Home > Uncategorized > Isleton city officials summoned over marijuana farm

Isleton city officials summoned over marijuana farm

This will scare the pants off the city of Eureka.

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully has subpoenaed the entire city brass, from the police chief, mayor and city manager on down to former planning commissioners, to testify today before a grand jury – or possibly face jailing.

The reason? Isleton’s leaders are being summoned because they approved a medical marijuana farm on the edge of town that Scully thinks in some way could violate state law, which would in essence make them a bunch of dope dealers.

Full story.

  1. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Humboldt’s elected officials should follow this town’s example. But does anybody really expect our current lineup to go against the grain? Not as long as their bankers are making money sludging everybody down in the usual drawl and sprawl.

    “”Over the past 16 years, it has also managed to rebuff seven scathing grand jury reports, including one in 2008 that called for the city to disband on the grounds that it was in “a state of perpetual crisis.””

    When enough people agree to treat eachother as intelligent, self thinking individuals, and go against the status quo in the process…the feds will spread the word that the whole lot of ’em are…in perpetual crisis? Gimme a break.

  2. Mark Sailors
    April 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm


  3. Big Al
    April 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Dude needs to take a ‘Lude

  4. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    really, what the fuck is that random nutcase talking about? Take a look around, Random Guy, you’re in meek country! Pony down and shut up for awhile! Everybody’s kept in check by fear, why aren’t you afraid to just type away like everybody else? DOn’t you see the HARM it does? It does so much HARM. It’s BAD. Random Guy, you’re a true idiot amongst genuine middle of the road geniuseses.

  5. Teacher
    April 27, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Random Guy, I read what you wrote and didn’t find anything extreme, informative, and/or interesting about it. Quit thinking of yourself as some kind of rebel going against the system. I, like you, am too big of a pussy to use my real name. Thus, nothing we write on here can be said to be a testament to how courageous we are. Being anonymous is being middle of the road. If you want to get crazy, why don’t you start standing behind what you say and put your name to it?

  6. Oldphart
    April 27, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    For a moment I thought I was at the Humboldt Mirror.

  7. Teacher
    April 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Random Guy, what do you do and/or say that makes not a middle of the road type of guy?

  8. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Ask the above, teach. Maybe if I start popping pills I’ll be like everybody else. Provoking Humboldt since 2006, yet here we are. Wasn’t that a great supervisors’ meeting a few weeks ago? That’s how shit gets done ’round here! That’s how people come to see the light that shines upon the golden road to eternal prosperity. That and a fuckload of cash.

    …oh shoot…doing it again…gotta stop typing what I think when I think it. What’ll people think?

  9. Teacher
    April 27, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    I still don’t get it. You consider yourself to be an outspoken rebel critic of the establishment and you wield your influence by anonymous postings on an ultra liberal blog… Here’s an idea: if you want to inact positive change, take away the anonymous name, put your name behind what you believe in, and go to meetings and get involved in your community. Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time like the rest of us bitching and moaning but not doing a thing. Posting on this site doesn’t make you a rebel Random Guy.

  10. High Finance
    April 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    What a twisted state California has become.

    Isleton sounds like it is run by drug dealers and they all should go to jail or at least thrown out of office.

  11. Teacher
    April 27, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    They are desperate for money HiFi and maybe not morally opposed to marijuana. I wouldn’t call them drug dealers in the traditional sense. It’s more comparable to state run liquor stores.

  12. Mark Sailors
    April 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    U.S. Attorneys Threaten Medical Marijuana States

    By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ in Medical, News
    Wednesday, April 27, 2011, at 11:41 am
    ​It only took two years for the U.S. federal government to get from “we won’t interfere in state medical marijuana laws” to threatening raids and even arrests of state employees if dispensaries are legalized.

    The administration is using a new tactic in its war against medical marijuana patients and providers. In at least four states in the past two months, U.S. Attorneys have been given the dirty work of threatening states if progressive medical marijuana legislation is passed.

    Things got started in February when the U.S. Attorney for Northern California threatened to prosecute operators of a proposed commercial medical marijuana farm in Oakland, even though the farm was licensed by that city and legal under state.

