Canna-Greed. Stay Awake. Stay Aware. My Story.

My name is Darryl Cotton and what I’m about to share here will be a recounting of incidents and events that stem in large part from my being a medical cannabis activist, a commercial property and a business owner in the City of San Diego.  It will detail what I have been subjected to, from both seen and unseen forces, who use their considerable power and influence, in concert with certain governmental agencies, the law and some who administer those laws and regulations to further their goals of controlling the  newly regulated, legal, recreational cannabis industry.

I realize that to some these claims will seem incredible and even impossible to believe and at one time I would’ve agreed with you.  That is until those forces were applied to me.  What I’ve come to realize is that the reasons these actions occur is because cannabis, as a plant and the products made from it, represent a very lucrative industry.  An industry that these forces must have control over for a wide variety of reasons.  When there rises a challenge to their plans to ‘regulate and control’ the industry it’s imperative that they suppress those challenges quickly and completely, no matter the cost or influences that must be applied.  On occasion there will be a situation where that strategy may fail them.  Where the evidence of their actions and the facts, as a matter of public record, will come to light and expose things for what they are.  So to those who would question my claims, I respect that.  You should be skeptical.  I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice.  In my statements I will not knowingly make any disparaging comments or accusations to anyone or any group here that is not linked to public documents so that the reader can judge for themselves how the events and actions of those in positions of professional trust and authority, have executed their responsibilities when it came to me and my property.

The main time frame of events occur between 2015 and today.  The story is being continuously updated.   However I will begin my story with a bit of background on me and how I came to hold certain beliefs that will lead into my having purchased a property which is now at the center of what is being fought over.  A property that would have little value or significance unless it happened to be located in a property zone where local Land Use Regulations had deemed it appropriate for a Retail Marijuana Outlet.  A property that is located within a district that limits Marijuana Outlets to just 4 per district.  A property that while I may own it, these forces had decided early on as to who they wanted to own and run that lucrative business and that person was not me.

As you read my story I want you to know that what I’m describing here is not an isolated incident that only I have been subjected to.  This is a systemic condition that is occurring throughout those states and local governments where cannabis laws are being created which allow its legal use.  Had that not been the case I would have most likely not taken the time and effort to publicly document my case.   I would like to thank my family, my friends who have supported me, and the many warriors who have inspired me to fight for what’s right and never give up.  Most notably I wish to thank Mr. Gatewood Galbraith,  Mr. Dennis Peron, and  Mr. Michael McShane

It is in your honor I dedicate this work.   

‘So That Others May Live’ 


It was 1998 when I came to purchase a commercial property located at 6176 Federal Blvd. within the Encanto neighborhood of San Diego.  It was a small 6,000 sq-ft lot with a series of buildings on it that were old but functional.  I purchased the property with the intention of running my existing electrical contracting and eventually a power generation business out of it.

While I had experienced a certain amount of success in these traditional business ventures, I never really enjoyed having to manage people.  The responsibilities of keeping everyone working which required I keep a steady flow of ‘low bid’  contract work coming through our doors was often times overwhelming.   It was an exhausting process that led to tremendous highs and lows.  When I was young I could deal with the 70 hour work weeks and the constant challenges that you face when running these types of businesses.  However as I got older I increasingly found myself wondering if its been worth it?  Was I really going to make a difference in the world with the work I was doing?

By my late 40’s I was just not as inspired by these businesses as much as I had been 20 years earlier.  I felt stagnated.  I began to feel like there had to me more to life than just business as usual.    It was then that I decided I was going to look for projects in which I could utilize the various talents I’d acquired over the years and apply them to products, services and opportunities that would give something back to our communities.  I knew that there may be financial risks associated with pursuing this path but I also felt that the personal rewards would be outweighed by those strictly economic considerations if I succeeded in helping others to help themselves.

My first opportunity to do this came in 2010 I was introduced to an energy saving lighting technology that I wanted to test out for growing indoor plants.   I liked that they consumed less power, last longer and produced less heat then what was available at the time for indoor plant lighting.  I believed that if the plant response was there it could prove to get more people into growing plants for their own food and medical needs.  Another huge benefit I saw to using this technology over existing grow lights being used, was that the lamps last up to 10 years without needing to be replaced.  With these other grow lights, growers were replacing their lamps every 6-12 months.  I found this to be an expensive and environmentally harmful practice.  But I also knew that introducing a product that did not require those constant lamp changes would face some formidable market resistance from those who make their livings off of selling those replacement lamps.  I decided early on that if we could show  proof positive that our lights delivered the quality and yields at lower operating costs when compared those higher wattage/heat grow lights dominating the market then our lights would find a place in the market.  That meant creating gardens that showcased our products in those gardens with time stamped photos showing every phase of plant development.  Ultimately it was a result of showcasing our lights in this fashion that enough growers were convinced to make the move over to our products that allowed us to build relationships and our business from there.


Being from the Midwest and having spent a few summers working on farms I had some experience with growing plants and commercial agriculture.  Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s was also a time where we seeing tremendous upheaval in our nations political systems, our involvement in an unpopular war and our emerging stance on drug law and policy.  In particular, for me it was cannabis and the policies that developed during that time.  From my own experiences with it, I knew enough about this plant that with me certain strains helped to control my nocturnal seizures and unlike alcohol, it created a combination of euphoria, relaxation, contemplation and well being.  Within my circles growing up it was acceptable and freely shared during the normal course of our social activities.  At a very young age I was confident that in time cannabis would become mainstreamed and the medical benefits would be better understood and advanced.

That remained my belief until I saw our then President Nixon had commissioned a study on cannabis which he had intended to use as a way to criminalize the use of cannabis in a newly developed schedule of drugs, The Controlled Substance Act – (CSA).  As a result of how I saw Nixon treat cannabis that I came to the realization that those in power will not always serve the best interests of their constituents and could be corrupted when they felt the ends justified the means.  Certainly Watergate and his resigning over that affair serves to prove that point but for my purposes here I’m actually referring to the gift that keeps on giving and that is the CSA which he developed as a mechanism which would act to keep the United States in compliance with an international drug agreement which we were signatory to.  That agreement; the 1961; United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics lists those drugs that the member nations agree to not participate in the growing, manufacturing or distributing of.  Cannabis is one of the drugs listed in that agreement.

What we came to see was that Nixon wanted to set the compliance and scheduling standards for the Single Convention on Narcotics.  He was looking for evidence and research that would support his campaign to criminalize cannabis as a drug that offered no medicinal benefits, was addictive and acted as a gateway drug to other serious drugs that were known to cause addiction and death.  He needed that research to allow him, without questioning his intent, to place cannabis in a Schedule One category right along with heroin and LSD within the newly created CSA.

To gain that support, Nixon empowered the Shafer Commission to investigate cannabis and deliver a report as to its effects with the expectation that the report would provide the evidence Nixon for that classification.  Unfortunately for Nixon, when the the Shafer Commission did come back with that report it concluded that with the moderate use of cannabis there was no evidence to support that its use led to harder drugs, aggressive behavior, addiction, or detrimental health conditions and there had been no known deaths associated with its use.  They further went on to recommend that cannabis be decriminalized for personal use and that further research be done to discover what the possible health benefits from its use might be found.

This, of course was not in line with Nixon’s intent to vilify the plant or those who would choose to partake in it.  Unfortunately for us Nixon chose to ignore the report and went on to place cannabis at the top of the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule One drug having no known medicinal or scientific value.  Which, the way the scheduling works, places cannabis in the same category as heroin and more dangerous than other drugs such as cocaine with certain known addictive properties.  I found this absurd then and after nearly 50 years and no change to the scheduling I find it increasingly abhorrent that our federal government continues to consider this plant as having no medicinal properties when their own Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) patented cannibinoids as shown in this 2003 DHHS US Patent on Cannabinoids for Medical Benefits for its proven anti-oxidant and neuroprotectant medicinal values.

This scheduling of cannabis as a Schedule One drug created a problem for Nixon that remains with us to this day.  The reason is within the Single Convention on Narcotics cannabis has always been allowed for both scientific and medicinal use as you can see in Article 49 Para 2(f) of that agreement.  It’s the recreational use of cannabis that is expressly prohibited under this agreement.  Today if you add to that, all the peer reviewed research that has shown the benefits of cannabis as both an antioxidant and neuroprotectant there exists no argument that the medicinal benefits of cannabis do exist.  Even the DHHS, a federal agency, recognized that in their patent.  There was no evidence to support that scheduling in 1972 with the Shafer Commission report and there is even less evidence available today that would support that classification.

So why is it that cannabis remains a Schedule One drug?   The reality is that if or when the day comes where cannabis is re/descheduled, it will have an obvious and immediate impact on a variety of products and industries that will be replaced by the wider cultivation and manufacturing opportunities brought on by cannabis based products.  And that, in my and many others opinions, is precisely why this is being slow walked at the federal level.  Will it ever be changed?  I believe so but the terms for federal acceptance may be difficult to accept by those states that have regulated it and more importantly to those of us who have come to rely on it medically, as a replacement for prescription opiates.

With what I witnessed growing up I came to believe that when laws are created that do not meet the greater good or the will of the people than we have lost our democracy and we are being ruled by an oligarchy.   With the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of our government holding the immense power over out lives it’s our responsibility as citizens of this great country to see that those powers are held in check.  When those who have been given that authority work to their own ends we don’t have a choice.  Those who would misuse that power must be held accountable for their actions and replaced by those who take seriously their oaths to uphold the constitution and the inalienable rights of those they serve.   Legal cannabis and the rules that will control it will provide a valuable canvas to see just how those powers are applied.


From a very young age I have always loved growing plants.  I appreciate being a part of the process where we can help create new life and see those plants develop into food, or medical products that help improve our quality of life.  I particularly like growing medical cannabis because from what I’ve seen and experienced first hand those benefits are real and not to be denied.  Creating products and services that help others is where I wanted my life to go.

Our 151 Farms Barrio Logan Podcast

When I was developing our Inda-Gro lights I would experiment with a wide variety of crop types, including legal medical cannabis that I grew under CA Prop 215 guidelines for my own personal medical needs.  As a lighting manufacturer I also took this opportunity to look for ways to improve on our lighting designs and controls in an effort to improve crop performance in both quality and yield with lower operational costs.

I had the idea for a 151 Farm when I started working with aquaponic systems that I had seen growing mostly vegetative plants.  I began making an aquaponic garden here at the Federal Blvd property which allowed me to learn the basic plumbing and chemistry that needed to exist between the plants and the fish.  Everything is a learning experience when you first get into these aquaculture systems.  But fortunately for me I knew a lot of people who had experience with these systems and since they usually needed help with plant lighting I got to develop mutually beneficial relationships with them.

After about a year of small cultivation of food and medicines I felt that I had the systems design dialed in enough to where I could set up an offsite farm.  I found a property relatively near in Barrio Logan and with the owners consent I built our first 151 Farm.  Once we had secured a lease it took us a little over a month to have enough systems in to be operational and within 2 months we were conducting tours of the farm.  I found this rewarding since the local people were curious as to what it is we were doing and with that we got media and even some of the local politicians to visit us and see for themselves what we were proving could be done in these gardens.

Having 151 Farms open to public tours has allowed a lot of people to visit us and learn the systems approach we use for this type of food and medical cannabis cultivation.  It lets people see for themselves how the fish and plants perform together to produce the locally grown food and med’s that can help support theirs and the communities needs.   But what it takes first is that those who tour our farms, they keep an open mind as to how we can make the economics of this to work successfully.  For that we include the use of Secured Medical Cannabis Cultivation on our farms.

Once people see how the food, the medical cannabis and the oils which come from these plants can help improve their health and our quality of life people leave with a new appreciation for what it is we’ve shown them.   They leave inspired and that in turn inspires us which is what makes everything we’re doing at 151 Farms all worth while.

It was a lot of work trying to be in two places at one time.  I had my duties at Inda-Gro and the work necessary to see that 151 Barrio Logan was getting everything it needed as well.  Suffice it to say that was a learning experience of epic proportions.  It taught me that you can empower people to do certain tasks that must be attended to on a regular, daily basis but when it’s all said and done you have to stay personally involved or people tend to become lax and critical elements to successful operations can be missed or mismanaged.  Nonetheless it was a rewarding experience and I loved every minute of it.  Unfortunately the entire financial burden to operate the farm fell on me.  Eventually however it did get to be too much to handle so I made the decision to shut down the Barrio Logan site and returned 151 back to Federal Blvd. where I could oversee things better and continue with ongoing R&D that would help to improve the systems designs and performance.


Once I had developed reliable systems and procedures for my aquaculture farming techniques with known and proven medical cannabis genetics I wanted to share the benefits of those products with those patients that I could help the most with our products.   It was clear to me and those others who had come to rely on the organically grown medical cannabis flower and oils that there was a difference in how these products would help them when they were freshly processed and contained no plant growth regulators of residual pesticides or nutrients that in a concentrated form, in an already compromised immune system, could do more harm than good.

I was never interested in doing any kind of retail business with the products I was growing.   I believed there were others better suited to that business.  I saw my time being better suited to the energy and water savings techniques that I was working on for the benefit of urban farming opportunities and particularly the medical cannabis patient.  At the state level I had become intimately familiar with what was being proposed as Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), that would make cannabis legal for ‘recreational’ use.

October 4, 2016 SD Reader Article- SD County Board of Supervisors Hearing on AUMA and my Testimony before them urging them to VOTE NO on AUMA

I had gotten to know the detailed language in this initiative and saw what was being proposed as a poorly written, all encompassing overthrow of medical cannabis patients rights that had been first granted some 20 years earlier with the passage of Prop 215, which was the first time cannabis had been legally accepted anywhere in the United States for the treatment of certain medical conditions they suffered from.

Dennis and I at the 151 Farms Dennis Peron Day celebration

Having done an extensive analysis of Prop 64, under the 151 Farmers – AUMA Analysis I was extremely motivated to make as many people aware of what the passing of this ‘recreational’ marijuana initiative represented to their rights as well as to those who had grown to rely on medical cannabis products to give them the relief they needed without having to resort to opiates or other prescription drugs that often times created more harm than good.  I reached out to anyone and everyone who could help me get that message out.

Dennis Peron and Michael McShane discussing how to protect Prop 215 patients rights

In September 2016 I had invited Dennis Peron, who was one of the original co-authors of Prop 215 to visit our farm for what was to become a strategy session on how we might work together in an effort to defeat Prop 64.  Dennis had experienced some setbacks to his health but his mind was still as sharp as ever and what he knew the passing of Prop 64 meant was that it would most certainly lead to the loss of patients rights that had been granted with the passing of Prop 215.   We were in complete agreement on that and decided that we would cooperate in anyway we could to get more people to see the reality of what, with the language that was in the Prop 64 initiative meant would be an undermining of what Dennis had done for patients rights when 20 years ago he was instrumental in getting Prop 215 passed.   We stayed in touch. We worked through social media.  We did radio but sadly, despite our efforts. Prop 64 did pass, narrowly, and Dennis has since passed on.  But let it not be said that people were not warned in advance as to what the passing of Prop 64 would mean to them.  The question now is what can be done about it?

Michael Boris with WEEDMAPS TV interviews me on why I believe people should VOTE NO on PROP 64

On a local level I had been trying to expand public awareness of our 151 Farms mission through media outreach campaigns and locally licensed MMCC dispensaries.  In June of 2015, I had visited the Outliers Collective which at the time was one of the newly licensed Medical Marijuana Consumer Collectives (MMCC) located just outside of San Diego in El Cajon, CA.  My intention was to introduce our cultivation techniques and the products that could be created from them to see if they would be interested in developing a business relationship with them.  I met with the owners and after showing them a sample of our products and signing various forms they required of their vendors, they agreed to visit our farm and see for themselves what it was we were doing.

The next day a small contingent from Outliers did show up at our farm and I gave them a tour.  They were quite excited by what they saw and did in fact want us to become an authorized licensed cultivator for their MMCC.  To do so required that I set up an appointment with the San Diego County Sheriffs Department whereby they would come inspect our farm to make sure we would be operating in compliance with those Proposition 215 guidelines required of licensed cultivators.  I agreed to that and within a week Detective Mike Helms, Detective for the License and Registration Division of the SD Sheriffs Dept, his partner and several of the Outliers staff met at the farm to tour our farm and conduct their inspection.

Detective Helms, appreciated our operations and how we were growing our plants but he told me that while we were operating in compliance with Prop 215 state law, that since we were located within the City of San Diego and there was no commercial cannabis cultivation licensing available, the Sheriffs Department could not authorize us to produce our products for Outliers Collective.   Of course everyone was very disappointed with that news but I thanked Detective Helms for having visited us and providing me with the information he did.

After that visit I was more determined than ever that our 151 Farms message of locally grown, fresh food and med’s be heard by those who would create the laws and ordinances that would make these farms available within our communities.  I believed that it was just a matter of having the will, the timing and the conditions to do so.  That opportunity seemed to present itself one month later.


In July 2015 I had a young man named Ramiz ‘Ray’ Audish take a tour of our farm.  At the end of the tour he told me how much he loved what we were doing but from his perspective the one thing this farm was missing was a licensed MMCC dispensary operating on it.  As I’ve previously stated, I have never been interested in being a part of any retail medical cannabis business.   My interests have always been more about how to expand the message of 151 Farms and the cultivation techniques we employed for urban farming.  I told Ray that the Sheriffs Department had recently been out to inspect our farm for regulatory compliance and that based on us being located in the City of San Diego they couldn’t authorize us to cultivate for their MMCC.  Ray was undeterred by that as what he was proposing would be a legally compliant MMCC that would not participate any medical cannabis cultivation within the City.

Ray told me that he operated several MMCC and that it was simply a matter of confirming the property was in a location that allowed for a Conditional Use Permit authorizing an MMCC to operate.  He then went on to show me the City of San Diego Form IB-170 – Application Requirements for a Medical Marijuana Consumer Cooperative (July 2014) and Para II (d)  and I was able to confirm that my property was located in a Light Industrial (SESDPD-I-1) zone which meant it met the zoning requirements to be eligible to apply to operate an MMCC under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  Ray assured me that when the property met the zoning requirements it was a pretty straightforward process with the city and that if I agreed to this, he would take care of everything necessary to acquire the necessary permits to operate.

Another part of Rays pitch was that he only needed a small area to operate his business.  He suggested a subdivide at the front of the property for his operations and that he would, as it was in his best long term interests to do so, obtain all the necessary permits to run this business legitimately.  He also promised me that his business would not negatively impact mine but would instead help to advance the 151 Farms message of fresh organically grown food and med’s being available within our communities.  That strategy appealed to me so I met with him a couple more times to discuss the specifics and once I was satisfied that that our relationship would be strictly that of a Landlord/Tenant, I presented him with a 6 month lease to see how things worked out before I considered offering him longer terms.  Ray agreed,  we executed the lease and I did as promised by separating our businesses with a wall between us, giving him his own entry and providing a fenced off parking area for his exclusive use.  Within 30 days of executing the lease, Pure Med’s was open for business.

I had a very limited understanding or exposure to how the retail marijuana side of the business worked.  With Pure Med’s as a tenant I was curious to see how they should be run.  What I came to see impressed me.  The patients first came into a secured area where a licensed armed security guard would take the patients medical card information to assure it was valid.  If everything was in order they were then authorized to enter into the dispensary.  When you went into the dispensary, although it was small it was well appointed with glass case counters and knowledgeable staff that seemed to really want to assist the patients with their questions and needs.

Ray kept a small office in the back of Pure Med’s.  Occasionally I would drop in to check on him and to see for myself how his business was being run.  Based on the steady traffic I could see he had a loyal customer base but I did want to make sure that he had the security and staff he promised so as to not have any issues develop which might affect me or my property.  On every occasion where I would stop in and visit with him I Ray assured me he was happy with the location and there were no issues to report that I would need to address.   When I would ask him about his acquiring the necessary permits to operate his business he would tell me that it’s a process he was undertaking and that was operating under a business license that grants conditional approval to do so.  Having had no previous experience with these processes I took Ray at his word and it was obviously in his best long term interests to have whatever permits he needed to operate.  Beyond that, Ray was also making no secret of his business as he advertised Pure Med’s in local media which would include his location and hours of operation.  At the time it was unimaginable to me that Ray would put his business out there so publicly if he were not doing as he said in acquiring whatever permits were necessary to operate his business legally.

When December 2015 came around and we had reached the end of the 6 month lease period  and I had not any problems with Ray or his business I told him he could stay on under a month to month rental agreement for 90 days and if he had secured the CUP within that time I would work out a new one year lease with him.  He was fine with that and I accepted both of Ray’s January and February rental payments without having executed another lease.  In retrospect I’m glad I didn’t.

CHAPTER SIX: A CIVIL MATTER – City of SD vs Cotton  (Case No; 37-2016-00005526-CU-MC-CTL) 

On February 18, 2016 the reality of what Ray had been telling me hit me hard when after being served a Summons, that he had not secured the proper permits to legally operate Pure Med’s.  The City of San Diego had named me in a civil lawsuit (Exhibit 6.2) that charged me with running an illegal dispensary on my property and they were seeking a Temporary Restraining Order which if granted would keep me from setting foot onto my own property.  Of course I was livid that I had been lied to by Ray and was now embroiled in a lawsuit that could have and should have been avoided since the opportunity to secure the proper permit to operate his business was, based on his assurances and the City’s IB-170 form (Exhibit 5.1) was one of main reasons I had decided to rent him a portion of my property in the first place.

6.2) City of SD v Cotton-SUMMONS-02-18-16

6.3) Proof of Service-2-24-16

6.4) Memo of Points and Authorities-03-03-16

6.5) Rowdy Sperry, City of SD Land Use Investigator – Sworn Declaration – 02-24-16

Of course I was furious with Ray over having gotten me involved in any of this but after a thorough reading of the lawsuit, what I came to find out there were aspects of this lawsuit that was even more troubling to me then just having been named in it.  Within the lawsuit, as noted in the Proof of Service document (Exhibit 6.3) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Exhibit 6.4) states in their arguments that in addition to this being a zoning violation I am also operating an illegal dispensary in violation of Federal Law.  I found this argument to be incredibly hypocritical since the City of San Diego will issue numerous licenses for these MMCC dispensaries which would put them in direct violation of federal laws as well.

The next issue I found troubling and confusing stems from the Declaration (Exhibit 6.5) made by Mr. Rowdy Sperry, who is employed by the City of San Diego as a Land Use Investigator, Code Enforcement Division.  This Declaration provided the first information I had ever received that while my property had been located in an eligible zone for a MMCC business, providing Ray had pursued the proper CUP license to do so, the region had been rezoned after he had started his business which according to Sperry now made it ineligible for such as permit.

(6.5 Para 4)  On October 21, 2015 Sperry begins his investigation into Pure Meds and finds they are in violation of local zoning laws.  How are we in violation of local zoning laws when the IB-170 form-July 2014 (Exhibit 2.1) clearly shows this zone as eligible for an MMCC under a CUP?  In fact you contradict yourself in Para 8 where you state that when you began your investigation Pure Med’s had been operating out of a property that was listed by the City as an eligible zone for an MMCC business.    

(6.5 Para 5) Sperry describes Pure Med’s is operating as an illegal marijuana dispensary.  That I would agree with.  Ray did not secure the necessary MMCC CUP to operate his business.  

(6.5 Para 8) Sperry states that between August 3, 1987 and January 13, 2016 my property had been located in a Light Industrial (SESDPD-I-1) zone making it eligible for an MMCC business should the CUP been acquired.  This is where I start to get very suspicious as to why the rezoning had to take place prior to the lawsuit being filed?    

(6.5 Para 11) Sperry states that as of January 14, 2016 the property was rezoned to a Commercial Office CO-2-1 zone and as a result of that rezoning was no longer eligible for an MMCC to operate under a CUP.   While the timing of the rezone was suspicious the other issue I had with his statement is that the IB-170-July 2014 publication also states that a property located in a CO-2-1 zone is also eligible for a MMCC under a CUP.   

While I was trying to decipher everything that I was seeing here I decided to find out what public notifications were sent out that would have informed property owners of the zone change that were being considered.  The reality is that in the area North of Federal Blvd where the rezoning took place there are no commercial office enterprises.  It’s ALL light industrial.  This rezoning was starting to make even less sense.  On 3-03-16 I made a Public Records Request from the City of San Diego Planning Department that would include any information and documentation they had regarding the Master Rezoning Plan effecting 6176 Federal Blvd.  

On 3-11-16 I received their response (Exhibit 6.6) and was given what documents they had available for my review. Below are those documents and my italicized comments specifically those documents and how they did or did not provide proper notice to me and the other property owners of the zone changes being considered.     

6.6) City of San Diego Public-Records-Request-03-11-16 

(6.6 Page 1)  Cover letter from Patricia Sierra, Administrative Aide, City of San Diego Planning Department showing that the Public Records Acts Request no 2016-0398.  This was their response to my request they provide any records relating to master rezoning plans that would effect my property at 6176 Federal Blvd.  Based on this the language in this response I must believe this is all the information they had available which would include public notifications and any mailings that would have gone out to those property owners of record that this zoning change is being considered.

(6.6 Pages 2 & 3) The first page shows a map of the entire region being influenced by the Community Plan Update.  It covers a large area within this region with numerous zones for residential, commercial and light industrial.  Along the Hwy 94 there is little sliver of properties that is the region that my property is located in.  There is nothing being said in either page of this document that would indicate property rezones were being considered.

(6.6 Page 4)  A Public Notice indicating that there would be a community meeting to participate in the Federal Boulevard Revitalization Action Plan (RAP).  This hearing was Wednesday, November 12th at the Lemon Grove School Library and I did attend it.  While there was a brief statement in this notice that the hearing would be ‘discussing updated land uses and elements’ there was nothing discussed about rezoning.  There was only discussions that focused on the widening of Federal Blvd and the possibility of having landscape medians constructed between the East and Westbound lanes of the widened Federal Blvd.  This was to be done for beautification and to slow down traffic.  Again I was there.  I remember what was discussed.  Furthermore if zoning changes were indeed being contemplated that should have been addressed as a separate issue with a vetting as to what the impacts would be to those who owned property under existing zoning conditions.  This clearly was not information conveyed in the Public Notice or at the hearing.

(6.6 Pages 5 & 6)  This Public Notice and Agenda was dated October 15, 2015.  If this is supposed to tell me, as a property owner zoning changes were being contemplated for my property, I would like to know where, other than Action Items no 102 on page 6 there is even the remote possibility this was designed to be an informative property owner notice as to what the Planning Department had in store for us with this proposed rezoning.  If that is even what that Action Item portends.  Since it was sent to me they must feel it was important enough to include in their disclosures.  I can take nothing away from it.

(6.6 Pages 7-9)  These are the October 7, 2014 minutes from the Encanto Neighborhood Community Planning Group (ENCPG).  The ENCPG has been authorized by the City of San Diego to act as a Community Planning Group on behalf of the Encanto community which will make recommendations to various City of San Diego agencies including the Planning Department and the Development Services Department as to whether or not the community supports or rejects a particular proposal.  What I find interesting here is that ONE this document was provided by the Planning Department in response to my request, TWO the same Ken Malbrough who was Chairperson for the ENCPG then still holds that position today (this will prove relevant later), and THREE (Page 8 Section 6 NEW BUSINESS Para 4) the voted to pass the rezoning for my property and those around me from a Light Industrial (IL-2-1) zone to a Commercial Office (CO-2-1) zone during that meeting October 7, 2014 meeting.  With that I would ask why it took the Planning Department over 2 years to implement that rezoning recommendation and could it have anything to do with the timing as to when the City filed its case against me?

What was not provide in their document production was a list of any of the property owners who had been noticed of the impending zoning change via mail or as required by their own Public Noticing Procedures as stated in IB-512 (Exhibit 6.7) when it is a Land Development issue being considered. 

6.7) San-Diego-Public-Noticing-Information-Requirements-IB-512

Was there a conspiracy at work here?  With what I’ve shown so far it might hard to make that charge.  But when considering everything else I’m about to share the possibility of there being one is only increased.  In a conspiracy charge we don’t have to prove the ‘how’ just the ‘why’ these unusual actions occurred which when combined became part of a collaborative effort to deprive me of my rights and my property.

When I confronted Ray with this lawsuit he told me that this was an ordinary response by the City until such time that the CUP application was eventually granted.  He told me that these cases always settled and he offered to have me meet with his attorney Jeff Lake who if I agreed, would represent me with Ray agreeing to pay all costs, fee’s and the eventual settlement amount.  What Ray wanted in consideration for this was to continue to operate Pure Med’s while we were in litigation.  His plan was to use that time to obtain the permits to operate and launch a signature campaign (6.8) from his patients and local residents that showed community support for the business.

6.8) Signature Petition to Save Pure Med’s

I agreed to meet with him and his attorney Jeff Lake and we went over the case.  Mr. Lake agreed with me that with having had no notification of the zoning change, from what was at the time of my agreeing to lease the property to Ray, a legally acceptable location for an MMCC and that once the rezoning occurred the City had taken the position that my property was now permanently ineligible he was of the opinion that because of these extenuating circumstances the request for the TRO should be denied.   Mr. Lake filed his well reasoned response (Exhibit 6.9) objecting to the TRO on 3-15-16.

6.9) TRO-Opposition-by-Jeff-Lake-3-15-16

At the hearing Judge Meyer considered the City’s request and the opposition filed by my counsel.  Judge Meyer asked the City Attorney if what Mr. Lake had stated in his opposition was true?   Had the property been rezoned from what would have been an acceptable zone for an MMCC when I entered into the lease with my tenant had he went on to pursue the proper permitting?  The Deputy City Attorney, Ms. Onu Omardia had to acknowledge that was indeed the case but insisted that the TRO was necessary to force me to provide them with any information that would help them determine the true ownership of the Pure Med’s dispensary that had been operating without a license.  I told Judge Meyer that I was not involved in the operations or Pure Med’s and that I had no problem in cooperating with the City’s request with providing them with the information they were seeking.  All that had to do was contact me and I would do so.  With that Judge Meyer denied the City’s request for a TRO much to Omardia’s impassioned objections.   Omardia never did contact me in an attempt to get that information.  Instead the property was raided and criminal charges were filed.    

