Help Fight Corruption by the WSLCB
$1,386 of $1,386 goal
John had a recent victory in Superior Court after the LCB ruled against him. The Superior Court judge viewed the LCB' s dismissal as "arbitrary and caprecious", and remanded it back for a new hearing.
You can read the details of this case at http://420leaks.com/?p=778
John's expenses include a $290 filing fee due this week. He will also have about $600+ to pay for a copy of the administrative records to be sent to the courts.
John Worthington's case against the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board heads to the Court of Appeals for Division II. The opening brief is due October 17, 2016.
Worthington has contacted an attorney to review the briefing, finish the briefing and appear at oral argument. The attorneys name is Robert Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes is requesting $3500 to take over this case. We have two weeks to meet the mark or come close. The briefing does not end until November of 2016, so there is more than two weeks time to finish paying the attorney's costs. Please contribute if you are able in order to get fair consideration from the courts. Worthington will no doubt continue the case on his own if an attorney cannot be hired, but feels this is our best chance to beat the WSLCB.
View Mr Rhodes website here
We are asking for $4700 to give John the cash he needs to continue this fight to expose this corruption of the process, bringing much needed sunshine on this subject.
Thank you for your continued support. This is your chance to help John make history! Please contribute today so he can get the filing fee paid by Friday, June 10.
In October of 2014, Olympia resident Arthur West obtained public records from the Washington State Liquor Control Board showing that there were 17 secret public meetings held during the rulemaking for I-502. 
During the West lawsuit, the Washington State Liquor Control Board tried to argue there was a working copy of the I-502 rulemaking file, but that argument was denied by the Thurston County Superior court.
Soon many other public records from the West case made its way to 420leaks.com , a site that gathers public records and other information regarding marijuana.
In these documents were evidence of a partnership between many groups, including treatment professionals, law enforcement organizations, the Association of Washington Cities, other notable non-profit government groups, and the Washington State Liquor Control Board. 
After reviewing many documents of the partnership’s conduct during I-502 rulemaking, John Worthington of Renton filed a lawsuit challenging the acts of the partnership during the rulemaking process in January of 2015.
Worthington requested to review the I-502 rulemaking file used to develop I-502 rules and was told that the original rulemaking file no longer existed, but that a ”final” copy of the rulemaking file was made available to him.
Several other researchers made the same request and were given differing results.
He then requested an electronic copy through the public records act and was told he was given the “initial” copy of the rulemaking file.
At that point, Worthington filed a petition to adopt, amend and repeal with the Washington State Liquor Control Board and asked them to repeal the rules for I-502 because they tampered with the rulemaking file after the rules for I-502 were made.
Worthington made a rules challenge pursuant to RCW 34.05.375, which challenges the validity of rules that are not developed properly by adhering to several statutes. One of those statutes is the rulemaking file.
The Washington State Liquor Control Board ruled Worthington did not cite any specific rules to be repealed and also ruled they followed the proper procedures for rulemaking outlined in RCW 34.05.375.
Worthington filed a judicial review of that decision. 
On May 6, 2016, the Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Hirsch ruled the agency decision to deny the petition was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the matter back to the Washington State Liquor Control Board. 
Worthington was not satisfied with the decision, as the court had not made a ruling on the rules validity challenge and requested the trial court to answer the issue of whether there was such a thing as a “final” copy of the rulemaking file.
He also asked the court to determine if the rules could still be valid without an “original” rulemaking file.
The court would not rule on that issue despite the fact the issue was before the agency and argued in three briefs to the trial court. It was reasoned that Worthington had not objected to a rulemaking file not being placed into the agency record.
Worthington’s position is that the agency had the responsibility to provide the rulemaking file for a rules review.
He also argued the Washington State Liquor Control Board has admitted the original rulemaking file does not exist, so it is futile to add a final copy to the record.