    U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag “strongly warned” Oakland that big industrial marijuana farms are illegal under federal law, and that the Department of Justice was considering “civil and criminal legal remedies” if the city went ahead with its plans to permit them. The plans were put on hold.

    The disturbing trend continued in earnest a couple weeks ago — and was ratcheted up to a new level of rhetoric — when Washington Governor Christine Gregoire sent a letter “seeking guidance” from federal authorities about a bill pending in the state Legislature which would have legalized medicinal cannabis dispensaries in the states.

    ​The response she got from U.S. Attorneys Mike Ormsby (Eastern Washington) and Jenny Durkan (Western Washington) noted U.S. Attorney Haag’s earlier threats in Northern California, and went on to threaten that state employees who license the dispensaries might be arrested.

    Gov. Gregoire quickly used the threats as political cover for a veto of the bill, which would have also provided arrest protection for patients (in Washington, medical marijuana patients only have an “affirmative defense” against prosecution, but enjoy no protection from arrest).

    “I asked the Legislature to work with me on a bill that does not subject state workers to the risk of criminal liability,” Gregoire said.

    The governor said she would not sign a bill that “puts state employees at risk.”

    “I want to protect state employees from arrest,” responded state Senator Jeanne Kohl Welles (D-Seattle), who sponsored the medical marijuana bill. “Who doesn’t? But I have a hard time believing that federal agents would go after state employees who are sitting in their offices. It is very bizarre to think that they would.”

    The rhetoric continued last week when U.S. Attorney for Montana Michael Cotter said the prosecution of businesses that sell marijuana is a “core priority” of the U.S. Department of Justice. Cotter was underlining federal intent after last month’s DEA raids of Montana dispensaries.

    U.S. Attorney John Walsh: Adjusting medical marijuana laws “could lead to federal prosecutions”

    ​And now, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado, John Walsh, has horned in on the legislative process in that state, warning lawmakers that pending legislation adjusting state rules for medical marijuana would conflict with federal law and “could lead to federal prosecutions,” reports Felisa Cardona at The Denver Post.

    Walsh’s letter was sent to Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, once again in response to a “request for clarification” (what is it with these state officials who need federal “permission” to do their jobs?) on how federal marijuana policy may conflict with pending House Bill 1043.

    “The Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the federal law and the Controlled Substances Act in all states,” Walsh wrote. “Thus, if provisions of H.B. 1043 are enacted and become law, the Department will continue to carefully consider all appropriate civil and criminal legal remedies to prevent manufacture and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations.”

    “The Department would consider civil actions and criminal prosecutions regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries, as well as property owners, as they will be acting in violation of federal law,” Walsh wrote.

    The letter only further muddies the federal Department of Justice’s stance on medical marijuana, rather than providing anything like clarification, according to Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Denver), a sponsor of the bill.

    “We have had mixed messages from the federal government on this,” Steadman said. “I think this casts a big shadow upon this industry in Colorado. I does cause some uncertainty and trepidation.”

    This is how the administration is continuing the status quo of the federal war on marijuana — using U.S. Attorneys as attack dogs in a cowardly attempt to avoid any political fallout for attacking medical marijuana patients.

    Expect the feds to continue tightening their cold steel grip over medical marijuana states — until you get too tired of that nonsense to allow it any longer.


  13. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Sure teacher, I’m also the antithesis of whatever others say I am. I’m whoever and whatever you want me to be, just as you are. If you change your name to God’s Fart, think of the change in dynamics! Or if you stick to some charicature style of typing…you might start to CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS…but not really.

    Blogging on the internet doesn’t do shit, teach. But if one in a thousand heads picks up a sensible thought now and then, as I experience myself, it’s worth it. Maybe more people will recognize there aren’t two sides to every issue, that there’s still such thing as a right and a wrong, and a sensible argument within everybody’s right to voice their approval or disapproval of what they believe. I participated in “blogs” years ago, for years, and nothing has changed whatsoever.

    Isn’t High Finance quite a genius? A career troll, clockin’ mo dollaz than a welfare check. Anybody can yell at that wall till their fingers turn blue.

    Maybe the internet isn’t like real life at all, because there’s a lot of people who can’t won’t and don’t need to know or give a shit about the difference between “its” and “it’s”, especially when trying to communicate how they got ripped off. Most people can’t even type faster than twenty words per minute. This is not reality.

