that offenders against the law carefully read the penal code before they embark on crime. It merely means that, if Congress does not fix the punishment for a federal offense clearly and without ambiguity, doubt will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses when we have no more to go on than the present case furnishes."

In the case of Amendment 64, there is obvious ambiguity in the language which five pro-cannabis-prohibition judicial activists on the Colorado Supreme Court are taking advantage of. John Jay, John Marshall, Felix Frankfurer and Antonin Scalia would be ashamed of their activist manipulations/rewrites.

Lest the reader think I am being overly harsh with my use of the word "liar" regarding the activism the Lente majority, please be aware of the fact Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005:
"I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people." "If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted." "Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the 'Living Constitution,' judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such." "It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.” We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs."

In the case of Amendment 64, the Lente majority is saying Amendment 64 "Does Not Protect Unlicensed Hash-Oil Extraction". That is EXACTLY the kind of judicial lie Antonin Scalia was talking about, because Amendment 64 says no such thing. If anything, the fair inference of the relevant grammar/language is the EXACT opposite of that claimed by the Lente majority. The language is ambiguous. Plain old-fashioned fairness and common sense demand that the "tie goes to the runner".

I. Equal Protection of Law was violated by the criminal conspirators and the ongoing false prosecution

The industrial hemp registry page at the Colorado Department of Agriculture is at Colorado's counties are listed alphabetically. If you scroll down the page to Mesa County (pages 39-42), you will see that there are 31 registered hemp growers in Mesa County, and David Cox, for whatever reason, is listed twice on page 39.

I know a couple of Mesa County's other registered hemp growers, so what I want to know is: why was David Cox selected out for special harassment?

From a political point of view, Dan Rubinstein and Matt Lewis don't get to refuse to answer that equal-protection-of-law-based question truthfully and completely. If they refuse to truthfully answer the question of how the criminal conspiracy to violate David Cox's civil rights began, and specifically which named persons, and under what circumstances, made the "report/complain" to law enforcement, they very much need/deserve to be recalled by the voters of Mesa County.

J. David's statements of what happened

10/17/2017 - David posted his statement of what happened on Facebook. Interested persons can read it there for themselves, so there's no need to copy it verbatim here. The URL is

11/08/2017 - David posted a second statement of what happened on Facebook. Interested persons can read it there for themselves, so there's no need to copy it verbatim here. The URL is

K. Documents relevant to David Cox's situation

(NOTE: More documents will be added as they become available.)

10/13/2017 - Affidavit In Support of Warrantless Arrest
(NOTE: I consider the affiant, Officer Mark Post, to be lying by omission. He strategically omitted to say that the guns found in the two closets were on the top shelf OUT OF THE REACH of David's small children, which renders the criminal conspirators' child-endangerment talking points impossible and irrelevant.)

11/06/2017 - Complaint and Information
(NOTE: It is important to notice that the charges merely parrot the language of the relevant statutes being used. That is not sufficient. That is deliberate manipulation strategically designed to give prosecutors all the "wiggle room" to go on a fishing expedition in front of a jury under a pretense of "reasonableness". Unscrupulous prosecutors do that all the time, whenever incompetent defense lawyers let them get away with it. The best way to combat this sort of strategic manipulation designed to strip the accused person of his or her right to a GENUINE presumption of FACTUAL innocence is for defense lawyers to demand a Bill of Particulars setting forth the SPECIFIC facts which the prosecution is alleging to constitute violations of the relevant criminal statutes. This is why omitting the fact that the guns were on the top shelf of the closets is so important.)

11/07/2017 - Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Allow Him To Have Unfettered Contact With His Children
Page 3 ¶ 10: "The People have not met their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that it is appropriate to interfere in Defendant's liberty interests with regard to parenting his children and therefore the Court must vacate the orders that are currently in place."

L. The crucial question the "law enforcement" conspirators have no intention of answering because the truth would destroy their case and put them in danger of a huge 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation of civil rights lawsuit

The crucial questions inquiring minds want to know are: 1) who told law enforcement about the plants, 2) why did they think the plants were illegal, 3) why didn't they check the registry to find out if David was a licensed grower, and 4) why were they so disinterested in David's licensing paperwork that they refused to let him show it to them when he asked to do so?

The only logical answer to those questions is that they had criminally conspired to arrest David on what they knew full well to be probable-causeless false charges in advance of the raid.

It is important to know that the Colorado Court of Appeals, in a decision titled "The People of the State of Colorado v. Kevin Keith McKnight, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 16CA0050", said "Part of Amendment 64’s stated purpose was to increase 'the efficient use of law enforcement resources' and 'individual freedom.' Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 16(1)(a). Allowing state and local officers to continue to enforce the federal prohibition would directly contravene this purpose. We must give effect to the voters’ intent, Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 129 P.3d 988, 992 (Colo. 2006), and we will not adopt an interpretation that contravenes the purpose of Amendment 64."

JUDGE J. JONES, specially concurring.
"I concur in the result reached by the majority. But I do so because it seems to me that the police officers lacked probable cause to search McKnight’s truck.
"Courts have recognized that an alert from a dog trained to detect several substances, including marijuana, by itself may amount to probable cause justifying a search of a vehicle. Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 246-47 (2013); People v. Esparza, 2012 CO 22, ¶ 12. But is that still true for purposes of Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution, given that state law now generally allows anyone who is at least twenty-one years old to possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use? I consider that question, which our supreme court did not address directly in People v. Zuniga, 2016 CO 52, and People v. Cox, 2017 CO 8, and conclude that such a dog’s alert alone no longer supplies probable cause where the occupants of the vehicle are twenty-one years or older and the officer conducting the search is not a federal officer."

You see, boys and girls, drug-sniffing dogs can't tell you whether they are smelling cannabis sativa "hemp" or cannabis sativa "marijuana" because both plants are the SAME genus and species. Nor can the dogs tell you how much of the plant they are smelling. So, in a state where cannabis sativa is legal, a citizen over 21 has a reasonable expectation of privacy and probable cause for a warrantless arrest is impossible.

But, a gungho Drug Task Force couldn't care less about little niceties like the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions, Rule of Law, probable cause, and substantive and procedural due process.

Worse than that, according to Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, cops are actually coached on how to lie about threshhold probable cause. It's called "testilying", see "The Best Defense: The Courtroom Confrontations of America's Most Outspoken Lawyer of Last Resort".

