>> COMING UP NEXT ON HEADLINE HUMBOLDT, ATTORNEY JARED MCCLAIN FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WILL TALK ABOUT A SUIT THEY FILED OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL FINES AND FEES RELATED TINTIEST CULTIVATION.

>> ALSO TWO WIND LEASES WERE SOLD THIS WEEK AS AREA BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS WORK TO MAKE SURE LOCAL INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED WHEN HUMBOLDT COUNTY'S NEWEST INDUSTRY TAKES ITS FIRST WOBBLY STEPS.

COMING UP NOW ON HEADLINE HUMBOLDT.

[MUSIC] >> FOR THE TOP OF HUMBOLDT HILL, THIS IS HEADLINE HUMBOLDT.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

FOR MOST OF MY LIFE, SUBMISSION HAS BEEN A WAY FOR EVERYDAY FOLKS TO PUT IN A LITTLE HARD WORK AND GET FINANCIALLY AHEAD.

LEGAL OR NOT, IT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER OPTIONS OPEN TO ALMOST EVERYBODY.

AND WAS THE ONE CHOICE THAT IF PLAYED RIGHT COULD MAKE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON A PERSON'S FORTUNES.

PROBABLY THE SINGLE BIGGEST CAREER DRAW IN MY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING CLASS WAS THE GREEN GOLD RUSH WHERE DURING THE DAYS OF PROHIBITION, PROFIT WAS MARGINALLY ASSURED IF OPERATORS WERE WILLING TO ASSUME THE LEGAL RISK.

FOR YEARS, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT LEGALIZATION WOULD ONLY ACCELERATE THAT WEALTH GENERATION AND PERHAPS PUT HUMBOLDT COUNTY ON THE MAP AS A KIND OF SONOMA COUNTY FOR WEED INSTEAD OF WINE.

SO AS THE LEGALIZATION EFFORT GAINED MORE AND MORE TRACTION, MOST, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, LOOKED AT THESE REFORMS AS A MEANS TO GENERATE REVENUE.

BUT THE INDUSTRY HAS SO FAR FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THOSE HIGH FINANCIAL EXPECTATIONS, NO PUN INTENDED.

BECAUSE OF A SATURATED MARKET, OFTEN ONEROUS FEES AND REGULATIONS AND AN EVER-GROWING LIST OF AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS WITH THEIR HANDS OUT, WHAT PROFIT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN HAS DWINDLED MIGHTILY DOWN UNTIL MANY LOCAL FAMILY FARMS ARE NOW BARELY MANAGING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

ONE PARTICULAR PRACTICE BY HUMBOLDT COUNTY REGULATORS IS NOW THE FOCUS OF A LAWSUIT.

A CASE THAT ALLEGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL COUNTY BEHAVIOR AND SEEKS REDRESS FOR ITS CLAIMANTS.

JOINING US VIA ZOOM TODAY IS ATTORNEY JARED MCCLAIN FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WHO FILED THE CASE.

THANKS FOR JOINING US, JARED.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO WE WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET A REPORT FROM RYAN HUDSON WHO WAS ONE OF OUR REPORTERS IN THE FIELD WHO COVERED YOUR TOWN HALL MEETING DOWN AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, BUT LET'S START OUT SORT OF WITH A BIGGER PICTURE.

WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND HOW DID IT BECOME AWARE OF THE SITUATION THAT'S GOING ON IN SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTY AND GREATER HUMBOLDT COUNTY?

>> THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IS A NATIONWIDE NON-PROFIT LAW FIRM.

WE BRING CASES NATIONWIDE THAT SORT OF FIGHT BACK GOVERNMENT OVERREACH IN FOUR MAIN AREAS INCLUDING ECONOMIC LIBERTY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IS WHAT BROUGHT US TO THIS CASE HERE IN HUMBOLDT.

AND WE FIRST CAME ACROSS THE CASE THANKS TO SOME POLITICAL REPORTING ON THE BLACK BELT WHEN WE READ A STORY THAT THERE WERE NEW PITTSBURGHERS OF HOMES BEING FINED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE THE PRIOR OWNER HAD USED THE PROPERTY TO GROW CANNABIS.

