Woods never contacted me back; HUMMAP sues county's cannabis ordinance, the lawsuit Sawatsky was going to fund?

I reported recently about Humboldt County's odd couple.

http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2016/02/anti-marijuana-kent-sawatsky-to-fund.html

Woods never contacted,me back.HUMMAP decided to file the lawsuit against the County mentioned in emails in the February 17 post. Previous emails in the post below indicate Kent Sawatsky was going to fund this lawsuit. Same attorney mentioned in those emails is the one filing this lawsuit.

I contacted all the Supervisors and County Counsel Mr. Jeffrey Blanck.

Mr. Blanck said no comment, at this time.


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
HUMBOLDT MENDOCINO MARIJUANA
ADVOCACY PROJECT, an unincorporated
association,
 Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
HUMBOLDT, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
inclusive,
 Respondents,
ROES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,
 Real Parties in Interest.
CASE NO.
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF
ACTION
(Public Resources Code § 21167.5)
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.5 that the
Petitioner listed above intends to commence an action challenging the above-captioned
Respondents’ actions in adopting Humboldt County Ordinance Number 2544, entitled the
“Commercial Medical Marijuana Land Use Ordinance” (“Ordinance”).
The petition will seek the following relief: interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief
restraining Respondents from taking any action to implement the Ordinance; a judgment
determining or declaring that the adoption of the Ordinance by Respondents was illegal and is
therefore null and void; a judgment determining or declaring that Respondents abused their
discretion when they failed to comply with CEQA and that the Ordinance must be set aside
unless and until Respondents comply with CEQA; a writ of mandate ordering Respondents to
prepare an environmental impact report or a legally adequate mitigated negative declaration
injunctive relief against Respondents restraining them from taking any actions toward
implementation of the Ordinance; an award of attorney fees and costs of suit, including but not
limited to the costs of reproducing the administrative record; and for such other and further relief
as the court may deem just and proper.

The attorney for HUMMAP is Rachel Doughty.

GREENFRachel Doughty practices land use and environmental law. She has experience in matters of local and federal land use, and focuses her practice on water quality, land use management, permitting, and California’s Proposition 65. In her practice she has worked with state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Forest Service, and multiple states’ departments of environmental quality and management. Prior to attending law school, Rachel was a fellow in the Wetlands Division of the Office of Water at the U.S. EPA in Washington, D.C. In addition to her law degree from the University of Virginia (2004), Ms. Doughty has a master’s degree in Natural Resources (with a minor concentration in biogeochemistry) from Cornell University, and an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, cellular, and molecular biology from the University of Tennessee. Ms. Doughty has represented public interest groups, individuals, and businesses on issues ranging from challenging land management decisions by federal agencies to developing environmental policy

Feb 17, 2016

Anti marijuana Kent Sawatsky to fund a lawsuit for HUMMAP? Woods and Sawatsky Humboldt County's latest odd couple?

Public watch dog Kent Sawatsky has threatened action before before against Judge Bruce Watson but no follow through.

In the past, he has been very vocal about being anti cannabis, particularly chewing out the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors for the Medical Marijuana Land Use Ordinance.

These are just two quotes from two of my posts:

"We currently have the highest capita of criminals in U.S. with crimes such as tax evasion and money laundering": Kent Sawatsky

"Weed greed and children do not mix" : Kent Sawatsky

Mr. Sawatsky is willing to fund a lawsuit but has to become a member of HUMMAP and allegedly he wants his involvement kept quiet until this is official.

Except his potential plan hit a hitch.

Not all HUMMAP members are thrilled with this potential alliance.

These are emails from some of the HUMMAP members. I have removed their email addresses.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Christopher Larson wrote:

IF KENT SAWATSKY BECOMES A MEMBER I WISH TO RESIGN. THIS IS NOT A HEALTHY ALLIANCE. Sorry my key stuck. Also i don’t think it’s right that Woods alone sees all members responses, effectively giving him censorship and resulting in a very strange organization. I’ve enjoyed working with most of you and hope to continue to do so, but I’m no longer comfortable with being represented as a HUMMAP member.

Best regards,
Cristo Larson

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Robert Sutherland wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Today I am printing out and signing the contract with Rachel Doughty, to continue research on the ordinance issue. Most of you who replied are in support of this action. I will mail it to her tomorrow morning.
>
> The agreement is between Hummap and Doughty and me and Doughty. In order for the funder, Kent Sawatzky, to be included within the attorney-client privilege, he must be a member of Hummap. I therefore am here soliciting any objections to his membership. Respond quickly because he is awaiting word from me on this before he mails his check to Rachel. Hummap has no real standards for "membership" that I am aware of. My way of treating it has been to include anyone who is not fundamentally opposed to our vision statement, which I try to distribute freely. Not all of them have attended Hummap meetings, though that helps. Kent does not want his membership to be high profile, so please respect his wishes. He has already met with some of you.
>
> Also, I request that if any of you who have had any of the following info about the ordinance at any point to provide details to me for Rachel:
> 1. Any mention of baseline.
> 2. Contact with Steve Lazar or the attorneys and staff about the ordinance.
>
> Best regards, Woods.

Mr. Sawatsky called me back. Regarding Judge Watson, he said that the Judge resigned in December. He wanted to bring some issues to the public's attention about Judge Watson's alleged improprieties.

"I have funded the investigation of a lawsuit," said Mr. Sawatsky. "My concern is that the environment is not being protected under the mitigated negative declaration. For us to protect the environment, it may be necessary for me to join the organization."

At this point Mr. Sawatsky said he is just "exploring this and has no intention of anticipated legislation."

I am waiting to hear from Woods.