M. Why, despite their lies and pretenses to the contrary, many law enforcement officers and politicians couldn't care less about the constitutional rights of a citizen

I have a few friends who are (and/or have been) in law enforcement. I will not name names because I don't want them to be ostracized or threatened by their colleagues in the "thin blue line".

One friend in particular is a world-class shooter and trainer of SWAT teams. He is "high speed, slow drag" type personality who loves to know insider intelligence-community information that you and I don't know, and enjoys having insider "Deep State" connections and acquaintances.

Too many law enforcement types, specifically selected for their ability to disregard their oaths to uphold the U.S. and Colorado constitutions and mindlessly follow illegal orders, are, I suspect, Walter Mitty types who like being part of a bunch of a "I'm badder than you" gang of butt kickers and shit stompers with limitless cool combat toys, limitless political and financial backing, immunity for killing innocent people and pets -- except anomalies like the Utah cop who got fired for assaulting and falsely arresting a braveheart nurse -- and vivid fantasy lives. If I am wrong and being unkind or unrealistic, why do America's militarized, federalized, Phoenix-Program-trained "obey or die" cops collectively kill so many innocent people and pets year after year in a total absence of all substantive and procedural due process of law?

N. The "War On Drugs" has destroyed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights

It has been said that the war-economy-based so-called National-"Security", Deep-State-bureaucracy, military-industrial-complex Secret-Police State America has become, (and now is), will come to an end when the American people decide to stop supporting it.

The one indispensable tool of the war-economy-based National-"Security", Deep-State-bureaucracy, military-industrial-complex Secret-Police State is their fraudulent "War On Drugs". They want drugs to be illegal so their profits in controlling internation drug traffic are higher. If drugs were legal, the bottom would drop out of the market and prices would plummet. They know they can't be prosecuted because they can kill presidents (e.g. JFK) and get away with it. So their profits are secure as long as they can convince the public to continue to support the fraud.

Unfortunately, restoring the U.S. Constitution to its rightful place as Supreme Law of the Land is impossible as long as the "War on Drugs" continues.

Follow the money. Logic tells you that what I'm saying is true.

The fraudulent "War on Drugs" is what has allowed the criminal conspirators to select and illegally prosecute David Cox even though he is registered with the State of Colorado as a legal grower of Cannabis Sativa "industrial hemp".

O. Colorado Cannabis Sativa "Marijuana" Law

The red subheading immediately above is a link. You may notice that because if you put your cursor on it, the little arrow turns into a hand. If interested persons click on the link, it will take you to a list of links to the Colorado Revised Statutes related to so-called "marijuana".

P. Colorado Cannabis Sativa "Hemp" Law

The red subheading immediately above is a link. You may notice that because if you put your cursor on it, the little arrow turns into a hand. If interested persons click on the link, it will take you to a list of links to the Colorado Revised Statutes related to so-called "hemp".

Q. Federal Cannabis Sativa "Marijuana" Law

You may notice that 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) says: "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." That is an outright money-motivated lie. "Accepted" by whom? Accepted by the sick, diseased and dying members of the common grassroots peasantry/proletariat/hoi polloi? Or "accepted" by lying scumbag politicians on the bribery payroll of Big Pharma? IMO, the politicians who promote that lie and cling to that lie are the scum of the earth. Millions of sick people and their families and friends who have not been able to find healing and relief through the monopoly, control-freak, exorbitantly priced methods of Big Pharma and allopathic Big Medicine are aware of the stunningly serious beneficial medicinal qualities of the wonderful Creator-made Cannabis plant.

21 U.S.C. § 812. Schedules of controlled substances
(a) Establishment
There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after October 27, 1970, and shall be updated and republished
on an annual basis thereafter.
(b) Placement on schedules; findings required Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate
precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts,
isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) 3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(3) 3,4,5-trimethoxy amphetamine.
(4) Bufotenine.
(5) Diethyltryptamine.
(6) Dimethyltryptamine.
(7) 4-methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine.
(8) Ibogaine.
(9) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
(10) Marihuana.
(11) Mescaline.
(12) Peyote.
(13) N-ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(14) N-methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(15) Psilocybin.
(16) Psilocyn.
(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.
(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
(20) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C–E).
(21) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C–D).
(22) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C–C).(23) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C–I).
(24) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C–T–2).
(25) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C–T–4).
(26) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C–H).
(27) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C–N).
(28) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C–P).

ATF E-Form 4473 (5300.9) Revised October 2016 -- Firearms Transaction Record:
"(11)(e) Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside"

What a manipulative question! In Colorado, it is not unlawful to use "marijuana". But federal "law" says use or possession of "marijuana" is illegal. So what is a reasonable person supposed to answer? The obvious political manipulation is scummy and unacceptable.

(A section on gun laws may be added later.)

R. Federal Cannabis Sativa "Hemp" Law

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015
‘‘(57) The term ‘industrial hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.’’

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005

S. Other law relevant to this case

In the affidavit I read, the affiant, Palisade police officer, Mark Nicholas Post, (pictured at top left) mentioned two statutes, C.R.S. § 18-18-406 and C.R.S. § 18-6-401(7)(b)(1).

As you can see by clicking the link, C.R.S. § 18-18-406 is titled "Offenses relating to marijuana and marijuana concentrate - definitions". Officer Post was unspecific as to his charge. His key phrase is "Marijuana (not allowed by regulatory scheme)". Obviously, either Post 1) didn't bother to check if David Cox was a licensed grower, or 2) knew David was a licensed grower and wanted to deliberately illegally arrest him anyway. Either way, it was probable-causeless arrest because "marijuana" is legal in Colorado for individuals over 21 years of age and you can't tell the difference between cannabis sativa "marijuana" and cannabis sativa "hemp" without a lab test to determine the THC content of whatever suspected plant you are talking about.

As you can see by clicking the link, C.R.S. § 18-6-401 is titled "Child abuse".

More specifically, C.R.S. § 18-6-401(7)(b)(1) says: Child abuse
(7)(b) Where no death or injury results, the following shall apply:
(I) An act of child abuse when a person acts knowingly or recklessly is a class 2 misdemeanor; except that, if it is committed under the circumstances described in paragraph (e) of this subsection (7), then it is a class 5 felony.