AND THE FINES SEEMED OUTRAGEOUS AND THE FACT PATTERN SEEMED LIKE EXTREMELY SYMPATHETIC WHAT THESE PEOPLE WERE GOING THROUGH.

AND WE STARTED LOOKING INTO IT AND UNCOVERED THE MASS FAINTIESE CANNABIS ABATEMENT PROGRAM.

>> THIS IS A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE NOT BEEN TO LAW SCHOOL, DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS AND TALK ABOUT THE CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU REPRESENT.

>> YEAH, THE WAY -- TO SIMPLIFY THINGS, THE WAY THIS CLASS ACTION WORKS, THIS CLASS ACTION IS FOR WHAT THEY CALL PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

SO THAT MEANS WE'RE JUST ASKING THE COURT TO DECLARE THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM DOING IT ANYMORE.

AND INSTEAD OF JUST BRINGING THESE CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OUR FOUR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS, WE'RE BRINGING THEM ON BEHALF OF WHAT THEY CALL A CLASS OF PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S EVERYONE WHO FITS INTO THIS SORT OF SAME FACT PATTERN.

AND THE CLASS THAT WE'VE ASKED THE COURT TO CONSIDER IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE RECEIVED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WHO HAVE FILED THEIR NOTICE TO APPEAL THAT VIOLATION AND WHO HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.

AND SO OUR CASE WOULD GO FORWARD SHOULD THE COURT ALLOW IT ON BEHALF OF ALL PEOPLE THAT FIT THOSE THREE CRITERIA.

>> OKAY.

NOW THERE ARE PARTICULAR PLAINTIFFS NAMED IN THE CASE.

HOW DID YOU FIND THOSE PLAINTIFFS?

WAS IT THROUGH THE RED-HEADED BLACK BELT OR YOUR OWN RESEARCH?

>> I THINK ALL OF THEM AT SOME POINT HAVE BEEN FEATURED ON REDHEADED BLACK BELT STORIES.

A LOT OF PEOPLE AT THIS POINT.

AND WE'VE REACHED OUT, I JUST LOOKED THIS MORNING, I THINK I'VE HAD PHONE CALLS WITH 45 PEOPLE OUT THERE IN HUMBOLDT.

WE VISITED FOUR TIMES NOW AND HAVE SEEN A LOT OF PROPERTIES AND TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THESE WERE THE FOUR THAT WE BROUGHT OUR CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF.

IT'S BLUE GRAM, DOUG AND CORINNE THOMAS, AND RHONDA OLSON.

>> THE OLSONS, THAT'S ONE CASE IN PARTICULAR I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WITH HOW THE COUNTY HAD THE DISCRETION TO PUT THE ABATEMENT ON THE TITLES AND CHOSE NOT TO?

[ LAUGHTER ] WHICH SEEMS LIKE SORT OF A DAMNING FACT.

SO AS A NON-PROFIT LAW FIRM, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID FROM THE CLIENTS.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO ASK HOW DO YOU GUYS WHAT YOU ARE OWED FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT WE'RE YOU'RE PUTTING INTO THIS?

>> I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT, BECAUSE IT'S WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING AND WE'RE IN THIS WORLD, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ALWAYS THINK ABOUT.

WHEN YOU COME INTO A NEW PLACE, PEOPLE CAN BE SKEPTICAL AND THINK THESE OUT-OF-TOWN ATTORNEYS ARE DOING THIS FOR THE MONEY, BUT AS A NON-PROFIT, WE'RE PRESENTING OUR CLIENTS PRO BONO.

WE'RE NOT CHARGING THEM ANY MONEY.

WE REPRESENT -- WE OPERATE AS A CHARITY, WE REPRESENT OUR CLIENTS FOR FREE.

WE COVER THE COURT COSTS AND THE FILING COSTS AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT, THE COST OF PRINTING OUT BRIEFS AND APPEARING IN COURT, OUR FLIGHTS OUT THERE.

