UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
MICHAEL ADAM ASSENBERG
Plaintiff, ...............................................................................................No. # CV06-0987
THERESA McCULLUM &
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON &
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
THE FDA & WASHINGTON STATE HUD
Defendants,
____________________________________________________________________________________________
THE Plaintiff REQUEST AN ORDER GRANTING RELIEF IN THE SUM OF $ 70 MILLION-ONE HUNDRED-THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS.
THIS IS FOR THE HARASSMENT, MENTAL ANGUSH, VIOLATIONS OF MY AND MY FAMILY'S CIVIL, STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHTS AS WELL AS VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITION.
WE ARE ALSO ASKING THE COURT IN THE GRANTING OF A MOTION TO ALLOW ME AND MY FAMILY BACK INTO OUR HOME UNTIL MY APPEAL OVER THE LEGAL USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS HEARD IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
INTRODUCTION:
This matter is before the Court because Theresa McCullum the Director at Anacortes Housing has brought it upon herself to try to make Federal Law over the Legal Use of a Controlled Substance under a Doctors care a Crime and to violate the right to protect ones own life from intractable pain. This Court will find that the Federal ruling of the " Angel Raich-oakland co-op group " was that of a group giving out Medical Marijuana but in MY case you will find that the right to protect my own life from undue harm caused by intractable pain over-powers anything the FDA might say or even that of Congress as even they nor this Court over-rule the right to protect ones own life from undue harm as is listed in the U.S. Constition. Also Under the ADA Theresa can not say that my Trained service animals do not fall under the protection of the ADA.
Also you should find from the Statement from Justice Stevens pointed out this was a case of a co-op not that of an end user suffering from intractable pain. Justice Stevens said and I quote " the Co-op did NOT fit the paradigm of a defendant who may assert necessity. Justice Stevens pointed out that a seriously ill patient COULD CLAIM MEDICAL NECESSITY. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals in Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003) The Supreme Court pointed out, however, that the medical necessity defence and a substantive due process claim were NOT reached by the Court of Appeals and therefore would NOT be reached by the Supreme Court. Since my use of marijuana is protected under Washington State law then this Court should construe the Federal Controlled Substances Act in light of 21 U.S.C. 903
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Michael Adam Assenberg lived in a ( NON-FEDERAL OWNED ) low-income housing unit untill the 6th of July when Theresa McCallum with the Help of State of Washington Judge Meyers evicted Plaintiff and his family out of his home for the use of Medical Marijuana that is protected under RCW 69.51A.050. Federal Judge Lasnik allowed for the Summary Judgment in favor of housing dispite my right to protect my life from living in intractable pain that would make me end my life.
Mr. Assenberg suffers both from several physical and emotional disabilities stemming from a vicious attack in 1985. In July of 2005 I Michael Assenberg filled out an app. so as to be added to Carla's lease. In that it wanted a copy of my I.D. and it said Michelle Nicole Assenberg and I had to inform housing as to my being born both genders when I was questioned about this. Since then Theresa has tried everything she can do in order to cause me and my family trouble.
It has always been left up to the States how best to do what is best for the wellfair of it's people and this includes Doctors being able to be free about how best to deal with the sick and suffering. Under the CSA it is said there is NO accepted Medical Value to Marijuana and this just does not fit the facts, Many reports show this and even my own Doctors statment showed that because of the suffering I go through " standard treatments and medications do NOT work and that in my case there was a need for the medical Use of Marijuana.
When Federal Judge Lasnik ruled I could not use Marijuana for Medical reasons he violated the 4th and 8th Amendment. If the Supreme Court can rule that DEATH ROW INMATES Should NOT get an injection to die because it will cause pain under the 8th Admendment then there is no reason to treat the sick and the people suffering worse then we treat Death Row inmates. The people that are sick and suffering should also be protected under the 8th Admendment from undue suffering. Both the State Court and Federal Court are in violation of these Admendments.
It is up to the FDA to provide Science and TRUTH in the way they conduct their business but the FDA is now ran by money they get from pill makers and congress to push their pills off on people and not follow the scientific body of proof that shows Marijuana not only has medical values but also that it never has killed anyone nor does it cause cancer or liver damage. In order for the FDA to win their case I ask it of the Court to demand the FDA show 1. That there is NO medical value and 2. To show the Court proof that it has NO accepted medical use by doctors Both are listed as the items needed to be listed a class 1 drug and Marijuana as Medication does NOT fall under this ruling of the CSA.
It is the intent of the Plaintiff to show how much more worse Tobacco with a Addictive level of 32 % and has been shown to cause great harm killing 1 out of every two people that use it. And Alcohol that has a addictive rating of 15% and causes many deaths a year due to liver damage as well as other things causing death. Marijuana only has a rating of 9% and has never killed anyone. If Marijuana even for Medical reasons will not be considered than these other two items should also fall upon the hands of the FDA but because Congress has no care for the people they let the FDA use Politics instead of Science and because of that thousands of people are allowed to die each year with the blessing of our Government.