Paragraph (e) says:
"(e) A person who has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or of an offense in any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that would constitute child abuse if committed in this state and who commits child abuse as provided in subparagraph (V) or (VI) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (7) or as provided in subparagraph (I) or (II) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (7) commits a class 5 felony if the trier of fact finds that the new offense involved any of the following acts:
(I) The defendant, who was in a position of trust, as described in section 18-3-401 (3.5), in relation to the child, participated in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in the child's malnourishment or failed to ensure the child's access to proper medical care;
(II) The defendant participated in a continued pattern of cruel punishment or unreasonable isolation or confinement of the child;
(III) The defendant made repeated threats of harm or death to the child or to a significant person in the child's life, which threats were made in the presence of the child;
(IV) The defendant committed a continued pattern of acts of domestic violence, as that term is defined in section 18-6-800.3, in the presence of the child; or
(V) The defendant participated in a continued pattern of extreme deprivation of hygienic or sanitary conditions in the child's daily living environment."

I know David Cox, and he is the farthest possible thing from an abusive father. He loves his boys more than his own life.

T. The conflicting language

You will never see a more arrogant and manipulative exercise in self-perceived-as-clever sophisty than that manifested by the Lente majority.

To deconstruct the grammatical misuse and deception, page by page, paragraph by paragraph, and line by line, it is necessary to divide the relevant language into 3 parts, #1 the language of Amendment 64, #2 the language of Yeulin Willett's Law, and #3 the language of the Lente majority.

1. To see clearly the unconstitutional restriction of the lying prohibitionists, compare the language of:
"(2) DEFINITIONS. (f) "Marijuana" or "marihuana" means all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin, including marihuana concentrate. "Marijuana" or "marihuana" does not include industrial hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product."
"(3) PERSONAL USE OF MARIJUANA. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older."
"(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale."

with the language of:

2. CRS § 18-18-406(2)(a)(I) (Yeulin Willett's Law):
"It is unlawful for a person to knowingly process or manufacture any marijuana or marijuana concentrate or knowingly allow to be processed or manufactured on land owned, occupied, or controlled by him or her any marijuana or marijuana concentrate except as authorized pursuant to part 1 of article 42.5 of title 12, C.R.S., or part 2 of article 80 of title 27, C.R.S."

The user-unfriendly term -- (you have to remember user unfriendliness makes lawyers more money) -- "part 1 of article 42.5 of title 12" actually means C.R.S. § 12-42.5-101 through C.R.S. § 12-42.5-134. Prior to those sections, there is "ARTICLE 42.5. PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY BUSINESSES, AND PHARMACEUTICALS" and "PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS"

The user-unfriendly term -- (again, you have to remember user unfriendliness makes lawyers more money) -- "part 2 of article 80 of title 27, C.R.S." means C.R.S. § 12-80-201 through C.R.S. § 12-80-214. Prior to those sections, there is "ARTICLE 80.ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE USE AND ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS" and "PART 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES".

The Lente majority pretends that it is Amendment 64 which is "ambiguous" -- (that's a lie, it is not) -- while not even mentioning the self-evident ambiguity and vagueness of CRS § 18-18-406(2)(a)(I) which is not remotely grammatically specific, but merely refers the reader to the above mentioned generic sections of Colorado pharmaceutical law. (Read them and see if I am correct.)

with the language of:

3. The Lente majority:

LENTE MAJORITY P 2 ¶ 3 L 3 “We hold that, under Amendment 64, extracting hash oil from marijuana is manufacturing marijuana — not processing marijuana plants — and therefore does not fall within Amendment 64’s protected personal uses of marijuana.”

COMMON SENSE REBUTTAL: This is perhaps the stupidest lie told by the Lente majority because there is NO SUCH THING as "manufacturing marijuana". So-called "marijuana", (actually/technically Cannabis Sativa) is a naturally occurring plant, NOT something you "manufacture". You GROW "marijuana", you do NOT "manufacture" it. Judges are supposed to tell the truth and serve the public, not jack around redefining millenia-old common usage words to suit their pet political agendas.

LENTE MAJORITY P 10 ¶ 2 L 3 “Although the constitution defines 'marijuana' broadly to include marijuana concentrate and extracted resin, the personal-use section does not protect processing 'marijuana.' It protects 'processing . . . marijuana plants.'”

COMMON SENSE REBUTTAL: This is another lie. As seen in Point #1 above, Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, Section 16 (2) protects the resin extracted from any part of the plant. Presumably, a fair grammatical inference is that the constitutional word "extracted", as used in any intellectually honest context is precisely synonymous with the word "processed", NOT with the impossibility word "manufactured". (Remember, you GROW plants, you don't "manufacture" them.) Additionally, despite the Lente majority's obviously sophistic/manipulative/shamanistic statement, "the personal-use section does not protect processing 'marijuana'", the title of Section 16 is "Section 16. PERSONAL USE AND REGULATION OF MARIJUANA", and subsections "(1) PURPOSE AND FINDINGS", "(2) DEFINITIONS" and "(3) PERSONAL USE OF MARIJUANA" all fall under the general category of "personal use". So the Lente majority hangs itself with its own words: "It [Amendment 64 - JRW] protects 'processing . . . marijuana plants.'”

LENTE MAJORITY P 11 ¶ 3 L 5 “Lente’s conduct is clearly proscribed by the statute because , as we explained above, hash-oil extraction squarely fits the statutory definition of manufacturing marijuana. Thus, Lente cannot prevail on a vagueness claim.”

COMMON SENSE REBUTTAL: Here again we have the impossible lie of "manufacturing marijuana". So, when you extract oil from the cannabis plant, whether it be CBDs (low in THC) which act against autism seizures, or so-called "Rick Simpson oil" (hash oil high in THC) which kills Basal Cell Carcinoma cells, from a correct grammatical point of view, you are NOT "manufacturing marijuana", you are "processing" your legally grown cannabis sativa plants.

LENTE MAJORITY P 11 ¶ 4 L 1 “We hold that Amendment 64 does not protect unlicensed hash-oil extraction.”

COMMON SENSE REBUTTAL: This erroneous statement is not quite as obvious as the Lente majority's other lies, but it is nontheless deliberately deceptive and misleading. Reasonable minds (including mine) could argue that "processing" -- (grammatically identical to "extracting") -- hash oil from your own plants (aka "the resin extracted from any part of the plant") IS protected by Amendment 64. What is absolutely certain (in stark polar contrast to the Lente majority's lies) is that "EXTRACTING resin from your own plants" (yes, without a license) IS in fact protected by Amendment 64.