Worthington also feels the remand to the agency is futile because they have already admitted once the board developed the rules, Karen McCall, the rules Coordinator at the time, permanently altered the rulemaking file, and thus invalidated the rules for I-502.
Now he has to file an interlocutory appeal with the Appellate court in an attempt to get a court to answer the question no court seems to want to answer. Is there such a thing as a ”final” copy of a rulemaking file, and are the rules for I-502 invalidated because the Washington State Liquor Control Board rules coordinator decided to remove documents from a rulemaking file after the board had made rules?
To make matters worse, the original board, consisting of Sharon Foster, Chris Marr, and Ruthann Kurose have admitted under oath they never authorized a “final” or “working” copy of a rulemaking file. Even worse yet is that removing public documents is a class C felony.
As of now, justice seems to elude Worthington and the Washington State justice system has appeared to suborn felony crimes, enabling the Washington State Liquor Control Board to make a mockery of the rulemaking process, without any real consequences other than giving them another chance to lie their way out of being held accountable.
Perhaps a billion dollar industry is special enough to warrant such special treatment, but to the rest of us that are expected to pay traffic tickets and obey the law it is a slap in the face.
 Judge Finds WSLCB Broke the Law 17 Times Making I-502 Rules: http://420leaks.com/?p=631
 420leaks.com Public Records Database from Arthur West: https://app.box.com/s/46qnsr90gnnazb3d2r0t/1/2878026511
 I-502: OPMA, MMJ, Public Records and the “Partnership”: http://420leaks.com/?p=689
 Motion to the court: https://app.box.com/s/46qnsr90gnnazb3d2r0t/1/2733141802/62085057609/1
 Judge’s signed order from May 6: https://app.box.com/s/imhug87958zp2cbeggildistb50k25nj
All 420leaks public records available at https://app.box.com/s/46qnsr90gnnazb3d2r0t
Thanks to the many people that have contributed to this effort. I did the best I could as a Pro Se litigant in the amount of time I had to work with. Hopefully the Court grants oral argument and I will see everyone there.
Please read the full complaint, with appendices, filed today with the court to this link:
Your help on this is most appreciated.
First the bad.
John finished writing his brief for the case and sent it to the attorney.
He called John this morning and told him that after reviewing it, turns out the case was more complicated than he originally thought and is now asking for $6000 to take the case. He realized that it would take him at least 20 hours to read, review and be ready in time.
The good news is, he has given John some great advice to John on how to fine tune his arguements in case we are not able to raise enough.
And that if John goes forward on the case and represents himself, all we need to come up with is the $240 filing fee.
And as of now, we have raised $95 that could be used for that.
However, we need to hear from you. Should we continue to try to raise the full $6000 to get the attorney?
We could keep going and hope for the best, then if we don't reach our goal, we will use the money raised to pay for the $240 filing fee, then will refund the unused portion to you.
Either way, this case is moving forward.
However, we want to be completely open and honest with you all about what is happening. If you would like a refund of your money now, please contact John at email@example.com or by commenting here ASAP.
Thank you for your continued support.
The opening brief is due October 17, 2016.
Worthington has contacted an attorney to review the briefing, finish the briefing and appear at oral argument.
The attorneys name is Robert Rhodes.
Mr. Rhodes is requesting $3500.00 to take over this case.
We have two weeks to meet the mark or come close.
The briefing does not end until November of 2016, so there is more than two weeks time to finish paying the attorney's costs.
Please contribute if you are able in order to get fair consideration from the courts.
Worthington will no doubt continue the case on his own if an attorney cannot be hired, but feels this is our best chance to beat the WSLCB.