6.10) CSD-v.-Cotton-NOE-JD-After-MSJ-2018.12.09-37-2016-5526-CU-MC-CTL  The final civil judgement entered into on December 06, 2016 in which I am ordered to not run a marijuana dispensary or collective at this property which of course contradicts the Criminal Complaint as shown in Chapter 7 whereby the Plea Agreement entered into on 04-05-17 the Deputy City Attorney, as a condition of my probation,  allows me to operate my 151 Farm with medical cannabis under Prop 215 guidelines as can be seen in the Plea Agreement in section 7.5.

6.11) 2023/06/28 City of San Diego Pay Up Demand Letter Threating Jail 

CHAPTER SEVEN: A CRIMINAL MATTER – City of SD vs Cotton (Case No; M230071)

April 6, 2016 the City having been denied the TRO asked for and received a warrant (Exhibit 7.1) to come onto the property and seize anything related to what they determined was illegal drug activity.  Approximately 30 armed police officers rushed onto my property and placed me and my 3 employees who were on site at the time into handcuffs. At the time of the raid Pure Med’s was not open and I had no keys to that space but I showed them everything I had going relative to my operations and what the sheriffs had seen and inspected on June 2016. After some consideration, the officers decided to destroy all my plants and gained entry into Pure Med’s at which time they confiscated everything in that business.  After about 3 hours we were all released and told that the information they had gathered would be presented to the District Attorney who would decide what, if any charges would be file.  On 3-15-17 I received a letter from the District Attorney (Exhibit 7.2) stating they were not going to file charges against me.   

7.1) SEARCH-WARRANT-04-06-16

7.2) District Attorney Notice Citing No Charges to be Filed – 03-15-17

The day after the raid, April 7, 2016, Ray contacted me by phone and asked if he could reopen his business and I told him no.  He was not even welcome on the property anymore. I gave him 1 week to have him come in and clean out his area and that after that I would be disposing of anything he had left and returning the property to its original condition.  One week later I began to do just that and the subdivision of the property was removed.  Pure Med’s was officially no more.    

On 3-15-17 I was served with a Criminal Complaint (Exhibit 7.3) that named both me and my tenant Ray as defendants on a total of 5 misdemeanor charges.  I also received a Statement of Charges and an Arraignment Notice (Exhibit 7.4) on the same day with the Arraignment Date having been set for April 5, 2017.     Considering the investigative report I was given in the complaint I had every intention of seeing this as a hard fought battle to defend myself from a number of statements the investigating officer had made in this report.  I was prepared to do so and hired an Attorney Robert Bryson to accompany me to the arraignment where I had planned on entering a plea of not guilty to these charges.

7.3) City-SD-vs-Cotton-Complaint-M233071-03-15-17

7.4) Statement of Charges-Arraignment Notice-3-15-17

That was the plan until the day of the arraignment when outside the courtroom my attorney and I met with Deputy City Attorney, Mark Skeels to discuss the City’s position on the case.   Mr. Skeels told me that most of these illegal dispensaries they bring charges against were reopened within days of them having been shut down because the rents are lucrative and landlords will claim the tenant has a lease which can’t be broken.  Skeels told us that since I did not allow Pure Med’s to reopen the City looked at that action favorably and was prepared offer me a Plea Agreement that would reduce 4 of the misdemeanor charges against me to just one.  The caveat was I would have to accept that Plea Agreement right then at the arraignment which would require me to plead guilty to that one Health and Safety Code 11366.5(a) charge.

Mr. Skeels went on tell us that by me agreeing to accept the Plea Agreement being offered it would allow the City to dispatch my cans and focus their efforts on Ray who they had come to find had been operating multiple illegal dispensaries, had lied about having any participation in Pure Med’s and at his booking even offered to turn evidence on me if they would let him go.

Mr. Skeels represented this seemingly generous Plea Agreement being offered to me as a win for the City as they could focus more of their attention on Ray and I would be, in the eyes of the law, representing to the court that I acknowledged participating in an act that as a property owner having let Ray own and operate an unlicensed MMCC on my property would be accepting responsibility for that action alone.  I would agree to not allow another unlicensed MMCC to operate from my property.  I would agree to forfeit the items and money seized during the raid, most of which had been Pure Med’s anyway and under a 3 year probationary period I would agree to waive my 4th amendment rights.  At the completion of the probationary period I could then move to have the charge expunged from my record.

I was given some time to confer with my attorney Bryson who was of the opinion that this was an exceptionally generous offer being made.  I was inclined to agree with him but was not satisfied that should I accept this Plea Agreement in its current form I would not have issues at a later date with my growing medical cannabis on under Prop 215 guidelines on my property.    My concern was that I would risk being in violation of the Plea Agreement if during a site visit the investigating authorities determined that my rights under Prop 215 guidelines were being eclipsed by yet unknown and evolving Prop 64 laws in which there may different plant limits and other regulations put in place for recreational cannabis cultivation.  This meant that the inspecting authority would have to do a field determination on what laws to enforce or perhaps make a determination as to what plants were considered medical and which might be considered recreational cannabis.  As I intended to continue to grow my own medical cannabis I found this to be a potential area of future contention should I accept the Plea Agreement.

To address this concern I requested that there be language added which expressly stated that I would not be waiving my Prop 215 medical cannabis cultivation rights for the cannabis plants being grown on my property.  When I explained why I wanted that language included Mr. Skeels considered what I was requesting and had no objection to it.  In fact it was Mr. Skeels who suggested that there would be no plant limits associated with the Plea Agreement as long as the Physicians Recommendations qualified the plant counts on the property who then went on to write that language into the Plea Agreement (Exhibit 7.5) himself.  To both myself and my counsel, Mr. Skeels was engaging with us in what seemed to be a spirit of cooperation that at the time appeared legitimate in both his reasoning and his intent.

With that language having been added I signed the Plea Agreement and we went in front of the Judge Cano who took the time to go through the Plea Agreement with me on a line by basis to make sure I knew what it was I was signing.  When she came to the language the Mr. Skeels had added she asked me what that was about.  I told her that with the still evolving laws under Prop 64 and where there might be conflicts with Prop 215 I wanted to be assured that by my accepting this Plea Agreement there would be no subjective enforcement of cannabis law during the course of my probation that could put me in a situation where I was in violation of this agreement.  She considered that and agreed that it was an issue the courts were being challenged on and she felt that us having added this language it represented a practical way of alleviating these issues before they would arise.

7.5) City-SD-Plea-Agreement-04-05-17

The ink was not even dry on the Plea Agreement when in the mail I received a request by the City to the Court for a Petition for Forfeiture of Property (Exhibit 7.6)  which meant that the City had, without ever stating it, included my Real Property in that Plea Agreement.  The deception being that under the Health and Safety Code 11366.5(a) there was a provision that gave the City the authority to seize my property.  This had NEVER been discussed prior to my accepting that Plea Agreement and now served to explain why the City and Skeels had been so cooperative in making this supposedly generous Plea Agreement in the first place.  Their entire intention had been to steal my property out from underneath me.  The problem I now had was why did my counsel not make me aware that by accepting this Plea Agreement I would be up my Real Property by doing so?  Since there was still time to do so I could take this up with Judge Cano and rescind the Plea Agreement which would take this to trial or I could find a settlement range with the City that would save me the time money and effort of taking this to trial.  But I was not happy that this Plea Agreement had been an obvious ruse from it’s inception.

7.6) Petition-for-Forfeiture-of-Property-04-05-2017

Upon receiving the Petition for Forfeiture I first contacted Skeels by phone and asked him if he had been aware that I would be giving up my Real Property in this Plea Agreement?  He told me that he had not been aware that was an element of that agreement.  Of course I didn’t believe him but he did go on to tell me that I should contact my attorney and see what my options were now that could prevent that action from occurring.  My next call was to my attorney Bryson in which I told him I had just spoken with Skeels and what pleading guilty to that single charge had actually ended up costing me.  Bryson was incredulous.  Prior to my accepting the Plea Agreement and as was his recommendation to accept it he had not actually read the code I was pleading guilty to. His recommendation to accept it was based on the representation Skeels had made to us prior to accepting the Plea Agreement.  The loss of my Real Property was never discussed or considered.  Bryson agreed to contact Skeels and see what my options were at this point.  A short time later Bryson delivered me the bad news that having plead guilty to that charge did give the City the legal right to sell my property.  Unless I filed a motion with the Court to withdraw the Plea Agreement I had signed the action would stand. On 4-18-2017 the City filed a Lis Pendens (Exhibit 7.7) on my property which began the formal process where they would sell it and I would have lost everything.

7.7) City-of-San-Diego-Lis-Pendens-04-18-2017

Of course I was furious with Bryson that he had not given me the counsel in this matter I deserved.  There was no way had I known the implications of accepting the Plea Agreement was that I would be forfeiting the number one largest asset I had in my life and would be seeing nothing in return.  I suffered from incompetent counsel and a City Attorney who had played this scheme of deception perfectly.  I knew I had to seek new counsel on this matter and I knew that for Judge Cano to consider a withdrawal of my Plea Agreement it would require Bryson to issue a Declaration that stated he had provided incompetent counsel by not having investigated beforehand the Health and Safety Code he advised I plead guilty to.  I requested from Bryson that he provide me that sworn declaration (Exhibit 7.8) and he did so on 5-09-17.

7.8.1) 05/09/17 Bryson-Declaration-Seized-Assets

7.8.2) 05/18/17 Bryson-Mehta Disengagement Letter After Bryson having admitted in his Declaration that he failed to properly advise Cotton of the ramifications of his pleading guilty at the arraignment Bryson and his partner Mehta decide to drop Cotton as a client due to what they describe as a ‘conflict of interest’ in continued representation.

On 06-13-2017 I engaged the legal services of Attorney David Demian of the law firm Finch, Thornton and Baird (FTB) to handle certain legal matters I needed representation on that would include this Forfeiture matter. 

In July 2017 Demian, had scheduled a conference call with Skeels that was made on a speaker phone from one of the FTB conference rooms.  Demian did not notice Skeels that I was listening on the call as I wanted to hear for myself how he would characterize the Plea Agreement I signed and what if any the City’s position would be on finding a settlement whereby I would keep the property.  What Skeels told Demian is that the forfeiture was going to go through unless I agreed to pay the City $100K.  If I didn’t accept that my option to withdraw the Plea Agreement meant the City would see me at trial.  I shook my head and signaled to Demian that I would counter with an offer of $5K.  Skeels was insulted by that offer and the conversation quickly became heated to the point Skeels accused Demian of insulting him.  Demian became apologetic and with that I saw that when it came to further negotiations with Skeel, Demian was not in a good position to do so.  The conversation ended with the promise Demian would be back in touch with him after he had conferred with me on their demands.     

It was agreed that Demian would not be in the best position to negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement with the City on this matter.  The better approach would be to have an attorney who had a history or withdrawing Plea Agreements and would represent a real threat that unless the City got realistic in their demands that is what would happen in my case.  The lawyer that was recommended for this task was attorney Stephen G. Cline.

In September 2017 I engaged the services of Mr. Cline.  After Cline had engaged in several back and forth conversations with Skeels, on 10-04-17 we came to an agreed upon settlement as detailed in the Stipulation for Entry of Forfeiture Judgement (Exhibit 7.9)  in the amount of $25K that would let me keep my Real Property while maintaining the terms of the 04-05-17 Plea Agreement.  As per the agreement, the payment (Exhibit 7.10) was made and the Lis Pendens (Exhibit 7.11). was removed.

7.9) Stipulation-For-Entry-of-Forfeiture-Judgement-10-04-17

7.10) TREASURER-PMT-1-2-18

7.11) Notice-of-Withdrawal-of-Lis-Pendens-recorded-1-11-2018.pdf


In August 2016 I received a phone call from a Mr. Larry Geraci.  He told me that he had a proposal that would allow me to sell my property to him and it could then be turned into a licensed MMCC dispensary.  I told him that as a result of the litigation I was currently involved with the City if San Diego on it was not likely that due to the rezoning of my property an MMCC CUP would ever be allowed on my property.  Geraci told me that was not necessarily the case.  He told me that he could have this property rezoned to where it would be legally compliant for an MMCC business and that he the unique resources to make this happen.  I was interested in learning more so we agreed to meet at his offices to continue discussing what he had in mind.  

Shortly thereafter I met with Geraci at his tax and financial offices.  During that meeting Geraci told me that it was a result of his special business skills and relationships which allowed him to take certain properties and have them become licensed MMCC businesses.  Geraci told me that as a licensed CA Realtor and with his associates had experience in identifying and developing these properties so that once they were granted the MMCC CUP and operational the  the benefits of managing and running these businesses profitably fell into his services as an Enrolled Agent with the IRS.  His specialty being the IRS Tax Code 280 (e) and maximizing the pretax returns of an MMCC business.  I was impressed with Geraci, his professional credentials and his Tax and Financial Center, Inc (Exhibit 8.1) business.  This looked to me to be a legitimate business person who with his experience in owning and operating these MMCC businesses would do things the way they should have been done unlike when Ray had been given the opportunity to do so.

8.1) Geraci Tax and Financial Center, Inc

What Geraci told me during our first meeting was that he was aware that there had been an illegal dispensary being ran on my property and I was in litigation with the City over it.  What he told me was that if I agreed to sell the property than the current litigation would be easier settled because I no longer had an interest in the property.  Furthermore he knew that with the use of his political lobbyist, Jim Bartell (Exhibit 8.2) and through his own personal connections within city government he was quite confident that an MMCC could be established on my property as long as I was not the owner of that property.  His reasoning being that should I decide not sell the property to him and I maintained ownership while I attempted to pursue an MMCC CUP I would most definitely be denied because I had allowed an unlicensed MMCC to operate from that site.  Furthermore I would still have to contend with my current litigation without the likelihood of my an acceptable settlement with the City.  Geraci was portraying himself as a lifeline to many of the problems I was facing at the time and offered to pay me $800K for the property which is just slightly over fair market value for the property while he took on the tasks of seeking to have the property rezoned and paying for the CUP once the rezoning had been completed.

8.2) Bartell and Associates

I told Geraci that I had no problem considering selling my property to him for the purposes of developing this dispensary but since he was talking about offering me just slightly over fair market value for it I wanted to negotiate an equity position in the new business in consideration for that low sales price.  Geraci was not opposed to that and between September and October of 2016 we had more talks and meetings which led up to an agreement in principal that was first contingent on the property being rezoned by the City to one that was MMCC CUP acceptable.  Geraci would pay for all costs associated with the rezoning, CUP application and any subsequent construction costs associated with the new dispensary.  Once that rezoning work had been successfully completed Geraci had agreed to pay me a $50K non-refundable deposit to be that would be applied to the total purchase price of $800K.   If Geraci was unsuccessful in getting the MMCC CUP approved he would not purchase the property and the $50K was mine to keep.  Once the CUP had been granted per our agreement, the sale of the property called out for splitting the sale of the property into two payments.  One payment of $400 would be made to me and another $400K would be made to Inda-Gro as it would pay for the relocation of my business.  Once those payments had been made I would transfer title into Geraci or his assignee’s name and construction of the new dispensary could begin.  Once the dispensary was operational my equity position required that additional payments of 10% from the Net Profits or a minimum of $10K per month, whichever was greater would be payable to me under the Joint Venture Agreement that his attorney Gina Austin would be incorporating into our Final Contract.

Geraci had no issues with these terms in our many discussions.  While I waited for Geraci or Austin to put this language into its final form I wanted to at least have some documentation that would memorialize our discussions.  Geraci was slow to produce any written draft documentation that memorialized our discussions so I took the initiative and on 9/24/16 presented him with two working documents that Geraci had told me to title to his company GERL Investments.  These working documents would serve as the basis for what would become our Final Contract between Geraci/GERL and me as an individual (Exhibit 8.3) and Inda-Gro (Exhibit 8.4).  I shared these documents with Geraci in an open file that he was allowed to edit and make any changes on that he felt were necessary.  I confirmed Geraci had received the documents and access to the file.  Geraci told me he was fine with the working documents as is and when his attorney Gina Austin, an expert in cannabis regulation (Exhibit 8.5)  submitted the Final Contract to me the Terms and Conditions as stated within the two working documents would be in there.

8.3) Cotton-GERL-MOU-9-24-16

8.4) IndaGro-GERL-Service-Contract-9-24-16

On November 2, 2016, Geraci had me come to his office that morning and sign what he described as a receipt for a $10K cash payment he was going to be making towards the $50K non-refundable deposit.  Geraci told me that while he wanted to give me the entire $50K he was tight on money as he had already spent over $250K on getting things lined up for the zoning change he had to get done before he could submit on the CUP.  Nonetheless he told me that by the time he had the zoning issues resolved and the CUP Application had been accepted (not approved) he would have the remainder $40K while he worked through the CUP process with DSD.  I was fine with that because I knew Geraci was already spending money on this project so his being a little tight at the time sounded credible to.  I also believed that with Geraci being a Licensed CA Realtor, Enrolled Agent, Financial Planner and with his attorney Gina Austin preparing a Final Contract that was to be based on our two working documents I felt confident that the 3 sentence notarized document (Exhibit 8.6) Geraci was having me sign for the $10K partial payment would not be used by him at a later date to claim was executed as an all encompassing, fully integrated contract between us.     

8.5) Austin Legal Group – Atty Gina Austin – Specialist in Cannabis Law and Regulation Website

8.6) Notarized Receipt-Agreement-11-02-16

After I had signed the Receipt-Agreement document I asked Geraci if I could have a copy of it.  He told me he would scan it and email me a copy later that day.  I was fine with that and left without thinking to much more about it.  Later that day, at 3:11 in the afternoon, I received an email from Geraci in which he had sent me a scanned copy (Exhibit 8.7) of the Receipt document I had signed.  When I saw it I was concerned that he had titled it the Cotton & Geraci Contract.  There was no way I was going to let that description of what we had executed slide so at 6:55 pm I sent him an email (Exhibit 8.8) which asked him to confirm, in a response email to mine,  that the document we had signed in his office was not meant to be Final Contract.  Geraci replied to that email at 9:13 pm by stating ‘No, No Problem at All’.  With that response I felt that Geraci was acting in good faith and was not out to take advantage of me with a scheme that would have relied on his claiming the document we had executed that morning in his office was going to at some later date be used as a claim that it was a completely integrated contract that had all the terms and conditions of our agreement within it.

8.7) Geraci Emails me a Copy of the Receipt-11-02-16

8.8) Geraci Response ‘No, No Problem at All’ Confirmation Email – 11-02-16

Over the course of the next three months I had numerous phone calls emails and texts with Geraci in which I would ask him how the rezoning was coming along and he would reply that it was moving right along.  By January 2017 I was getting frustrated with the fact that Geraci was not providing me any kind of draft contract documents that would have memorialized our agreement and there had been no substantive progress he could point to on his rezoning efforts.  It was as a result of what was still just a little voice in the back of my head saying cover yourself that when Keith Henderson, a licensed CA Realtor and the owner of a licensed dispensary in San Diego reached out to me to see if I would be willing to sell my property to him for the purposes of opening a licensed MMCC I was willing to listen to him.  But the first thing I told him was that I already had an agreement with Geraci that while we had not yet finalized a final contract and we were waiting on certain rezoning to be approved before Geraci could submit the MMCC CUP.  Once those things occurred I would be going forward with Geraci as had been our agreement.

Henderson understood that and wanted to be the backup offer to Geraci if anything failed to materialize in that agreement.  He told me that having a backup offer only made sense as long as it met, at a minimum the same terms and conditions as the primary offer.   With that, I sent Henderson a copy of the two working documents I had presented to Geraci, and told him if he would prepare a contract that incorporated the same terms and conditions as were the foundation of the Final Contract I was expecting, but still had not received from Geraci, I would consider him to be a legitimate backup offer to Geraci in case something did go awry with our meeting the Final Contract conditions we had agreed to.

With that I had a Commercial Property Purchase Agreement which included a reference to the two working documents which I had provided Geraci back in September that Henderson actually referenced in the Addendum.  This was the way I expected a Real Estate Contract to look.  There was no great mystery here.  What this told me is that Geraci, who is also a Licensed CA Realtor had been delaying presenting me with a Commercial Real Estate Contract for reasons that I was now beginning to believe had more to do with an attempt to misdirect me or perhaps delay making the payment on the remaining $40K non-refundable deposit that was still due.

What the Henderson Contract showed me was that no matter how clear I made my Terms and Conditions in my working documents everyone seemed to put in deal breakers, including Henderson by adding language to  the Addendum 1 document that made the $50K Earnest Money non-refundable after 90 days of due diligence.  This would not have been acceptable in any of the contracts I would have entered into.  While I appreciated the professional response by Henderson I was not going to get into another situation where the clear conditions of what I was asking for were not being met.

8.9) Henderson – Alternate Contract Offer

On 02-27-17 I received an email from Geraci that had the draft Final Contract from Austin lacking nearly every aspect of what Geraci and I had agreed to in the two working documents, our face to face discussions, phone calls, texts and email communications.  I’ve decided to not post all of the documents here at this point because they will all be listed as exhibits in the Federal Complaint that occurs in a later chapter.   What I will highlight here is a series of emails from 2-27-17 thru 3-21-17
(Exhibit 8.10) that shows the rapid deterioration of the business relationship I thought was being forged between us.  Since this is a string of emails I have identified them by a number designation to the side that gives them in order as they were received and which have been described below.  My comments specific to the emails have been italicized

8.10) Geraci-Cotton Emails from 2-27-17 thru 3-21-17

02-27-2017:  Geraci sends me the first written communication from his side that while drafted by his attorney Austin was a Draft Purchase Agreement which was supposed to represent what he and I had agreed to from the two working documents as a Commercial Property Sale and a Joint Venture Agreement that we had now been working on for the better part of 5 months.  

03-03-2017:  My response to his previous email was that after having reviewed the Draft Side Agreement that Austin that he forwards me from Austin it it too is lacking in the basic agreements that we had agreed to in our working documents or previous communications.  My feeling was Austin was either incompetent or Geraci had never shared the working documents with her that would have been instrumental in her development of any the Final Contract we would have entered into. I was not happy about this and in my email I let Geraci know it. 

03-07-2017: Geraci responds to my last email by claiming he hadn’t ‘reviewed this yet’ but immediately, after talking with his adviser, ‘Matt’ went on to request I agree to reduce the agreed upon $10K a month payment to $5K for 6 months.  This is now getting ridiculous.  In previous communications Geraci is claiming to have spent $300K on lining things up for having the property rezone in preparation for his submitting the MMCC CUP.  I was now seriously doubting that he was exercising any professional due diligence over this process or he was involved in an attempt to defraud me of my property.  In either case my next email was going to make specific references to what I have seen by his performances and what, if this project was expected to go forward, would be expected of him with the demand that he agree to putting these  terms and conditions in writing and doing so by March 20, 2017 @ 12:00 pm.     

03-17-2017: This email laid out the milestones of our relationship to date and what I expected of him in order to live up to his promises if he wished to salvage any chance of entering into the contract that we had agreed to in our working documents and previous communications.

03-17-2017: Following a text by Geraci that we meet in person I responded by email that I would not be meeting with him and all future communication needed to be in writing.

03-18-2017:  Geraci responds that he will respond to my 03-17-17 email by Wednesday 03-22-17 (past the 03-20-17 deadline I had stated in that email)  as ‘he has an attorney working on the situation right now as timing plays a factor’.

03-19-2017:  I asked Geraci why he needed an attorney to respond to me if he would be honoring the terms of our original agreements?  I reminded him that he had until 12:00 pm the following day to provide me with written confirmation he chose to honor those terms and conditions.

03-19-2017  Geraci tells me in this email that I am ‘changing my mind’ and that his attorneys ‘will move forward with an agreement’.  I took this statement to mean that per Geraci, there was no way the document could have ever been construed as a completely integrated contract.

03-21-2017:  I inform Geraci that after having reached out the DSD I now knew the level of his deceit and would no longer have any further communication with him.  I would be entering into an agreement with a 3rd party to sell my property and they would be taking on any of the costs associated with potential litigation that arises from the failed agreement I had with you.

03-21-2017: I did as promised and sold my property to Richard J. Martin who like Hernandez had submitted a back up offer had Geraci failed to perform.

03-22-2017: I discovered that Geraci’s response to my emails was he would file a lawsuit against me accusing me of Breach of Contract.  That contract being the 11-02-16 document that in the lawsuit he was claiming was the one and only contract that existed between us.  That lawsuit, along with any associated actions at the state level can be found in Chapter 11.


In March 2017 I had reached out to anonymous who I had met after a tour of our farm,  Anonymous, while not a lawyer in California, had been one in New York  I thought I’d get his perspective on whether or not I needed to be concerned with Geraci and the draft contracts Austin had prepared for him which they both had presumably expected me sign.  Basically what I was trying to get a feel for was if he thought I might want to get a lawyer to protect my interests?

Anonymous made it very clear to me from the outset that he could not give me legal advice.  He told me that from the look of the deal I had going with Geraci he didn’t believe Geraci would want to renege on that.  It was just too good a deal for him.  However as anonymous had now come to find out my property might be a zone that looked to be  acceptable for a MMCC dispensary he wanted me to consider an associate of his for the property and joint venture should, in the unlikely event, Geraci failed to deliver on our agreement.  I felt good about having another backup offer so I told anonymous to speak with his buyer and see if, based on an offer that at a minimum, would meet the terms and conditions that I had been negotiating with Geraci would be interested in the property?  Anonymous told me that he would check with him and back to me with his response.

While I did feel that part of what anonymous had told me about Geraci ‘having too good of a deal to want to renege on it’, I still couldn’t help but be concerned that the draft contracts I was seeing out of his attorney Austin which were devoid of our terms and conditions and favored Geraci to the point that I didn’t feel I could trust him or his word.  I needed to do a bit of research on Geraci and his zoning claims.  As you will see in the next chapter it was based on a conversation I had on 03-15-17 with DSD that I found out Geraci had been lying to me about the entire rezoning process and his waiting to submit the CUP until that work had been completed that I now knew I had to leap into action or he would do everything in his power to defraud me of my property and any Joint Venture Agreement monies that were due me once the dispensary was operational.

I told anonymous what I had discovered and with that he confirmed he had a well qualified buyer by the name of Mr. Martin who would meet and even exceed the terms that had been agreed to but not finalized with Geraci.  Anonymous told me he would have a Real Estate Contract provided to me within a week.  On 03-21-17 I received that Real Estate Purchase Agreement (Exhibit 9.1), from Mr. Martin that also included the Joint Venture Agreement terms and conditions.  I found it acceptable and we signed and executed the contract that day.

9.1) Martin Sales Agreement-03-21-17

What will be described in the next chapters will illustrate why I ended up selling my property to Mr. Martin, why I began working with anonymous as a litigation investor, my struggles with the Geraci financed CUP that put him in total control over the VALUE OF MY PROPERTY by virtue of Geraci, not me, having control over the DSD/CUP application process and lastly how the court systems treated me when I was represented by counsel and when I represented myself Pro Se as I tried to find ‘time sensitive’ justice in this new world of Canna-Greed.      


In my email to Geraci on 3-21-17 (Exhibit 8.10)  I called him out on what I had discovered in my conversations with DSD.  The information I had gotten started from a March 15, 2017 meeting I had with Ms. Firouzeh Tirandazi, Development Project Manager for the City of San Diego Development Services Division (DSD).  During that meeting was when I had made the initial inquiry as to the status of the rezoning for my property.  A rezone that I had come to believe was necessary so that my property would be considered eligible for a MMCC CUP application.  What Ms. Tirandazi told me shook me to the core.  It was the first time I learned that Geraci had not been dealing with me in good faith and he had been lying to me since he first reached out to me in August 2016.      

Ms. Tirandazi told me that my property had been rezoned to an acceptable MMCC compliant zone back in April 2016.  This meant that through numerous phone calls, texts and emails Geraci had been lying to me since he had first contacted me in August 2016.  Having the property rezoned was not a condition of applying for the MMCC CUP.  Based on what Tirandazi had told me when Geraci first contacted me in August 2016 my property was ALREADY ELIGIBLE to have an MMCC CUP application submitted.  It never had been an issue!  

It meant that the 11/02/16 document he had me sign was now likely to be used as a document that he would use in an attempt to defraud me of my non-refundable deposit, my property and any future income that we had agreed to from the operation of the dispensary.  That is unless the Austin draft documents didn’t try to do that in the more legal formats I had begun to receive.  Geraci was no different than Ray.  He had made assurances of being able to create a mutually beneficial relationship, that due to his particular skill sets, MMCC experience, financial backing and connections he would be putting a licensed MMCC dispensary on my property.   Geraci’s deceit was just better orchestrated than Rays.       

It was a result of seeing that the 6176 BERRY MMCC CUP had been accepted by DSD on 10-31-16 when the rezoning had either not been changed and the property remained a CO-2-1 at the time of submission or had there been some other arrangement that allowed this CUP to be accepted in anticipation of a rezoning that I really began to wonder what DSD’s processes were for this particular property and what if anything I could do to maintain some control over the CUP process.  My emerging concern was that if Geraci saw he was likely to lose on the Breach of Contract his better financial strategy would be to sabotage the CUP.  This would be financially devastating for me since the value of my property went up by a factor of at least 20X if it were deemed acceptable for an MMCC business.

With the breakdown of our business relationship and my having sold the property to Martin I sent Tirandazi an email requesting that Berry be removed as the CUP Licensee and the Application be processed in my or an assignee’s of mine’s name.  Tirandazi responded that DSD could not do that without the approval and permission of Berry.  This put me at a distinct disadvantage.  I was in litigation with Geraci and he had complete control the CUP application through DSD.

Ms/ Tirandazi had been pretty forthright with me about what she could and could not do with the current CUP application being processed.  But even as the Property Owner of Record I was not listed on the 6176 BERRY APPLICATION as the POINT OF CONTACT (POC) so she could not keep me apprised as to how the CUP process was going along.  That POC distinction had gone to Mr. Abhay Schweitzer of the Design Firm Techne.  Anything I wanted to know about the status of the 6176 Berry MMCC CUP Application was going to have to come from me keeping track of its progress on the DSD website or if we could get the court to grant us a court approved 3rd party administrator that would act on behalf of both Geraci and me when it came to assuring that the CUP was being properly processed.  Those were my options.