SERIOUS POLITICAL QUESTION: If/when a state or federal supreme court majority tells an OBVIOUS lie -- (and, yes, there have been quite a few of them throughout history) -- does that lie then somehow magically become the truth? And, if not, what can the peasantry/proletariat/hoi polloi do about it? (HINT: Think jury nullification.)

U. Jury Nullification

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, when the U.S. Supreme Court was at least somewhat more honest than it is now, the Supremes recognized the legal validity of so-called "jury nullification".

In the case of State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 1 (1794), John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said:
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumeable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

In a situation like David Cox's, where law enforcement is lawless and five black-robed judicial activists have lied about what the intent of the people of Colorado was when they passed Amendment 64, and the only possible excuses for the judicial rewrite are either 1) pro-prohibition personal feelings, and/or 2) to amplify on the backs of poor sick people government's revenue from cannabis in a way not intended by Amendment 64, I believe legal brains/stalwarts such as John Jay, John Marshall, Felix Frankfurter and Antonin Scalia would enthusiastically applaud jury nullification.

V. The politics of the situation

The politics of the situation are easy to understand. What happened is that some people are very angry -- (notice that cutesy scumbag politicians use the word "disappointed" because they think the peasantry/proletariat doesn't like words like "angry", "furious", "upset", annoyed", etc) -- that Amendment 64 passed by a 55.32% to 44.68% with a 68.55% registered voter turnout on November 6, 2012.

So, in Yeulin Willett and the five liars on the Colorado Supreme Court, what we have is a bunch of wannabe-clever pot-prohibitionist-minded political manipulators who don't think anybody but they know how "politics" work. They have taken upon it themselves to repeal, weaken, otherwise emasculate and/or restrict the will of the People of Colorado in passing Amendment 64. They want to overturn the November 6, 2012 election in which Amendment 64 was passed.

They want to pretend that the will of the People in passing Amendment 64 was to deprive individuals who are too poor to be able to afford the exhorbitant prices charges by licensed medicinal cannabis shops the right to lawfully make their own unlicensed personal medicinal cannabis extracts from their own legally grown plants on their own legally owned property in such a way as to not pose any kind of threat to the public safety.

And that, boys and girls is what is called a PROVABLE, and laughable, outright lie. The People of Colorado intended no such thing.

W. The cowardly lawyers

Licensed bar-member lawyers won't tell you the stuff I've told you in this essay. Why? Easy. Because the Colorado Supreme Court holds and wields life-and-death power over their licenses and careers, that's why. Besides the more things lawyer-legislatures make illegal, contradictory and vague, and the more corrupt the lawyer-judiciaries are, the more money the lawyers in general all make. Cool, huh?! It's good money if you can get it!

That's why, when trial lawyers are confronted with appellate-level judicial lies, instead of banding together and booting the miscreants out of office, they keep their cowardly little mouths shut. It's a dirty rotten shame, but there you have the unvarnished truth.

I was once told by a well known and highly respected federal judge in a hearing, "In a way, I envy you Mr. Wilkenson, out there on the street, you can say and publish whatever you please and be protected by the state and federal constitutions. I, on the other hand, am constrained by the rules of my job from speaking my mind." I said, "Thank you, your Honor", on the outside, but on the inside I was thinking, "Yeh, right, you clever so-and-so!"

X. The dangerous folly of being ruled by unelected judges

"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia - dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 14-556 (2015)

In Colorado, it is even worse because the number of our Rulers is even fewer. The Colorado Supreme Court has seven justices, one chief and six associates. In other words, Colorado is ruled by the majority of an unelected panel of seven lawyers. Is that suicidal lunacy, or what?!

"When they don't have to campaign or worry about a serious political challenger at the next election, judges are less responsive to the political moods of the day and probably less courteous to those who show up in their chambers."
"Most attorneys and the Colorado Bar Association also indicate satisfaction with this reform. Yet not everyone is pleased. Several state legislators, led by Senator Ralph A. Cole, a Republican from Littleton, introduced various measures calling for either a return to the old system or a modification of the new one in ways that would weaken the power of the governor. Senator Cole, for example, unsuccessfully introduced legislation that would have required that the governor's nominations to the district and state courts be confirmed by a majority vote of the state Senate comparable to the federal requirement that the U.S. Senate approve nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court."
"Senator Cole also introduced legislation returning Colorado to a system of electing judges and having judges run against other candidates, but to do so in nonpartisan elections. This legislation also did not win approval." ~ Colorado Politics & Government, by Thomas E. Cronin and Robert D. Loev, page 233.

I have always thought that the wisest course for constitutional law is for the whole citizenry of a state or nation to interpret their own constitution via their choice of elected judges.

In a situation like the present one, where five unelected lawyers willfully and knowingly lie about Amendment 64 and pretend that it was the will of the people of Colorado in passing that amendment that individuals too poor to be able to afford the exhorbitant prices charges by licensed medicinal cannabis shops be deprived of the right to lawfully make their own unlicensed personal medicinal cannabis extracts from their own legally grown plants on their own legally owned property in such a way as to not pose any kind of threat to the public safety, the sheer suicidal folly and massive injustice of being ruled by five unelected lawyers becomes self-evident.

The problem is not partisan. The majority in the Lente decision consisted of two Bill-Owens-appointed Republicans, two John-Hickenlooper-appointed Democrats, and one Bill-Ritter-appointed Democrat. The dissent consisted of one Roy-Romer-appointed Democrat and one John_Hickenlooper-appointed Democrat.

It will be up to the people of Colorado, via constitutional amendment, to reclaim their power to control judges, and the duopoly corruptocracy makes that more difficult at every opportunity.

Y. Conclusion

So, basically what you have here is a lying -- (once again, by the word "lying", I mean deliberate, strategic opaqueness, non-transparency, unaccountability, cutesy spin, manipulation, exaggeration, outright lies and withholding of information crucial to justice and to the public's right to know how their so-called "servants" are doing, or not doing, their jobs) -- police officer, following the illegal orders of his superiors, on a probable causeless witch hunt trying to intimidate and frighten a knowingly falsely accused person by throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see if a fast talking prosecutor can -- per Justice Robert H. Jackson's quote above -- unethically try to talk a jury into wanting to make something stick.

I implore the citizens of Mesa County to oppose, as vigorously as they know how, this huge injustice, and this inappropriate and illegal conspiratory behavior on the part of various law enforcement personnel by "viraling" this story and sharing it with everyone they know.