THE LAW FIRM PAYS FOR THAT AND IT'S -- WE OPERATE AS A 501 (C) 3 AND WE'RE COMPLETELY DONOR FUNDED.

WE HAVE A YouTube PAGE THAT GENERATES INTEREST ABOUT OUR CASE.

WE HAVE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN OUR FIRM THAT RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT WE CARE ABOUT AND TRY TO GET INDIVIDUAL DONORS, PEOPLE WHO SEE CASES AND SEE OUR YouTube VIDEOS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS HARMING INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AND THE WAYS WE'RE TRYING TO FIGHT BACK AND THEY GIVE US DONATIONS AND SUPPORT AND THEN WE USE THAT DONATED MONEY TO THEN PAY FOR LAWSUITS LIKE THIS TO EFFECT CHANGE IN PLACES LIKE HUMBOLDT.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I HAD NOTICED IN MY RESEARCH WAS THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY -- SOME OF THE RULES THAT YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THROUGH PRECEDENT ARE WHAT YOU'RE NOW USING TO KIND OF SEEK RELIEF IN THIS CASE, IS THAT TRUE?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THAT IS PART OF WHAT FUELS SOME OF THOSE DONATIONS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT US AND THE WORK THAT WE DO IS TO CREATE CHANGE AND TO CREATE PRECEDENT AND WE CREATE THAT PRECEDENT BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THAT IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE TO FUNCTION.

AND WE WORK TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES FUNCTION THAT WAY.

AND SOME OF THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE HAD A CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT IN INDIANA WHERE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE STATES MUST FOLLOW THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THAT WASN'T CLEAR UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO.

AND NOW BECAUSE OF OUR CASE, WE CAN BRING OTHER CASES LIKE THIS IN HUMBOLDT WHERE WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS IMPOSING EXCESSIVE FINES THAT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED FROM PUNISHING PEOPLE IN A WAY THAT IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE HARM THAT THEY'VE CAUSED TO THEIR COMMUNITY.

>> YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS PRESS RELEASES AND THE SUIT, I SEE THAT YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THE COUNTY VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, EXCESSIVE FINES.

THERE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS.

AND DENIES THE VICTIMS, I GUESS, A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.

CAN YOU JUST SORT OF GIVE US A BIRDS-EYE VIEW OF WHAT YOU'RE ALLEGING IS GOING ON?

AND YOU'VE MENTIONED THE RELIEF YOU'RE SEEKING, SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE COUNTY IS ACTUALLY DOING THAT IS SO PROBLEMATIC?

>> YEAH.

I GUESS AT A 10,000-FOOT LEVEL, THIS CASE IS ABOUT HUMBOLDT COUNTY FINING PEOPLE WITHOUT PROOF OR PROCESS.

AND AS YOU SET OUT, WE THINK THERE'S FIVE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT THIS IS VIOLATING.

AND A LOT OF IT IS PROCEDURE.

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN COURT IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER AND AT A MEANINGFUL TIME AND HUMBOLDT COUNTY HAS CREATED THIS SYSTEM TO DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DENY PEOPLE THEIR DAY IN COURT.

SURE, THEY SAY YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IT, BUT THEY WERE GOING TO SPEND YEARS DENYING YOU THAT DAY IN COURT AND ALL THE WHILE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING EXTREME AMOUNTS OF PRESSURE ON YOU TO PAY THEM MONEY TO SETTLE THE CASE SO THEY CAN GO AWAY INSTEAD.

AND WE LAY OUT ABOUT TEN DIFFERENT WAYS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT.

THEY'RE OBSCURING THE DAY -- THEY GIVE YOU TEN DAYS TO ABATE THESE ALLEGED NUISANCES, BUT THEY NEVER MAKE REALLY CLEAR WHEN THAT TEN-DAY CLOCK BEGINS TO RUN.