Ms. Tirandazi was able to tell me that the application filed on behalf of his ‘agent’ Rebecca Berry had been accepted by DSD on 10-31-16.  This meant Geraci had submitted this application 2 days before he had me sign the 11-02-16 receipt document.  Knowing that the risks of losing my property and the approval of the CUP application were now in the hands of someone I knew could not be trusted got me to pay alot more attention to what was happening over at DSD and how the CUP was being processed. The first thing I wanted to know was what was required of the applicant when submitting an MMCC CUP Application?  For that I went to the City of San Diego Development Services Department Website to find the following;

10.1.1) DSD Land Development Manual – Project Submittal-Requirements-Section-4

10.1.2) DSD – IB-514 Professional Certificate Requirements for Project Submittals  This program allows eligible certified professionals to certify that their discretionary development project application package meets the minimum submittal requirements. Project applications submitted by certified professionals will be automatically accepted for distribution and review with only a quantitative review by staff to assure the correct number of plans and fees/deposits have been submitted. This professional certification program applies to all discretionary actions pursuant to Land Development Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 4.  Of note:  the Berry CUP listed the design professionals on the  6176 Berry DSD Online-Customer-Information.  What this indicates is that with the Design Professional parties listed on this form, it still took 6 months to get this CUP into an accepted application status where a Project Manage and Project Number were assigned to it.  The importance of this timeline will be discussed in Chapter 13 when a competing MMCC CUP application (6220 Federal Blvd) is accepted by DSD on a property located within 300 ft of the 6176 Berry CUP application.   

10.1.3) DSD-Preliminary-Review-Form-IB-513

10.1.4) DSD-IB-503-Fee-Deposit-and-Schedules

10.1.5) DSD IB-170 – Application Requirements for a Medical Marijuana Consumer Cooperative (July 2014)  This is the same form Ray showed me when he was proving to me that with my property being located in a Light Industrial (SESDPD-I-1) zone would, per Section II(d) it would have made it eligible to submit the MMCC CUP application.  With the Declaration by Rowdy Sperry (Exhibit 6.5 Para 11) stating that as on January 14, 2016 the rezone to a CO-2-1 zone made my property ineligible for an MMCC CUP application. 

My questions became; how did DSD accept the Berry CUP application on 10/31/16 if the basic zoning requirement was not being met?  Could it be because as Tirandazi had stated in our conversations that the rezoning to make CO-2-1 was made eligible on April 2016?  Something was not making sense here.  My plan was to start with getting a better sense of what the applicant had to do before the CUP could be accepted.  Initially I was looking for any language that would state that DSD would not accept any MMCC CUP application unless the property was located in one of the zones listed in the IB-170 form.  The next things I wanted to understand what the CUP processing timelines are.  For that I went to IB-170 Section IV.    

Section IV describes all of the minimum Submittal Requirements that the applicant must have completed prior to DSD accepting an MMCC CUP application.  There is alot of work that had gone into meeting these minimum CUP Application requirements.  As can be seen by reading this section, once the CUP has been accepted, in this case on 10/31/16, it has met the;

STEP ONE: INITIAL SCREENING the project will be given a project number and entered into the DSD data base to be tracked.  Once completed it will move to

STEP TWO; SUBMITTED COMPLETENESS REVIEW which can take up to 30 days to review.  Once competed it will move to

STEP THREE: FULL SUBMITTAL whereby all of the submitted documents have been reviewed and deemed complete the project documents will be routed to the required reviewers and assigned a DSD Project Manager during this step.

With the previous section giving me a sense of what the DSD requirements were I then compiled the documents that were required for the 6176 Berry CUP Application and have grouped and listed those documents here as follows:

10.2.1) 6176-DS-3032 – General Application – 10-31-16  

10.2.2) 6176 DS-318-Ownership Disclosure Statement – 10-31-16  Geraci asked me to sign this Ownership Disclosure Statement so, as he put it, he would be assured that prior to the Final Contract being executed between us, he had something in writing, that with the zoning having been approved, he could take the MMCC CUP to DSD for submission of application.  With Geraci claiming he had spent around $300K to date on the process, that didn’t seem like an unreasonable request.  I signed it so he could be reassured I was genuinely trying to assist him in this process and the document I was signing certainly did not look to have the weight of a grant deed where title was being transferred.

10.2.3) 6176-DSD-Affadavit-DS-190-10-31-16

10.2.4) 6176-DS-3242- Financial-Responsible-Party-10-31-16

10.2.5) Berry-Payment-to-DSD-10-31-16

10.2.6) 6176 BERRY CUP Online Owner Information 5-31-18  

10.2.7) 6176 DSD Public Notice of Application 3-27-17  The date of this notice puts nearly 6 months into the process from the time of the 10/31/16 submittal to the time it had been issued as a Public Notice.  It also lists Ms. Tirandazi as the Project Manager and an ‘integral component’ contact Mr. Ken Malbrough who is Chairperson of the Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning Group (ENCPG) which is the community planning group designated by DSD for this project.

10.2.8) 6176 DSD-1st-Assessment-Letter-5-19-17  This letter from DSD shows Tirandazi was informed that the property had been sold and in order for DSD to continue processing the current MMCC CUP application they would need a new Grant Deed, updated Ownership Disclosure Statement and a change of Financial Responsible Party form.   This never was provided to DSD as I would have had to provided the new Grant Deed and after selling my property to Martin and finding myself in litigation with Geraci it wasn’t going to happen until I dispatched with the Geraci lawsuit and removed the cloud on title his Lis Pendens had created.  To that end I let my lawyers work to on getting the lawsuit dismissed based on Ex Parte motions that went in front of the judge to show 11-02-16 document was not a fully integrated document and therefor the lawsuit had no merit.  With that I would have provided DSD with a new Grant Deed and moved the CUP application along with Martin controlling the process not Geraci.  Sadly that has not been the case.  The judge has not ruled in my favor on any of the motions we’ve brought before him.  This has resulted in an enormous amount of time, money and work going towards trying to get what is a very simple rule of law, was the 11-02-16 document a fully integrated contract or was it a partially integrated contract whereby other factors would play an element in the development of a final, fully integrated contract?  There is overwhelming evidence to support that this document was not the complete and final contract.  If that is the case then the Geraci lawsuit is lost as there is a mountain of evidence that even he acknowledged in numerous text, email and conversations existed that after the signing of the 11/02/16 document he was working on a final contract with his attorney Austin.

After the Tirandazi letter of 5-19-17 I really didn’t expect DSD to continue to process the Berry application.  They made it pretty clear what they needed to continue to process the application and they were not going to get it from me.  I didn’t oppose Geraci working towards getting the CUP approved as I believed he believed he would  prevail on his Breach of Contract lawsuit against me.  But I also knew that if he believed he could not prevail on the Breach of Contract claim he was in a better position to minimize his financial losses by finding ways to sabotage the Berry CUP and reduce the price of my property because it could not pass the CUP application process with DSD.

With that being the case I knew that unless the court appointed a 3rd party supervisor over the CUP process that, as per the Geraci agreement would be paid for by him (of course this language isn’t in the 11-02-16 document either) that would maintain the status quo of the CUP process (as Geraci seemed to want to do anyway as the CUP process continued even after the 5-19-17 letter from Tirandazi said it wouldn’t) then what was to stop Geraci from sabotaging the CUP unless the court provided me that protection?  Nothing.  Of course here again is another area that Weinstein argued it was unnecessary and the Judge Wohlfiel  accepted that argument.  I was not granted any type of court oversight over the CUP process.  I’ll be getting into the specifics of the cases in later chapters but since this is directly related to the CUP, it’s processing under Geraci and how my interests were being protected or not as is the case, I brought it up here.  Of note; shortly after Tirandazi sent this letter she was replaced with Ms. Cherlyn Cac as the new Project Manager.

THE COMPETING CUP APPLICATION;  On 04-05-18 I received a Notice of Public Application that a competing MMCC CUP Application had been submitted at 6220 Federal Blvd.  6220-DSD-Notice-of-Application-4-05-18  As I now knew from the 6176 Berry MMCC CUP Application from the time of the DSD Step One processing of 10-31-16 to the Step Three processing of 03-21-17 this had been the time required to put into an MMCC CUP Application if the previous Steps One and Two had been completed by Professional Design Engineers and Architects who were already familiar with the DSD MMCC CUP processes.  In the case of the 6220 MMCC CUP Application that was impossible to tell.  As I will go into in greater detail as we compare the online DSD CUP Applications between 6176 and 6220 Federal Blvd the idea that there is something very unusual with the way these two applications are being processed.  It’s obvious to anyone reviewing just both of the project’s histories with information that was taken directly from the DSD website, while it was there.  This will be laid out in full detail with side by side comparison of the two competing CUP’s in Chapter 13


Geraci v Cotton Case Description: 

The primary case (there will be reference to other cases that have a tangential relationship with the primary case no: 37-2017-00010073-CU-BC-CTL)  being provided here was one generated by Larry Geraci who filed a sham lawsuit to try and steal my real property away from me.  Geraci and his attorneys conspired to steal my real property and rights to a licensed marijuana dispensary by using the legal system and the court in an underhanded method to maintain pressure on me to settle the case.  Their plan was to run me out of money by clouding the title to my real property by filing an illegal Lis Pendens which clouds title on the property so I could not use the equity in my property to pay for lawyers to defend my rights as the property owner in this case.

The predicate for the original complaint by Geraci was that a 3 sentence document I signed on 11/02/16 was a fully integrated contract one that would have contained all the terms and conditions we had agreed to when selling my property to Geraci.  What Geraci argued in court, yes this went to a jury trial whereby the jury was left to determine a matter of law which was the 11/02/16 document a fully integrated contract.  A contract  whereby there was nothing outside the 4 corners of that 11/02/16 document that were at issue.  The definition of what is and what is not, a fully integrated contract is well established law and should not, does not and can not rely on a jury to interpret that issue.  Determining if a contract is an enforceable document is the Judges responsibility and as you will see as you read through this case that this Judge over the course of numerous written motions and oral arguments refused to make that determination because to do so would have meant the Geraci lawsuit was a non-suit.  That is was a sham which is an issue he should have decided very early on in this case and not one that after 2.5 years should have been given to a jury to decide.       

Based on the jury verdict that jury ruled that I had breached what they determined to be a fully integrated contract in the 11-02-16 document (See Exhibit B) they had executed in Geraci’s office earlier that day.  Geraci’s lawyers managed to not only convince the jury that Geraci and I had entered into a fully integrated contract on 11/02/16 but that by my actions in requesting a 3rd party Court appointed Administrator Cotton had ‘delayed’ the processing of the 6176 CUP while the competing CUP at 6220 sailed to a successful finish in just 7 months from application to issuance.  You can read the full story of the competing CUP’s as both properties are detailed later in Chapter 13.  This is absurd!  Geraci had full control over the CUP process with the City of San Diego and Cotton had NO SAY in any aspect of that process.  It wasn’t until Geraci wanted to have his own Geotechnical Soils Company given unchecked access to Cotton’s property so they may conduct a soils test (boring), by a contractor that Geraci would hire and have complete control over, one in which that contractor and potentially the report they would generate, that Cotton had asked the Court to appoint a 3rd party Administrator for the CUP process who would monitor Geraci’s CUP processing so as to maintain Cotton’s rights as the property owner who would ultimately have an interest in the licensed marijuana dispensary should it eventually be awarded. As you will see here in these documents. all those requests, which would have protected Cotton and his interests were consistently denied by this Court.

This section will include the original complaint, cross complaints, and complaints against the City of San Diego regarding the processing of the CUP applications.  Since it is a complex case everything has been listed in chronological order.

Who is Canna-Greed?  A Flowchart Guide to the People and Their Roles – Updated 12/01/20

Section 11.0: This section will provide the entire Register of Actions (ROA) in the Geraci v Cotton matter, Superior Court Case No 37-2017-00010073-CU-BC-CTL.

Every case filed in the San Diego County Superior Court has its own ROA which is a history of every document filed with the Court from the beginning to the end of the case.  Whenever a party files a document in the case, the document is recorded on the ROA and assigned a number in sequential order based on the date it was filed – e.g., ROA 1-Complaint 01/01/00, ROA 2-Summons 01/02/00, ROA 3-Answer to Complaint 01/03/00, ROA 4-Motion 02/03/00 etc.

However, in the ROA for this case, you will notice a number of unusual and inexplicable inconsistencies between the dates upon which documents were filed and the ROA numbers that were assigned to the documents – e.g. the date upon which a document was filed and the ROA number assigned to that document are not sequential and are not in date order as is common practice in the court.

Due to the large number of legal documents that were filed in this case, we divided the ROA’s in groups of 100 to better facilitate your ease of access to them.

Notwithstanding, however, because because in this case a large number of documents were not filed in sequential date order or assigned sequential ROA numbers according to the dates the documents were filed, if you cannot locate a document in the 100 group of ROA’s where you would expect it to be, check an adjacent folder and you’ll find it.

Lastly this Court assigned the same ROA number to different documents filed on the same day.  See ROA numbers assigned on 07/26/12, 01/10/19 and 06/21/19 for examples of this.  This too was an unusual practice as it’s customary to have each document assigned a different ROA number so that the document has its own identity with the Court.  On several cases within section 11.1 you will see that we had to add a decimal number to the end of the Courts ROA number to help us identify the different documents that were being cited in this matter.  We should NOT HAVE HAD to do this!  The chaotic ROA system filing was, during trial, meant to be confusing and unorderly.  I believe, and the evidence will show, this was done in an effort to hide documents in plain sight and to be able to remove or add them later depending upon what record Wohlfeil wanted to leave in tact.

ROA NO’S: 1-654 from Superior Court Business Office Printout of 08/22/19 As I was requesting all the case document production from the Business Office I asked that they print me a list if the ROA’s they had on file at the time they gave me the documents.  I asked the business office clerk why the numbering order on the ROA’s was not always consistent, sequential or chronological?  She told me that different judges had different procedures and there was no set procedure as to how the ROA’s were numbered or uploaded to the courts website.  All she knew is this was the record she has as of 08/22/19.

What can be seen here is that sequential numbering of the ROA’s occurs without deviation until Page 20 where on 02/22/18 we see a break in ROA’s between 114 and 140 and the sequential numbering of the ROA’s is no longer consistent as had been earlier.

ROA NO’S: 1-727 Screenshots From 10/19/20 This ROA number images had to be taken from the courts website.  As can be seen here they are perfectly ordered in sequential and chronological order.  In addition to the unusual dual entry of the DQ related issues in ROA 715 and 717 ROA 724 enters the judgement as being $0.

ROA NOS: 715 & 717 Relative to DQ Discrepancy Comments from Screenshot of 01/29/20

ROA NO 297 Signed and Dated 09/17/18 by Judge Wohlfeil. This entry begs the question how did the DQ motion and decision go so sideways?  Clearly Judge Wohlfeil had the DQ and made his decision.  The 08/22/19 documents show the order but it’s way out of order.  Why did ROA 715 and 717 have to be created at all?  Cotton did nothing different during those 16 months it took to create these two new ROA’s.  Was it Judge Wohlfeil making an active decision to surreptitiously remove the DQ activities that were on the court docket around 09/17/18?  While we can’t say with 100% certainty that is the case what we can say with 100% certainty is that the ROA order between the 08/22/19 and the 10/19/20 ROA records has been vastly improved with the court going into much greater attention to detail in the descriptions of each ROA.  Somebody put some time, some real time into fixing the 10/19/20 ROA versions over the previous version.  Could it be that by Cotton putting these ROA issues on hiw website and naming Judge Wohlfeil in his federal complaint that it became more important that these issues needed to be explained away?

Section 11.1: This section will provide access to all the state court documents, which are of public record for this case in chronological order. Of note; in addition to non-sequential ROA order, you’ll on occasion see where the same ROA number is used for multiple document filings on the same day.  We addressed this by using the court issued ROA number but adding a decimal point behind the original ROA number.  Why this court does this is a mystery as to how their case file management system is supposed to work.  Also on occasion, italics have been used within each file  description as to my interpretation and the effect these filings and rulings had on me;

11.1) 03/21/17 ROA 1:  Larry Geraci v Darryl Cotton Complaint, Case No 37-2017-00010073-CU-BC-CTL (Referred to in Court Filings as Cotton I)

11.1) 03/22/17 ROA 9:  Geraci Files Notice of Lis Pendens Against Cotton’s Real Property.  This action prevents me from using any equity in my property to finance my legal fees. 

11.1) 05/08/17 ROA 17: Cotton’s Pro Per Answers to Geraci’s Complaint

11.1) 05/12/17 ROA 19: Cotton’s Pro Per Cross Complaint, Darryl Cotton v Larry Geraci and Rebecca Berry  

11.1) 06/09/17 ROA 23: Berry’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Cotton’s Cross Complaint

11.1) 06/09/17 ROA 24:  Berry’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer

11.1) 06/09/17 ROA 25: Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Berry’s Demurrer to Cotton’s Cross Complaint

11.1) 06/16/17 ROA 28: Geraci’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Cross Complaint

11.1) 06/16/17 ROA 29:  Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Geraci’s Demurrer to Cotton’s Cross Complaint

11.1) 06/16/17 ROA 30: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Geraci’s Demurrer to Cotton’s Cross Complaint

11.1) 06/16/17 ROA 31: Declaration of Attorney Weinstein in Support of Geraci’s Demurrer to Cotton’s Cross Complaint

11.1) 06/30/17 ROA 33:  Substitution of Attorney Cotton to David Demian of Finch Thorton and Baird

11.1) 06/30/17 ROA 34: Cotton’s First Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 08/25/17 ROA 46: Minute Order; Finalizing Civil Case Management

11.1) 08/25/17 ROA 47: Cotton’s Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 09/25/17 ROA 49: Berry’s Answer to Cotton’s Unverified Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 09/28/17 ROA 52: Geraci’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 09/28/17 ROA 53: MPA in Support of Geraci’s Demurrer to Cotton’s Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 09/28/17 ROA 54: Weinstein-Dec-in-Support-of-Demurrer-to-Cottons-2nd-Amended-X-Complaint

11.1) 10/23/17 ROA 56: Cotton’s Opposition to Geraci’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 10/24/17 ROA 60: Tentative Rulings: Demurrer / Motion to Strike

11.1) 10/27/17 ROA 58: Geraci’s Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Geraci’s Demurrer to Cotton’s Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 11/03/17 ROA 61: Minute Order: Demurrer / Motion to Strike, The Court Takes the Matter Under Submission

11.1)11/03/17 Transcript

11.1) 11/06/17 ROA 63: Minute Order; Overrules the General Demurrer in the Second Amended Cross Complaint -1st Cause of Action (COA): Whereby the Written Memorandum Contradicts the Oral Agreement Violates the Statute of Frauds and the 2nd – 4th COA’s the Court Rules On There Being ‘Intentional Misrepresentation and False Promise’ as These Arguments ‘Lack Merit and ‘It Is Not Clear if the Statute of Frauds Applies to a Real Estate Contract’

11.1) 11/09/17 ROA 65: Notice of Entry of Judgement re Geraci’s General Demurrer to Second Amended Cross Complaint is OVERRULED 

11.1) 11/20/17 ROA 66: Geraci’s Answer to Cotton’s Unverified Second Amended Cross Complaint

11.1) 12/06/17 ROA 69: Cotton’s EP App for TRO and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction w Supporting Docs

11.1) 12/07/17 ROA 72:  Minute Order; DENYING Cotton’s Request for a Temporary Restraining Order

11.1) 12/07/17 ROA 73: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction with Supporting Docs

11.1) 12/07/17 ROA 76:  Substitution of Attorney Demian to Cotton

11.1) 12/11/17 ROA 77:  Cotton’s Application for an Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 12/12/17 ROA 78: Minute Order: DENYING Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 12/18/17 ROA 83:  Notice of Filing Appeal for Ex Parte Hearing

11.1) 12/19/17 ROA 81: Order on Court Fee Waiver

11.1) 12/20/17 ROA 84: Amended Notice of Appeal re DENIAL of Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 01/08/18 Superior Court ROA 89:  Geraci’s Ex Parte Application to Compel the Deposition of Cotton and to Continue the Hearing Date for Cotton’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 01/08/18 Superior Court ROA 90: Geraci’s Notice of Lodgement in Support of Ex Parte Application to Compel the Deposition of Cotton and to Continue the Hearing Date for Cotton’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 01/09/18 Superior Court ROA 94: Minute Order: GRANTS Geraci the Court Ordered Deposition of Cotton and Continues the Hearing Date for the Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 01/09/18 Superior Court ROA 95: Geraci’s Notice of Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cotton and to Continue the Hearing Date for Cotton’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 01/17/18 Superior Court ROA 98:  Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for (1) Permission to File Memorandum Exceeding 15 Pages and (2) to Allow One Document to be Filed Under Seal and Ex Parte; Declaration of Darryl Cotton Points and Authorities

11.1) 01/17/18 Superior Court ROA 99: Cotton’s Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application for (1) Permission to File Memorandum Exceeding 15 Pages and (2) to Allow One Document to be Filed Under Seal and Ex Parte

11.1) 01/17/18 Superior Court ROA 100: Cotton’s Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application for Order to Allow a Record to be Filed Under Seal

11.1) 01/17/18 Superior Court ROA 101:  Cotton’s Pro Per Ex Parte Request for (1) an Order Granting Permission to File a Memorandum Exceeding 15 Pages and (2) Application for Filing of a Record Under Seal

11.1) 01/18/18 Superior Court ROA 102: Minute Order; Cotton’s Request to File a Document Under Seal is DENIED

11.1) 01/22/18 ROA 103: Cotton’s Pro Per Verified Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declarations in Support of Cotton’s Response to the Geraci/Berry Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cotton 

11.1) 01/22/18 ROA 104: Cotton’s Opposition to Noticed Motion and Supporting Declarations

11.1) 01/24/18 ROA 105 Cotton’s Notice of Errata

11.1) 01/25/18 ROA 106 Minute Order: Multiple Events

11.1) 01/25/18 ROA 107 Minute Order: Multiple Events

11.1) 01/26/18  ROA 108: Notice of Ruling After the Hearing re (1) Motion by Geraci and Berry to Compel Cotton’s Deposition and to Continue Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and (2) DENYING Cotton’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

11.1) 02/16/18 Appellate Court ROA 112: The Appeals are Dismissed

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 115: Geraci’s Notice of Motion and Geraci’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton’s Real Property for Soils Testing

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 116: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Geraci’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton’s Real Property for Soils Testing

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 117:  Declaration of Geraci in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton’s Real Property for Soils Testing

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 118:  Declaration of Weinstein in Support of Motion by Geraci for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton’s Real Property for Soils Testing

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 119: Declaration of Abhay Schweitzer in Support of Motion by Geraci for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton’s Real Property for Soils Testing

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 120: Notice of Lodgement in Support of Motion by Geraci for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton;s Real Property for Soils Testing

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 122: Notice of Motion and Motion by Geraci to Compel Cotton to (1) Appear and Testify at Deposition and (2) to Respond to Written Discovery Requests and for Sanctions

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 123:  Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion by Geraci to Compel Cotton to (1) Appear and Testify at Deposition and (2) to Respond to Written Discovery Requests and for Sanctions

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 125: Declaration of Attorney Toothacre in Support of Motion by Geraci to Compel Cotton to (1) Appear and Testify at Deposition and (2) to Respond to Written Discovery Requests and for Sanctions

11.1) 02/27/18 ROA 126:  Notice of Lodgement by Geraci to Compel Cotton to (1) Appear and Testify at Deposition and (2) to Respond to Written Discovery Requests and for Sanctions

11.1) 03/05/18 Superior Court ROA 128: Cotton’s Pro Per Ex Parte Application, Declaration and Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Stay or Alternatively, Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 03/06/18 Superior Court ROA 129: Minute Order: DENIES Cotton’s Application for a Stay or Alternatively, Judgement on the Pleading as No Good Cause Shown

11.1) 03/20/18 ROA 136: Tentative Rulings on Motion to Compel Discovery – Not Available to Download from Court Website

11.1) 03/22/18 ROA 139: Tentative Rulings:  Court Orders Cotton to Sign the Property Owner Consent Form for Geotechnical Soils Testing – Not Available to Download from Court Website

11.1) 03/22/18 ROA 144: Approved Order on Court Fee Waiver

11.1) 03/23/18 ROA 150: Minute Order:  Orders Cotton to Sign the Property Owner Consent Form to Allow Soils Testing to be Performed and GRANTED Geraci $1,125.00 in Sanctions for Not Having Previously Signed the Authorization Consent Form Which Would Allow Geraci to Have Soils Testing Work Performed on Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 03/26/18 ROA 149: Notice of Ruling After Hearing re Motion by Geraci to Compel Cotton to (1) Appear and Testify at Deposition and (2) to Respond to Written Discovery Requests and for Sanctions

11.1) 03/26/18 ROA 165: Notice of Ruling (NOL)After Hearing Regarding Motion by Geraci for a Preliminary Injunction or Other Order to Compel Access to Cotton’s Real Property for Soils Testing.  (NOTE the difference between this NOL and the one dated 01/25/18 by F&B.  The one date 01/25/18 does not have a Time/Date stamp and there is no ROA no. on the court website.)

11.1) 04/02/18 ROA 151: Geraci’s Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Court Clerk or Court Clerk’s Designee as Elisor

11.1) 04/02/18 ROA 152: Geraci’s Notice of Lodgement in Support of Geraci’s Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Court Clerk or Court Clerk’s Designee as Elisor

11.1) 04/02/18 ROA 153:  Proposed Order GRANTING Ex Parte Application by Geraci and Berry for Appointment of Court Clerk or Court Clerk’s Designee as Elisor

11.1) 04/03/18 ROA 157: Minute Order: DENYING Oral Request for a 3rd Party Court Appointed Receiver to Monitor the CUP Application on Behalf of Cotton

11.1) 04/03/18 Superior Court ROA 159:  Order GRANTING Ex Parte Application by Geraci and Berry for Appointment of Court Clerk or Clerk’s Designee as Elisor, on Behalf of Cotton, the Property Owner, for the Sole Purpose of Signing the Property Owner Consent Form Which, by Court Authorization, Allowed for a Soils Testing Process to be Performed on Behalf of the Geraci/Berry CUP Application Signed by Wohlfeil.

This Order effectively DENIED me, Cotton any oversight by the Geraci paid contractor who would perform this test and issue a Findings Report directly to Geraci.  If Geraci was inclined to walk away from the contract dispute he was having with me this would have been the time to do it.  Geraci would have simply asked the Soils Testing Company to recommend the project site be deemed not compatible for the proposed development and the case would have been over.  Had the Court agreed to a 3rd party Court appointed administrator to oversee this work Cotton would not have paid much attention to the contractors work.  It was ONLY because the Court DENIED the 3rd party court appointed administrator that I paid extra special attention to the boring work being done that day and had several conversations with the onsite Geologist who made real time comments that the test boring was being done without issue and the project would be deemed acceptable for the proposed development.      