  14. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    “Here’s an idea: if you want to inact positive change, take away the anonymous name, put your name behind what you believe in, and go to meetings and get involved in your community.”

    I could tell you some stories. I believe there’s still hope in humboldt…all hope has been lost in the bay area. Development money has taken over, and will forever run their show. I can’t afford to take away my anonymous name, or present myself at these important events. I’m a little guy clinging to a little slice of pie. Got a speeding ticket, came to $350 dollars. I’m now $300 short of making next month’s rent, good thing I’ve got money saved. I don’t want to continue…

    In recent years I took it upon myself to truely understand the concept of ‘projection’…it’s a two way mirror. Where does true objectivity exist, but in that which actually materially exists? A freeway is going to be made larger through an ancient redwood forest in southern Humboldt County. The immaterial ideology surrounding the material actuality of the event is false. Can a nutcase say so and have his voice recognized? Real estate moguls have installed their own puppet representatives in Humboldt’s most important political positions. It took a lot of material money and material propaganda to do so. Did you see the supervisor’s meeting a few weeks ago? A complete joke. The material reality they want to bring to Humboldt is exactly that which has already been forced upon most of the state, and that which is failing miserably.

    etc. etc. etc.

    Stupid internet pissing contests, grasping for audience credibility instead of acknowledging any individual’s bottom line, makes me sick. And as internet “social networking” continues to gain validity, so does the manufactured ideology it promotes, in lieu of material reality.

    I typed this at around 70 wpm…should I spell check? Does it make a difference?

    Isleton’s city official’s, if you’re reading…please come to Humboldt! Make shit happen.

  15. Mark Sailors
    April 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    “I typed this at around 70 wpm…should I spell check? Does it make a difference?”
    1. Yes you should spell check. ( Firefox spell checks online forms so there really is not an excuse)
    2. It does make a difference because it shows your attention to detail, and if you actually understand the English language. If you can’t spell, who would believe you can comprehend what you read?

  16. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Are you serious, mark? I don’t use firefox. I use outdated fully hackable IE8. If anybody wants at what I’ve got on this laptop, help yourself. You’ll only discover my taste in music and porn. Maybe team heraldo follows my browsing habits…but I’m one of several on this IP.

    To correct your #1 (pay attention to verbatim, parentheticals are my own):

    Yes, you should spell check. (no need for parentheses) Firefox spell checks online forms, so there really is not an excuse.

    To correct your #2:

    It does make a difference because it shows your attention to detail, and whether or not you actually understand the Enclish language. (the rest is correct). < placement of period in/out of parentheses is debatable.

  17. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Looks like I made two spelling errors in my correcting your correction. What a waste of time, no? Has nothing to do with any issue whatsoever. You should update your knowledge of proper comma placement, etc.

  18. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    smells like urine…3:11!

  19. Mark Sailors
    April 27, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    The period outside of the parenthesis is grammatically correct.

    “Punctuation, then, is the use of spacing, conventional signs and certain typographical devices to promote understanding and to guide correct reading, whether silent or aloud.”
    — John McDermott —


    Either or both of a pair of signs used in writing to mark off an interjected explanatory or qualifying remark.

    Use parentheses ( ) to include material that you want to de-emphasize or that wouldn’t normally fit into the flow of your text but you want to include nonetheless.

    If the material within parentheses appears within a sentence, do not use a capital letter or period to punctuate that material, even if the material is itself a complete sentence. (A question mark or exclamation mark, however, might be appropriate and necessary.) If the material within your parentheses is written as a separate sentence (not included within another sentence), punctuate it as if it were a separate sentence.
    Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost (we remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration) remains America’s favorite poet.
    Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost (do you remember him?) remains America’s favorite poet.
    Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost remains America’s favorite poet. (We remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration.)

    If the material is important enough, use some other means of including it within your text — even if it means writing another sentence. Note that parentheses tend to de-emphasize text whereas dashes tend to make material seem even more important.

    — Capital Community College Foundation
    Guide to Grammar and Writing —

    Place a period outside a closing parenthesis if the material inside is not a sentence (such as this fragment).