THEY POST THE NOTICE ON PEOPLE'S G8 GATES ON A FRIDAY AND MAN, I'M FACING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FINES UNLESS I DESTROY THESE GREENHOUSES ON MY PROPERTY THAT ARE PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO TO FIX THIS IN THE THREE DAYS OR WHATEVER THAT I HAVE LEFT.

THAT'S WORKING TO DENY PEOPLE THEIR DAY IN COURT.

AND THEN THEY VERY MUCH DO DENY YOU YOUR DAY IN COURT.

IF YOU FILE YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, THEY ARE VERY UNLIKELY TO EVER GIVE YOU YOUR HEARING.

BLUE GRAM, ONE OF OUR CLIENTS IN THE LAWSUIT, HE WAITED FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS BEFORE HE COULD GET A HEARING.

THEY SAY IN THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS THAT THIS DELAY IS BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.

BLUE GRAM'S CASE STARTED IN 2018.

THERE WAS NO CORONAVIRUS BACK THEN.

THIS IS A POLICY DESIGN WHERE THEY HAVE CREATED A SYSTEM TO PRESSURE PEOPLE INTO SETTLEMENTS SO WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS VIOLATED THE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO GROW CANNABIS, WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS EVEN CANNABIS ON THE PROPERTY, THE COUNTY IS GETTING SOME SORT OF MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE IT HAS ACCUSED.

THEY'RE DOING THIS MOSTLY THROUGH THE SATELLITE PROGRAM THAT THEY PUT INTO PLACE.

THEY LOOK DOWN FROM THE SATELLITE AND THEY SEE WHO HAS SOME SORT OF GRADING OR GREENHOUSE OR GARDEN PLOT ON THEIR PROPERTY THEY DIDN'T GET A PERMIT FOR AND THEY SAY IF YOU DIDN'T GET A PERMIT, IT MUST BE BECAUSE YOU'RE GROWING WEED.

EVERY SINGLE VIOLATION IS $10,000 PER DAY.

THE AVERAGE PERSON FACES THROW E VIOLATIONS, WHICH IS $30,000, AND THAT EXCEEDS THE AVERAGE YEARLY INCOME IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

>> AND THAT'S NOT EVEN -- THAT'S WITH NO EVIDENCE THERE'S ACTUALLY WEED BEING GROWN ON THE PROPERTY, CORRECT?

>> WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

THE COUNTY DOESN'T EVEN COME OUT AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY.

SO THEY SAY -- THEY'RE NOT COMING ON TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND THEY SAY THAT AT THE TIME THEY ISSUED THE VIOLATION, THEY HAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED.

THEY THINK THAT A PICTURE OF A GREENHOUSE FROM A SATELLITE IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE GROWING WEED FULL STOP.

THEY THINK THAT'S ENOUGH, AND IT'S NOT ENOUGH, AND PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO FIGHT BACK AND GET THEIR DAY IN COURT ARE DENIED THAT FOR YEARS, SO YOU'RE JUST DRAGGED THROUGH THIS SYSTEM AND ALL THE WHILE, THE COUNTY CALLS PEOPLE UP AND SAYS, DO YOU REALLY WANT THIS APPEAL HEARING?

HOW ABOUT YOU JUST PAY A SETTLEMENT INSTEAD.

THERE'S A LOT OF FINES HANGING OVER YOUR HEAD.

THIS COULD COST YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

YOU JUST GIVE US A COUPLE GRAND, $10,000, $15,000, WE'LL GO AWAY.

THIS WILL ALL BE OVER.

THIS GOES ON FOR YEARS.

>> WHEN I DESCRIBED THIS FACT PATTERN TO PEOPLE EARLIER THIS WEEK, THEY CALLED IT EXTORTION.

BASICALLY IF YOU PAY UP, THEN ALL THE LEGAL FEES GO AWAY.

BUT IF NOT, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO PAY THE LEGAL FEES AND POTENTIALLY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE FINES.

WHAT'S THE TYPICAL TRADE-OFF?

IF SOMEONE CHOOSES TO SETTLE, WHERE DO THEY TYPICALLY FALL AND WHERE WOULD THEY HAVE FALLEN IF THEY DIDN'T PAY THE SETTLEMENT?