11.1) 04/04/18 Superior Court ROA 160: Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for Orders for (1) Shortening Time for Hearing on Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendency  and (2) Compelling the Attendance and Testimony of Geraci

11.1) 04/04/18 ROA 161: Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

11.1) 04/04/18 Superior Court ROA 161: Cotton’s Declaration in Support of Expungement of Lis Pendens

11.1) 04/05/18 Superior Court ROA 162: Minute Order: DENIES Cotton’s Motion to Stay Case While on Appeal

11.1) 04/05/18 Superior Court ROA 163: Geraci’s Opposition to Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for Orders Shortening Time for Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Compelling the Attendance and Testimony of Geraci

11.1) 04/09/18 Superior Court ROA 166:  Cotton’s Pro Per Opposition to Geraci’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion for Monetary and Escalating Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 04/09/18 Superior Court ROA 180: Declaration by Geraci in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Proerty

11.1) 04/09/18 Superior Court ROA 181: Declaration by Abhay Schweitzer in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 04/10/18 Superior Court ROA 177: Minute Order: GRANTS Geraci Order for Motion Shortening Time on Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 04/10/18 Superior Court ROA’s 179 – 186: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

11.1) 04/10/18 Superior Court ROA 182: Geraci’s Objections to Evidence Lodged by Cotton in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 04/10/18 Superior Court ROA 183: Geraci’s Notice of Lodgement in Support of His Opposition to Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 04/10/18 Superior Court ROA 185: Geraci’s Objections to Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 04/10/18 Superior Court ROA 186: Geraci’s Objections to Cotton’s Notice of Lodgement in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 04/11/18 Superior Court ROA 191: Tentative Ruling: DENIES Cotton’s Petition for Removing Geraci’s Lis Pendens Filed Against Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 04/11/18 Superior Court ROA 193: Notice of Ruling After Hearing for Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion by Geraci for Monetary and Escalating Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 04/11/18 Superior Court ROA 194: Amended Notice on Motion by Geraci and Berry for Monetary and Escalating/Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1B) 04/20/18 Superior Court: Cotton v City of San Diego Case No 37675 Fee Waiver

11.1) 04/20/18 Superior Court ROA 206: Minute Order: The Court Received and Reviewed the Remittitur and Takes No Further Action

11.1) 04/20/18 Superior Court ROA 207: Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declarations by Cotton and Attorney Jacob Austin in Opposition to Geraci and Berry’s Motions for Monetary and Escalating/Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 04/25/18 Superior Court ROA 212: Cotton’s Pro Per Ex Parte Application for an Order Extending the Time Within Which Cotton May File for a Writ of Mandate re The Courts April 13, 2018 DENIAL of his Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, Cotton’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Cotton in Support Thereof

11.1) 04/26/18 Superior Court ROA 213: Minute Order; Granting Cotton the Requested Extension of Time to File a Writ of Mandate

11.1) 04/27/18 Superior Court ROA 214: Notice of Ruling After Hearing re Motion by Geraci and Berry for Monetary and Escalating Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 04/27/18 Superior Court ROA 221: Tentative Ruling: GRANTS Geraci’s Motion for Monetary and Escalating Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 04/27/18 Superior Court ROA 222: Minute Order: GRANTS Geraci’s Motion for Monetary and Escalating Terminating Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 05/01/18 ROA 224 Cotton to Austin Substitution of Attorney Form

11.1) 05/14/18 Appellate Court: Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

11.1) 05/14/18 Appellate Court: Application for Fee Waiver

11.1) 05/14/18 Appellate Court: Receipt for Fee Waiver

11.1) 05/21/18 Appellate Court:  Cotton’s Pro Per Petition for Writ of Mandate regarding Lis Pendens Motion

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Volume 1, Exhibits 1-7, in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Volume 2, Exhibits 8-14, in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Volume 3, Exhibit 15, in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Volume 4, Exhibits 16-22, in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Volume 5, Exhibits 23-24, in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Proof of Service – Amended Exhibits Volume 4

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court:  Proof of Service – Amended Exhibits Volume 5

11.1) 05/22/18 Appellate Court: Proof of Service – Amended Complaint Exhibits 1-5

11.1) 05/24/18 Appellate Court: Volume 4, 2nd Amended Complaint In Search of Writ of Mandate, Exhibits 16-18

11.1) 05/24/18 Appellate Court: Volume 5, 2nd Amended Complaint In Search of Writ of Mandate, Exhibits 19-24

11.1) 06/13/18 Superior Court ROA 237: Cotton’s Motion for a 3rd Party Court Appointed Receiver Including Declarations and Exhibits

11.1) 06/20/18 Superior Court ROA 243: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 06/20/18 Superior Court ROA 244: Declaration of Cotton in Support of Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 06/20/18 Superior Court ROA 245: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 06/20/18 Superior Court ROA 246: Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 06/13/18 Superior Court ROA 303: Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Other Relief

11.1) 06/13/18 Superior Court ROA 304: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Other Relief

11.1) 06/13/18 Superior Court ROA 306: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Ex Parte Application for Orders Appointing a Receiver to Manage the Conditional Use Permit for Cotton’s Real Property Including Exhibit 1; Emails Between Attorney Jacob Austin and Attorney Matt Shapiro

11.1) 06/13/18 Superior Court ROA 307: Declaration of anonymous in Support of Ex Parte Application for Orders Appointing a Receiver to Manage the  the Conditional Use Permit for Cotton’s Real Property Including Exhibit A; Texts Between anonymous and Corina Young

11.1) 06/14/18 Superior Court ROA 240: Minute Order; DENIES Cotton’s Request for a 3rd Party Court Appointed Receiver to Monitor the CUP Process at Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 06-18-18 Appellate Court: Notice of Appeal Cotton’s Denial of Receiver

11.1) 06/20-18 Superior Court ROA 246:  Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 06/20/18 Superior Court ROA’s 247 – 250: Notice of Motion and Motion by Cotton on the Pleadings (1-2), Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Motion for the Judgement on the Pleadings (3-21), Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (22-38), Declaration of Cotton in Support of Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (39-41), Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (42-54)

11.1) 06/21/18 Appellate Court ROA 302: Appeals of April 04 and April 16, 2018 are Dismissed

11.1) 06/29/18 Superior Court ROA 250: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 07/05/18 Superior Court ROA 252: Cotton’s Reply to Geraci’s Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 07/13/18 Superior Court: Judge Wohlfeil’s ‘Essentially and Many Times Before’ Transcript

11.1) 07/13/18 Superior Court ROA 253: Tentative Rulings: DENIES Cotton’s Motion for Entry of a Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 07/13/18 Superior Court ROA 254: Notice of Ruling After Hearing DENIES Cotton’s Request for Judgement of the Pleadings

11.1) 07/13/18 Superior Court ROA 256:  Minute Order: DENIES Cotton’s Judgement on the Pleadings

11.1) 07/18/18 Supreme Court: Petition: Cotton v City of San Diego Case No S250895

11.1) 07/24/18 Appellate Court: Appellants Notice Designating Record on Appeal

11.1) 07/26/18 Superior Court ROA 261:  Notice of Ruling Minute Order DENIES Cotton’s Ex Parte Request for a 3rd Party Court Appointed Administrator for the CUP Processing

11.1) 07/26/18 Superior Court ROA 281:  Notice of Amended Appeal-Minute Order DENIES Cotton’s Ex Parte Request for a 3rd Party Court Appointed Administrator for the CUP Processing

11.1) 08/01/18 Superior Court ROA 264: Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for a Stay of This Proceeding and an Order Continuing Trial Scheduled for August 17, 2018

11.1) 08/01/18 Superior Court ROA 265: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for a Stay and an Order Continuing Trial Scheduled for August 17, 2018

11.1 08/01/18 Superior Court ROA 266: Zoe Gayle Villaroman’s Declaration Notice of Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for a Stay and Order Continuing Trial Scheduled for August 17, 2018

11.1) 08/02/18 Superior Court ROA 274: Minute Order; DENIES Cotton’s Ex Parte Application to Stay the Trial 

11.1) 08/03/18 Appellate Court ROA 275: Remittitur Doc

11.1) 08/03/18 Superior Court ROA 280: Minute Order; The Court Received the Remittitur Doc and Takes No further Action

11.1) 08/03/18 Superior Court ROA 282: Notice of Ruling After the Hearing on Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for a Trial Date Continuance

11.1) 08/15/18 Appellate Court:  Certificate of Interested Parties

11.1) 08/15/18 Appellate Court: Cover Page Petition for Writ of Mandate, Writ of Supersedeas re Receiver Judgement on the Proceedings

11.1) 08/17/18 Appellate Court: Amended Designation Response to No. 7

11.1) 08/17/18 Appellate Court: Petition FINAL

11.1) 08/17/18 Appellate Court: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin re the Lower Court Denial of the Removal of the Geraci Filed Lis Pendens on Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 08/22/18 Superior Court ROA 294: Geraci’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Advancing the Trial Date

11.1) 08/22/18 Superior Court ROA 285: Order (Proposed) Advancing the Trial Date and Related Dates by Several Weeks

11.1) 08/23/18 Superior Court ROA 287: Minute Order; DENIES Geraci’s Request to Advance the Trial Date and Perceived Threats Made by Cotton

11.1) 08/27/18 Proof of Service with Declaration to Atty Gina Austin

11.1) 08/28/18 Superior Court ROA 289: Notice of Default

11.1) 08/30/18 APPELLATE COURT: Case No DO74587 Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.1) 08/30/18 APPELLATE COURT: Case No DO74587 Proof of Service

11.1) 08/28/18 Appellate Court: Cotton’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, Writ of Supersedeas and/or other Appropriate Relief

11.1) 08/30/18 Appellate Court:  Case No 74587 Volume 1 In Search of Writ of Mandate, Writ of Supersedeas and/or other Appropriate Relief

11.1) 08/30/18 Appellate Court: Case No 74587 Volume 2 In Search of Writ of Mandate, Writ of Supersedeas and/or other Appropriate Relief

11.1) 08/30/18 Appellate Court: Case No 74587 Volume 3 In Search of Writ of Mandate, Writ of Supersedeas and/or other Appropriate Relief

11.1) 09/04/18 Superior Court ROA 290: Notice of Failure to Clear Default

 09-05-18:  I believe that these 5 TRO’s were filed against me to prevent me from appearing at the public hearings for a competing CUP at 6220 Federal Blvd., which if approved would have meant the denial of the CUP at my 6176 property.  I would have attended and objected to the City of San Diego’s processing of the 6220 CUP but if I did, I would have likely been arrested for violating the TRO’s if any of these people were in attendance.  When considering that the approval of the 6220 CUP meant all of the Team Geraci work on the 6176 CUP would be for naught it was highly probable that one or more of those being protected under the TRO’s would have been in attendance considering their stake in the process.  I never threatened any of these people.  These TRO’s are just another example of how Weinstein et al, had, at critical points in both the Geraci v Cotton case and during the competing CUP process, used the legal system and Judge Wohlfeil, as a tool to advance their illegal goals in an effort to deprive me of my property and the benefits of a CUP.     

Larry Geraci TRO

Rebecca Berry TRO

Attorney Michael Weinstein TRO

Attorney Scott Toothacre TRO

The Ferris Britton Law Offices TRO

11.1) 09/06/18 Superior Court ROA 298: Appellant’s Notice Designating Designating Record on Appeal

11.1) 09/10/18 Appellate Court ROA 291: The Request for Judicial Notice is Granted.  The Petition is DENIED.

11.1) 09/12/18 Superior Court ROA 292: Motion by Cotton to Disqualify Judge Wohlfeil

11.1) ROA 292 Exhibits 1-21

11.1) 09/13/18 Superior Court ROA 715 and 717: Verified Statement of Disqualification.  No you’re not seeing things.  The ROA numbers were uploaded to the Superior Court Website 16 months late on 01/16/2020.   To learn more about these court ROA irregularities go to:  Explain This?  Superior Court Screenshot of 01/29/20

11.1) 09/13/18 Superior Court ROA 716 and 717: Proof of Personal Service.   Uploaded on 01/16/20 which is 16 months after it was filed.

11.1) 09/13/18 Superior Court ROA 717: Notice of Confirmation of Electronic Filing.  Uploaded on 01/16/20 which is 16 months after it was filed.


11.1A) 09/13/18 One Legal: DQ Partial Rejection – Exhibits_ Notice of Filing- Court Transaction No 2530829 (Ex 1)

11.1A) 09/14/18 One Legal: DQ Notice of Confirmation of Filing – Court Transaction No 2531001 (Exhibit 2)

11.1A) 01/16/20 One-Legal-Gmail-From Zoe to Jake and Darryl re eFiling-partially-rejected-DQ (Exhibit 3)

11.1A) 01/16/20 One Legal CC Charge_Showing Court Transaction No 2530829 Inv No 02442356 (Exhibit 4)


11.1) 09/17/18 Superior Court ROA 297:  Order STRIKING Cotton’s Statement of Disqualification

11.1) 09/25/18 Superior Court ROA 300: Notice of Default

11.1) 09/25/18 Superior Court ROA 301: Notice of Clearing Default

11.1) 10/11/18 Supreme Court: Cotton v City of San Diego/Geraci Case No S250895 – Orders Informal Responses

11.1B) 10/18/18 Supreme Court: City of San Diego/Attorney Phelps Reply

11.1) 10/22/18 Supreme Court: Cotton/Attorney Jacob Austin Reply

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 359: Notice of Motion by Cotton to Compel Further Responses of Geraci for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 360:  Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Geraci’s Further Responses to Cotton’s Request for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 361: Separate Statement in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Geraci to Requests for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 362: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Geraci to Requests for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 364: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Response of Rebecca Berry to Request for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 369: Notice of Motion by Cotton to Compel Further Responses of Geraci to Request for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 370: Notice of Motion by Cotton to Compel Further Response of Berry to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 371: Notice of Motion by Cotton for Order that Initial Answers to Interrogatories be Deemed Binding and for Sanctions

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 372: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Rebecca Berry to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)

11.1) 01/09/19 Superior Court ROA 377: Ferris & Britton to Attorney Jacob Austin re Meet and Confer Letter for Berry’s Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 385.1: Notice of Order that Initial Answers to Interrogatories be Deemed Binding and for Sanctions

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 385.2: Notice of Motion by Cotton to Compel Further Response of Geraci to Request for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 388.1:  Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Geraci to special Interrogatories (Set Two)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 389.0: Exhibit-Signed MOU between Martin and anonymous.

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 390.3:  Separate Statement in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Geraci to special Interrogatories (Set Two)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 391.0: Notice of Motion by Cotton to Compel Further Responses by Geraci to special Interrogatories (Set Two)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 391.1; Separate Statement in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Geraci to special Interrogatories (Set Two)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 391.2: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Geraci to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 399.2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Geraci’s Further Responses to Cotton’s Request for Admissions (Set One)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 391.3: Memorandum in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Geraci’s Further Responses to Cotton’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

11.1) 01/10/19 Superior Court ROA 391.4: Separate Statement in Support of Cotton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Geraci to Requests for Admission (Set One)

1.1) 02/08/19 Superior Court: Motion to Compel Hearing Transcript;  Cotton’s Attorneys Jacob Austin and Andrew Flores v Geraci’s Attorney Weinstein

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.1: Notice of Motion in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.2: Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.3: Proof of Service

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.4:  Notice of Lodgement Support of Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.5: Declaration by Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.6: Notice of Confirmation of Electronic Filing

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.7:  Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 03/08/19 Superior Court ROA 480.8: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 04/04/19 Superior Court ROA 491: Cotton’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Geraci’s Initial Interrogatory Answers be Deemed Binding

11.1) 04/04/19 Superior Court ROA 492: Exhibits

11.1) 04/04/19 Superior Court ROA 493: Declaration of Attorney Jacob Austin in Support of Motion by Cotton or Order that Geraci’s Initial Answers to Interrogatories be Deemed Binding

11.1) 04/04/19 Superior Court ROA 496: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cotton’s Motion that Geraci’s Initial Answers to Interrogatories by Deemed Binding

11.1) 04/15/19 Superior Court ROA 485: Geraci’s Opposition to Binding Initial Interrogatory Answers and Sanctions

11.1) 04/15/19 Superior Court ROA 486:  Attorney Toothacre’s Declaration in Support of Geraci’s Opposition to Bind Initial Interrogatory Answers and Sanctions

11.1) 04/15/19 Superior Court ROA 487: Geraci’s Evidentiary Objections that Initial Answers to Interrogatories be Deemed Binding and Sanctions

11.1) 04/15/19 Superior Court ROA 488: Geraci’s Objections that Initial Answers to Interrogatories be Deemed Binding

11.1) 04/18/19 Cotton’s MPA in Support of Cottons Motion for Partial Adjudication

11.1) 04/19/19 Superior Court ROA 498: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Reply to Motion by Cotton That Geraci’s Initial Answers to Interrogatories by Deemed Binding

11.1)  04/04/19 ROA-503_Flores-Declaration ROA 503

11.1) 04/18/19 Superior Court ROA 505: Order (Proposed) Re Cotton’s Motion in Limine No 6 of 15 to Exclude Testimony that Geraci was Involved in an Armed Robbery at Cotton’s Property

11.1) 04/18/19 Austin’s Declaration in Support of Cottons Motion for Partial Adjudication

11.1) 04-26-19 ROA-507 Minute-Order

11.1) 04/29/19 Superior Court ROA 508: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Partial Adjudication

11.1) 04/29/19 Superior Court ROA 509: Geraci’s Evidentiary Objections in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Partial Adjudication

11.1) 04/29/19 Superior Court ROA 511:  Minute Order: DENIES Cotton’s Motion that Geraci’s Interrogatories be binding and GRANTS Sanctions Against Cotton

11.1) 05/02/19 Superior Court ROA 514: Cotton’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Reply to Cotton’s Motion for Partial Adjudication

11.1) 05/09/19 Superior Court ROA 517: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement

11.1) 05/09/19 Superior Court ROA 518:  Declaration of Geraci in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 05/09/19 Superior Court ROA 519: Geraci’s Opposition to Cotton’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgement

11.1) 05/09/19 Superior Court ROA 520: Geraci’s Evidentiary Objections in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement

11.1) 05/09/19 Superior Court ROA 521: Geraci’s Notice of Lodgement of Evidence in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement

11.1) 05/09/19 Superior Court ROA 522: Geraci’s Statement in Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 05/10/19 Superior Court ROA 525: Minute Order: DENIES Cotton’s Motion for Partial Adjudication

11.1) 05/17/19 Superior Court ROA 527: Cotton’s Reply to Geraci’s Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement and/or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

11.1) 05/17/19 Superior Court ROA 528: Cotton’s Declaration in Support of Reply to Geraci’s Opposition to Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement

11.1) 05/17/19 Superior Court ROA 529: Cotton’s Reply to Geraci’s Additional Material Facts and Supporting Evidence

11.1) 05/21/19 Superior Court ROA 533: Geraci’s Objection to Cotton’s Declaration and Reply to Opposition to Summary Judgement and Toothacre Declaration

11.1) 05/21/19 Superior Court ROA 534: Proof of Service

11.1) 05/23/19 Superior Court ROA 536: Minute Order; DENIES Cotton’s Motion for Summary Judgement

11.1) 05/24/19 Superior Court ROA 538: Notice of Filing

11.1) 05/24/19 Superior Court ROA 538: Notice of Appeal Additional Document

11.1) 06/06/19 ROA 542: Geraci’s Notice of Withdrawal of Lis Pendens on Cotton’s Real Property

11.1) 06/06/19 ROA 549: Geraci’s Request for Dismissal 3rd and 4th COA Only

11.1) 06/11/19 ROA 543: Notice of Default – Failure to Designate the Record on Appeal

11.1) 06/14/18 ROA 546: Joint Trial Readiness Conference Report

11.1) 06/14/19 Superior Court ROA 547: Advance Trial Review Order by The Honorable Joel R. Wohlfeil

11.1) 06/14/19 ROA 552: Geraci’s Request for Dismissal 3rd and 4th COA Only

11.1) 06/21/19 ROA 551: Cotton’s Motion in Limine No 1 of 1 to Exclude Geraci’s November 3rd Factual Allegations

11.1) 06/21/19 ROA 555: Geraci Motion in Limine to Prevent Cotton from Referring to the Federal Complaint (1 of 15)

11.1) 06-21-19-ROA-556-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-Exclude-Personal-Attacks-on-Geraci-and-Berry (2-0f-15)

11.1) 06-21-19-ROA-557Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-the-Court-is-Biased (3-of-15)

11.1) 06-21-19-ROA-558-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-the-Case-is-Frivilous-or-Malicious (4-of-15)

11.1) 06/21/19 ROA-559 Geraci’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Alleged Statements by Young, Shapiro and Bartell (5 of 15) 

11.1) 06-21-19 ROA-560-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Robbery-(6-of-15)

11.1) 06-21-19-ROA-561-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Threats-by-Duane-Logan-and-Sean (7-of-15)

11.1) 06/21/19 ROA 562: Geraci;s Notice of Motion and Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to anonymous Allegations that Geraci ” Screwed Some Other Guy and That Guy Committed Suicide” (8 of 15)

11.1) 06/21/19 ROA 563: Geraci’s Motion in Limine to Exclude  Testimony that Geraci’s Prior Settlement Agreements Bar Him from Obtaining a CUP or Owning a Business Operating a CUP. (9 of 16)

11.1) 06/21/19 ROA 564:  Geraci’s Notice of Motion and Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Anonymous Allegations that Bartell Sexually Harassed Bianca Martinez (10 of 15)

11.1) 06-21-19 ROA-565-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Cotton-and-Anonymous’s-Financial-Condition (11-of-15)

11.1) 06-21-19 ROA-566-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Reference-to-the-JVA (12-of-15)

11.1) 06-21-19-ROA-567-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Cottons-Health-Damage (13-of-15)

11.1) 06-21-19 ROA-568-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Lay-Opinion-Testimony-by-Cotton-or-Anonymous-re-the-CUP-Process (14-of-15)

11.1) 06-21-19-ROA-569-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Evidence-the-Magagna-Threatened-a-Witness-on-Behalf-of-Geraci (15-of-15)

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-572-Flores-EP-App-for-Motion-to-Intervene-with-Supporting-Documents

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA 573: Geraci’s-Opposition-to-Cottons-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-Geracis-Nov-3rd-Factual-Allegations

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA 575 : Cotton’s Opposition to Geraci’s Motion in Limine No 1 to Exclude any Evidence of the Cotton and Anonymous Federal Lawsuits

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA 576: Cotton’s Opposition to Geraci’s Motion in Limine No 2 to Exclude Personal  Attacks on Counsel for Geraci and Berry

11.1) 06-26-19-ROA-577 Cotton’s_Opposition_to_Motion_in_Limine-No-4-Frivilous-and-a-Scheme-to-Acquire-an-MMCC-CUP

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-578 Cottons-Opp-to-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-No-5-to-Exclude-Testimony-re-Young-Shapiro-Bartell-or-a-Conspiracy

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-579-Cottons-Opp-to-Geracis-Motion_in_Limine_6-re-Armed-Robbery

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-580-Plaintiff_Cross_Defendants_Trial_Brief

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-581_Cottons-Opp-to-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-No-9-That-Geracis-Prior-Settlement-Agreements-Bar-Him-From-Owning-a-CUP

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-582-Cottons-Opp_to-Geracis-Motion_in_Limine-No-12-To-Exclude-JVA-Evidence-or-Testimony

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-583-Cottons-Opp-to-Geracis-Motion_in_Limine-No-14-re-Cotton-or-Anonymous-Testimony-re-the-CUP-Process

11.1) 06/26/19 ROA-584 Cottons-Opp-to-Geracis-Motion-in-Limine-No-15-to-Exclude-Competing-CUP-or-Magagna-Threats

11.1) 06/27/19 ROA 590: Minute Order; DENIES Ex Parte Motion to Intervene on Behalf of Attorney Andrew Flores  

11.1) 07/01/19 Superior Court ROA 596: Minute Order; Motions in Limine – DENIES Cotton’s Motions to Include Fraud and Conspiracy Charges

11.1) 07/02/19 ROA 601: Minute Order; Voire Dire

11.1) 07/03/19 ROA 597: Motion in Limine – Berry’s Motion for Non-Suit

11.1) 07/03/19 ROA 605: Minute Order; DENIES Cotton’s Motion for Non-Suit as Premature

11.1) 07/08/19 ROA 609: Minute Order; Draft MOU dated 09/24/16 is Received into Evidence

11.1) 07/09/19 Superior Court ROA 613: Minute Order; Added Exhibits

11.1) 07/10/19 Superior Court ROA 614: Geraci’s Motion for Directed Verdict

11.1) 07/10/19 ROA 620: Minute Order Denies Geraci’s Motion for Directed Verdict

11.1) 07/11/19 ROA 615: Cotton’s MPA in Support of Cotton’s Motion for a Directed Verdict

11.1) 07/11/19 Superior Court ROA 616: Geraci’s Proposed Jury Instructions

11.1) 07/11/19 ROA 624: Minute Order Denies Cotton’s Motion for Directed Verdict 

11.1) 07/12/19 Superior Court ROA 625: Cotton’s Proposed Jury Instructions

11.1) 07/16/19 ROA 626: Notice of Failure to Clear Default

11.1) 07/15/19 ROA 630: Minute Order;

11.1) 07/15/19 ROA 632: Trial Exhibit List

11.1) 07/15/19 ROA 633 Joint Witness List

11.1) 07/16/19 Superior Court ROA 634: Jury Instructions Given

11.1) 07/16/19 Superior Court ROA 635: Jury Verdict No 1

11.1) 07/16/19 Superior Court ROA 636: Jury Verdict No 2

11.1) 07/15/19 Superior Court ROA 637/639: Jury Notes and Responses

11.1) 07/16/19 ROA-640_07-16-19_Minutes_with_verdict_forms_attached

11.1) 08/01/19 ROA-641_Clerks_Certificate_of_Service_By_Mail_SD

11.1) 08/06/19 ROA-642_08-06-19_Order_for_Dismissal_of_Appeal

11.1) 08/12/19 ROA-643_08-12-19_Objections_by_Plaintiff_Cross_Defendants_Geraci


11.1) 08/19/19 ROA-647_Reply_to_Opposition_Other

11.1) 08/09/19 ROA-648_Judgment_by_Court_After_Trial

11.1) 08/19/19 ROA-649_Cotton’s Reply_to_Geraci’s Opposition_to Judgement on the Jury Verdict Must Read!

11.1) 08/19/19 ROA-650_08-19-19_Judgment_on_Jury_Verdict_Proposed_by_Plaintiff_and Cross Defendants See page 5 of 25  Signature & Initials

11.1) 08/20/19 ROA-652_Notice_of_Entry_of_Judgment

11.1) 08/21/19 ROA-654_Memorandum_of_Costs_Summary_and_Worksheet

11.1) 09/03/19_ROA-656_Notice_of_Intent_to_Move_for_New_Trial

11.1) 09/05/19_ROA-657 Cotton’s Notice_of_Errata Notice of Errata on Cotton’s Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial

11.1) 09/05/19 ROA-658_Cotton’s Amended Notice_of_Errata Amended Notice of Errata on Cotton’s Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial

11.1) 09/09/19 ROA-660_Cottons EP Hearing on the Verified Application_Other_and_Supporting_Documents

11.1) 09/09/19 ROA-661_Villaroman Dec_re_Notice_of_EP Hearing Verified Application_and OST for Pro Hac Vice Admission

11.1) 09/09/29 ROA-662_Proposed_Order

11.1) 09/10/19 ROA-663_Minute_Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Admission and OST

11.1) 09/09/19 ROA-664_Geraci’s_Opposition_to_Cotton_s_EP Motion for OST


11.1)2017/10/37-2017-00010073-CU-BC-CTL_ROA-666_09-09-19_Notice_Other_1609635696327.pdf Tiffany and Bosco Limited Representation


11.1) 09/16/19 ROA-668_T&B Notice_of_Errata

11.1) 09/16/19 ROA-669_T&B Notice_of_Errata_with Supporting Documents



11.1) 09/13/19 ROA-672_T&B Notice_of_Motion_for_New_Trial

11.1) 09/13/19 ROA-673_T&B MPA


11.1) 09/16/19 ROA-675_Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Admission

11.1) 09/23/19 ROA-676_Geraci’s MPA in Opposition to Motion for New Trial

11.1) 09/23/19 ROA-677_Toothacre_Dec in_Support_of_Opposition to Motion for New Trial

11.1) 09/23/19 ROA-678_Notice_of_Lodgment_in_Support_of_Opposition_to_Motion for New Trial

11.1) 09/23/19 ROA-679_Evidentiary_Objections_in_Opposition_to_Motion_for_New Trial


11.1) 09/30/19 ROA-681_T&B Reply_in_Support_of_Motion_for_New_Trial


11.1) 10/04/19 ROA-683_10-04-19_Abstract_of_Judgment_



11.1) 10/25/19 ROA-697_Minute Order Denying the Motion for New Trial

11.1)2017/10/37-2017-00010073-CU-BC-CTL_ROA-698_10-25-19_Notice_of_Ruling_on_Cotton s_Motion_for_New_Trial_1609635697999.pdf


11.1) 10/25/19: Motion for New Trial Transcript




11.1) 11/22/19 ROA-704_Order_on_Appellate Court_Fee_Waiver








11.1) 01-02-20 ROA-714_01-02-20_Proof_of_Service_re_Respondent_s_Notice_Designatin_1609634481309.pdf

11.1)09/13/18 ROA-715_Verified_Statement_of_Disqualification

11.1)09/13/18 ROA-716_POS on_The_Hon_Joel_R_Wohlfeil

11.1) 01/16/20ROA-717_Notice_of_Confirmation_of_Filing

11.1) 01-16-20 ROA-717_Proof_of_Personal_Service_on_The_Hon_Joel_R_Wohlfeil





11.1) 05/14/20 ROA-724-Judgement-Showing-Zero-Values




11.1.1 COTTON v CITY OF SAN DIEGO 37-2017-00037675-CU-WM-CTL


11.1.1) 10/06/17 ROA-1_Cotton’s Petition_for_Writ_of_Mandate

11.1.1) 10/30/17 ROA-9_ Cotton’s EP _App_for_Alternative_Writ_of_Mandate

11.1.1) 10/30/17 ROA-10_Cotton’s Memorandum in Support of EP Application

11.1.1) 10/30/17 ROA-11 Cotton’s Dec in Support of EP Application

11.1.1) 10/30/17_ROA-12_Declaration_of_David_Demian

11.1.1) 10/30/17 ROA-13 Notice of Lodgment without Exhibit

11.1.1) 10/31/17 ROA-17 RPI Geraci and Berry Opposition

11.1.1) 12/06/17 ROA-38_Cotton’s EP App and Supporting Documents

11.1.1) 12/07/17 ROA-42 Minute_Order

11.1.1) 12/07/17 ROA-43 RPI Geraci and Berry Opposition MPA

11.1.1) 12/07/17 ROA-44 RPI Geraci and Berry Notice of Lodgment

11.1.1) 12/08/17 ROA-45 Substitution of Attorney Demian to Cotton

11.1.1) 11/30/17 ROA-46 RPI Geraci Verified Answer

11.1.1) 11/30/17 ROA-48 RPI Berry Verified Answer

11.1.1) 12/28/17 ROA-54 City of San Diego Answer

11.1.1) 01/08/18 ROA-55 RPI Geraci and Berry’s EP App to Compel Cotton’s Depostion

11.1.1) 01/09/18 ROA-60 Minute Order

11.1.1) 01/09/18 ROA-61 Notice_of_Hearing on_Motion_by_Real_Parties_in_Interest

11.1) 01/22/18 NO ROA in Cotton I or II (Not Shown on Court Docket) Cotton’s MPA in Response to Geraci Motion to Compel Cotton’s Deposition

11.1.1) 01/22/18 ROA-63 Tentative Ruling is Denied Not Available for Download from the Court Website

11.1.1) 01/25/18 ROA-64 Minute Order: Multiple Events – Cotton Deposition is Ordered

11.1.1) 01/12/18 ROA-65 City of San Diego Notice of Change in Handling Attorney

11.1.1) 01/26/18 ROA-66 Notice of Ruling After the Hearing (The Tentative Ruling in 63 is found at the back of this NOL)

11.1.1) 03/06/18 ROA-72 Minute Order Denies Cotton’s EP Motion

11.1.1) 02/26/18 ROA-73 Weinstein Dec in Support of Proposed Judgement

11.1.1) 03/07/18 ROA-74 Judgement

11.1.1) 03/04/18 ROA-76 Notice of Entry of Judgement

11.1.1) 03/20/18 ROA-77 Minute Order

11.1.1) 03/04/18 ROA-100 Memorandum of Costs Summary

11.1.1) 11/06/18 ROA-109 Minute Order

Section 11.2: Trial Transcripts  

11.2) 07/03/19 Full Daily Trial Transcript: Larry Geraci and Rebecca Berry

11.2) 07/08/19 Full Daily Transcript: Gina Austin, Darryl Cotton and Abhay Schweitzer

11.2) 07/09/19 Full Daily Trial Transcript: Ahbay Schweitzer, Firouzeh Tirandazi, and Anonymous

11.2) 07/10/19 Full Daily Trial Transcript: James Bartell, Darryl Cotton and Larry Geraci

11.2) 07/15/19 Full Daily Trial Transcript: Closing Statements

Section 11.3 Trial Exhibits – Plaintiff: Geraci

11.3) 001-10/29/15 The Bartell/Geraci Contract:  Jim Bartell is part of ‘Team Geraci’ (See Trial Transcript 11.2.1 Page 59 Line 20).  Bartell is a political lobbyist who Geraci had contracted with to see that the CUP would be issued at Cotton’s property.  When the Geraci v Cotton lawsuit was filed and it was clear to Team Geraci that the 3 sentence, 11/02/16 document which they claimed contained all the terms and conditions for the sale of the Property to Geraci were contained within that document, was not going stand a legal challenge as a fully integrated contract they had to change their strategy with Cotton.  They know that when the Judge made the decision, as by law he should have, that the 3 sentence document was not a fully integrated contract the Geraci lawsuit would be thrown out as a non-suit and Geraci would not gain ownership of Cotton’s property.   As such Bartell had to switch gears from trying to acquire a CUP for his client to seeing that the application was denied so not only would Cotton not realize the economic benefits that come from his property being awarded one of the very limited (4 per council district) cannabis dispensary licenses but it would limit the losses Geraci would have to Cotton if the CUP were not awarded at Cotton’s property.