    (An independent parenthetical sentence such as this one takes a period before the closing parenthesis.)

    — The Associated Press Stylebook —

  20. Mark Sailors
    April 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    At least you didn’t type Engrish……

  21. Random Guy
    April 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Rots of ruck on your coming erection!

  22. Teacher
    April 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Mark, in your original comment at 2:57, you incorrectly inserted a comma before “and.” Because you were not joining to independent clauses and were instead adding a dependent clause to the end of an independent clause, no comma is needed.
    You’re better than that Mark.

  23. Teacher
    April 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    “two” damn it.

  24. tra
    April 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, spelling and punctuation really don’t matter all that much, except when the misspelling or incorrect punctuation changes the meaning of the sentence and leads to misunderstanding.

    Our language is full of sometimes contradictory rules as well as lots of easily forgettable exceptions to those rules. “It’s” and “its” is a good example. People make that mistake all the time, and I’d say 99.99% of the time the meaning is still totally clear due to the context.

    Sometimes people point out spelling or grammar or punctuation mistakes in a friendly way, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But it seems like most of the time it’s just a way to try to discredit the writer and/or change the subject, presumably because it’s easier than addressing the actual point raised by the writer.

  25. Mr. Nice
    April 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    A comma between two prepositions represents a pause in the…

    Wait, wait, wait… Are you beginner ass, no skills, bitch-made, wannabe writers arguing about grammar and punctuation and shit?

    Y’all’s some of the worst writes I ever read debating writing. Stick to the goddamn subject: weed.

  26. Mark Sailors
    April 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Thanks Teach…..
    Arguing over grammar is more fun than arguing over weed any day.


  27. April 27, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Your right and beyound that it is intimidating for us that are just now posting for the first time after being daily readers of this blog for years now. Like the typing and computer skills were not enough.
    I have learned alot on this blog and thank all of the constant posters for your insights and opinions. I am quite sure the are lots of people like me that always read this blog and want to formally thank The Humboldt Herald for provocing us.

  28. April 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm


  29. Ponder z
    April 27, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    I believe that those who want to legalize recreational pot used sick people as a front to achieve their ends by creating the state medical marijuana systems. Indeed, the experience in California proves it, as attested by columnist Nicolas Kristof, who argues in his NYT column for the full legalization of marijuana, an issue that is beyond our scope here. But in doing so, he inadvertently highlights the utter lack of integrity that has become the hallmark of the medical marijuana industry in California. From his piece, “End the Pot War:”

    Likewise, medical marijuana laws approved in 1996 have in effect made pot accessible to any adult in California, without any large increase in usage. Special medical clinics abound where for about $45 you can see a doctor who is certain to give you the medical recommendation that you need to buy marijuana. Then you can visit Mr. Kim and choose one of his 31 varieties, topping out at a private “OG” brand that costs $75 for one-eighth of an ounce. “It’s like a fine wine, cured, aged, dried,” he boasted.

    Or browse the online offerings. One store advertises: “refer a friend, get free joint.” And the world hasn’t ended.

    Actually, in LA–from where Kristof reports–MM has led to a terrible crime and squalor situation, so bad that LA is trying to shut down hundreds of local pot stores. Besides, how can Kristof smile benignly at such a profound corruption of medicine?

    As I have repeatedly written, I think we can–and should–have medical marijuana. The way to achieve that end–with integrity, based on principle (Wesley, what’s that?), and under the rule of law–is to revise the Controlled Substances Act to permit cannabis to be prescribed like stronger drugs such as morphine and cocaine. That would get the Feds off the backs of doctors, permit studies as to the afflictions for which pot is and is not an efficacious treatment or palliative agent, and allow us to prescribe more precise dosages, such as under-the-tongue sprays.

    But for some, medical cannabis was never the goal. It was the means. And they cynically used sick people to gain their end. I think that stinks.