Lastly, if Dan Rubinstein and Matt Lewis, Mesa County's District Attorney and Sheriff, respectively, are going to act like constitution-unfriendly Phoenix-Program-trained "obey or die" NWO, Agenda-21 federal goons instead of representing the people of Mesa County, that is a HUGE factor for the citizenry of Mesa County to consider regarding their recall and ejection from local political office. If they are going to act like federal goons, then let them find jobs as federal goons.

Here in "Muskogee", (à la the famous Merle Haggard song), we still prefer the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to be enforced as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Z. Full disclosure

Your humble author is a 73-year-old now-vegan teetotaler who was a hippie wannabe who smoked his share of Cannabis sativa "marijuana" in his ignorant youth. Having gone through the interesting adventure of a quadruple bypass surgery and having had a small melanoma mole removed, he has done considerable research on the amazing serious medicinal values of Cannabis sativa "marijuana", both as regarding CBDs and THC. Although, in his mature years, he fully understands that ALL drugs are POISON -- (especially Big Pharma's exorbitantly expensive pharmaceuticals) -- and not nutrition, and that ingesting smoke of any kind into your lungs is seriously bad for your health, nevertheless, he is grateful to the reacreational users of Cannabis sativa "marijuana" because, as a student of the stupid-human behavior best known by the deceptive euphemism, "politics", he understands that recreational users and medicinal users VERY much need each other politically. This exposition, this "tutorial", if you will, was partly written with the intent of facilitating and strengthening that important self-ownership-oriented alliance. It was also written partly to give the public enough information about how "the system" works that America's peasantry/proletariat/hoi polloi will be inspired to take back power from the criminally insane and fascistic neofeudalists who now control their lives and steal their labor.

AA. Colorado licensed cannabis facilities

Colorado Department of Revenue

AB. Tutorial on LexisNexis

LexisNexis is the "go to" legal website. But it is not user friendly. Unless you click on a link in the statute, your forward and back arrows don't work the way you like them to.

By paying attention to the URLs in the browser command line, I was able to decipher the secret to navigating LexisNexis more easily.

For example, the URL for C.R.S. § 18-9-202 Cruelty to animals - aggravated cruelty to animals - service animals is ht tp:// www. lexisnexis. com/hottopics/colorado/?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+18-9-202. (I inserted some spaces into the URL so it wouldn't work in this exposition.) Notice that the "C.R.S.+18-9-202" characters immediately following the "=" sign correspond with the statute cite, C.R.S. § 18-9-202. Making sure the whole URL is correct, pasting it into the command line of your browser, and hitting the "enter" key will take you to the main section where you want to go. Subsections such as "(a)(1)(VII)", etc, are not included in the correct URL, so if you try to insert them, it won't work.

Here are a few additional URLs -- (again modified so they won't work from this essay) -- to help you get the idea:
Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 13. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
ht tp:// www.
C.R.C.P. Rule 12. Defenses and Objections -- When and How Presented -- by Pleading or Motion -- Motion for Judgment on Pleadings.
ht tp:// www.
C.R.Crim.P. Rule 12. Pleadings, Motions Before Trial, Defenses, and Objections.
ht tp:// www.
C.R.M. Rule 7. Review of District Court Magistrate Orders or Judgments.
ht tp:// www.
C.A.R. Rule 4. Appeal as of Right -- When Taken.
ht tp:// www.
Colo. R. Juv. P. Rule 4.4. Certification of Custody Matters to Juvenile Court.
ht tp:// www

As interested persons may notice, it is the dozen or so characters after the "=" sign near the end of the URL that are crucial. "Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Less than perfect URLs don't work at LexisNexis.

AC. Image Disclaimer

All of the images used to make banner/links in this essay are used either by permission or pursuant to the Fair Use Doctrine. See also the little Fair Use tutorial I made for some overreaching personnel in the Mesa County Sheriff's Department. See also the Legal Disclaimer for Images on this website.


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

The dark money groups, shady astroturfers and wealthy locals backing Measure 1A, the public safety sales tax - Anne Landman's Blog - (NOTE: I found it interesting that Good Old Denny Herzog, of George-Orbanek-Dennis-Herzog-Bob-Silbernagel-era Daily Sentinel infamy, made a sort of half-assed, off-handed, implied threat of libel against Anne Landman for publishing a list of ostensibly "Good Old Boys" contributors to 1A. Just in case his "threat" gets removed for some reason, I made a screenshot of it which interested persons can view by CLICKING HERE.

What constitutes trademark infringement? - by Harvard Law

Trademark infringement - by Cornell Law

When is Unauthorized Use Not Trademark Infringement? - by LegalZoom

Run From the Cure - The Rick Simpson Story (Full)

Mike Adams recommends The Sacred Plant Healing Secrets Exposed 7-Part Docuseries Begins Nov 2nd

Gerry Spence on the American "justice system"

Gerry Spence – The Spence Law Firm: Who We Are - (Note: Your humble webmaster didn't have the computer skills necessary to embed this video, so interested persons will just have to click on the link.)

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube Video - Regent University law professor, James Duane and Virginia Beach Police Department Officer George Bruch explain in practical terms why citizens should never talk to police under any circumstances.

Making hash oil without a license a felony offense, by Charles Ashby - Daily Sentinel

Mesa County judge upholds homemade hash oil ban, by Paul Shockley - Daily Sentinel - (NOTE: The 6-Part comment I submitted on this article is reprinted below at footnote #2.)