>> THE TYPICAL TRADE-OFF IS IF YOU -- LET'S TAKE BLUE GRAM'S CASE, FOR EXAMPLE.

HE FACED $900,000 IN FINES UNDER HIS ABATEMENT ORDER AND HE ASKED FOR A HEARING.

HE WAITS FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS FOR A HEARING.

HE'S GOT HIS ATTORNEY GOING IN AND HAVING MEETINGS WITH THE COUNTY SAYING, LOOK, HERE'S AN ENGINEERING REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE.

HERE IS PICTURES THAT SHOW THERE'S NO CANNABIS ON THE PROPERTY.

THE COUNTY IS RACKING UP A BILL AND CHARGING HIM TO HAVE EACH OF THOSE HEARINGS.

AND THEY'RE NOT GIVING HIM -- I'M SORRY, TO HAVE EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS.

THEY'RE NOT GIVING HIM A HEARING BEFORE ANY SORT OF JUDGE OR JURY OR ANYTHING TO ESTABLISH THAT HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE LAW.

AND THEN AFTER FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS, THEY SAY YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE GOING TO DROP THE PRETENSE THAT THERE WAS ANY CANNABIS ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT YOU DID GRADE YOUR LAND WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THAT'S A $1,000 FINE AND BECAUSE YOU HIRED A LAWYER AND YOU APPEALED THIS RATHER THAN FIXING IT RIGHT AWAY, THOSE FINES RUN FOR 90 DAYS AND NOW IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A HEARING, YOU STILL OWE US $90,000, EVEN THOUGH THIS WHOLE CASE WAS ABOUT CANNABIS, WHICH WE NOW ADMIT WAS A FARCE.

>> BECAUSE YOU CHOSE THE FIGHT THE CANNABIS ELEMENT OF IT WHICH INCLUDED FIGHTING THE REST OF IT AS WELL, YOU'RE NOW OUT FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

>> YOU'RE ON THE HOOK FOR 90 GRAND.

SO YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.

THAT'S WHAT WE SET OUT IN THE COMPLAINT IS THAT THEY'VE DESIGNED THIS SYSTEM SO ONCE THEY CHARGE YOU WITH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THERE IS NO WAY OUT WITHOUT PAYING THE COUNTY MONEY.

>> WOW.

NOW, THE COUNTY HAS SAID THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO EXHAUST ALL OTHER LEGAL OPTIONS BEFORE SUING AND SO THEREFORE THE CASE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

>> OUR RESPONSE IS DUE TO THE COURT IN, WHAT, ON THE 21ST OF DECEMBER.

AND WE'LL SET OUT A RESPONSE MORE BROADLY.

>> SURE.

>> ISN'T IT RICH TO HEAR THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXHAUST THEIR REMEDIES BY GOING THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING THE COUNTY REFUSED TO PROVIDE TO THEM?

WE WILL HAVE -- WE WILL FILE OUR PAPERWORK IN COURT, BUT WE ARE FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT OUR CLAIMS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD ONCE THE COURT HAS RULED.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF HOW MUCH MONEY THE COUNTY HAS MADE DOING THIS?

I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S HARD TO SAY, IS THERE A PERCENTAGE THAT YOU COULD IDENTIFY OF ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED OR FRAUDULENTLY COLLECTED FEES THAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, PULLING IN?

DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY'VE MADE?

>> THERE WERE REPORTS BACK IN 2019 THAT IN THE FIRST YEAR, IN 2018 ALONE, THEY HAD ALREADY BROUGHT IN A COUPLE MILLION AND HAD A COUPLE MORE MILLION IN OUTSTANDING FINES.

AND THE DATA AFTER THAT, I'M NOT REALLY AWARE OF.

BUT IT'S DEFINITELY IN THE MILLIONS.

THERE WERE 1200 ABATEMENTS AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM REACHED SETTLEMENTS ALREADY.