As for HUD they are to protect Women, children and the Disabled and allow for fair housing for low-income disabled people. The hud rules do NOT say that if a person is on Medical marijuana they are out of the program but it does stress that as many people that are sick enough to use this Medication under a doctors care should be turned away from having a home. Theresa McCullum has taken great care in using this to the best of her advantage because she does not like " MY TYPE OF PERSON " living in their complex just because I was born different. HUD knows what was going on in this case as can be proven by Mr. Stewarts remarks and nothing was done to protect the rights of the sick under the great need of being Medical necessary to use Medical Marijuana to stop pain Convulsions that lead Plaintiff to pass out a dozen or more times a day due to pain.
Plaintiff ask the Court to 1. Declare that Theresa McCullum violated the items listed of her, 2. Plantiff ask the Court to Order that we be allowed back in our home, 3. grant the awards asked for in the monies judgment, 4. Grant an order allowing for the IND program to open back up for the sick and disabled.
There is no question that this Court has both Subject matter and personal jurisdiction over all Defendants in this case.
ANALYSIS
Congress amended the FHA in 1988 to prohibit discrimination based on disability, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f) It is clear that Theresa Mccallum and the Court system would not want this case to see the light of a jury with the Facts Mr. Assenberg has regarding this case. It has been made very clear that considering the Statment made by Dr. Horesh it has been made very clear that my case falls under that of 1. Right to life, 2. Right to live without suffering from intractable pain, 3. That my case falls under that of Medical Necessary in order to not suffer that I try to take my life due to intractable pain 24 hours a day.
It is clear that the State has NOT protected the rights of a disabled person and that the Court System, the State of Washington, the FDA and HUD have all violated the rights of a disabled person, All over Congress and the FDA making money and not giving a care to the sick and suffering.
Also it is clear that Theresa and others filed the case CV5-1836L under Disablities/Employment as they knew that there was a law on the books under RCW 69.51A.050 protecting the homes of the people on Medical Marijuana.
Under 42 U.S.C. 3604 In a Civil action under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the court may award preventive relief including temporary or permanent injunctions, or other orders this court deems fit as is necessary to assure full enjoyments of this sub-chapter.
Supremacy Clause and the State Sub-class
The feds have essentially claimed that Washington's medical marijuana law is irrelevant because of the Supremacy clause, which gives precendence to valid federal law over state law. However, the Plaintiff shows that the state law can be used to define a sub-class of activity which is outside the reach of the federal government, and therefore the state law becomes the valid one in that clearly defined sub-class.
Looking to State law to define the relevant class of activities this case is consistent with basic constitutional doctrines concerning the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It gives appropriate weight to the principles of federalism that inform this Court's Commerce Clause decisions. It is also consistent with the Supremacy Clause, which provides that State law must give way to a valid exercise of federal power. Here, however, the question is whether the exercise of federal power is valid. To answer it, a court must identify the relevant class of activity, which here derives from a State exercising its police power. Apart from defining the relevant class, the fact that a sovereign State permits and regulates a class of activity also bears on a substantial effects analysis. For example, as discussed, the existence and enforcement of statutorily-defined limits on the permitted class of activity may eliminate entirely any effect on interstate commerce or render any such effect trivial and insubstantial.
This is an excellent move on the part of the Plaintiffs, because it gives the Federal Court a way to narrowly tailor the decision, by saying that the only time the CSA does not apply is when there is a valid State law to cover that class of activity (thereby not opening up non-commercial marijuana use from federal jurisdiction all across the country at once).
In addition to their power to enact local criminal laws, the States possess "broad" powers to regulate "the administration of drugs by the health professions." Indeed, this Court has said that "direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government." Washington State has exercised its police power by enacting the Compassionate Use Act, Also known as I-692 and other States have followed a similar path. ("It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social experiments without risk to the rest of the country.").
As Justice Kennedy has explained, even where the Federal Government and the States share a common goal, such as gun-free schools, there is room for disagreement about how to achieve the goal. "In this circumstance, the theory and utility of our federalism are revealed, for the States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation." "If a State or municipality determines that harsh criminal penalties are necessary and wise, . . . the reserved powers of the States are sufficient to enact those measures."
In Lopez, this Court invalidated a federal law that "foreclose[d] the States from experimenting and exercising their own judgment in an area to which States lay claim by right of history and expertise, . . .by regulating an activity beyond the realm of commerce in the ordinary and usual sense of that term." "Absent a stronger connection or identification with commercial concerns that are central to the Commerce Clause, that interference contradicts the federal balance the Framers designed and that this Court is obliged to enforce."
_____________________________________________
Michael Adam Assenberg
July 14th, 2006