1. By John Wilkenson - Thursday, July 2, 2015
PART 1. In my opinion, the story could use a bit more detail to avoid an appearance of containing anti-”marijuana” propaganda spin on an important issue. Interested persons can (and probably should) read the text of H.B. 15-1305 at Interested persons can also read a fairly comprehensive aggregation of hemp-related information on my website at
For starters, the H.B. 15-1305 is titled “A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING A PROHIBITION ON MANUFACTURING MARIJUANA CONCENTRATE IN AN UNREGULATED ENVIRONMENT USING AN INHERENTLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE.” If the Sentinel’s article is not intended to be propaganda, why did the writer leave out the “using an inherently hazardous substance” part of the language of H.B. 15-1305 and the story?
The Sentinel said, “Typically, the home-based manufacturers try to use butane to extract THC, the principal psychoactive chemical in marijuana.” While not technically a lie, that sentence is seriously simplistic and misleading. People who know what they’re doing (e.g. Canada’s THC oil activist, Rick Simpson) don’t typically use butane extraction. They use naphtha (benzene) or isopropyl alcohol.
Using the isopropyl alcohol extraction method outdoors is perfectly safe. According to videos on YouTube, you simply mash up a bunch of cannabis buds in a 5-gallon bucket and fill with isopropyl alchohol to the top of the cannabis. After a few minutes, strain the solids out of the liquid, discard the solids and distill the liquid down in an electric rice cooker. Once the liquid has been distilled down, it can be put in a small pan on a coffee warmer and distilled until all alcohol has evaporated, leaving only the THC (aka “Rick Simpson”) oil, which, when cooled, supposedly has the consistency of grease.
Because I have two little spots of basal cell carcinoma on my body, I was planning on making some “Rick Simpson Oil” for myself until I read the story. Now it appears I will have to indefinitely postpone making my medicine and engage some cutesy pies in a political battle for the right to self-medicate with homemade THC oil (which kills basal cell carcinoma cells). I am not interested in going to “licensed” pot shops and purchasing the medicine I need at exorbitant prices I can’t afford.
The primary purpose of H.B. 15-1305 has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping people safe. That’s just the politically palatable sales pitch made possible by a relatively few idiots – (obviously one is too many) – causing butane explosions. H.B. 15-1305 is about trying to make money off of sick people by preventing them from producing their own medicine from a naturally occurring plant. In that regard, there is no difference between the massive corruption of Big Pharma/Big Medicine and the wannabe-cleverness of H.B. 15-1305.

By John Wilkenson - Thursday, July 2, 2015
PART 2. To demonstrate how poorly written H.B. 15-1305 is, notice that it very conveniently does not define the phrase “inherently hazardous substance” with any recognizable level of transparency-facilitating specificity. Butane is explosive, while naphtha (benzene) and isopropyl alcohol are not, they are merely flammable. So, since the RINO talking point is that butane is an “inherently hazardous substance”, my “the-emperor-has-no-clothes” question is this: are the merely flammable naphtha (benzene) and isopropyl alcohol “inherently hazardous substances” for the purposes of H.B. 15-1305? Yes or no? And if “yes”, why? The anti-self-medication, pro-taxing/gouging-sick-people RINOs, of course, will not want to answer that question. It looks to me as though the term “inherently hazardous” is deliberately unconstitutionally left to the eye/opinion of the enforcer. Cute. That kind of reminds me of “we’ll have to pass the bill before we can know what’s in the bill”.
We can already see from the 1/8/15 Sentinel story titled “Mesa County judge upholds homemade hash oil ban” ( that the enforcement tendency militated towards anti-self-medication. Obviously that tendency was deficient in the opinions of some of the combatively ignorant and manipulative “my-doctor-said-‘Mylanta’” control freaks or they would not have deemed H.B. 15-1305 to be necessary.
Let me posit an intermediate case. Let’s say a person with basal cell carcinoma (which THC oil kills) grinds some dried cannabis buds to powder using a mortar and pestal, and then adds just enough cannabis (“hemp”) cooking oil to make a THC paste/salve. Would that constitute “Manufacturing Marijuana Concentrate In An Unregulated Environment Using An Inherently Hazardous Substance” for the purposes of H.B. 15-1305? Yes or no?
I have nothing whatsoever to hide. Truth is on my side. The cannabis plant is a wonder of nature. It has a multitude of important uses, including the medicinal properties of THC and CBDs. In my opinion, enough information is already readily available that I consider prohibitionists to be lying manipulative scum (much on the order Big Pharma and Big Medicine monopolists).
Having said that, it goes without saying, of course, that inhaling smoke of any type into the lungs is seriously detrimental to your health.
Yeulin Willett’s anti-self-medication cutesy-ness is EXACTLY why Americans desperately need a Freedom of Self-Medication Amendment – (such as the one I have proposed on my website at—added to the U.S. Constitution.
In the meantime, hopefully the citizenry of Mesa County is sufficiently interested in the subject of low-cost self-medication that they will not hesitate to engage in jury nullification in the appropriate cases.
By John Wilkenson - Thursday, July 2, 2015

PART 3. The Sentinel writer said, “The bill does not impact retail pot or medical marijuana businesses that are licensed to legally produce medicinal concentrates from pot.” Well, idn’t dat just precious?!
There again, we have wannabe-clever propaganda that is technically not a lie, but very conveniently omits that fact that H.B. 15-1305 absolutely – (and very obviously and deliberately)—DOES negatively impact self-medication advocates who, instead of using the previously described less desirable powdered-cannabis-bud-and-hemp-seed-cooking-oil method of making a THC paste/salve, would prefer to use the safe isopropyl-alcohol method to chemically extract THC from the naturally occurring cannabis plant.
Having lost the fraudulent “marijuana” debate in Colorado, apparently the prohibitionists’ whole purpose of H.B. 15-1305 is to keep the tax-revenue stream from “medical marijuana” flowing into the coffers of “government” at the expense of sick people who might want to self-medicate by using their own low-cost homemade medicines.
The main reason the REAL (as contrasted with the spoken) intent of H.B. 15-1305 is demonstrably propaganda-spin lies is the ridiculously severe penalty – class 2 felony punishable by up to 24 years in prison and a $1 million fine – for it’s violation. Such draconian penalties can only be designed to intimidate the proletariat/peasantry from making their own low cost medicine and work toward the eventual repeal Article 18, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution (aka “Amendment 64”). This puts “medical marijuana” in the same corrupt category as the lying Big-Pharma-Big-Medicine cabal.
I have an idea: instead of repeatedly electing anti-constitution RINO politicians to local office, how about “we the people” add an amendment to the Colorado Constitution making it a class 1 felony punishable by death for politicians, judges and bureaucrats to lie to the public? Wouldn’t that save the taxpayers a lot of money? How about if, purely as a matter of ABSTRACT political philosophy and hyperbole – see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. No. 09–751 (2011), Elonis v. United States, No. 13–983. Argued December 1, 2014—Decided June 1, 2015 – the proletariat/peasantry intimidates the wannabe-clever manipulators who call themselves “government” for awhile instead of the other way around? After all, wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson himself who said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Seems to me that Jefferson gave us some incredibly wise food for political thought.