AND THE COUNTY'S TYPICAL PATTERN AND PRACTICE IS TO OFFER PEOPLE ONE DAY'S WORTH OF FINES AS THEIR SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

AND IF THE AVERAGE DAILY FINE IS $30,000, THEN THAT'S THE AVERAGE SETTLEMENT.

THAT'S JUST ME GUESSING.

BUT ... >> NOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SEEMS THE MOST, YOU KNOW, UNFAIR TO ME, YOU MENTIONED THE OLSONS AND THAT THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY AND WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA BEING GROWN ON IT NOR WAS THERE ANY NOTICE ON THE TITLES TO SAY THAT THE COUNTY WAS ABOUT TO ENFORCE THIS ACTION OR WHATEVER.

AND SO THE SALE WENT THROUGH, BUT AS SOON AS IT DID, SHE WAS HIT WITH THIS CASE.

IS THAT LEGAL?

I MEAN, I GUESS THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE PENDING ACTION FOR BUYERS, IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT SEEMS UNFAIR.

>> OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS NOT LEGAL AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IN THE LAWSUIT.

BECAUSE BOTH THE THOMAS' AND RHONDA OLSON BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE LIABLE FOR THOSE FINES AND EVEN WITH NOTICE, WE THINK THERE'S SOME SEVERE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WITH TRYING TO ASSESS FINES AGAINST ONE PERSON FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.

BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER, THESE FINES ARE LEVIED FOR THE ACTIVE GROWING CANNABIS, FOR VIOLATING THE BUILDING CODE OR NOT OBTAINING A PERMIT OF SOME SORT WITH THE INTENT TO GROW CANNABIS.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S SOME DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY.

IT'S THAT SOMEONE VIOLATED IT WITH THE INTENT TO GROW CANNABIS.

AND WHEN THAT'S THE CASE, YOU'RE PUNISHING A NEW OWNER FOR THE CONDUCT OF A PRIOR OWNER AND THAT ITSELF SEEMS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCESSIVE.

>> WELL, AND IT SEEMS AS IF YOU'RE BUYING PROPERTY AND SOMEONE DID SOMETHING THAT WASN'T PERMITTED ON THAT PROPERTY, IS EVERYONE IN THE FUTURE WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR THE PERMITTING MISTAKES THAT PREVIOUS OWNERS HAVE MADE GOING BACK THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY?

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT AT -- LET'S TAKE RHONDA OLSON'S CASE, FOR EXAMPLE.

THERE WAS GRADING THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY DONE ON HER LAND IN THE '70S AND THE '80S BY A LOGGING COMPANY TO HAUL TIMBER OFF.

THERE'S A GRADED FLAT IN THE BACK OF HER PROPERTY.

AND SHE TOLD THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY SAID SHE HAD GRADED WITHOUT A PERMIT.

SHE'D BEEN ON THE PROPERTY FOR ALL OF FIVE DAYS.

>> YEAH.

>> AND SHE WAS, LIKE, THIS GRADING HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE '80S AND THE COUNTY BASICALLY SAID WE DON'T CARE.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE '80S AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE, BUT THEN SOMEBODY GREW CANNABIS ON THAT GRADED FLAT AND AS SOON AS CANNABIS IS GROWN ON THE LAND WITHOUT A PERMIT, YOU THEN NEED TO RETURN THE LAND TO ITS PRE-CANNABIS STATE, WHICH IN RHONDA'S CASE SHOULDN'T REQUIRE A GRADING PERMIT ANYWAY, BUT THE COUNTY JUST MEANS ONCE CANNABIS TOUCHES THE LAND, THEY CAN COME IN ANY TIME DATING BACK 100 YEARS, THEY CAN FORCE YOU TO CLEAN IT UP.

AND NOT JUST CLEAN IT UP, BUT PAY FOR IT.

AND THEN PAY FOR THE COSTS OF BEING CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A CLASH OF WORLD VIEWS HERE.