11.3) 003– 11/02 thru 11/03 Partial Exhibit Phone Records Incoming and Outgoing Calls The first page is Ex 003-067 which shows Geraci’s phone records.  The next page is not part of the exhibit documents but instead shows Cotton’s phone records which show a discrepancy between the records.  Geraci’s records do not show the phone call Cotton made to him at 12:38 but only the outgoing 12:40 call he made.  In reality Geraci was responding to the missed call he had from Cotton in what proves to be a 3 minute phone call that Geraci made to Cotton.  It was during that call Geraci claims he told Cotton that he was not accepting any of the conditions he had agreed to orally on 11/02 and were to be reduced to writing by his attorney Austin and Cotton accepts that without a fight.

11.3) 005 Cotton – Geraci All Texts: What these texts will show is that over the course of many months there is ongoing and active dialogue going on between Geraci and Cotton as to future Joint Venture opportunities that would develop between them after Geraci acquired the CUP and Cotton’s Property.  For example Cotton asks Geraci on Page 10 of the Exhibit as to what entity Cotton should create a Consultation Contract for Geraci.  Geraci responds with GERL Investments.  On Page 12 of the Exhibit Geraci gives Cotton an address to a dispensary he owns at 1661 N 2nd Ave., El Cajon for Cotton to visit and see how his stores are run. On Page 18, a November 12th communication has Cotton telling Geraci that Lemon Grove voted down Measure V which would have authorized the licensing of cannabis dispensaries in that adjacent community.  Geraci responds to that news as ‘good for us’.  The point being made here is that these are not the reactions and responses of either party if the agreement Geraci and Cotton had did not include an understanding that a Joint Venture had been discussed and was awaiting Binding Final Contract form so that venture could be created and formalized.  Also of note, on Page 23 of this Exhibit on February 27, 2017 Geraci tells Cotton that he had emailed him a contract for the Purchase of the Property with the 2nd Relocation Contract t follow.  This is evidence that the 11/02/16 document was not a final contract for the purchase of Cotton’s property.  That document was a receipt for the $10K in earnest money which even the Judge called it a on page two of the  11/06/17 Minute Order (ROA 63) a receipt for the $10K earnest money,  In other statements the Judge said the 11/02/16 document was ‘ambiguous’.  A Binding, Fully Integrated Contract is by legal definition not considered ambiguous.

11.3) 009-09/26/16; Receipt showing Cotton created a shared folder with Geraci in which Geraci’s GERL entity was given access to two shared working draft documents that Cotton had created to memorialize there numerous conversations as to how the deal for the sale and future Joint Venture opportunities would be structured between them.  The two working documents can be seen in Exhibits 10 and 11.

11.3) 010-09/24/16 – Services Agreement: Cotton created two working draft documents, both dated 09/24/16 that would serve to help formalize Final Contracts for the Sale of Cotton’s property to Geraci, Establish the terms on acquiring the CUP and subsequent property development and to define the Joint Venture terms that had been being discussed between Geraci and Cotton up until that point.  The negotiations were split into two parts with a combined total of $800K for the sale of the property to Geraci once the CUP had been awarded.  This Services Agreement was one of those documents.

The other document is shown in Exhibit 11 as a Memorandum of Understanding.  Both documents were given to Geraci in a shared folder that he acknowledged receiving.  At trial Geraci stated that he was only given and was aware of the Services Agreement and that is all Cotton had ever sent him (See Trial Transcript 11.2.1 Page 165 Line 23).  This is a total lie that Geraci manufactured for the first time at trial.  The reason that Geraci didn’t want to reference the MOU was because it did contain all of the terms and conditions of the Joint Venture and who bore what responsibilities in the processing of the CUP and construction development of the new dispensary.  A straight purchase of the property would have not required any of these conditions being negotiated.

Of note, at trial Plaintiffs did not have Exhibit no 11 in their documents.  They too said they had never seen it.  Exhibit 11, the MOU was listed on their Table of Contents, it was just empty in the folder.  If that’s the case where you had never seen it then how in the hell did it make it to their Table of Contents?

Cotton agreed to present it Plaintiff and the Court the following day and it was introduced into the court record without objection but it just goes to show how well Geraci was managed by counsel and how Plaintiff’s side played fast and loose with evidence that could help  perpetuate their lie. See ROA 609 Page 2 whereby the Court takes Plaintiffs Exhibit 11 in as Court Record No 32)

11.3) 011-09-24-16 Memorandum of Understanding: This is the 2nd draft agreement that Cotton had created in which Geraci claimed at trial (See Trial Transcript 11.2.1 Page 165 Line 23).didn’t exist (The Service Agreement was the ‘one proposal;’ and/or ‘he never recalled seeing it’.  Geraci never redlined or edited either of these documents.  He led Cotton to believe, through his numerous phone conversations, texts and emails that everything they had been discussing was fine and would be reduced to written final contract form by his attorney, Gina Austin.  Geraci’s confirmation email to Cotton whereby he states there is ‘ no no problem at all’ to Cotton’s reminder that any final contract contain these terms was meant to mollify Cotton while Geraci proceeded to have the CUP approved in his proxies Rebecca Berry name without paying Cotton any agreed upon terms outside of those defined in the 11/02/16 document once that CUP was approved.

11.3) 012-10/04/16: Abhay Schweitzer of TECHNE and Geraci Design Services Contract for 6176 Federal Blvd.

11.3) 018-10/19/16: Team Geraci email re conflicted City of SD/DSD documents for approved zoning of Marijuana Dispensaries.

11.3) 024-10/26/16: TECHNE email to Rebecca Berry re DSD Form IB-170

11.3) 025-10/26/16: TECHNE email re project drawings

11.3) 026-10/26/16: Full Stamped Set Architectural Drawings

11.3) 027: DSD Form IB-170 Detailing City of San Diego Requirements for a Medical Marijuana Consumer Cooperative

11.3) 028:  City of San Diego, Development Services Department Land Development Manual

11.3) 029: Geotechnical Study Guidelines DSD Form IB-515

11.3) 030-10/31/16: Berry signature on Ownership Disclosure Statement DSD form DS-318

11.3) 031-10/31/16:  Berry signs on the CUP submitted DSD form 3242 Financially Responsible Party

11.3) 034-10/31/16: Berry signs 4 DSD required CUP documents including the DS-190 form.

11.3) 035-10/31/16: Team Geraci emails from Schweitzer to Berry instructing her to sign the DSD CUP forms.

11.3) 038-11/02/16 The 3 sentence document.

11.3) 040-11/02/16: Geraci email to Cotton providing the 11/02/16 document as an attachment (See Exhibit B)

11.3) 042-11/02/16: Geraci’s ‘No, No Problem at All’ Confirmation Email to Cotton

11.3) 047-11/15/16: City of San Diego Development Services Depart (DSD) remaining Cycles Issues Report – 2 Completeness Review.  Para 2 requires there be a Geotechnical report submitted for the proposed project.

11.3) 048 – 11/29/16: This is an email between Schweitzer and Geraci that at trial Schweitzer testifies it was Geraci was ‘pushing you to go forward around this’ when referring to the required DSD soils analysis,  See Schweitzer trial testimony @ page 224 line 24.  The Geraci email does NOT suggest that Schweitzer is being asked to ‘go forward around’  the DSD soils test requirement

11.3) 05702/22/17: 1st Submission – CUP Submittal Plans

11.3) 058-02/24/17: TECHNE Cycles Issues for Completeness Review –  Page 2 Para 38 where Schweitzer state that the ‘Geotechnical study is Not Applicable and has been removed from the CUP application.’

11.3) 064-03/07/17: Geraci email to Cotton requesting the $10K a month payment to Cotton be reduced to $5K

11.3) 065-03/14/17: Email from Tirandazi to Schweitzer re DSD recommendation of CUP denial because of ineligible zoning.

11.3) 066-03/14/17: Letter from DSD to Barbara Harris (Geraci’s Permitting Service) advising her to contact Kenneth Malbrough, Chair of the Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning (ENCPG) for review at their next available meeting.

11.3) 067-03/15/17: Email from Jim Bartell to Gina Austin telling her that the SD Municipal Code was amended last week to allow the 6176 zone to be used for a MO CUP.

11.3) 068-04/16/17: Emails between Cotton and Tirandazi

11.3) 069-03/17/17: Email from Cotton to Geraci re Cotton having discovered Geraci’s lies in and among things was that the CUP had been submitted on 10/31/16, before the 11/02/16 document was even signed, the short payment of Earnest Money, etc.

11.3) 070-03/19/17: Email from Cotton to Geraci creating a deadline for the Geraci response.

11.3) 071-03/19/17: Geraci’s email to Cotton accusing Cotton of ‘changing your mind every time we talk’. This is the first time Geraci accuses Cotton of that.  Geraci then goes on to tell Cotton that; ‘so there is no confusion, the attorneys will move forward with an agreement’. By this statement alone Geraci is admitting that the 11/02/16 document he signed with Cotton was not, as his confirmation ‘ no no problem at all email’ is further indication that Geraci did not believe the 11/02/16 document was the final contract.

Geraci also includes an older email from Tirandazi to Schweitzer to show to Cotton the project is recommended for denial.  When Geraci sent this email to Cotton he had already been informed by Bartell in a 3/15/17 email (see Exhibit 069) that the Municipal Code had been changed to allow the 6176 CUP application to be processed.

11.3) 072-03/19/17: Cotton’s email response to Geraci’s email

11.3) 073-03/21/17: Email from Tirandazi to Cotton telling Cotton he can not stop the CUP processing on his property.

11.3 074-03/21/17: Email from Cotton to Geraci where Cotton tells Geraci he has discovered his fraud in what Geraci had been telling Cotton about the CUP status vis a vis the rezoning needing to be complete before the CUP could be submitted.   Lies.  All Lies.

11.3) 075-03/21/17: Email between Tirandazi and Cotton whereby Cotton tells Tirandazi that the Berry application should be denied as neither her or Geraci have an interest in my property.

11.3) 079-03/22/17: Weinstein letter to Cotton informing him of the civil lawsuit that had just been filed against Cotton.

11.3) 080-03-22-17: Email from Geraci to Schweitzer in where Geraci wants to know when did they apply to the city for the CUP?  Schweitzer responds with 10/31/16.  Geraci had his answer then and there.  He had submitted the CUP prior to the 11/02/16 and he had been lying to Cotton, and as of this email knew it incontrovertibly, that he had done so prior to the rezoning having taken place with the city.

11.3) 081-03/23/17: Emails between Geraci and Schweitzer confirming the 10/31/16 Completeness Review and the Deemed Complete status date of 03/13/17.  Schweitzer also commented on what forms he had provided to DSD when the CUP was submitted.

11.3) 082-03/27/17: City of San Diego DSD Notice of Application for a CUP @ 6176 Federal Blvd.

11.3) 083-03-27-17: City of San Diego DSD Posted Notice of Application.

11.3) 094-05/08/17: Cotton emails with Tirandazi about the status of the Community Planning Group task.

11.3) 095-05/10/17: This is the DSD Cycle Review that in Para 12 that DSD requires a 1000′ radius map of all businesses that fall within that radius per SDMC 141.0504.

11.3) 096-05/15/17: Emails between Cotton and Tirandazi re Engerbretson v City of San Diego and property owner rights during the CUP application process.

11.3) 098-05/19/17: City of San Diego DSD letter to Schweitzer that, due to a change in property ownership, for DSD to continue to process the Berry CUP, Schweitzer would have to resubmit under the new property owners name.  Page two describes the necessity for Community Planning Group approval and a Environmental Review (CEQA?) process as well.  CEQA was exempted at 6220.

11.3) 100-05/31/17: This is an in-house TECHNE email between Peterson and Schweitzer on remaining cycle tasks that need completing.  Item 1 asks for the 1000′ radius map that Peterson thought had already been completed and submitted.  This is telling because the way the set back standards were at that time the 1000′ radius in a line of sight measurement would not have qualified the 6176 property because there are two child card facilities that would have been within that radius.  It wasn’t until the SDMC 113.0225(c) adopted a Path of Travel measurement  that 6176 would comply.  The problem for 6220 was it could not qualify under Line of Sight of Path of Travel measurements.  (See 13.2.29) Licensed Marijuana Outlets and My Story of Setbacks)

11.3) 104-07/17/17: Email from Techne(Schweitzer) to Geraci, Bartell and Austin informing them that Cotton had hired someone to review the plan check files on ‘his behalf’.  This email was the  result of a response from an email that Schweitzer had received from Tirandazi informing Cotton’s agent, Rodney Bruce, that any inquiries to review project files had to come through Rebecca Berry.  Neither Berry nor Schweitzer would cooperate with Cotton or his agent Bruce in determining the CUP application status.  All things related to the 6176 CUP had to be coordinated with Geraci and his agents.           

11.3) 105-07/24/17: Schweitzer email to Bartell re Geotechnical Report Requirement where it represents this as a new requirement with DSD.

11.3) 106-08/09/17: Emails between Tirandazi and Bruce with cc’s to Anonymous, Berry, Schweitzer, Cotton and Bartell whereby Tirandazi informs everyone that, per Bruce’s request, a second competing CUP could not be filed on the same 6176 property without the first CUP by Geraci/Berry being withdrawn.  Geraci was not going to let that happen and the city was giving him complete control over the process.

11.3) 107-08/10/17: Schweitzer email to Tirandazi that states there have been no property ownership changes to the property since the General Application was submitted so there is no need to submit a new application.  This statement, from Geraci’s agent, was apparently good enough to allow the CUP to continue to be processed, without the requested resubmittal, under Berry’s name.

11.3) 10808/15/17: Emails between Tirandazi and Schweitzer re geotechnical soils reports required by DSD.  Tirandazi informs Schweitzer that this has been a DSD requirement since the ;last project assessment letter; but in reality the soils report was required by DSD in their 11/15/16 review  DSD Completeness Review of 11/15/16 Exhibit no 047.

11.3) 109-08/24/17: Email from Peterson to Schweitzer stating that the required geotechnical report will be from an adjacent site in the same hazard location category.   The problem Team Geraci had with this solution is that the DSD geotechnical guidelines in place for any geotechnical report City of San Diego Geoguidelines is, per para 2.4 they must be dated within 3 years from the date of the new project submittal.  Team Geraci had no such report available to them that met the same hazard location and time frame guidelines.

11.3) 110-09/07/17: TECHNE Cycle Review Responses.  Para 5 states that the Geotechnical Report has been submitted. What happened between the 02/24/17 TECHNE Cycle Issues Response-Exhibit 058 where Schweitzer states this requirement has been removed from the list of required items and this one? Nothing at all.  Geotechnical was a requirement since the 11/15/16 DSD cycle review.  Of note the SCST Geotechnical Soils Report – Exhibit 124 report was not generated until 06/08/18.  Whatever documents TECHNE submitted under this review cycle was NOT a report that was within the mandated 3 year window or within the geological hazard zone which would have been acceptable by DSD having been done by a licensed Geotechnical consultant.

11.3) 112-09/11/17: TECHNE Cycle Issues Responses.  Exhibit 112-003 states the submitted report is for a nearby property.

11.3) 113-09/16/17: Schweitzer email to Geraci, Berry, Austin, Weinstein, and Bartell which describes the Resubmitted CUP status with comments from DSD expected within 2-3 weeks.  This is a somewhat unusual post since this is Schweitzer now informing all the legal team members of the CUP status.

11.3) 114-09/29/17: Email from Tirandazi to Holly Glavnick with  cc’s to Cotton, Demian, Berry, Schweitzer, Fitzgerald and PJ informing all that DSD has changed their position and a second CUP could be submitted at 6176 but that only one could be accepted for approval.

11.3) 116-12/05/17: Declaration of Darryl Cotton in support of Darryl Cotton’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction.

11.3) 117-12/05/17: Declaration of Darryl Cotton in Opposition to Geraci’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cotton, dated 01/20/18.

11.3) 122-06/04/18: Snipe-Dye Associates (Civil Engineers) Preliminary Hydrology Drainage Study.  Like all the other professional engineering firms associated with the 6176 CUP denial, it would be interesting to see who Magagna had doing these site specific reports for 6220 and getting the project pushed to completion in 7 months.

11.3) 123-06/04/18: Snipes-Dye Associates (Civil Engineers) Water quality study and BMP report.

11.3) 124-06/08/18: SCST Geotechnical soils report.

11.3) 126-06/12/18: TECHNE Cycle Issues Responses re Geology shows SCST report with conclusions that authorize the geological conditions for the intended project development.

11.3) 131-06/18/18: TECHNE Cycle Issues Response stating that once TECHNE receives comments for this last submittal they will be contacting the Chair, (Ken Malbrough) of the Community Planning Group (CPG) to present their project.  This response is 15 months after Tirandazi instructed Schweitzer to contact Malbrough and the CPG to see when the next available opportunity to present their project (See Exhibit 066-03/14/17) to the CPG.

11.3) 134-06/18/18: This is the Climate Action Plan, pursuant to the CEQA guidelines that TECHNE submitted on behalf of the 6176 CUP application.  Cherlyn Cac, who had been the DSD PM at 6176 and then went on to become the PM at the competing 6220 CUP stated in her public comments on behalf of DSD advising of approval for the 6220 CUP stated in her comments that 6220 was exempt from CEQA requirements.  This was not the case for her processing of the 6176 CUP application where it was required.See TECHNE APPEAL – Exhibit 149-12/04/18

11.3) 135-06/18/18: DS-190 form by Abhay Schweitzer but not signed.  This is curious. First of all why was it submitted to DSD when a DS-190 had already been submitted on 10/31/16 by Rebecca Berry  (See Exhibit 034 Showing all Submitted DSD forms, including a DS-190, on 10/31/16).  The second issue I have with this exhibit is why wasn’t it signed?  Was there a reason Schweitzer did not want to put his signature on an affidavit swearing that the SDMC setback distance of the 6176 project had been met?  And lastly there was nothing given by DSD requesting that the DS-190 had to be resubmitted.  Why was this done at all?

11.3) 136-06/18/18: 6176 CUP Resubmittal No 3.  This project has now taken Team Geraci from their initial CUP submittal on 10/31/16 until June 2018, that is 20 months, and three sets of drawings and they have yet to even set up a Community Planning Group meeting.  To compare the 6176 project that consisted of a TEAM of EXPERIENCED Architects, Engineers, Attorney’s and Political Lobbyists to have been BEATEN TO THE FINISH LINE by Aaron Magagna at the 6220 CUP who got his ENTIRE PROJECT from submission to a public hearing approval in JUST 7 MONTHS is completely and totally without reasonable and rational explanation.  TEAM GERACI had to have wanted 6176 to fail and if that meant seeing 6220 be approved that is precisely what it took to accomplish that ONLY because Cotton was paying attention and short circuiting their other attempts, such as soils, to see the 6176 project denied.

11.3) 137 Full Vendor List Expenses Summary

11.3) 138 Austin Legal Group Billings Summary with Supporting Documentation: The first page line one of this exhibit titles ‘Payments for Federal Ave.’ at $6,822.11,  Page two if this exhibit then goes on to show that those were charges and payments made to Austin Legal Group (ALG).  Upon closer review of the ALG billing summary it shows $6,870.61 was paid from a total of $8,409.61 having been invoiced.  Another issue that needs to be considered here comes from Austin’s sworn testimony at trial where she states (Austin Transcript of July 08, 2019 Page 64- Line 21) that she no longer represented Geraci after Cotton had sued Geraci (see the 05-12-17 Cotton v Geraci Cross Complaint (ROA 19). This statement is a problem for Austin when one looks at her billing statement and the facts contradict her sworn testimony in that she invoices Geraci for work done on the Federal Blvd CUP project from 06/14/17 thru 06/18/19.  Furthermore a review of Austin’s supporting documentation shows her legal services to Geraci included her preparing and appearing at matters related to the complaint all while she acknowledges .(Austin Transcript of July 08, 2019 Page 60- Line 19)she also represents Magagna who is the competing CUP owner.

11.3) 139 Bartell and Associates: Billings Summary with Supporting Documentation

11.3) 140 City Treasurer: Expense Summary with Supporting Documentation

11.3) 141 Lundstrom Engineering: Expense Summary with Supporting with Supporting Documentation. Of note here is that a professional topographical survey takes at least 30 days to conduct the survey and issue the report.  Why this is relevant is because as can be seen here, this was work that had to be done BEFORE the initial Berry CUP application was submitted on 10/31/16.  If we are to believe that the 6220 CUP was opened in April 2018 that means the property owner, John Ek and Aaron Magagna had to have hired an engineering company to have done the topographical survey from drawings that had already been prepared.  That is impossible.  John Ek has stated he first met Aaron Magagna in March of 2018 and they had no agreement on the property or it’s development.  There is no way that Magagna takes on the architectural and engineering responsibilities without an agreement in place, while 6176 is so far along ahead of him in the process (if 6176 is approved 6220 must be denied since they are within 1000′ of each other) and not withstanding ALL OF THAT, an architectural firm is not going to be able to generate drawings in 30 days that can be used in a topographical survey (another 30 days AFTER the building drawings are done) that complies with DSD plan submittal requirements.

11.3) 142 McElfresh Law: Expense Summary with Supporting Documentation

11.3) 143 Mizuta Traffic Consultants: This vendor is requested in July of 2018 (3 months after 6220 was in the running for their own CUP) to provide a traffic engineering service in which they charge $4,400 for a site specific report that goes to DSD.  Was this traffic report required of 6220?  Again, like all the architectural, engineering services associated with a successful CUP application there is not enough time for 6220 t have done what they did in getting approved.

11.3) 144 Sam Wade Landscape Architect: The billing documentation in this vendors exhibit shows that these professional services have been provided on the 6176 CUP from February 2017 to April of 2019.  That is 26 months for just Landscape Architectural Services.  How is it that Cotton delayed any processing of the 6176 CUP when the landscape architect was doing work up until his last billing of April 2019?  How is it that the 6220 CUP sailed through to a final approval without this level of design services?  Is it possible some of the design work was billed against 6176 when it was work being done for 6220?  How long does it take a landscape architect to complete their work on a 6K sq-ft plot where 2K sq-ft is the building?  Something is just not right here. 

11.3) 145 SCST Inc. Geotechnical Surveys: This exhibit shows that the entire amount paid for this vendors services was $2,265.00.  TECHNE was aware this report was required since it was noticed in the 11/15/16 DSD Cycles Report (Exhibit 047)This provided notice to TECHNE that this was a required submittal 4 months before there was any litigation filed between Geraci and Cotton.  If it was a cost savings issue to not have the report done that seems unlikely since the vendor only charged $2,265.00 for the entire service.  Based on the fee being charged it is more likely that TECHNE believed it could be avoided until such time they knew they had the CUP approved or they know they could hold out and influence the report if it became obvious they were not going to win the case and needed a negative soils report to help deny the Berry CUP application.

11.3) 146 Snipes -Dye Associates Civil Engineering Services: This is another specialty engineering and consulting firm that DSD requires for the site grading  and drainage plans be done by a licensed engineering firm.  As can be seen by this billing summary, the work that Snipes-Dye performed occurred between 06-24-18 and 09-07-18 (90 days) and cost $12,147.50.  The original Proposal for these services was dated October 23, 2017 with first billing 146-005 occurring on 06/27/18.  How is it that TECHNE was able to submit to DSD on 02/22/17 (See Exhibit 057)It is also not work that is timed for the 3rd submittal process at 6176 which was submitted to DSD on 06/18/18 (See Exhibit 136)The Civil Engineering work would have had to have been completed and included in the CUP submittal sets 1, 2 and 3, not work Snipes-Dye would have been performing after the 3rd CUP submittal.  It is much more likely that the work done here by Snipe-Dye was work done for the 6220 project since the timing for these engineering services does not fit the 6176 project timeline but does for the 6220 project timeline.

11.3) 147 TECHNE EXPENSE SUMMARY This statement details the dates that Schweitzer performed certain tasks on behalf of his client, Geraci.  Of particular interest would be 147-059 Paragraph 7, where on 10/17/18 Schweitzer bills Geraci for information on a Cuddles licensed day care facility that would be within the 1000′ radius minimum setback radius that DSD (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 24 Page 2) requires for licensing a Marijuana Outlet CUP in the City of San Diego.

11.3) 149-12/04/18: TECHNE Appeal of the 6220 CUP approval.  What TECHNE/Schweitzer does in this Appeal looks to be, on the surface, a strong argument as to why the approval of the 6220 CUP should be denied.  But under closer inspection, Schweitzer does not argue two relevant points that 6220 fails on that WOULD have gotten the 6220 project rejected had he raised these issues.  One would be found on page 022 of this exhibit in which the Item no 1.6 requires a CAP checklist be completed.  That was done by Schweitzer on the 6176 project and can be found in Exhibit 134,  The other would be that thee were two licensed child care facilities located within 1000′ of the 6220 site. This link shows the Path of Travel distances that were available to Schweitzer to have argued but did not as well as the testimony of Cherlyn Cac who at 0.40 seconds into the audio states that the 6220 project( 6176 v 6220 Audio and Site Map Files) is exempt from the CEQA requirements.  There is so much wrong with this appeal yet even with the grounds Schweitzer DID RAISE 6220 should have been rejected.  Had he raised these two issues it would have been impossible for DSD to ignore and the CUP application at 6220 could not have been approved.

11.3) 152-07/3/18: Cotton and Malbrough, Chairperson of the ENCPG Community Planning Group (CPG)  where both the 6176 and the 6220 CUP properties are located goes from being cordial and helpful to Cotton in his phone and email communications to telling Cotton, over the course of just 3 days that he will cease all further communication with Cotton, the owner of the commercial property located in his CPG district for which he has a charter with the City to represent both the community and property owners interests, over the CUP application process at either property.  Of note, Malbrough and ENCPG did NOT represent Magagna in the CPG representation of Magagna’s 6220 CUP application at that public hearing.  That ended up being Robert Robertson who is Chairperson of the adjacent neighborhood CPG.

11.3) 151-07/27/18: Cotton’s email to DSD Project Manager, Cherlyn Cac, who had been the Project Manager for the 6176 CUP and than mover over to Fast Tract the approval of the competing 6220 CUP.  This email represents Cotton’s notice to not just Ms. Cac about what it is he is seeing on the preferred treatment that he cc’s Tirandazi, who is Cac’s boss.

11.3) 152 – 07/13/18: Emails between Ken Malbrough, Chair of the Community Planning Group and Cotton whereby Malbrough tells Cotton he will cease all future communication with him.  In Jim Bartell’s testimony (See Bartell Trial Transcript of 07-10-19)on page 23 line 26 Bartell states that Cotton was disruptive to the process so Bartell has a conversation with Malbrough and after that conversation Malbrough ceases all communication with Cotton.

With the stated importance that DSD (Cherlyn Cac @ 0:57 into the audio @ 11.4) 10-18-19 6220 CUP Public Hearing Audio Recording puts on Community Planning Groups input in their decision making processes, Cotton reached out to Ken Malbrough, Chairperson for ENCPG and later named to CVCPG, through a series of emails that began on 06-11-18 and were ceased by Malbrough on 6-13-18.  The purpose of the emails was to determine just how far along the 6220 CUP application was as compared to the 6176 CUP application.  Cotton made that very clear to Malbrough in his opening email.  After a few cordial exchanges Malbrough ceased any further communications as it related to the 6220 CUP application.  Cotton found that very unsettling when Malbrough has a responsibility to those who live in work in this community to make sure that everyone’s interests are being treated fairly by our decision makers.   Within 2 days of his first communication to Malbrough he had, insofar as any of Cotton’s concerns regarding the fair processing of the CUP  abdicated that responsibility as defined in the CVCPG Bylaws  (See Chollas Valley Community Planning Group Bylaws-04-10-2018) Article II Sections 2, 3 & 4 – Article III Sections 5 & 6 – Article 6 Sections 1 & 2 (a) Meeting Procedures, (d)(1-4) Meeting Documents and Records –  Article VII Section 2 Chairperson Responsibilities, Article VIII  Section 1 (a) Community Participation – Article IX Sections 1,2 & 3 (a) (b) Rights and Liabilities of Community Planning Groups.

Based on his actions, Mr. Malbrough and the Community Planning Group he Chairs is in direct violation of the The Brown Act when he ceased representing or communicating with Cotton and his interests in the community where Cotton’s property is located and as also defined duties as set forth within; City of San Diego Council Policy and Administrative Guidelines for Community Planning Groups 

11.3) 153 Canna-Greed: It’s curious why this exhibit with my Canna-Greed story was being considered for use at trial.  Perhaps it would have been used for impeachment purposes from what I said during my deposition but it was not used at trial.