2. By John Wilkenson - Saturday, January 10, 2015
PART 1. I have several serious problems with this story, so let’s take a closer look at both the facts and the deeper issue, which I consider to be the fundamental constitutional liberty right of self-ownership and self-medication.
I would suggest that any person who wants to understand what is really going on in this case read the Denver Post’s 12/30/2014 version of the story titled “Colorado attorney general says making marijuana oil at home is illegal,” (see written by John Ingold.
My main objection to the Sentinel’s version is that it doesn’t present enough specific facts to allow interested readers to formulate an informed opinion as to whether or not their public so-called “servants” are doing a good constitution-friendly job, let alone understand the core underlying issue/s.
The headline implies that the accused was violating some kind of “homemade hash oil ban.” The Sentinel said “Christenson has pleaded not guilty to arson and reckless endangerment.” Logic would lead one to believe that the only charges were arson and reckless endangerment, yet according to the Sentinel, the accused’s lawyer said his client “isn’t accused of possessing more marijuana than Colorado law allows” and filed a motion to have Colorado’s statute on unlawful manufacturing of marijuana ruled unconstitutional.
In contrast, the Denver Post said, “Eugene Christensen, is charged with arson, reckless endangerment and manufacture of marijuana concentrate. The last charge is a Class 3 drug felony, punishable by two to four years in prison.” So, why didn’t the Sentinel’s version mention the class 3 felony charge? Go figure. From what I can glean from superficial MSM reporting, a guy who didn’t do his homework well enough had an unlucky accident without the requisite mens rea ( to support criminal charges.
For interested persons, Colorado arson statutes are: C.R.S. 18-4-102 - First degree arson, C.R.S. 18-4-103 - Second degree arson, and C.R.S. 18-4-104 – Third degree arson. Colorado’s reckless endangerment statute is C.R.S. 18-3-208, which says, “A person who recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person commits reckless endangerment, which is a class 3 misdemeanor.” The Denver Post addressed John Suthers’ highly questionable interpretation of Amendment 64.
Interested persons can find these statutes at the LexisNexis website, read both the statutes and the appellate court decisions interpreting them. By doing that, interested persons can judge for themselves whether or not the relevant public so-called “servants” are doing a good, constitution-friendly job of administering the law and the intent of Colorado voters, or whether they should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

By John Wilkenson - Saturday, January 10, 2015
Part 2. Being a self-ownership “heretic” and free-speech absolutist, it is my view that it is John Suthers’ job to enforce the Colorado Constitution, not strategically (my opinion) misinterpret it in such a manner that Judge Gurley can use that strategic (my opinion) misinterpretation as “law” upon which to base his denial of Gordon Gallager’s motion. I would like to write more about the motion, but I haven’t yet read it.
I suspect John Suthers is an anti-Amendment-64 zealot who is determined to do all he can to alter and weaken Amendment 64 via strategic (my opinion) misinterpretation rather than by due process of law pursuant to Article XIX, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution.
(Full disclosure: I am a 70-year-old teetotaler who smoked enough “pot” in his ignorant wannabe-hippie youth to know for a first-hand fact that the FBI’s 1936 propaganda film “Reefer Madness” is a laughable lie designed to help oligarch William Randoph Hearst eliminate competition by destroying a then-viable hemp industry.)
One of the most difficult parts of the overall problem is that, among the proudly and combatively ignorant, even talking about “hemp” “marijuana”, “pot” or “weed” in non-demonizing language is considered taboo. As a result, there is a gigantic society-wide general ignorance on the subject of hemp/marijuana. Another big problem is the lack of standardization of terms. There are numerous terms related to the Cannabis plant which are confusing to many people. The reason I know that to a moral certainty is because I, too, was ignorant until I started to do the research necessary to write a well-documented educational essay on the subject.
Just a few of the terms interested people might want to look up are:
Cannabis Sativa
Cannabis Indica
Cannabis ruderalis
Cannabidiol (CBD)
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
(NOTE: While Wikipedia is by no means authoritative – verify everything—it is a wonderful time-saving gateway to online research.)
Another one of my major concerns is that Eugene Christenson might not have enough money to take the case all the way through the judicial system, which would result in Suthers and Gurley strategically (my opinion) using a bad case to make bad law for purely political (my opinion) purposes. Conscience will not allow me to simply remain silent and watch that happen.

By John Wilkenson - Saturday, January 10, 2015
PART 3. With absolutely no offense or disrespect intended whatsoever, one look at an official photo of Judge Richard Gurley tells me that, as a sufferer from what (from the photo) appears to be clinical obesity, he apparently doesn’t know all that much about health and wellness—at least not remotely enough to be trying to tell other people (such as me) how to run their own lives and make their own decisions regarding homeopathic health alternatives and choices. Accordingly, from an intellectually honest point of view, it seems logical to assume that what we are dealing with in this particular situation are merely the “politics” (aka human manipulation) of money, law, medicine, ad infinitum, which, in over 2000 years of recorded history, has gotten our species (except for the psychopathic 1%) exactly nowhere.
Another main reason the “marijuana” issue is complicated is because, although there are differing strains, notably sativa, indica, and ruderalis, the very same genus (“cannabis”) of plant which produces the so-called “marijuana” which politically cutesy ignoramuses want the “law” to keep their kids from smoking also simultaneously produces the life-saving, longevity-enhancing THC and CBD which fights against (or even outright kills) some kinds of cancer sells, in addition to having other important medical uses. The anti-self-ownership federal government which flat-out lies and says cannabis has no legitimate medical uses is the same government that still lies about the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK among countless other neofeudalistic propaganda lies.
The truth is that the same cannabis plant which produces cancer-killing THC also produces countless other excellent products which are very useful to humans, in addition to putting nutrients back into the soil. Of course, partly because there is a plethora of important information that Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Cancer don’t want us to know about, many willfully, even combatively, ignorant individuals don’t understand these issues or even want to openly talk about this kind of stuff. They just want to engage in their cutesy little “legal” and “political” manipulations and demonizations to get their spoiled-brat little ways under the fraudulent pretense of “for the children”.
In contrast, I am only trying to heal myself and extend my lifespan with alternative homeopathic remedies. I believe I have a fundamental constitutional liberty right to do exactly that. I believe there are millions of others like me, and I want them to have free access to all the information they need. I also believe I have a fundamental 1st Amendment freedom of thought/speech right to public share as much information as possible and publicly express my opinions about the public so-called “servants” who would try to suppress dissent and keep the public in a state of dependent ignorance and subjugation.