ON ONE HAND, YOU HAVE THE PUNITIVE OLD WAR ON DRUGS MENTALITY OF, LIKE, MAKE EVERYTHING PAINFUL FOR THE PERSON WHO IS DOING THE QUOTE UNQUOTE ILLEGAL ACT, BUT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL ANYMORE, BUT NONE OF THE PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE TO MAKE THIS AS CONVENIENT AS POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO BE MARIJUANA FARMERS WHICH IS OKAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT ACTING LIKE IT'S OKAY ANYMORE!

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE SEEN IN A LOT OF OUR DIFFERENT CASES WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS GROWN ADDICTED TO THE WAR ON DRUGS.

AND NOW THAT LEGALIZATION HAS HAPPENED IN OVER HALF THE STATES, IT HAS TURNED INTO A WAR ON DUE PROCESS WHERE THEY ARE STILL USING THE SAME TOOLS AND TACTICS THEY RELIED ON TO FIGHT THE WAR ON DRUGS TO NOW HARASS PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE WHOLLY LEGAL INDUSTRY.

>> AND I THINK THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS DONE SOME WORK IN IN, BUT IN THIS, BUT IN TERMS OF ASSET FORFEITURE, THE WHOLE DRUG IDEA HAS BECOME SORT OF A GRAB BAG FOR -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GREEDY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR WHATEVER, AS A WAY TO TRY AND MAKE EITHER REVENUE OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT, BUT -- >> NO, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

A LOT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE RELIED ON CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR THEMSELVES.

AND ONCE WE BECAME LEGAL, THEY LOST THEIR CASH CROP.

AND THAT HASN'T STOPPED EVERYONE.

AND WE HAD A CASE DOWN IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WHERE A SHERIFF'S OFFICE WAS WORKING WITH THE FEDS TO SEIZE ENTIRE ARMORED CARS FILLED WITH CASH THAT WERE COMING FROM WHOLLY LEGAL, LICENSED BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA, BUT BECAUSE THE FEDERAL LAW WAS STILL PROHIBITING THE SALE OF MARIJUANA, THEY WERE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE SEIZING THIS FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW AND WE'RE TAKING ALL OF YOUR PROCEEDS.

AND THEY TRIED TO DO -- THEY TRIED TO FORFEIT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN BUSINESS PROCEEDS BY JUST HIJACKING THEIR ARMORED CARS.

>> WOW.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE-AND-A-HALF LEFT.

REAL QUICK, FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T NECESSARILY PLUGGED INTO THIS ISSUE, WHY SHOULD FOLKS OUTSIDE OF THE CANNABIS CULTIVATION INDUSTRY CARE THAT THIS IS GOING ON?

WHAT IS IT THAT THIS COULD BE THE PRECURSOR OF OR WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT OUR CURRENT SYSTEMS THAT'S PROBLEMATIC?

>> YEAH, I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD CARE ABOUT THIS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT MY LAW FIRM DOES.

WE'RE NOT BRINGING THESE CASES BECAUSE THEY'RE CANNABIS CASES.

WE'RE BRINGING THESE CASES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING CORE CONSTITUTIONAL TENETS THAT EVERYONE SHOULD CARE ABOUT AND THAT PROTECT US ALL.

ALL OF OUR CLIENTS IN THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST HUMBOLDT COUNTY WERE NOT GROWING CANNABIS ON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE FACING FINES FOR.

THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANYONE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANYONE IN ANY JURISDICTION THAT USES SIMILAR TACTICS.

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS FINING PEOPLE WITHOUT PROOF OR PROCESS.

THIS IS NOT JUST HAPPENING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO STILL OPERATE ON THE BLACK CANNABIS MARKET.

THIS IS HAPPENING TO EVERYDAY HOMEOWNERS, ANYONE WITH A GARDEN PLOT WHO THE CITY HAS MISTAKEN TOMATO PLANTS OR SOLAR PANELS FOR BEING GREENHOUSES FILLED WITH WEED AND THEY'RE JUST FINDING THEIR WAY OUT OF IT.

ONCE THEY FINE YOU, IT'S UP TO YOU TO INCUR ALL OF THOSE COSTS, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN ADMINISTRATIVE FEES JUST FOR BEING INCORRECTLY CHARGED.