  30. scooter
    April 27, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Back on subject. The CA state AG has laid out state law with regard to MMJ cultivation. The collectives are allowed to purchase their members “overages” and distribute it to medically verified members. Any club that produces its own MMJ and sells it for black market prices is violating state law and federal law (duh). The feds told both Oakland and Berkeley that they would NOT be licensing big commercial grows, and they are not going to try. The collectives in HumCo are all required to produce all of their product and are forbidden to buy from growers. This makes them not “collectives” but manufacturing operations for profit. San Jose just opted for this type of crap last week, with a 10 factory limit.
    There is also the new IRS strategy of going after collectives that use all of the normal tax deductions and write offs allowed normal business, except federal law says “drug dealers” cant write off anything at all ever.
    The Marin Alliance for MMJ is being sued by the IRS for 3 million$ as they contend that all of the rent and wages and business expenses are illegal write offs. This strategy has the potential to shut down most every collective in the state.

  31. Mr. Nice
    April 27, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    The collectives should only buy overages from collective members. This system enables weed growers to sell weed at reasonable prices while taking middlemen out of the equation. The only hustler in this arrangement is the club.

    In Isleton’s case, the hustler was the local government. 3% of sales in tax? Could be $500 per citizen in taxes on one grow. Fuck that. Unless the weed was hella good then whatever, all for it then.

  32. Eric Kirk
    April 27, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    Isleton sounds like it is run by drug dealers and they all should go to jail or at least thrown out of office.

    Because they sound like drug dealers? What does a drug dealer sound like?

  33. Anonymous
    April 28, 2011 at 12:54 am

    Arf! Arf!

  34. Walt
    April 28, 2011 at 5:59 am

    When the shades of night are falling
    Comes a fellow everyone knows
    It’s the old dope peddler
    Spreading joy wherever he goes.
    -Tom Lehrer

  35. Anonymous
    April 28, 2011 at 6:19 am

    Wasn’t it Isleton that had some problems a few years back over concealed weapons permits?

    Something like the chief of police was “selling” them to people that did not live in the community but only have a local post office box address? Charged something like $600 per CCW. Don’t know what the final final was on that one.

    just some Isleton trivia

  36. skippy
    April 28, 2011 at 9:02 am

    “Sources close to the investigation said one area being explored is the possibility that kickback payments were made to city officials in return for allowing Delta Allied Growers to construct a 4,000-square-foot spread of greenhouses on the eastern edge of Isleton. But several who were summoned to a Sacramento courtroom to testify said they were still in the dark about investigators’ focus.”

    The Isleton Grand Jury hearings are expected to continue through Friday. Not much new information of the probe’s focus has come forward.
    Full SF Gate story here

    “(Attorney Christopher) Lee said that as he met with four of his clients at City Hall Tuesday night, the DA investigator who served them all with subpoenas sat in a car outside the building and refused three requests to leave, further intimidating his clients. ‘What kind of Mafia wiseguy stuff is this?’ Lee asked.”

    More background details, story, related articles, and a short video and slideshow are found in today’s Sacramento Bee story.

  37. Mark Sailors
    April 28, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate
    within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for
    medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified
    patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate
    physician-recommended marijuana.
    A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and
    distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner
    that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical
    purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within
    the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
    1. Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation
    with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members.
    (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “coop”)
    unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the
    Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative
    corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit
    for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their
    members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business
    must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to
    members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives
    must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of
    earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each
    year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit
    corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as
    such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.”
    (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many
    characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.)
    Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members;
    instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating
    transactions between members.
    2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary
    defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members
    of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.
    © 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that
    merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members –
    including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a
    statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of
    business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana
    from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for
    facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.

  38. Mark Sailors
    April 28, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Now if you read this carefully you will see that collectives should not be buying and selling cannabis, only legally set up statutory co-ops, under these guidelines, should be selling or buying product to and from members for the mutual benefit or the membership.

  39. Mark Sailors
    April 28, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Benefit of not benefit or…..

  40. April 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    ” Essmann, however, said a new letter from the U.S. attorney for Colorado makes it clear that the U.S. Justice Department has legal problems with states using centralized marijuana growing operations. He said the Senate had proposed larger growing operations, but the House opposed the idea. ”

    Could have sworn that what I told the Planning Co. when they were debating giving HMS a permit to grow downtown……..The feds want small scale patient gardens not large scale for profit pot farms.

  41. February 20, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Shadow Struggle 2 is the sequel to the unique Shadow Fight
    on Fb, which has been played by over 46 million folks.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s