By John Wilkenson - Saturday, January 10, 2015
PART 4. Another “marijuana” complication results from the fact that I believe it was primarily so-called “recreational” users whose hard work resulted in the passage of Amendment 64 in the first place. Lots of shallow-thinking ignoramuses have a problem with recreational users. I don’t, because 1) I believe in a cause-and-effect material universe where we have to actually LIVE the consequences of our actions (e.g. poison WILL harm your health and shorten your lifespan, thereby functioning as its own most effective punishment/deterrent), and 2) I believe in a constitutional right of self-ownership which allows people the freedom of choice to harm their health by ingesting poisons into their body. The inextricable corollary is that, if I want the right to self-medicate myself with the very same plant, I have to cheerfully extend the exact freedom I desire to the “recreational” users. (Of course various self-righteous and hypocritical control freaks will always ignore the fact that tobacco and alcohol, which do far, FAR more physical and monetary harm than cannabis, are “legal”.)
I’m betting that Richard Gurley and John Suthers are not aware of even the tip of the iceberg regarding corruption in the Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Cancer industries, or that unpaid medical debts (via inflationary health care costs) are a leading cause of bankruptcies.
I’m also betting that Gurley and Suthers are both unaware (or do not care) that thousands of people know from firsthand experience that the THC kills certain kinds of cancer cells, most notably Basal Cell Carcinoma (a type of skin cancer), and that so-called “hash oil” (contains THC) – which must be contrasted from so-called “hemp seed oil” (does not contain THC) which is used in cooking and nutrition – has flat out “cured” Basal Cell Carcinoma in many people.
I myself have two little suspected spots of Basal Cell Carcinoma on my body and was researching into the possibilities of “legally” growing the plants to make the medicine I need without unnecessarily confronting the politically-cutesy Flat-Earth control freaks in Big Government, Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Cancer. So I think I can safely guarantee you this issue is not going to go away any time soon. As a matter of fact, the more people discover the truth about how they have been duped and raped by Big Pharma, et al, the louder and more persistent the public outcry will be.
The key to solving America’s health care problems lies in education. I am working on a “hemp/marijuana” aggregation to accomplish just that, and I am seriously researching self-medication. I find the subjects absolutely riveting. I will post the URL when I finish the essay (which contains copious links to relevant videos, book, articles, websites, etc).

By John Wilkenson - Saturday, January 10, 2015
PART 5. America is supposed to be a free county, but over a mere two centuries it has devolved into a full-blown “obey or die” police state where the U.S. Constitution and Rule of Law are de facto dead. The list of major government lies, JFK, RFK and MLK to name but three, is literally endless. As Antonin Scalia himself has noted, judges lie constantly about the historical meaning and intent of the social contract. I, for one, don’t want to remain silent and let pandemic judicial lying interfere with my fundamental constitutional liberty right of self-medication.
In simple terms, the bottom line for me is this: since, according to America’s social contract (and also the Colorado Constitution), I am supposedly living in a so-called “free” country and “open” society where we can freely speak publicly to issues which concern us, I have a FUNDAMENTAL liberty right to grow naturally occurring Creator-made plants in my back yard, and then process those plants into wonderfully effective medicine which I can then rub on my Basal Cell Carcinoma spots and heal myself without signing my home and land over to the government-licensed allophatic guessers in white coats and their central bankster patrons to pay unconscionably high Big Pharma and Big Medicine expenses.
In defense of Suthers, Gurley et al, it doesn’t help when pro-home-remedy folks either don’t know enough about what they are trying to do, or don’t exercise enough care in manufacturing the product/s they are trying to produce. In committing said failure, they open a gigantic hole for anti-self-medication zealots to work their wannabe-clever manipulations and demonizations against the public’s right to life-saving, money-saving information and policies.
According to the Denver Post, Suthers said, “To decriminalize dangerous and unreasonable behavior in which people are getting hurt and houses are blowing up defies the intent of the voters.” What a load of manipulative, opportunistic crap!
The Sentinel doesn’t help by failing to say whether or not Christenson was a recreational user or a medicinal user, and there IS a huge “political” difference. The Sentinel also doesn’t say whether or not the property Christenson’s concoction exploded on belonged to him. If it did, according to my interpretation of Colorado’s arson statutes, Colorado’s arson law does not apply to the reported facts of the case. Sort of like “felony menacing” didn’t apply to pointing a banana at the cops in the infamous “Banana Man” case.
(NOTE: Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.”)

By John Wilkenson - Saturday, January 10, 2015
PART 6. Lastly, ladies and gentlemen of the Mesa County public opinion jury, I want to borrow from the syntax of the Declaration of Independence to explain why “a decent respect [for] the opinions of mankind requires that” I “should declare the causes which impel” me to such blunt language in presenting my case and demonizing various anti-constitution, anti-self-ownership, anti-self-medication cutesy pies.
I like to ask the question: “If you and your criminal cronies could legally counterfeit money, how long would it take for your group to own everything real in the world?” Unfortunately, most “normal” people don’t understand the ramifications of allowing an anonymous cabal of transnational central banksters to create infinite amounts of fraudulent interest-bearing digital legal-tender “money”. The oligarchs and their political-class toadies can (and do) create whatever amounts of computerized musical-chairs monetary numbers it takes to buy whatever amounts of corruption they want at whatever levels of government they need it to stay in power and control and “engineer” society to their liking and personal financial benefit – and everybody else’s detriment. This type of dangerously psychopathic criminal scum are self-evidently anti-constitution, anti-self-ownership, anti-self-medication.
To combat such an extreme level of political manipulation, it is necessary to polarize society around an issue. For example, blacks-as-chattel slavery was not abolished until John Brown said in effect, “we are going to start killing slave owners until slavery is abolished.” Of course he was hung for his moral courage and insight.
The embarrassing fact is, true progress in medicine has always, without exception, been violently resisted by medical “authorities” who cling to the erroneous beliefs of their time. For example, there were huge fights about whether or not doctors should wash their hands before assisting in childbirth right after they had worked on some bacteria-laden autopsy.
The sad fact is, in defense of freedom, SOMEBODY has to speak up and “tell it like it is” in blunt, transparent and accountable language before any political candidates will have the courage to run for office using the same blunt, transparent and accountable language to publicly discuss the important issues of the day and affect meaningful political change.
Lots of world-class doctors and scientists know that what I have said is true, but lots of them are too afraid to say anything because they will lose their funding and/or medical licenses for daring to go against the Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Banking establishments. So they tolerate the lies in deference to retaining their livelihoods.
Therefore, I made a fully-informed decision to say exactly what I have said to stimulate free and open public discussion of the crucial core issues of self-ownership and self-medication.

Under construction . . .