THEY PUT YOUR NAME IN THE PAPER AND PUBLICLY ACCUSE YOU OF GROWING CANNABIS ILLEGALLY WITHOUT HAVING ANY PROOF THAT YOU'VE DONE SO AND THEN THEY SEND YOU A BILL FOR HAVING PUT YOUR NAME IN THE PAPER.

WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WRONG AND GOES BEYOND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO GROW CANNABIS LEGALLY, ILLEGALLY, MEDICALLY.

THIS REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANNABIS AND IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH VIOLATIONS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, EXCESSIVE FINES, AND GOVERNMENT OVERREACH.

>> ALL RIGHT, JARED, WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING ON THE SHOW AND EXPLAINING YOUR SUIT FOR US.

AND WE'LL BE WATCHING.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK AFTER THIS SHORT BREAK.

[MUSIC] >> THIS WEEK, CALIFORNIA NORTH FLOATING AND RWE OFFER WIND HOLDINGS ONE LEASES ABOUT 21 MILES OFF HUMBOLDT BAY.

THE TWO LEASES TOTAL MORE THAN 130,000 ACRES AND COULD POTENTIALLY PRODUCE BETWEEN 140 AND 170 MEGAWATTS OF POWER WITH EXISTING TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE OPTION WAS THE FIRST FOR THE WEST COAST AND IN THE U.S., THE FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND OFF HUMBOLDT BAY AND THREE LEASES OFF MORROW BAY.

>> NEW PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS WILL SOON DEBUT ON LOCAL RADIO STATIONS.

AT A ZOOM TOWN HALL MEETING WEDNESDAY, THE MANAGEMENT UNVEILED ITS LATEST SHOWS, BUT AS ERIC BLACK REPORTS, ONE OLD CAGEY LISTENER FAVORITE IS HEADING ELSEWHERE.

>> HUMBOLDT DITCHED LOCAL PROGRAMMING AND FIRED NEARLY ALL ITS STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS.

BUT THEN LAST YEAR, NEW STATION MANAGERS, SACRAMENTO'S CAP RADIO AND CHICO'S NORTH STATE PUBLIC RADIO, REINTRODUCED SOME LOCAL PROGRAMMING WITH NORTH COAST CONVERSATIONS.

>> COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHEN I HEAR THAT FOUR-MINUTE SEGMENT FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I FIND IT JUST, LIKE, WHO IS PAYING ATTENTION?

KHSU IS NOT CONNECTED TO HUMBOLDT.

I APPRECIATE THE NPR PROGRAMMING, BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FEELING LIKE THIS IS A PUBLIC RADIO STATION RATHER THAN JUST A NATIONAL RADIO STATION.

>> FOR THE MOST PART, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THE RESOURCES ON THE GROUND TO RE-ESTABLISH A VIBRANT, LOCAL PRESENCE.

THAT IS THE LONG-TERM PLAN.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE MONEY TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.

SO AS SOMEBODY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING, I'M TRYING TO DO THESE INCREMENTAL THINGS.

>> THOSE INCREMENTAL CHANGES INCLUDE A PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM HOSTED BY THE PRESIDENTS OF CR AND CAL POLY HUMBOLDT.

A SECOND SHOW WILL FEATURE CONVERSATIONS WITH REPORTERS ABOUT LOCAL CURRENT EVENTS.

IN THE MEANTIME, SOME FORMER SHOWS AIR ON KZZH OR STREAM ON HUMBOLDT HOT AIR.

WENDY BUTLER WILL SOON REVIVE HER FORMER KHSU ART WAVE SHOW.

BOTH COMPETITORS WILL PRESENT THE REBRANDED ART ATTITUDE EXPLORING LOCAL VISUAL, PERFORMING, AND LITERARY ARTS.

ERIC BLACK, HEADLINE HUMBOLDT, A KAY DA.

>> THANKS, ERIC.

WE ALL MISS KHSU IN ITS GLORY DAYS.

THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

STAY TUNED, STAY INFORMED.

[MUSIC]