The attorney has said that this case is too complicated for him to take over unless he does 20 hours of research and reading at 300 bucks an hour.. That is $6,000 dollars. Realistically that is what it would take to hire counsel for this case. He gave great advice on the structure of the brief. It looks like I will be doing this myself. I will ask Novak to put this information on the site. We have 95 dollars so far. The odds are really against us. Too bad the criminal guys soaked everyone for the injunction to nowhere. Now most dispensaries are out of business and waiting for approval to be I-502 licensed.
john, we could all show up,,to show a force... im willing,,i am now able to drive freely,,,ssdi sadly approved,,,so 2 incomes
I have reached the goal of paying for this appeal to the Washington State Supreme court. Please stop all donations as it is now apparant that we will not meet the goal of paying for the attorney. Much thanks to the Community. I will not forget te efforts and I really think it is special given the fact that dispensaries have not been able to operate for some time and some of you are spending your own money continuing your various fights. Thanks.
We need to have individuals testify as to the violations of rights and other loss due to this restriction of liberty's and argue that 5052 is persecuting people for crimes without "Standing." We should not be coerced into giving up liberty's the government is sworn to uphold such as equal protections under the law 14th amendment and registrations that ask folks to relinquish 4th and 5th amendment rights in order to retain 14th amendment rights so the state can make violations of due processes of law and search folks with no warrant and subjecting them to crewel and unusual punishments and excessive fines! A violation of the 8th amendment! SSB5052 puts people at risk of life liberty and pursuit of happiness, it has no victim there for the state has no standing, and potentially incriminates people for the benefit of the state and it's contributors! It diminishes the liberty of the many to protect the privilege of a few! We have folks produce personal loss's of quality of life and in cases loss of one's life, we show loss of livelihood financial losses based on unequal protections of law in the market concerning the medical shut out and that folks who should have had priority got unequal opportunity and unequal protections, we show loss of pursuit of happiness, loss of quality of life and out right violations of ones liberty! We show that the people and more important individuals have loss and there for have standing in court for them to uphold our rights! We ask the courts to produce standing to validate this law and to produce individuals with standing and show specific losses and or violations of rights in testimony as to what cause of action they would have to enforce or enact such laws and we challenge the jurisdiction by challenging what standing or cause of action an individual has been made for the legislators to grant jurisdiction is such matters and what juristic requirement they would have to place any such laws into effect or grant any law enforcement or court jurisdiction without standing! They need a victim that they are protecting the rights of as courts only mandate is to protect and uphold the rights of the people and in order to do so they need to show cause of action or standing and a victim needs to be established with a specific grievance and show specific loss's and or violations of that individuals rights for the courts or enforcement to have jurisdiction! This law is invalid as there is no victim and no standing for the state to have jurisdiction in this matter or any cannabis matter at that! All cannabis laws are a fraud and have no standing there for are not crimes and are not law but null and void, they violate the very essence of article iii of the US. constitution and lack the judicial requirements necessary to bring cause of action against anyone! When the courts can not produce standing or loss of and individual it will be game over for cannabis laws in general!
I say we fight it as free men and women who need no man to represent us! This case on the rule making is great and I say pursue it, I say let's fight it our selves if the lawyers won't help out, I say even if this one doesn't pan out, I say we take a vote, if contributors are not opposed and well folks are still contributing and I see no one opposing your efforts, I say we keep going with what we can, file a civil suit. Like we spoke about we make a few very clear arguments on the natural rights of the people, we get as many victims as we can to produce testimony as written or otherwise to produce standing and we bring cause of action by these individuals against the state and ask the state to produce standing as to the validity of this bill.
If anyone would like to get an attorney that they know I am open.
Thanks folks. I will keep the money in my account and determine what to do if we don't make the mark. I may ask to keep $ 240 to pay for the appeal and printing to the Supreme Court. I will return anything over that if we can't buy the lawyer.
Its your case, you paid for it. Any money would go straight to the lawyer and the case would be ours to lose. If we do not meet the mark I will continue on as best as I can. I am sorry, I have three cases on appeal and a fourth in the trial court, and am tapped out. I have no expectations from the community and will not be offended if those in the community cannot meet the mark. They have earned that since it is they that have gotten the case this far.