11.3) 154 Cotton’s Second Amended Cross Complaint dated 08/25/17

11,3) 155 Cotton’s Federal Complaint dated 02/09/18

11.3) 156 Cotton/Anonymous Federal Complaint dated 12/06/18

11.3) 157 Cotton’s Responses to Special Interrogatories Propounded by Geraci dated 05/09/18

11.3) 158 Cotton’s Responses to Form Interrogatories Propounded by Geraci dated 05/09/18

11.3) 159 Responses by Cotton to Requests for Admission Propounded by Geraci dated 05/09/18

11.3) 160 Cotton’s Responses to Geraci’s Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One) dated 05/31/19

11.3) 161 Cotton’s Responses to Geraci’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) dated 05/31/19

11.3) 162-05/31/19: Cotton’s Responses to Geraci’s Special Interrogatories (Set Three)

11.3) 163 Secured Litigation Financing Agreements

11.3) 164-02/22/17: City of San Diego Ordinance no: 20793 Amending SDMC for Medical Marijuana Facilities

Section 11.4 Defendant and Cross Complainant : Cotton Files

11.4) 11/04/14 A-M Industries Articles of Incorporation Filing This non-profit corporation is is owned by Aaron Magagna who is the competing CUP license holder at 6220 Federal Blvd. and signed by Atty Matthew Shapiro who was the attorney who we caught spying on me in court and also represented Corina Young a Cotton witness who has been bribed and threatened with physical harm if she cooperates with Cotton by telling her story with first hand knowledge of how Team Geraci would shut down Cotton’s attempts to have a CUP issued at his property and how Team Geraci holds a monopoly over CUP licenses in the City of San Diego.

11.4) 04/20/12: CA SEC STATE LLC Filing for JL 6th Ave Properties with Larry Geraci and Jeffery Kacha

11.4) 03/20/14: Mayor Faulconer Announces Mayoral Staff Press Release

11.4) 09/26/14: City of San Diego v The Tree Club Cooperative, JL 6th Ave. Properties and Larry Geraci, an individual; Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgement and Permanent Injunction, Judgement Thereon

11.4) 2015/03/18: San Diego Planning Commission Hearing for 3452 Hancock Street Testimony of David Demian, Esq. and Benjamin Zobal

11.4) 06/17/15: City of San Diego v CCSquared Wellness Cooperative and Lawrence E. Geraci: Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgement and Permanent Injunction, Judgement Thereon

11.4) 10/24/16 – 03/21/17: All Cotton and Geraci Emails

11.4) DSD Employee Directory

11.4) 2017: City of San Diego Adopts MMCC Zoning Regulations

11.4) 03/06/17:  Attorney Gina Austin Meta Data re Side Agreements

11.4) 03/17/17: Cotton email to Geraci demanding a written agreement as opposed to maintaining an oral agreement.

11.4) 03/22/17: Attorney Weinstein’s Letter to Cotton

11.4) 03/22/17: Geraci Notice of Lis Pendens against Cotton’s real property @ 6176 Federal Blvd

11.4) 04/05/17 Cotton Settlement Case No. M230071

11.4) 05/09/17: Weinstein/Geraci Proposed Settlement Offer No 1 Email

11.4)09/18/17: Geraci’s Answers to Form Interrogatories (SET ONE)

11.4)10/06/17: Cotton’s Verified Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate with Exhibits

11.4) 10/06/17; Continues from 311.1

11.4) 10/06/17: Continues from 311.2

11.4) 12/05/17: Demian to anonymous email with cc’s to Cotton, Bhat and Witt re a ‘misunderstanding’ and Geraci was Cotton’s ‘agent’

11.4) 01/18/18: Emails between Cotton and Weinstein re Soils Testing

11.4) 2018/01/25: Emails between Cotton and Weinstein re Deposition and Cotton’s Federal Case

11.4) 2018/01/25: Emails from Weinstein to Cotton re Affirmative Duty

11.4) 2018/01/26: Emails between Cotton and Weinstein re Deposition and Misrepresentation

11.4) 2018/02/09: Emails between Cotton and Weinstein, Phelps and Gina Austin re Writ of Mandate and Visitors Threats

11.4) 2018/02/13: Email from Weinstein to Cotton with cc’s to Gina Austin, Travis Phelps re Federal Complaint

11.4) 2018/02/16 A-M Amended Article of Incorporation Filing The former non-profit is now a for profit and there is language added that indemnifies board members.

11.4) 2018/06/13: Hurtado-Declaration-and-Corina-Young-Texts.pdf

11.4) 02/22/18: Email from Cotton to Phelps, Weinstein, Toothacre and Gina Austin

11.4) 03/12/18: Email from Weinstein to J Austin re Welcoming Austin as New Counsel and TRO, Writ of Mandate, etc

11.4) 03/20/18: Superior Court Parcel Information Report

11.4) 05/19/18: Emails from Cotton to Elizabeth White at SCST – Soils Analysis

11.4) 05/27/18: Team Geraci Atty Matt Shapiro to J Austin emails

11.4) 05/29/18: Email from J Austin to Weinstein re Lies Made to the Court

11.4) 05/29/18: Emails from J Austin to Weinstein re Atty Shapiro, Corina Young (Fact Witness) and Statements made by Bartell to Young

11.4) 2018/05/29:  Magagna & Cotton FB Chat

11.4) CCRW-Ross-Austin-McElfresh statements

11.4) Court Granted – Signed Property Access Form 

11.4) 06/01/18: Corina Young (Fact Witness) Texts

11.4) 06/01/18: Cotton Email to 6220 Property Owner John Ek

11.4) 06/04/18: Emails between Weinstein and J.Austin with cc to Toothacre re Parol Evidence

11.4) 06/04/18: Emails between Weinstein and J Austin re Bartell, Shapiro and Magagna

11.4) 06/20/18: Emails between Weinstein and Austin with cc to Toothacre whereby Weinstein states ‘Mr Geraci’s Complaint sufficiently alleges all elements of the various causes of action alleged therein’.

11.4) 06/30/18: Bartell and Associates:  City of San Diego Quarterly Lobbying Report for Bartell and Associates.  Bartell shows representation of Razuki, Henderson and LST Investments

11.4) 07/23/18: McElfresh Deferred Prosecution Agreement

11.4) 07/25/18: Cotton to DSD emails between Sokolowski, Malbrough, Tirandazi, Braun, Cac, Fitzgerald and Black

11.4) 07/27/18: Cotton to DSD with expanded parties distribution to include Cheri Hoy, Mayors Office

11.4) 10/18/18:  Competing CUP @ 6220 Federal Blvd Public Hearing Audio Recording

11.4) 2018/12/06: Ahbay Schweitzer Appellant Testimony @ 6220 Federal Blvd

11.4) Who is Cynthia Morgan Reed and What Skill Sets Did She Bring to the Table in Representing Magagna?

11.4) Finch Thorton Baird: Exhibits to Declaration of Cotton

11.4) 01/16/19: Emails from Corina Young Attorney Natalie Nguyen to Attorney Jacob Austin re Young’s deposition

11.4)03/04/19: Gina Austin goes to FB and posts about her client Aaron Magagna being the first one to get a cultivation license in the County of San Diego.

11.4) 03/25/19:  Cotton, Flores, Martin, Austin, Anonymous Litigation Agreement with Declaration Exhibits

11.4) 06/10/19: Geraci settlement offer no 2 to Cotton. This offer makes NO SENSE!  Any lawyer reading this KNOWS that after having just one an MSJ you don’t offer the other side a walkaway offer like this!  To say I have a right, should I accept the offer, to pursue this in Federal Court as a cost savings measure nonsensical! The appropriate strategy would be to prevail in State Court and take that to Federal Court for the Dismissal.

11.4) 06/11/19: Subpoena for Ken Malbrough Chairperson Encanto Neighborhood Community Planning Group

11.4) 06/20/19: Corina Young Subpoena

11.4)  City of San Diego DSD IB 514 Professional Certifications Requirements

11.4) 11/19/19: Post Trial Clarity; Volume One – A Comparison of 6176 and 6220 CUPS

11.4) 12/24/19: Cotton’s Multiple Parties XMAS Eve Email

11.4) 01/15/20: DSD Process Comparisons Between the 6176 and 6220 MO CUPS

11.4.1) Cotton and Related Enterprise Exhibits: 

11.4.1) Cotton’s IAGLA FB Group Page (Educational – Chat)

11.4.1) Cotton’s Very Public City and County Regulations Watch FB Group (Educational-Chat)

11.4.1)  Cotton’s 151 Farmers Website (Educational)

11,4,1) Cotton’s 151 Farmers FB Group Page (Educational –  Chat)

11.4.1) Cotton’s 151 Farmers Team Member with The Green Believers Minority Enterprise Social Equity Cannabis Program Consultants Serving the Greater Los Angeles Area. (Educational – For Profit)

11.4.1) Cotton’s Efforts to Organize a Union Education and Training Program for Medical Cannabis Dispensary Workers as Certified Patient Advisors

11.4.1) 22/08/15 Bartell Study with Exhibits

11.4.1) Candid Chronicle Interview of Phil Zamora (Audio)

11.4.1) Candid Chronicle Phil Zamora Interview (Transcript)

11.4.1) 22/06/07 Blake Law Letter (BLL) Meet and Confer Letter

11.4.1) 22/06/17 Amy Sherlock’s BLL Reply

11.4.1) 22/06/17 Sherlock Statement re Biker Sherlock’s ME Report

11.4.1) 2015 Ramona CUP Application

11.4.1) 2017 Ramona CUP Certificate

11.4.1) 15/12/21 Sherlock Dissolution

11.4.1) 15/12/03: ME Report of Michael “Biker” Sherlock

11.4.1) 15/12/03: Michael “Biker” Sherlock SDPD Crime Scene Report

11.4.1) Comparing the SDPD Crime Scene and the the ME Report.  Which One is it?

11.4.1) Sherlock-Cotton-Razuki Related Cases Spreadsheets and Summary

11.4.1) 22/11/30: Armorous PI Report w Exhibits re the Death of Michael “Biker” Sherlock

11.4.1) 23/01/10: Sherlock’s Demand Letter 

11.4.1) 23/01/17: DCC Reply to Sherlock’s Demand Letter

11.4.1) 23/01/18: Sherlock’s Response to the DCC Reply Letter

11.4.1) 9350 Trade Place DSD Customer Information


11.4.2) Larry Geraci (ROA 117) In his 02/27/18 Sworn Declaration to Compel Access to Cotton’s Property for a DSD Required Geotechnical Soils Analysis and Report States the Following;

Page 6, Line 25  Geraci states that he had ‘just been made aware’ that the CUP process required a Soils Analysis   This statement is untrue.  The City of San Diego DSD in their Geotechnical Guidelines Form IB 515 Section II (See Plaintiff Exhibit 029) made Geraci and his ‘Project Team’ aware that the Soils Analysis for a requirement describing this as a ‘minimum submittal requirement’ prior to his ‘Project Team’ even submitting their 10/31/16 CUP Submission.

If Geraci were to claim he was not aware that this Geotechnical Report was a requirement prior to the 10/31/16 CUP Application Submission he, nor his Project Team, can make that argument after 11/15/16 when in a DSD Cycles Report it clearly states in Issue No 2 (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 047) there were required to be 3 SETS of  GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS to be included in the FULL SUBMITTAL.  In other words Cotton did not delay the process.  Geraci and his Project Team did.

11.4.2) Ahbay Schweitzer (ROA 119) In his 02/27/18 Sworn Declaration to Compel Access to Cotton’s Property for a DSD Required Geotechnical Soils Analysis and Report States the Following;

Pages 1-2; Schweitzer is the Principal Designer for the Geraci/Berry CUP project.  On page 1 he states he has been designing marijuana dispensaries for 5 years and has completed approximately 30 of them.   There is no way a person with his experience was not aware that per DSD form IB 515 (See Plaintiff Exhibit 029) a Geotechnical Report was a project requirement.

Page 3 Line 28; Even if one were to believe Schweitzer were somehow ignorant of that requirement, when he states that the DSD required Geotechnical Report requirement had ‘just risen’ with DSD that is a lie since the DSD Cycles Report (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 047) of 11-15-16 clearly indicates that 3 SETS OF GEOTHECHNICAL REPORTS are required at FULL SUBMITTAL.

TECHNE FULL SUBMITALS to DSD on 10/26/17 (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 026)

11.4.2) 02/24/17 TECHNE DSD CYCLE ISSUES RESPONSES Developed by Abhay Schweitzer (page 3) Page two of this exhibit Section 13.0 in Other Technical Issues Paragraph 38 states the Geotechnical study is no longer applicable and has been removed from the CUP submittal.  That study is not discretionary and could not have been removed and added back in as the 6176 property requires these reports to be done as was directed by DSD in the 11-15-16 Cycle Review.  Schweitzer knew the soils report was a requirement as of 02/24/17.  He was either professionally negligent when he removed it or someone at DSD let him complete the submittal process without requiring it.  If the latter is the case then it wasn’t until Schweitzer’s email of 7/24/17 to Bartell with cc’s to Geraci Atty Gina Austin (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 105) that he had to make a record of the Soils Report being a ‘new requirement’. One that had ‘just arisen’.

11.4.2) Jim Bartell  (Trial Transcript 7/10/19) In his sworn statements at trial Bartell made the following statements relative to his knowledge and participation in the Geotechnical Soils Analysis and Reports required for his clients DSD CUP Application;

Page 14 Line 18; Bartell states that as Geraci is his client whereby he is responsible for seeing the 6176 Federal Blvd CUP approved whereby he attends almost all meetings with the City and with the Project Team.

Page 18 Line 16; Bartell is asked to describe what the Cycle Review Process is.  He comments that the DSD Cycle Review issues need to be corrected and resubmitted.

Page 19 Line 1: When asked if all the Cycle Review issues need to be dealt with before the Project can be moved through its Cycles Bartell responds with a ‘yes’ answer that any cycle review issues have to be resolved before resubmitting drawings for the next review cycle.  As noted earlier the Geotechnical Report requirements were mandatory for this project and as of 11-15-16 (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 047) DSD made Team Geraci aware of that requirement.

Page 19, Line 17:  Bartell is asked if the 6176 project was located in an area that required a Geotechnical Report and he responded ‘yes’.

Page 20 Line 7:  Bartell states that he first became aware there was a Geotechnical Soils Report requirement from a letter he received from Abhay Schweitzer on July 24, 2017 (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 105).  Bartell may have not been aware that this was a requirement but after developing 20 CUP properties in San Diego and having only one not get approved, the 6176 Property, that seems hard to believe.  Especially considering the fact that he has stated he reviews all Project Team and City Staff documents of which the 11/15/16 DSD Cycles Report clearly asks (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 047) that at FULL SUBMITTAL there be 3 SETS of the projects GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS included.

Page 21 Line 20: Bartell states that it took a Court Process that began on 02/27/18  (See ROA 115)  to gain access to the property so that the Soils Analysis could be performed and approved by the Court, over Cotton’s objections on 04/02/18 (See ROA 159).  Prior to that the only request to access the property for Soils Testing came from an email Cotton received from Geraci Atty Weinstein on 02/06/18 whereby Weinstein cites a conversation he claims he had with Cotton in which Cotton had granted access to his property which would allow the soils analysis work to be done by Geraci’s contractor.  In his Declaration to the Court (See ROA 118)

Cotton contends he never granted Weinstein access rights to the property until such time that he had a 3rd party court appointed receiver in place to monitor the work and the Geotechnical Report that they would generate.  Simply put, if Geraci had wanted to sabotage the CUP process at 6176 to reduce his damages from a lawsuit he didn’t plan on winning due to the 11/02/16 document not being a Fully Integrated Contract, having the soils analysis come back as the project not being recommended for the proposed construction would be a easy way to accomplish that.  Cotton had no say in the CUP process or the selection of the soils company that would be doing the work.  Geraci could influence the report and Cotton would have no recourse but to accept his contractors findings.

On 04/03/18 Cotton had made an oral request to have the 3rd party court appointed receiver be granted and that motion was denied (See Minute Order ROA 157).  With that ruling Cotton was at the mercy of Geraci and his contractor’s somewhat ‘discretionary’ recommendation as to how the report would look when presented to DSD.

Page 21 Line 23: Bartell states that Cotton delayed the 6176 project CUP by 6 months.  The DSD cycles report of 11/15/16 requested the 3 sets of Geotechnical Reports be included in the next Full Submittal

Page 23 Line 16: Bartell states that the reason 6176 was not awarded the CUP was because the competing 6220 CUP was approved before the CUP application was completed specifically in Line 18 by blaming the Geotechnical Report that was made know back in 11-15-16 Cycle Review (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 047).

11.4.2) Darryl Cotton  (Trial Transcript 7/10/19) In his 02/27/18 Sworn Declaration re Providing Access to Geraci for a DSD Required Geotechnical Soils Analysis and Report States the Following;

Page 42, Line 13 thru Page 44 Line 15: Cotton states that prior to the lawsuit he had not restricted or denied Geraci or his agents complete access to his property.  He states that he had no control or supervision of the CUP process.  Geraci had complete control of that process and should be make the decision to not process the CUP as it would not be his in best economic interest to do so Cotton would be economically harmed.  As such Cotton had requested that the Court provide him with a 3rd party Court Appointed Receiver to provide some degree of protection to Cotton that should he prevail in the lawsuit his CUP interests would be maintained.  That request (See Minute Order ROA 157) was made and denied.

On 05/11/18 the soils analysis work was performed by Geraci’s contractor SCST and supervised by SCST Project Manager, Ms. Elizabeth White [she needs to be deposed].  Cotton closely monitored the work doing done by SCST that day which put him in a position to hear directly from Ms. White, as the boring was being done, what the soils conditions were and whether of not it was suitable for the propose project development.  Cotton would only first hand knowledge of the test results, but he could also develop a record for the follow upon communication that would help to assure that what comments were made in the field would be reflected in the SCST report.

Ultimately the SCST report did support the soil conditions for the probed as being suitable for the proposed developed but Cotton made sure, in the 11/23/18 email to Ms. White (See 11.1 Cotton Emails to Elizabeth White/SCST) that she know the repercussions that would occur if the SCST written report did not match the field report findings and opinions she had given Cotton at the time the bore soils sampling was being performed.

11.4.3) Competing CUP at 6220 Federal Blvd. 

11.4.3) 6220 CUP Public Hearing and Title Pro Survey: This document combines the public hearing with notable participants times where they are speaking and what was being said.  It also included the Title Pro Map which takes a Path of Travel distance between both the 6220 and the 6176 Properties which will provide direct evidence that not only did the 2 Licensed Child Care Facilities exist and everyone at the hearing pretended they didn’t but they are within the 1000 ft separation required by the City of San Diego that exist between the Dispensary and the Child Care Facility.

11.4.3) Jim Bartell (Trial Transcript 07/10/19):

Page 23 Line 19 where Bartell states that the project delays at 6176 were due to Cotton’s misrepresentation of the project to City Staff and to the Community Planning Group Chair Ken Malbrough.  Geraci’s Project Team was notified by DSD in a letter to Geraci’s Permitting Service, Barbara Harris Permitting that Team Geraci was supposed to reach out (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 66) to Kenneth Malbrough on or around 3/14/17 to schedule a meeting at their ‘next available meeting.  Bartell’s statement that Cotton somehow delayed that process when they knew it had to be done from the beginning of the project is a lie.

11.4.3)_Firouzeh Tirandazi (Trial Transcript of 07/09/17):

Page 86, Line 2; Tirandazi states that she is a Development Project Manager III with the City of San Diego DSD which puts her over and in charge of Cheryln Cac who was PM at 6176 and moved to PM the 6220 project which ended up being fast tracked from start to completion in proved approximately 7 months.

Page 88 Line 16; Tirandazi is asked about the purpose of the DSD form IB-190 that Rebecca Berry signed on 10/31/16 (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 034 Page 2) that represents the customer is certifying the proposed project maintains the minimum separation requirements as set forth in the Land Use Regulations Code at that time. At the time Berry signed the requirement was that the proposed CUP be outside of the zone for Child Care Facilities by 1000′.  Path of Travel measurements had not yet been adopted.  6176 was within the 1000′ of two licensed child care facilities as measured in Line of Sight.  Only once the Path of Travel measurements were adopted did the 6176 property meet that setback requirement.  The 6220 property has never met setback requirements for Line of Sight or Path of Travel distance measurements.

Page 107 Line 2: Tirandazi states she is Cherlyn Cac’s Supervisor

Section 11.5 Depositions 

11.5) 05/14/18 Cotton, Darryl  Deposition

11.5) 01/30/19 Schweitzer, Abhay Deposition

11.5) 03/14/19 Tirandazi, Firouzeh Deposition

11.5) 03/13/19 Bartell, James Deposition

Section 11.6) These documents are NOT PART of the Geraci v Cotton matter but will show the ‘Team’Geraci’ Gina Austin efforts when it comes to their attempts to monopolize CUP licenses in local governments.

11.6.1) Austin Legal Group – Atty Gina Austin – Specialist in Cannabis Law and Regulation Website

11.6.2) 11/08/16: Living Green Cooperative v City of San Diego Complaint (ROA-1)

11.6.2) 03/13/17: Substitution of Attorney (ROA-13)

11.6.2) 07/17/17: Substition of Attorney (ROA-37)

11.6.3) 03/04/19 Atty Gina Austin v City of La Mesa & Evergreen Evolution

11.6.4) 03/19/19 Atty Gina Austin Opposing CUP Decision Demand Letter to the City of La Mesa When a city decides to award a CUP to competitor it’s nice to have an attorney sue the city on grounds that the CUP application was not handled fairly and impartially.

Section 11.6.5) These documents are NOT PART of the Geraci v Cotton matter but will show the ‘Team’Geraci’ Jessica McElfresh efforts when it comes to their attempts to monopolize CUP licenses in local governments.

11.6.5) McElfresh Represents her Client: Miramar Professional Services which is actually Mankind Dispensary A name shift like this lets them take credit cards and open bank accounts.

11.6.5) This is the actual website. As you can see the website does not reference Miramar Professional Services which is sidestepping BCC rules and regulations.

11.6.5) 09/04/15: Miramar Professional Services Articles of Incorporation

11.6.5) 02/07/19: Secretary of State – Statement of Information

11.6.5) 05/04/20: Secretary of State – Statement of Information

Section 11.7) These are supporting documents to the State Case: 

11.7.1) CCP §625 Highlighted Sections Jury Verdicts JDs CA PP

11.7.2) SDMC Marijuana Outlets Section 141.0504(a)

11.7.3)) SDMC 113.0225(c) Measuring Distances Between Uses

11.7.4) CA B&P Section 26057

11.7.5A) 08/20/19 KQED News re City of Rohnert Park Settles Federal Case Over Illegal Pot Seizures

11.7.10B) City of Rohnert Park: “The best case scenario is we have a chain of command up to the city manager that is totally incompetent and unaware of what’s happening in the department.” he said. “The worst case scenario is the Department of Public Safety is an outright criminal enterprise that needs to be shut down, and that’s precisely what we’ve alleged in this complaint. We believe that to be the case.”

11.7.5C) 11/16/18 Federal Complaint: City of Rohnert Park Police Cannabis Suit

11.7.6A) 08/19/19 SD Union Tribune re CA Supreme Court ruling SD Marijuana Law Required More Analysis

11.7.6B) 08/19/19 CA Supreme Court: Ruling UMMP v City of San Diego re CEQA Violations

11.7.6C) 2020 CEQA Statute and Guidelines The CA Supreme Court decision in 11.7.6A stems from Section 15378 of these guidelines when it comes to what is considered a Project.

11.7.7A) CA Supreme Court Petitions: Taming the Odds Increase Chances for SC Relief

11.7.7B) CA Supreme Court Getting a SC Review Plaintiff Magazine 12-2012

11.7.7C) CCP 473: Appeals Reinstatement Based on Neglect

11.7.7D) DCA Prelim Steps to Taking Appeal Perfecting Record

11.7.8A) FBI.GOV Audio PodCast on Investigations of State and Local Government Crimes on Cannabis Licensing

11.7.8B) 06/29/18 MJ BIZ State and Local Corruption Hurdles for Marijuana License Seekers in CA

11.7.8) 03/01/19: Eel Holdings v City of San Bernardino Mandamus Petition Conformed

11.7.9A) 08/22/19: Cal Coast Times re Morro Bay City  Accused of Favoritism in Cannabis Permitting Processes

11.7.10A) 10/13/15 PBS: Canna-Lawyer Jessica McElfresh on New Laws for Medical Marijuana and How Medical Will Be Regulated Under Recreational Cannabis Laws

11.7.10B) 06/17/17 – Case No CD272111 – SD District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis Files Criminal Charges Against Local Cannabis Attorney Jessica McElfresh and Her Client MedWest

11.7.11) 05/22/17 – Case No 2:17CV-01467-SJO-AFM- Dispensaries vs City of Huntington Beach et al alleging Civil Conspiracy-Fraud-42 USC-Violations of the CA Constitution.pdf

11.7.12) 10/21/20 Cheetahs et al  v Gavin Newsom et al Complaint_37-2020-00038194-CU-CR-CTL ROA-1

11.7.12)12/04/20 Declaration of Brent Panas in Support of the County of San Diego’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction ROA-52

11.7.12) 12/04/20 Governor Newsom’s  Opposition ROA-54

11.7.12) 12/16/20 Cheetahs Minute Order granting strip clubs to remain open – ROA-71

11.7.12) 12/17/20 Judge Wohlfeil, knowing that he screwed up in previous minute order issues a “clarifying” minute order that doubles down on the “all restaurants” language (ROA-83). This proves Judge Wohlfeil is indeed an imbecile or to put a finer point on it, not a smart man.  Obviously the Court of Appeals wasn’t having it and on 12/18/20 issued an emergency stay, thereby reversing his decision.

11.7.12) 12/18/20 Cotton’s email to CA-DOJ Patty Li regarding Judge Wohlfeil’s previous decisions where bribery is believed to have influenced those decisions.

11.7.12) 12/18/20 Times of San Diego Coverage on the Appellate Court issuing an emergency stay

Section 11.8.1) These are documents pertaining to the 8863 Balboa Ave Ste E SD CA  92123 –  CUP No.  368347

11.8.1) 04/22/15 – 8863 Planning Commission Hearing

11.8.1) 06/17/15 – 8863 Planning Commission Appeal Hearing

11.8.1) 06/25/15 City of San Diego Planning Commission Minutes – Item 9

11.8.1) 07/09/15 City of San Diego Planning Commission Minutes – Item 8

11.8.1) 12/21/15 CA Secretary of State LLC-4/7 Certificate of Cancellation of a Limited Liability Company (LLC)

11.8.1) 02/21/20 AFS Signature Forensics

Section 11.8.2-4) Documents pertaining to the Harcourt v Razuki, Malan Multiple Civil Cases

11.8.2) 06/07/17 SDPCC and Harcourt v Razuki, Henderson, Malan, et al – Case No 37-2017-00020661-CU-CO-CTL (ROA 1) (RAZUKI I)

11.8.2) 20/02/06: Plaintiff’s Change of Address (ROA 393)

11.8.2) 21/04/05: Flores Files Motion to Intervene on Behalf of Amy Sherlock (ROA 431)

11.8.2) 21/04/05: Flores Memorandum of Points and Authorities on Motion to Intervene (ROA 432)

11.8.2) 21/04/05: Flores Proposed Complaint in Intervention (ROA 433)

11.8.2) 21/04/05: Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Intervention (ROA 434)

11.8.2) 21/04/05: Opposition Other (ROA 435)

11.8.2) 21/04/06: Minute Order (ROA 436)

11.8.2) 21/05/14: Motion to Intervene is Denied (ROA 450)

11.8.2) 21/07/13: Notice to Appeal Filing (ROA 451)

11.8.2) 22/01/26: The Appeal is Dismissed for Failure to File a Brief (ROA 475)

11.8.2) 22/03/29:  MINUTE ORDER (ROA 487)

11.8.2) 22/06/21: Harcourt’s Counsel Notice of Address Change (ROA 494)


11.8.3) 19/08/07: Malan v Razuki: Case No 37-2019-00041260-CU-PO-CTL (ROA 1)  


11.8.4) 18/07/10: Razuki v Malan et al 37-2018-00034229 – COMPLAINT (ROA-1) (RAZUKI II)

11.8.4) 18/07/13: Razuki v Malan et al First Amended Complaint (ROA-61)

11.8.4) 18/07/30: Gina Austin Declaration (ROA 55)

11.8.4) 18/07/31: Minute Order ( ROA 65)

11.8.4) 18/08/13: Zimmitti Declaration (ROA 85)

11.8.4) 18/08/13: Berman Declaration (ROA 87)

11.8.4) 18/08/13: Holler Declaration (ROA 88)

11.8.4) 18/08/13: Townsend Declaration (ROA 89)

11.8.4) 18/08/14: Minute Order (ROA 100)

11.8.4) 18/08/23: Griswold Declaration (ROA 121)

11.8.4) 18/08/28: Proposed Order Appointing Receiver (ROA 122)

11.8.4) 18/08/28: Notice of Entry of Order (ROA 123)

11.8.4) 18/09/04: Supplemental Declaration of Gina Austin (ROA 127)

11.8.4) 18/09/04: In Support of OSC re Confirmation of Receiver and Request for Forensic Accounting (ROA 139)

11.8.4) 18/09/04: Berman Declaration in Support of OSC Confirmation (ROA 140)

11.8.4) 18/09/04: Zimmitti Declaration in Support of OSC Confirmation (ROA 141)

11.8.4) 18/09/06: Essary Supplemental Declaration of Receiver in Response to Malan’s Declaration (ROA 143)

11.8.4) 18/09/07: Minute Order ROA 148)

11.8.4) 18/09/05: Gina Austin-Grippi Declaration (ROA 152)

11.8.4) 18/09/05: Essary’s First Receivers Report (ROA 156)

11.8.4) 18/09/26: Gina Austin Declaration (ROA 167)

11.8.4) 18/09/26: Order Confirming Receiver and Granting Preliminary Injunction (ROA 173)

11.8.4) 18/10/01: Answer to Unverified FAC (ROA 175)

11.8.4) 18/10/01: Cross Complaint (ROA 176)

11.8.4) 18/10/24: Gina Austin Declaration (ROA 193)

11.8.4) 18/10/24: Plaintiff’s in Intervention Memorandum in Support of Razuki’s EP Application Etc. (ROA 206)

11.8.4) 18/10/25: Minute Order (ROA 213)

11.8.4) 18/10/05: Answer to Cross Complaint (ROA 215)

11.8.4) 18/08/17: Gina Austin Supplemental Declaration (ROA 221)

11.8.4) 18/08/17: Abhay Schweitzer Declaration (ROA 223)

11.8.4) 18/11/05: Gina Austin Declaration (ROA 252)

11.8.4) 18/11/13: Gina Austin Declaration (ROA 292)

11.8.4) 18/11/16: Minute Order (ROA 303)

11.8.4) 18/11/28: Receiver Essary’s Supplemental Declaration (ROA 324)

11.8.4) 18/11/29: Declaration of Receiver (ROA 333)

11.8.4) 18/11/13: Essary’s Second Receiver Report (ROA 344)

11.8.4) 18/12/12: Essary’s Declaration re Forensic Accountants Updated Report (ROA 411)

11.8.4) 18/12/14: Minute Order (ROA 418)

11.8.4) 18/12/17: Minute Order (ROA 421)

11.8.4) 19/01/17: Minute Order (ROA 471)

11.8.4) 19/01/25: Minute Order (ROA 476)

11.8.4) 19/02/20: Essary’s Declaration in Response to Malan’s EP Application (ROA 497)

11.8.4) 19/02/21: Minute Order (ROA 521)

11.8.4) 19/03/11: Essary’s Declaration in Response to Hakim’s EP Application re Mira Este (ROA 553)

11.8.4) 19/03/22: Minute Order (ROA 575)

11.8.4) 19/03/15: Minute Order (ROA 582)

11.8.4) 19/03/29: Minute Order (ROA 600)

11.8.4) 19/04/02: Minute Order (ROA 601)

11.8.4) 19/04/04: Minute Order w Attached Sign in Sheet (ROA 620)

11.8.4) 19/04/03: Proposed Order (ROA 627)

11.8.4) 19/03/29: Essary’s Report and Recommendation (ROA 631)

11.8.4) 19/03/29: Griswold’s Declaration in Support of Receivers Report and Recommendation (ROA 632)

11.8.4) 19/03/29: Essary’s Declaration in Support of Report and Recommendation (ROA 633)

11.8.4) 19/05/09: Order After Hearing (ROA 681)

11.8.4) 19/05/09: Minute Order w Attachment (ROA 686)

11.8.4) 19/05/21: Minute Order w Attachment (ROA 750)

11.8.4) 19/06/06: Minute Order (ROA 763)

11.8.4) 19/05/31: Minute Order (ROA 772)

11.8.4) 19/06/28: Minute Order (ROA 780)

11.8.4) 19/07/19: Minute Order (ROA 789)

11.8.4) 19/08/23: Minute Order (ROA 878)

11.8.4) 19/08/26: Minute Order (ROA 881)

11.8.4) 19/08/29: Minute Order (ROA 889)

11.8.4) 19/08/16: Minute Order w Attachment (ROA 893)

11.8.4) 19/09/17: Minute Order (ROA 914)

11.8.4) 19/09/26: Minute Order (ROA 924)

11.8.4) 19/10/01: Minute Order (ROA 933)

11.8.4) 19/10/25: Minute Order (ROA 966)

11.8.4) 19/10/31: Minute Order (ROA 977)

11.8.4) 19/11/05: Minute Order (ROA 986)

11.8.4) 19/11/14: Minute Order (ROA 1001)

11.8.4) 19/11/07: Minute Order (ROA 1006)

11.8.4) 19/11/07: Minute Order (ROA 1007)

11.8.4) 19/12/13: Minute Order (ROA 1044)

11.8.4) 19/12/20: Minute Order (ROA 1058)

11.8.4) 20/03/03: Minutes Finalized for EP Heard on 03/03/20 (ROA 1104)

11.8.4) 20/05/27: Minute Order (ROA 1128)

11.8.4) 20/06/05: Minute Order (ROA 1138)

11.8.4) 20/06/05: Essary Status Report (ROA 1156)

11.8.4) 20/06/11: Minute Order (ROA 1176)

11.8.4) 20/06/11: Minute Order (ROA 1182)

11.8.4) 20/09/03: Minute Order (ROA 1246)

11.8.4) 20/09/15: Minute Order (ROA 1269)

11.8.4) 20/09/25: Minute Order (ROA 1274)

11.8.4) 20/09/30: Malan’s Objections to Essary’s Accounting Report of Receivership Income, Expenses and Interim Fees (ROA 1286)

11.8.4) 20/09/22: Essary’s Accounting Report of Income, Expenses and Interim Fees, Proposed Order (ROA 1288)

11.8.4) 20/10/05: Essary’s Report and Recommendation ORDER (ROA 1289)

11.8.4) 20/10/08: Minute Order (ROA 1310)

11.8.4) 20/10/09: Minute Order (ROA 1319)

11.8.4) 20/10/21: Minute Order (ROA 1336)

11.8.4) 20/10/22: Minute Order (ROA 1341)

11.8.4) 20/11/03: Minute Order (ROA 1362)

11.8.4) 20/11/06: Minute Order (ROA 1375)

11.8.4) 20/11/10: Minute Order (ROA 1379)

11.8.4) 20/11/10: Minute Order (ROA 1381)

11.8.4) 20/11/19: Minute Order (ROA 1404)

11.8.4) 20/11/30: Minute Order (ROA 1427)

11.8.4) 20/12/04: Minute Order (ROA 1445)

11.8.4) 21/01/26: Minute Order (ROA 1469)

11.8.4) 21/02/01: Minute Order (ROA 1485)

11.8.4) 21/02/05: Minute Order (ROA 1495)

11.8.4) 21/02/22: Minute Order (ROA 1514)

11.8.4) 21/02/25: Minute Order (ROA 1517)

11.8.4) 21/02/06: Minute Order (ROA 1532)

11.8.4) 21/03/25: Minute Order (ROA 1565)

11.8.4) 21/03/24: Essary’s February 2021 Monthly Accounting Report (ROA 1567)

11.8.4) 21/04/05:  Sherlock’s Motion to Intervene EP Application and Supporting Documents (ROA 1568)

11.8.4) 21/04/05: Sherlock’s MPA (ROA 1569)

11.8.4) 21/04/05: Sherlock’s Proposed Complaint in Intervention (ROA 1570)

11.8.4) 21/04/06: Minute Order (ROA 1573)

11.8.4) 21/04/14: Razuki’s Opposition to Receiver Proposed Sale to Prodigous (ROA 1586)

11.8.4) 21/04/15: Minute Order (ROA 1596)

11.8.4) 21/04/22: Minute Order (ROA 1617)

11.8.4) 21/04/26: Statement and MPA in Support of Receiver’s Proposed Sale of Property (ROA 1621)

11.8.4) 21/04/28: Minute Order (ROA 1631)

11.8.4) 21/05/13: Minute Order (ROA 1699)

11.8.4) 21/05/14: Minute Order (ROA 1707)

11.8.4) 21/05/14: Minute Order (ROA 1708)

11.8.4) 21/05/14: Minute Order (ROA 1710)

11.8.4) 21/05/18: Minute Order (ROA 1715)

11.8.4) 21/05/20: Minute Order (ROA 1739)

11.8.4) 21/05/26: Minute Order (ROA 1750)

11.8.4) 21/06/03: Minute Order (ROA 1773)

11.8.4) 21/06/04: Minute Order (ROA 1774)

11.8.4) 21/06/23: Minute Order (ROA 1799)

11.8.4) 21/07/21: Minute Order (ROA 1837)

11.8.4) 21/07/20: Minute Order (ROA 1850)

11.8.4) 21/08/10: Minute Order (ROA 1864)

11.8.4) 21/09/02: Minute Order (ROA 1876)

11.8.4) 21/09/30: Minute Order (ROA 1895)

11.8.4) 18/08/16: Minute Order (ROA 1918)

11.8.4) 18/08/20: Minute Order (ROA 1927)

11.8.4) 18/09/07: Minute Order (ROA 1937)

11.8.4) 18/09/14: Minute Order (ROA 1947)

11.8.4) 18/09/28: Minute Order (ROA 1954)

11.8.4) 18/10/19: Minute Order (ROA 1966)

11.8.4) 18/12/13: Minute Order (ROA 1999)

11.8.4) 18/12/14: Minute Order (ROA 2001)

11.8.4) 18/12/18: Minute Order (ROA 2004)

11.8.4) 19/06/28: Minute Order (ROA 2029)

11.8.4) 19/07/19: Minute Order (ROA 2037)

11.8.4) 19/11/01: Minute Order (ROA 2045)

11.8.4) 21/02/19: Minute Order (ROA 2066)

11.8.4) 21/09/30: Minute Order (ROA 2072)

11.8.4) 21/10/07: Order re Essary Accounting for August 2021  (ROA 2080)

11.8.4) 21/10/28: Minute Order (ROA 2092)

11.8.4) 21/10/29: Minute Order (ROA 2096)

11.8.4) 21/11/02: Essary Accounting Report of Receivership Income, Expenses and interim Fees (ROA 2109)

11.8.4) 21/11/05: Order (ROA 2110)

11.8.4) 21/12/03: Essary’s Status Report (ROA 2113)

Section 11.8.5) United States v Salam Razuki et al Criminal Case – Conspiracy to Commit Murder 18-cr-05260

11.8.5) 11/19/18: United States v Salam Razuki, et al Criminal Case- Conspiracy to Commit Murder – Case No 18-MJ-5915

11.8.5) 04/03/20: United States v Salam Razuki Witness List – Case No 18-CR-5260 CAB (ECF 85)

11.8.5) 11/23/20: Transcript (ECF 105)

11.8.5) 11/23/20: Transcript (ECF 106)

11.8.5) 11/23/20: Transcript (ECF 107)

11.8.5) 11/30/20: Notice Exhibit List (ECF 108)

11.8.5) 03/09/21:  Substitution of Attorney for Razuki (ECF 115)

11.8.5) 23/02/02: Consoldated Sentencing Memorandum (ECF 194)

11.8.5) 23/02/08: USA Requests Sentence be Under Seal (ECF 200)

11..8.5) 23/02/10: Judgment (ECF 208)

11.8.5) 23/07/06: Executed Judgment (ECF 252) 

11.9.1) CA BAR Attorney Original Misconduct Complaints Filed

11.9.1) 05/15/17 Joseph Dunn v CAL STATE BAR ARTICLE


11.9.1) DUNN WIKI

11.9.1) 02/06/20 Cotton’s Cover Letter to the CA-BAR

11.9.1) Shammam, Quintin – Shammam Law

11.9.1) Austin, Gina – Austin Legal Group

11.9.1) Phelps, Michael Travis – San Diego City Attorney’s Office

11.9.1) Will, Jana – San Diego City Attorney’s Office

11.9.1) Skeels, Mark – San Diego City Attorney’s Office

11.9.1) Bhatt, Rishi – Finch Thornton and Baird

11.9.1) Demian, David – Finch Thornton and Baird

11.9.1) Thornton, Jason –  Finch Thornton and Baird

11.9.1) Witt, Adam –  Finch Thornton and Baird

11.9.1) Feldman, Kenneth – Lewis and Brisbois

11.9.1) Vanden Heuvel, Timothy Jude – Lewis and Brisbois

11.9.1) McElfresh, Jessica –  McElfresh Law

11.9.1) Pettit, Douglas – Pettit and Kohn

11.9.1) Dalzell, Julia – Pettit and Kohn

11.9.1) Weinstein, Michael – Ferris and Britton

11.9.1) Toothacre, Douglas – Ferris and Britton

11.9.1) Kulas, Elyssa – Ferris and Britton

11.9.1) Shapiro, Matthew – Shapiro Legal

11.9.1) Cline, Stephen

11.9.1) Nguyen, Natalie

11.9.1) Morgan-Reed, Cynthia

11.9.1) Deitz, Eric – Gordon & Rees

11.9.1) Dupuy, Tatiana – Gordon & Rees

11.9.1) Crosby, James

11.9.1A EXHIBITS: While the individual 11.9.1 complaints speak for themselves and following exhibits have all already been uploaded on the site, they have been listed here for ease of access and reference.

11.9.1A) Who is Canna-Greed?  A Flowchart Guide to the People and Their Roles

11.9.1A) 02/18/16 City of SD v Cotton Civil Complaint Case No 37-2016-00005526

11.9.1A) 02/24/16 City of SD v Cotton Civil Complaint Case No 37-2016-00005526  Sperry Declaration (Rezoning @ Page 3 Para 8)

11.9.1A) 03/15/16 City of SD v Cotton Civil Case No 37-2016-00005526 TRO Opposition Filed by Jeff Lake

11.9.1A) 12/09/16 City of SD v Cotton Civil Case No 37-2016-00005526 Final Judgement

11.9.1A) 03/15/17 City of SD v Cotton Criminal Complaint Case No M233071

11.9.1A) 04/05/17 City of SD v Cotton Criminal Case No M233071 Plea Agreement

11.9.1A) 04/18/17 City of San Diego Begins Forfeiture Action Files Lis Pendens

11.9.1A) 05/09/17 Cotton’s Atty Bryson Provides Cotton a Declaration re Plea Agreement Seized Assets Was Not to Include Real Property

11.9.1A) 10/04/17 Cotton’s Atty Cline Negotiates a $25K Payoff to Settle the Criminal Complaint

11.9.1A) 12/24/19 Cotton’s Multiple Parties XMAS Eve Email

11.9.1A) 10/28/20 Young to Cotton Email with Attachments re Nguyen and Subpoena

11.9.2 CA-BAR Responses

11.9.2) 02/14/20 CA-BAR Response Letter with Case Assignment Numbers – 24 each

11.9.2) 02/19/20 Dupuy, Tatiana Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/19/20 Skeels, Mark Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/19/20 VandenHeuvel, Tim Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Bhatt, Rishi Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Demian, David Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Phelps, Michael Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Thornton, Jason Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Toothacre, Scott Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Will, Jana Mickova Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/20/20 Witt, Adam Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/21/20 Weinstein, Michael Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/21/20 Pettit, Douglas Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/21/20 Kulas, Elyssa Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 02/21/20 Dalzell, Julia Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 06/03/20 Cline, Stephen Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 06/03/20 Morgan-Reed, Cynthia Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 06/03/20 Shammam, Quintin Dismissal Letter

11.9.2) 06/22/20 Nguyen, Natalie Case Closed Letter

11.9.2) 06/22/20 Shapiro, Matthew Case Closed Letter

11.9.2) 06/22/20 Austin, Gina Case Closed Letter

11.9.2) 08/11/20 McElfresh, Jessica Case Closed Letter

11.9.3) The State Bar of California, Complaint Review Unit, Office of General Counsel 

11.9.3) 11/17/20 Cotton’s letter to CRU requesting that based on new evidence discovered in the Nguyen matter the CRU reopen Cotton’s BAR complaint.

11.9.3) Attachments A1-A4

11.9.3) Attachments B1 and B2

11.9.3) Attachments 1-5

11.9.3) 12/14/20 CRU response email ackowledging receipt and review of the Nguyen documents

11.9.3) 01/06/21 CRU declines to review case on new evidence.

11.9.4) Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) – Judge Wohlfeil

The CA-BAR does not accept complaints regarding judges or their rulings unless their acts meets specific conditions outside their authority.  That type of complaint needs to be submitted to the Commission on Judicial Performance.  On April 8, 2020 that is what I did to ensure that Judge Wohlfeil’s actions during my case would not go unnoticed.

11.9.4) 04/08/20 CJP Complaint with Exhibits

11.9.4) 04/13/20 CJP Response Letter

11.9.4) 07/09/20 CJP Closes Case Letter

11.9.5) CJP Database Excerpts from Judges Complaints Filed and the CJP Decisions 

After a complaint is made to the CJP and it is investigated there are 4 things the can happen.  If there is insufficient evidence the complaint is dropped.  If there is a finding of guilt, depending upon the severity of the judicial misconduct there are 3 levels of discipline that can be applied with the least severe being a CENSURE the next being a PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT and for the worst OFFENSES a REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.  This is the CJP database where this information can be found.  Below are cases that have been gleaned from that database that show particular evidence of how the CJP is not always impartial in their handling of these matters and can treat judges to a less harsh punishment then what the conditions demanded.

11.9.5) 09/02/69 Chagrin-Stated Hitler was Right and Recommended the Defendant, a Minor, Commit Suicide.  Decision:  Censure

11.10) The Aaron Magagna CUP @ 3279 National Avenue, San Diego, CA  92113

11.10) 03/04/19; Gina Austin Facebook Post Before I go into a description of this post I need to provide a little background.  First off I would like to thank Atty Gina Austin for this FB post on the CA City and County Regulation Watch (CCRW) Facebook group.  This group has around 8K members and has been considered the preeminent group to see the latest CA cannabis regulations and comment on them in the group.  I was member for about 6 months when the Administrator of the group Jacqueline McGowan  (JM) kicked me out of her group.  JM had been tasked with starting and managing this group when she worked for K Street Consulting a political lobbyist group (she has since been released from K Street) that worked on behalf of certain clients to further their agenda with Prop 64, The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) that passed in November 2016.   How I managed to maintain membership in this group for as long as I did is a testament to how when I decide to play nice with the enemy I can.

What finally got JM to boot me from her group came as a result of her asking me to remove but me refusing to take this; 10/05/16; Screen Shot of Attorneys who Publicly Endorsed Prop 64-AUMA on the Friends of Prop 64 Website post down.  I explained to her that is should remain up because as officers of the court, they were using their authority and experts in contract law to make an unqualified statement on behalf of medical cannabis patients, in support of an initiative that had they even read would have alerted them to the fraud (ultimately that fraud was the responsibility of the AG we had at the time Kamala Harris who allowed it to reach the voters) that was being perpetuated upon the voters.  JM did exactly as she promised me she was going to do and kicked me and that post out of the CCRW group.

My being kicked out of the CCRW group ended up being the best thing that could have happened to me because I was clearly not a good fit for that group anyway.  This group does nothing more than act as a conduit to spew forth the status quo that is AUMA and the regulations that continue to stamp out our rights to, as medical cannabis patients, access our rights to this plant.  CCRW is not interested in correcting that which is wrong with the laws and regulations but to instead is tasked keeping a cap on any organized resistance to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) which was passed into law in November 2016.  What frosts my ass is that attorneys such as Gina Austin and lobbyists such as HdL and Jim Bartell, have used that law to gain control of various city Land Use Regulations in ‘Pay to Play; schemes that require City Employees, starting in the Development Services Department (DSD) of the City of San Diego and on up through the City Attorney and Mayors Office, to see these schemes work in their efforts to monopolize the licensed cannabis industry within the City of San Diego, as well as other cities, across the state.

As I had come to find out I was not the only one who had been kicked out of CCRW by JM.  There were a growing number of us who had been shown the door who were looking for a place to share our ideas and maintain an eye on the pulse of what was coming out of Sacramento.  I decided to start the Banned Members of the CA City and County Regulation Watch Facebook group to fill that void.  While nowhere near as big as the namesake group we have grown to over 700 members and the conversations are not limited to protecting any class when the evidence is there to show corruption, malfeasance or just plain stupidity.  With that I will show how JM and Gina Austin let this post get through in an attempt to show how great she was (see the upper right hand corner for her language in the post) in getting her client, Aaron Magagna, the ”First San Diego County Cultivation Annual License’.

When Austin posted this I had already been excommunicated from the group however I still have access to the group through an alter ego and was able to see this post.  What bothered me about it was that she was advertising this license as a SD County license when in fact the address and location of the project is within the City of San Diego.  That meant that Magagna had to have gone through the Development Services Department (DSD) process to apply for and be granted the CUP before CDFA would issue the license in this post.  It’s because Gina referred to this license as one being granted by the County of SD I got suspicious,  The problem I have with Gina is she represented Geraci in his ‘attempts’ to get a Marijuana Outlet (MO) at my 6176 Federal Blvd property but abandoned those efforts for Geraci who had control of the CUP being processed at my property to go work for Magagna.  Now when Austin did this Geraci made not one peep of protest.  Geraci also didn’t oppose the fact that the same DSD Project Manager (PM) Cherlyn Cac who had worked on his project was now PM for the competing 6220 project and Firouzeh Tirandazi is her boss who also worked on both the 6176 and Magagna 6220 projects is PM for the Magagna 3279 project.  Tirandazi even states at trial and under oath the she no longer works as PM on these projects but in her capacity as DSD Level III PM Supervisor Tirandazi Trial Testimony Page 106 Lines 2-10.  Clearly the following exhibits will show that as PM for the 3279 project was working as a Supervisor on Magagna’s 6220 project while she was the PM for his 3279 project.  And as can be seen by the outcome, both projects were approved regardless of the fact there were significant setback issues that if she had been aware of them Tirandazi Trial Testimony Page 125 Line 2-12 would have disqualified them from either of the Magagna projects from being approved.  Well that was clearly not the case where Tirandazi knew of setback issues and still approved that project and on the other Magagna 6220 project Cac lied about not knowing there were two child care centers within 1000′ of the 6220 project.

Now getting back to Austin.  By trial court records Geraci had paid Austin $6,800 in legal fees Austin Legal Fees for the 6176 CUP Project Exhibit 138 and was now working for Magagna who was in the process of applying for a competing CUP at 6220 Federal Blvd which if was successful would have eliminated the Geraci CUP at my property because it was within the 1000′ set back of the Magagna CUP.  All of this is detailed in Chapter 13 of the Canna-Greed story.  At trial Austin stated she never worked for Magagna on the 6220 project and because of Attorney Client Privilege Austin Trial Transcript; Page 50, Lines 15-26 would not identify what projects she worked for when she was working for Magagna.  What we can clearly see by this and the following exhibits it was the 3279 project she had been working on and not the 6220 project as she claimed.  That is an absurd statement and a bald face lie. being made under oath.  Magagna had Austin, Cac and Tirandazi in his pocket on the 6220 project and the Design Professional hired by Geraci and listed on the DSD Customer Information sheet was Abhay Schweitzer of TECHNE who knew about the two child care centers but never brought it up at the 10/18/18 Planning Commission hearing where the 6220 CUP was approved or in his 12/04/18 Appeal to have the 6220 CUP denied TECHNE APPEAL of the 6220 CUP Approval. This whole thing was a charade from start to finish that required the cooperation of DSD to make it happen.

While Geraci may not have been upset by this professional lapse of ethical judgement by Austin I certainly was and decided to keep quiet about it until my case against Geraci was decided and we found out who the City of SD would eventually award the Federal Blvd CUP to.  After just a 7 month application to final award by the City of SD, Magagna on his own, somehow managed to beat out Geraci and his team of experienced professionals and with the support of the SAME Project Manager Cherlyn Cac who had worked on BOTH the 6176 and the 6220 CUPS for DSD, the Federal Blvd CUP went to Magagna at 6220 Federal.  The Geraci v Cotton with cross complaints trial ended in July 2019 and a jury award went to Geraci for $261K for what the jury had been led to believe was my having interfered with the Geraci CUP process.  The Geraci lawsuit and trial in state court was a sham and will be exposed in Federal court.  But the nexus lines in support of that claim are to be found in this section.

As a side note, I don’t blame the jury for their decision.  My side was outmatched by Geraci and his 3 lawyers,  My attorney was new to civil litigation and this was his first time in front of a jury.  He was nervous and it showed.  Geraci’s attorneys were experts at twisting any possible bit of evidence they had into a major failure on my part to see Geraci attain the CUP at my property.  Geraci’s attorneys turned what was really a very simple matter of could a 3 sentence document be a fully integrated and binding contract that included all the terms and conditions to sell my property to Geraci and have the CUP application process be included in that sale.  It was OBVIOUSLY not enough to have a 3 sentence document include all those terms and conditions and Geraci, the Judge and even some of the witnesses testified in court that it was not a fully integrated contract.  That should have been case over because in the Geraci lawsuit he claimed the 3 sentence document WAS the only evidence they needed to support their claim.  This led to a 3 year legal battle that as a matter of law should have been thrown out as a non-suit because as ANY first year law student would conclude MUTUAL ASSENT was NOT to be found in the 3 SENTENCE DOCUMENT these people would argue was the case.  I give them credit for the work they did but had it not been for Judge Wohlfeil and his bias towards Geraci they would have NEVER gotten this into a 3 year ordeal that ultimately required a jury to determine a question of law.  That had been the judges job and he failed at every level to properly adjudicate this matter,  It’s not the juries fault they even had to sit through this case and were forced to render a decision at all.  If anything this case just shows how, in the improper hands, a decision can and was, bought and paid for.

The CDFA license is showing good from 03/04/19 thru 03/04/20.  On 3/10/20 I went to the CDFA website CALCANNBIS License Search to check and see if license no CML18-0000220 had been renewed.  But no matter how I tried that license number never came up under any search parameters I put in.  So I spent two days trying to get a hold of someone at CDFA and on 10/11/20 I finally managed to speak to someone named Greg who would not give me a last name or an employee ID No, but did agree to look up the license number and was able to tell me something strange had happened on that license.  He told me that yes it had been issued on the 03/04/19 date but that it had been ‘retired’ that same day.  It has not been an active license since 03/04/19.   He was not sure why nor had he ever seen this happen before.  But he did tell me that they are not authorized to grow cannabis under a CA license since 03/04/19.  He had no explanation for what had happened.

On 3/17/20 I reached out to Metrc which is the official CDFA hardware/software company that licensed cultivators get signed up for to report their tax liabilities to the state and local governments.  When I gave the Metrc representative the license number beginning with CML she told be that the state changed that to a CCL license prefix.  I typed that in the CDFA website and the number showed as active.  Had Greg at CDFA, the person I reached by phone, told me that I would have probably dropped it as a questionable approval but not operating as a unlicensed entity.  Nonetheless there are still questionable elements of how this CUP was processed so the information is going to remain here for further review and consideration.

11.10) 03/10/12 @ 3279 National Ave Looking West Showing 12 Grow Room HVAC Condensors on the Outside of the Bldg.

11.10) DSD Screenshots for 3279 National Ave.

11.10) DSD Staff Cycle Review Recommending Denial Based on MAJOR Setback Compliance Issues

11.10) Alan Austin Design This is Gina Austin’s husband.

11.10) 02/06/19 Notice of Hearing

11.10) 02/12/19 Hearing Officer Report by Tirandazi

11.10) 05/20/19 Hearing Officer Report to DENY the Appeals and Issue the MPF with Setback Deviations

11.10) DSD Customer Information

11.11A) City of Los Angeles Councilmember Huizar Pay to Play and Retaliation Lawsuits

In an effort to show the widespread ;pay to play; activities that occur in CA cannabis licensing it’s important to see what lawsuits, such as the JESSE LEON v JOSE HUIZAR & CITY OF LOS ANGELES, are brought forth that present the charges in an attempt to see that these matters can be properly adjudicated in a court of law.  Mr. Leon is being represented by Mr. Terrence Jones, a former Assistant United States Attorney.  For reference purposes, while not ‘pay to play’ the other previous cases involving Mr. Huizar have been listed here as well.


11.11A) 10/22/18 ALVAREZ v HUIZAR & CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al


11.11A) 10/31/18 MEDINA v HUIZAR & CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al

11.11A) 03/24/20 LEON v HUIZAR & CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al

11B: USA v HUIZAR Criminal Complaint – RICO

11.11B) 06/22/20 US v HUIZAR Charged with RICO (ECF 1) While this complaint does an excellent job of identifying Huizar’s illegal pay to play activities in terms of who gets to develop projects it does NOT EVEN touch on his role in cannabis pay to play politics which cost POC hundreds of thousands of dollars in application fees the City of LA took in and the applicants never had a chance of being awarded the license.

11.11B) 07/01/20 New AUSA Assigned (ECF 17)

11.11B) 07/23/20 Indictment (ECF 36)

11.11B) 07/30/20 Case Summary (ECF 37)

11.11B) 11/12/20 First Superseding Indictment (ECF 74)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Case Summary – Jose Luis Huizar (ECF 78)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Case Summary – Raymond She Wah Chan (ECF 79)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Case Summary – Wei Huang (ECF 80)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Case Summary – Shen Zhen New World Order (ECF 81)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Case Summary – Dae Yong Lee (ECF 82)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Case Summary – 940 Hill LLC (ECF 83)

11.11B) 11/12/20 Memorandum of Complex Case (ECF 86)

11.11B) 11/30/20 DOJ Press Release; 5 New Defendants to Add to the RICO Charges Including a Deputy City Mayor

11.11B) 01/27/21 Order Vacating Speedy Trial Dates (ECF 159)

11.11C) USA v MITCHELL ENGLANDER Criminal Complaint (LA City Councilman)

11.11C) 01/16/20 USA v MITCHELL ENGLANDER Criminal Complaint (ECF 1) Another Planning and Land  Use Management official who accepted bribes in pay to play licensing and land use permits.

11.11C) 03/09/20 Report Commencing Criminal Action (ECF 12)

11.11C) 01/27/21 Judgement and Probation/Commitment Order (ECF 62)

11.12) Charles Edward Lepp

11.12) 08/25/04 LEPP Search Warrant

11.12) 02/17/05 U.S. v LEPP Criminal Complaint

11.12) 03/06/08 U.S. v LEPP Motion Order

11.12) 08/14/08 U.S. v LEPP Motion in Limine

11.12) 05/21/09 U.S. v LEPP Sentencing Order

11.12) 04/09/13 U.S. v LEPP Order Denying

11.12) 08/04/20 U.S. v LEPP Early Termination Supervision Order

11.13) US Attorney Investigates Cannabis Industry for Illegal Activities

11.13) 04/27/20 MJBiz Article re US Attorney Investigating Weed Maps et al

11.13) 11/31/19 Federal Subpoena to Ghost Management Group

11.14) Dave Armstrong – Medimarts

11.14) 08/2008: CA Medical Marijuana Guidelines

11.14) 08/2017: Who is Dave Armstrong and Medimarts?  His Journey into Licensed Medical Cannabis Cultivation

11.14) 08/2017: Dave Armstrong on the Differences Between a Collective and a Cooperative.

11.14) 08/2017: Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen Rosen failed, in his sworn Duty of Candor, to inform Armstrong that by following State and local cannabis law and regulation he would be self incriminating under federal drug laws that should he be prosecuted would expose him to federal prison and asset forfeiture laws Rosen aided and abetted Armstrong in breaking federal laws by advising Armstrong that he was in compliance but did not like that his operation was in Lake County not Santa Clara County.  In other words, Rosen, a licensed CA Attorney and the District Attorney for Santa Clara County.  wanted the tax revenues from Armstrong’s licensed cultivation enterprise and his advice to Armstrong at the time was to have Armstrong relocate his farm into Santa Clara where he would then be in ‘full compliance’.    

11.14) 12/12/17: State Board of Equalization Hearing re State Sales Tax Rulings and Armstrong’s Arguments – Item C7 The C7 portion of the audio for this hearing begins at  3:35:09 into the hearings.  Armstrong, who is self represented at this hearing, is not a lawyer or an accountant.  He does a fine job of conveying to the tribunal that the CA laws are in conflict with federal laws that under the Supremacy Clause creates a situation that under the 5th Amendment Armstrong and others in his class will be subject to federal criminal prosecution should state/local databases get into the hands of the federal government.  Armstrong presents a coherent and reasoned objection to the BOE taxable assessment and the entire state taxation that ignores the fact that under the federal supremacy clause it is enough to be found guilty under federal law if the state law provides incriminating evidence the federal drug laws are being violated.  Armstrong gets BOE judge Ma to call the issue Armstrong is describing as a ‘conundrum’ yet does nothing to provide taxpayer guidance other than to state the taxpayer needs to be compliant with licensing and current tax law for the sale of cannabis products.

In the last portion of the C7 hearing BOE Council President, Ms. Harkey even takes a halfhearted attempt to describe what the federal government is doing in the  Rohrbacher – Farr Amendment to provide some measure of protection to the actions the State of CA and it’s various agencies have in the Tax, Regulate and Control of recreational cannabis as defined in the voter approved initiative Prop 64.  Armstrong does NOT let that offhanded comment go unchallenged and in his 1 minute response attempts to educate Harkey that what she believes is a form of federal protection is nothing of the kind.  Harkey is unimpressed.  Of note the Appeals Bureau’s recommendation that Medimarts did owe the $292K in unpaid sales tax the ruling required BOE Board Member Ms. Stowers to bring the ruling forward with no one else to second it until after a brief but pregnant delay, Ms. Harkey saved the BOE bacon by seconding the motion.  This C7 exchange proves conclusively that the BOE knew that they were impinging on Armstrong’s, and everyone else’s who are subject to this regulatory scheme, 5th Amendment rights by insisting they were above federal law when it came to the implementation and setting of state recreational cannabis law.


11.14) 12/12/17: Minutes Partial Item C7 Medimarts Only

11.14) 12/12/17: Minutes Full Item C7 Medimarts on Pg 188

11.14) 12/12/17: BOE Atty Brad Heller As an attorney, Mr. Heller violated his Duty of Candor by not informing the tribunal that Armstrong would be impinging on his 5th Amendment rights by agreeing to follow BOE tax and registration guidelines.

11.15) 05/21/20: USA v David Romero and Bruno Suarez-Soto (The Calexico Case) This federal criminal Calexico Case is illustrative of how deeply rooted the licensed cannabis pay to play method of doing business has become, since the passage or Prop 64 in November 2016 at the local government levels.  The problem is systemic and includes cities and counties covering up their activities with abatement’s and fine’s that somehow do not find their way into the local governments audited General Fund.  I recommend reading the complaint and paying special attention to the fact that the case was made by bribing the Mayor Pro Tem (Romero)  and the City Council member (Suarez-Soto) who was also the Commissioner on the City of Calexico Economic Development and Financial Advisory Commission.

Of note when reading the complaint is the fact that an FBI Undercover Officer (UC), acting as an investor seeking a cannabis license in the City of Calexico requested preferential treatment that would have guaranteed that the license being sought would indeed be granted to the that UC.  Based on the complaint the case was setup with documentation of the conversations, promised services, exchange of money and reference to their both having engaged in this sort of behavior before.   This is particularly troubling because there are only a limited number of these licenses being granted and there are numerous other parties competing for the same license.  What the complaint indicates is that the defendants used their power and influence with city staff and services to delay the other applicants which in a race to the finish line would put their ‘client’ at the front of the line.

When is the federal government going to have enough of this?  The business of recreational, for profit is clearly illegal based on the controlled substance act and as the USA is a member nation of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics (UNSCN) in Para 49 2(f) a member nation can accept the use of cannabis within their country for scientific and medical purposes.  As a state, CA clearly ignores our federal responsibilities and asserts their 10th amendment rights in their challenge with federal cannabis law which when Prop 215, the Compassionate Use Act was passed in November 1996 stood in accordance with our national responsibilities as defined in the UNSCN.  It was with the passing of Prop 64 we have seen local government take advantage of the ever evolving and patchwork quilt of state law that defines the Control, Tax and Regulation of Adult Use Marijuana (AUMA) which was Prop 64.

So what can be done about it?  Plenty and it starts with the Calexico Case.  Under the Supremacy Clause all the US Attorney (Brewer) would need to do is add into his complaint that the City of Calexico aided and abetted the criminal act whereby a licensee would be knowingly violating federal cannabis drug policy and by becoming licensed would be waiving their 5th amendment rights in the process.  The state makes these spreadsheets  BCC All State License Holders as of 05/06/2020  of licensed cannabis enterprises readily available to the public.

In the Calexico Complaint  para 10 US Atty Brewer makes the statement as to how the City of Calexico set forth the scheme that allowed the defendants to be charged with bribery.   What the complaint does NOT charge is the City of Calexico for under 18 USC Section 2 Aiding and Abetting a Crime (Criminal Resource Manual 2474).  Why is it important this charge by applied in this case?  The defendants could not have done what they did in the sting operation which led to the bribery charges UNLESS the City of Calexico has aided and abetted that process.  If US Atty Brewer does NOT add the City of Calexico and the Aiding and Abetting charges when under the Supremacy Clause and the Preemption Doctrine that falls within it is based upon Article VI of the Constitution make federal law “the supreme law of the land”.  When conflicts between state and federal law arise whereby state laws attempt to “nullify” federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are ANY CLEARER that the fact that any such efforts are GROSSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and as such state law is PREEMPTED and federal law applies.  This means that ANY federal law, even a regulation of a federal agency trumps ANY conflicting state law.

If US Atty Brewer chooses to not charge the City of Calexico with aiding and abetting a federal crime under the Supremacy Clause I would recommend that the DOJ drop the bribery charges against the defendants BECAUSE in the charges being made the DOJ is actually asking for, under USC Sec 2461(c) criminal forfeiture of those ill gotten gains.  In other words the DOJ is not only not doing it’s job by not enforcing federal drug law but they are giving a blind eye to the very regulatory framework that allows local government to extort money in these schemes but they are no better than those they are charging BECAUSE they want those ill gotten gains.

Before I close this section I want to point to an excellent paper that Stanford Law School Law and Public Policy –  Implementing Proposition 64 produced in March 2017, AFTER Prop 64 was passed and signed into law, a paper they titled Implementing Proposition 64; Implementing Marijuana Policy in California that delved into the conflicts that exist between “AUMA” and “MCRSA” policies. As stated within the paper; ‘Since approved statutes and amendments are almost immediately operational and presumptively valid, a court does not have an opportunity to interpret or evaluate their constitutionality until a party brings a suit. Generally, a party who has suffered or will suffer an injury from the enforcement of a particular statute may bring a suit to challenge its validity. Hence, understanding how to appropriately amend the AUMA is a critical component to regulating the industry’. This is was an important consideration in March of 2017 but in light of the local governments criminal and unethical handling of these licenses the states have not done anything to regulate the fair and impartial management of these cannabis laws. Hence it really is up to the federal government to assert control over this state matter so that the medical cannabis patients rights can be maintained.

Lastly, either there is or there isn’t a federal policy on cannabis.  If the will is not there for federal de/rescheduling of cannabis than as was seen under the DOJ’s policy as stated in The Cole Memo that states like CA and cities like Calexico need to know that it was stated policy how the federal government would treat non-profit medical cannabis cannabis in a doctor/patient approved regulatory framework.  While the state had over 20 years to fix problems with Prop 215 they made the conscious decision to turn that relationship into a for-profit enterprise that in the 3 years since it’s passage has given us, the People, nothing more than today’s version of Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall.  It really is up to the DOJ to fix it.  This case, with these charges begins that journey.

11.16) County of Santa Cruz, ET AL v Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC). This is an interesting case with far reaching industry implications.  It is a case  that is being widely considered throughout the state because cannabis delivery services realize a large portion of their revenues from delivering cannabis products to customers who reside in areas where local governments have bans on commercial cannabis activity. The permanent regulations that went into effect at the beginning of 2019 clarified marijuana delivery noting that Proposition 64, “permits commercial cannabis deliveries to any physical address in the state.” However this provision is in direct conflict with the authority of local governments to prohibit marijuana deliveries within their boundaries.  This will be one of the first times that Proposition 64 is tested in court, and will set a significant precedent for future cases. This litigation battle is essentially a power struggle that will decide who overrules who.  Will it be state regulators who for market oversight or the local governments who determine if cannabis business can be conducted?

The Plaintiff’s arguments are based on local governments having Land Use Regulation rights that are being infringed upon by the state and the state argues that in addition to the language that was included in the voter approved Prop 64 initiative we live in an era of Amazon Prime where deliveries can and do occur to the extent that the local government does not have those controls and that the customer may home bound and/or using the cannabis for a medical condition that the local government would be denying them access to should they prevail.

I have provided all the significant on line case filings here in there chronological order.   This case has significance to me because it illustrates what these cities were told would happen if they supported Prop 64 and then years later those promises were conveniently forgotten.  Prop 64 was a lie to the people and everyone of the defendants listed in this complaint.  Specifically, as this indicates, because of the contradictions in law that were not discovered UNTIL AFTER this sham initiative became law!  I recommend you take the time and go through the filings.  From the standpoint of a forthcoming class action lawsuit, there is, as the saying goes, gold in them thar hills.

11.16) 04/04/19: Plaintiffs Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

11.16) 05/17/19: Defendants Answer to Complaint

11.16) 10/03/19: Plaintiffs Notice of Association of Counsel

11.16) 01/13/20: Defendants Joint Petition and Order re Exemption from Settlement Conference

11.16) 01/30/20: Defendants Motion to Continue Trial

11.16) 05/04/20: Defendants Notice of Lodgement

11.16) 05/04/20: Defendants Stipulation and Notice re Trial Briefing Schedule

11.16) 05/04/20: Plaintiffs Trial Brief

11.16) 05/04/20: Plaintiffs RJN

11.16) 05/04/20: Plaintiffs MPA in Support of RJN

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 1-10

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 11-20

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 21-22

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 23-25

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 26-30

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 31-40

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 41-50

11.16) 05/13/20: Plaintiffs RJN EX 51-55

11.16) 06/08/20: Defendants Trial Brief

11.16) 06/08/20: Defendants RJN

11.16) 06/08/20: Defendants RJN EX A-E

11.16) 06/22/20: Plaintiffs Reply Trial Brief

11.16) 08/03/20:  Defendant Related-HK Cannabis Law Request to File an Amicus Brief on Behalf of Defendant

11.16) 08/04/20: Order Denying MJ Biz Request for Media Coverage

11.16) 08/06/20: Order Granting HK Cannabis Law Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant

11.16) 08/07/20: Defendant Related HK Cannabis Law Amicus Brief

11.16) 08/10/20: Defendant Related – Zysziewicz Request to File on Amicus Brief on Behalf of Defendant

11.16) 09/21/20 Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief Regarding Ripeness

11.16) 09/21/20: Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Corrected Formal Objections to Evidence Offered by Plaintiffs

11.17) Beck v IRS  So you want to be a state and local government licensed cannabis business in the United States of America?  Read this first.

08/10/15 Beck v IRS – An Analysis Here I analyze what really changed in federal cannabis law and what would be their enforcement of federal drug laws in CA both before and after the passage of Prop 64 effect be on the state cannabis licensee?    As can been seen by this case, the DEA raided and seized cannabis from a state and local government licensed cannabis operation whereby the owner of the business, Beck, was filing his federal tax returns, a self incriminating act but he did so anyway, and reported his earnings.  As you read this, pay attention to the dates and what the various federal and state agencies were doing to Beck during this process of shutting him down and denying casualty losses from the DEA raid.  As of the time I write this, August 19, 2020 nothing has changed in how the fed interprets there role in enforcing federal drug laws.  Cannabis is still a Schedule One drug and they can and will, under the Supremacy Clause in the Preemption Doctrine authorizes and indeed requires the DOJ to enforce federal laws when the opportunity presents itself.

Where I believe the fed has cannabis wrong is in the enforcement of state medical cannabis laws because under the The Cole Memo the DOJ has previously allowed for the use of medical cannabis in those states where it was legal to do so.  The Cole Memo was rescinded in January 2018 but at the time of the Beck case would have been in effect.  Yet, even with the Cole Memo in effect and as Beck was operating a medical cannabis business in a state that allowed it, the DEA raided him and with the HELP of the state seized his bank accounts.  Not only is this type of collusion and conspiracy ILLEGAL in the USA the fact that no one seems to be paying attention to in all of this is that under the United Stated international obligations as defined in Article 49 Paragraph 2(f) of the  United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics (UNSCON) it is agreed that any of the 78 member nations to this convention that cannabis may be used, without restriction, for scientific and medical purposes.  International law superseded federal law and federal law supersedes state law.  The DOJ needs to accept the United States responsibilities as defined in the UNSCON by adhering to the conditions set forth for cannabis use for both medical and scientific purposes, return to the policies established in the Cole Memo and charge any state or local government with aiding and abetting federal drug laws by creating regulatory licensing schemes that directly violate federal drug laws.  In short International Law as it pertains to signed agreements between member nations, supersedes federal law and federal law supersedes state law when those laws are inconsistent with one another.

IMO Beck and there are many more like him, need to seek redress in a federal court whereby these issues can be adjudicated and the appropriate compensation be found for those who have suffered damages as a result of inconsistent application of medical cannabis enforcement by the DOJ and state sponsored cannabis laws, i.e Prop 64 which clearly states in Section 11: Construction and Interpretation there is no conflict with state and federal law, has by that language aided and abetted cannabis related activities that directly violate both international and federal laws by encouraging for-profit recreational cannabis activities under state and and local regulatory licensing schemes.

Based on the actions of the DOJ it could be argued they are actually complicit in the overall state scheme to monopolize the cannabis industry by NOT charging the state and local governments, I’ve personally asked them to do so, for allowing these licensing schemes to flourish and continue to subjectively enforce federal bribery laws that these official engage in while not addressing what should be the crux of their issue  which is the state and local governments for profit schemes that exist in an attempt to monopolize the industry.  In fact it’s worth noting that federal enforcement of cannabis drug laws post Prop 64, in conjunction with state law enforcement agencies have not been to eradicate and arrest licensed cannabis activities but only those that were found to be unlicensed and unwilling to waive their 4th and 5th amendment rights in what would be possible federal prosecution.  It’s also noteworthy that while the state can apply a 10th amendment argument as to why they are not adhering to federal cannabis laws the unlicensed farmer can not apply that same argument in their defense.  Under asset forfeiture laws their real properties are seized when the costs for eradicating the unlicensed cannabis activities is presented to the property owner for payment and the owner can not pay the excessive demand, they simply lose their property.  And there is one less unlicensed cannabis farm for the monopoly to contend with.

As it currently stands this is a fully fucked system and if you decide, after reading this, that it makes sense to invest in something so inherently flawed you are on your own.  You’ve been warned. 

11.18)  Social Equity Owners and Workers Association Inc.

Social Equity Owners & Workers Association (“SEOWA”“) is a collective of Social Equity Applicants advocating for the advancement of social equity.  Our mission is a commitment to fairness, justice, and equality in the formulation of public policy, distribution of education services, implementation of community reinvestment, and oversight of institutions serving disadvantaged communities.

11.18) 04/18/20:  SEOWA v CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LADCR AND CAT PACKER – Writ of Mandate to Enforce Non-Discretionary Duty to Act Pursuant to CCCP § 1085

11.19) 06/24/20: DOJ Atty John W. Elias Whistleblower Testimony @ the US House Committee Hearings on the Judiciary re Anti-Trust Investigations Abuse by the DOJ

11.20) 06/29/20: Voice of San Diego Article re Federal Seizures of Licensed Cannabis Products.

11.20) 06/27/20:  BCC email response to question regarding federal intervention and seizure of state licensed cannabis products.

11.20) Prop 64 Section 11 CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION (Page 65) “The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax the Adult Use of Marijuana Act; provided, however, no provision or provisions of this Act shall be interpreted or construed in a mam1er to create a positive conflict with federal law, including the federal Controlled Substances Act, such that the provision or provisions of this Act and federal law cannot consistently stand together.”

11.21) 12/03/19 Ninth Circuit COA- US v Pisarski and Moore Before we get too excited by this ruling, which is awesome BTW, we might consider how the federal courts would rule on a case where the defendants were in compliance with Prop 64? If they ruled that those defendants were in compliance with state law at the time of their being federally arrested and the charges were dropped then there is no part of the CSA that a licensed cannabis business needs to be concerned with and the federal scheduling of cannabis is meaningless in those states where is has been made legal. As I write this I believe that is not the intent of this ruling and in all likelihood helps pave the way for a future class action lawsuit that targets those who brought the voters of CA Prop 64 as a way to knowingly violated federal law.  Here follows some excerpts from this decision that I believe our relevant:

“The panel then held that the district court did not err in its legal analysis, properly focused its McIntosh hearing on the conduct underlying the charge, and did not clearly err in determining that Pisarski and Moore proved by a preponderance of the evidence that they were in strict compliance with California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act at the time of their arrest.”

“We turn to the heart of this dispute: whether the defendants strictly complied with California’s medical marijuana laws. This is a question of state law.”

As it relates to Prop 64 this type of language blows in both directions. What some skilled orator has to do is show the court that it is a result of international law, in the UN Single Convention on Narcotics that the United States is signatory to an agreement that permits the use of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes but NOT recreational. IMO this language and reasoning by the court, while good for the defendants, does not yet make the distinction from a federal perspective, such as what the DOJ’s position on medical cannabis was under the Cole Memo with what Prop 64 did to usher in for-profit cannabis law and regulation. That work has yet to be done.

If you are not a fan of Prop 64 this is IMO where the courts ruling becomes the rubber meeting the road.

“In evaluating whether Defendants strictly complied with California law, the district court was required to consider the Guidelines, the MMPA, and all relevant California judicial decisions. Cf.Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938) (observing that “whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern”).

In other words the district court was REQUIRED to consider the state guidelines of the MMPA and ALL relevant CA judicial decisions but by doing so it is NOT A MATTER OF FEDERAL CONCERN! Clearly it is some matter or federal concern. Here’s why;

In this case the DOJ and the courts go out of their way to define the differences in for-profit recreational and non-profit medical cannabis activities. Read this decision carefully and you’ll see that the crux of the decision can ONLY be made if the federal courts determine the defendants were in compliance with the MMPA. If the CSA does not allow for or recognize the state/patients rights, (it is not a matter of federal concern) to accessing cannabis for medical purposes then the federal courts have a DUTY to enforce federal law under the CSA and instead did just the opposite. They overturned the lower court ruling BECAUSE it was qualified immunity under state medical cannabis law and regulation that freed the defendant. Does Prop 64 allow for those same arguments to be made in a federal court? Not even remotely.

One last thought on this case. When reading this decision, you can’t help but conclude that the defendants, Pisarski and Moore were not handling their grow operations in a state MMPA compliant fashion. Armed with the statements they had made to investigators about making a $20K profit and loose to non-existent collective/co-op patient records this would have given the 9th circuit every reason to uphold the lower court conviction and call it a day. They didn’t. When there is a forthcoming challenge to Prop 64 there is something to be learned from this December 2019 decision.

11.22A)  US District Court CA Northern District: BORGESS ET AL v MENDOCINO COUNTY ET AL  All the cases in 11.22 are going to have a common thread of local government and police actions that under color of authority they violated these plaintiffs constitutional rights and caused severe physical, emotional and economic stress by their actions.  Taken individually it might be hard for a federal judge to believe these charges.  Taken together the enormity of what has transpired is impossible to dismiss and justice must be served.

11.22A) 07/08/20:  Complaint Filed; BORGESS ET AL v MENDOCINO COUNTY ET AL

11.22A) 08/13/20: Mendocino’s Motion to Dismiss

11.22A) 08/17/20: Anzilotti/Mendocino Joinder Motion

11.22A) 08/17/20: Anzilotti/Mendocino Motion to Dismiss

11.22A) 08/18/20: Anzilotti’s Proposed MTD Order

11.22A) 08/27/20: Borges’s Corrected Association of Counsel

11.22A) 08/27/20: Borges’s Opposition to Anzilotti’s MTD

11.22A) 08/27/20: Borges’s Opposition to Mendocino’s MTD

11.22A) 08/27/20: Borges’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Borges’s Opposition for Mendocino’s MTD

11.22A) 09/03/20: Mendo Response to Borges’s Opposition to Mendo’s MTD


11.22A) 09/25/20: Anzilotti Notice of Errata (Doc 27)

11.22A) 09/25/20: Anzilotti Notice of Errata (Doc 28)

11.22A) 09/28/20: Motion Hearing

11.22A) 10/08/20: Stipulation


11.22A) 11/17/20: Borges’s Notice of Constitutional Correctness Within Federal Authorities Over State Regulated Cannabis Laws

11.22A) 11/20/20: Borges’s Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss

11.22A) 12/13/20: Order on Motion to Dismiss (ECF-50)

11.22A) 22/08/10: Borges Appeal

11.22A) 22/09/20: Borges Opening Brief- Ninth Circuit

11.22A) 11.22A) 22/10/12: Appellees Excerpt of Record Vol 1

11.22B) US District Court CA Northern District: RONDON ET AL v MENDOCINO COUNTY ET AL


11.22B) 12/07/20: MTD (ECF-9)

11.22B) 12/21/20: Opposition (ECF-14)

11.22B) 12/28/20: Reply to Opposition (ECF-15)

11.22B) 03/31/21: Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF-19)

11.22C) 08/09/21: BORGES ET AL V BRUCE SMITH ET AL _2021-21CV00588-Complaint-filed (ECF-1)

11.22D) 01/03/21: BORGES ET AL v BRUCE SMITH ET AL 3:21-CV-07031_FAC(ECF-55)

11.22D) 22/04/29:  Judgement (ECF-77)

11.22D) 22/05/13:  Appeal (ECF 78)


11.23) 23/01/18: Complaint (ECF-1)

11.23) 23/01/20 Summons (ECF-7)

11.24A) YOUNG v GASH ET AL  Corina Young was a material witness that was to testify in Cotton v Geraci that she had been told not to invest in the CUP at my 6176 property because it was “going to be denied” and as the case evolved with Magagna and the competing CUP at 6220 that was going to be approved ANYTHING that Young would say to jeopardize that would threaten the conspiracy.  Young was threatened to not testify and she was given a deal by DAVID GASH, a defendant in this lawsuit to entice Young with a % equity position in a new dispensary, Green Pearl Organics in Desert Hot Springs, to leave San Diego where she could not be found and or  served a subpoena to provide her testimony.   What time has done has exposed the true motivation behind GASH and his team of corrupt associates desire to keep Young from testifying in my trial.  What will be seen here in the Young complaint that the entire offer they made to her was a sham.  None of the defendants had any intention of honoring their agreement with Young.  This is the SAME MO that Geraci used with me in trying to get me to sell him my property without providing me an equity percentage as had been orally agreed to for a new dispensary he wanted to develop on my property.  The tie in to all these characters and their illegal operations can be found in these documents as GASH owns the property at 8863 Balboa Ave., where Biker Sherlock’s widow Amy got screwed over on what should have been her interest in that 8863 dispensary when Biker passed away.  The attorney who represents Magagna and the 8863 CUP was/is Gina Austin.  The same Gina Austin that HAD to do something about Corina Young before she provided the testimony that would undo her client Geraci and who used her relationship with GASH the owner of the 8863 property to accomplish that goal!

11.24A) 07/16/20:  YOUNG v GASH ET AL CASE NO PSC2003199

11.24A) 08/25/20: YOUNG v GASH ET AL CASE NO PSC2003871

11.24B)  SHERLOCK  ET AL v GERACI ET AL CASE NO 37-2021-00050889-CU-AT-CTL (Referred to as COTTON VII)


11.24B) 21/12/22: SHERLOCK ET AL v GERACI ET AL_1st Amended Complaint w Exhibits

11.24B 21/12/22: Atty/Plaintiff FLORES DECLARATION

11.24B) 12/22/21: Plaintiff Amy Sherlock’s Declaration

11.24B) 21/12/22: Ex Parte TRO and Other Supporting Documents

11.24B) 21/12/22: Request For Judicial Notice

11.24B) 21/12/22: Proposed Order

11.24B) 22/01/18: Minute Order (ROA 24)

11.24B) 22/05/13: Minute Order (ROA 28)

11.24B) 22/05/26: Austin and Austin Legal Group Case Management Statement (ROA 29)

11.24B) 22/06/07: Lake Case Management Statement (ROA 32)

11.24B) 22/06/07: Blake Law Firm POS (ROA 34)

11.24B) 22/06/09: Sherlock Case Management Statement re Harcourt Service Issues (ROA 35)

11.24B) 22/06/09: Geraci POS (ROA 36)

11.24B) 22/06/09: Lake POS (ROA 37)

11.24B) 22/06/09: Austin Legal Group POS (ROA 38)

11.24B) 22/06/09: Austin POS (ROA 39)

11.24B) 22/06/10: Minute Order (ROA 42)

11.24B) 22/06/16: Austin and Austin Legal Group Declaration in Support of Motion to Strike FAC (ROA 45)

11.24B) 22/06/22: Crosby Declaration (ROA 46)

11.24B) 22/07/08: Lake’s Notice of Demurrer and Points and Authorities (ROA 47)

11.24B) 22/07/08: Lake’s Atty Hall Declaration in Support of Demurrer (ROA 48)

11.24B) 22/07/08: Lake’s POS (ROA 49)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 57)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Geraci’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 58)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s RJN re Anti-SPLAPP Motion (ROA 60)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Attorney Weintstein’s Declaration in Support of Geraci’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 62)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Geraci’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 62)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Notice of Motion re Demurrer (ROA 66)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Proposed Order re Demurrer (ROA 66)

11.24B)  22/07/22: Geraci’s Notice of Lodgment Without Exhibits in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 67)

11.24B)  22/07/22: Geraci’s Notice of Lodgment Without Exhibits re Demurrer (ROA 68)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Notice of Motion to Strike w Crosby Signature (ROA 69)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s Notice of Motion re Demurrer w Crosby Signature (ROA 70)

11.24B) 22/07/22: Geraci’s POS re Motion to Strike (ROA 71)

11.24B) 22/07/25: Sherlock’s Opposition to Austin’s Motion to Strike (ROA 72)

11.24B) 22/07/26: Sherlock’s POS (ROA 73)

11.24B) 22/07/29: Austin’s Reply Sherlock’s Opposition to Austin’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 74)

11.24B) 20/02/04: Sherlock/Cotton emails to Mayor Kevin Faulconer re CUP transfer

11.24B) 22/08/01: Sherlock’s Notice of Errata (ROA 75)

11.24B) 22/08/02: Austin’s Proof of Electronic Service (ROA 77)

11.24B) 22/08/02: Austin’s Proof of Personal Service (ROA 78)

11.24B) 22/08/03: Lake’s Notice of Remote Appearance (ROA 79)

11.24B) 22/08/08: Sherlock’s RJN (ROA 87)

11.24B) 22/08/08: Sherlock’s Opposition to Lake’s Demurrer (ROA 88)

11.24B) 22/08/08: McElfresh Declaration of Demurring or Moving Party in Support of Automatic Extension (ROA 89)

11.24B) 22/08/08: McElfresh POS (ROA 90)

11.24B) 22/08/11: Tentative Ruling (ROA 91)

11.24B) 22/08/10: Sherlock’s Amendment to Complaint-Cross complaint Naming Doe (ROA 92)

11.24B) 22/08/12: Minute Order Granting Austin’s Anti-Slapp (ROA 94)

11.24B) 22/08/15: Lake’s Reply to Sherlock’s Opposition of Demurrer (ROA 95)

11.24B) 22/08/15: Lake’s POS (ROA 96)

11.24B) 22/08/18: Tentative Ruling on Lake Demurrer (ROA 97)

11.24B) 22/08/12: Notice of Ruling (ROA 98)

11.24B) 22/08/19: Minute Order (ROA 102)

11.24B) 22/09/01: Sherlock’s Notice of Appeal (ROA 103)

11.24B) 22/09/01: Razuki’s Declaration of Meet and Confer ( ROA 107)

11.24B) 22/09/01: Razuki’s POS and Request for Automatic Extension of Time (ROA 108)

11.24B) 22/09/07: McElfresh’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to FAC (ROA 109)

11.24B) 22/09/07: McElfresh’s MPA iso Demurrer (ROA 110)

11.24B) 22/09/07: McElfresh attorney Laura Steward Declaration iso Demurrer to FAC (ROA 111)

11.24B) 22/09/07: McElfresh’s RJN iso Demurrer to FAC (ROA 112)

11.24B) 22/09/07: McElfresh’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Points and Authorities (ROA 113)

11.24B) 22/09/07: POS (ROA 114)

11.24B) 22/09/13: Notice of Default (ROA 115)

11.24B) 22/09/09:  Austin’s Proposed Order for Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 117)

11.24B) 22/09/21: Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 119)

11.24B) 22/09/21: Memorandum of Costs Summary Worksheet (ROA 120)

11.24B) 22/09/21: Austin’s Anti-SLAPP Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ROA 121)

11.24B) 22/09/26: Sherlock’s POS Designation of Record on Appeal (ROA 122)

11.24B) 22/09/22: Sherlock’s Notice of Designation Record on Appeal (ROA 123)

11.24B) 22/09/28: Austin’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (ROA 125)

11.24B) 22/10/20: Tentative Ruling – Geraci and Berry (ROA 150)

11.24B) 22/10/20: Tentative Ruling – McElfresh (ROA 151)

11.24B) 22/10/20: Sherlock Opposition to Geraci’s Demurrer (ROA 152)

11.24B) 22/10/21: Minute Order (ROA 162)

11.24B) 22/10/21: Appointment of Official Court Reporter (ROA 163)

11.24B) 22/10/26: Geraci-Berry Opposition to Sherlock’s EP APP (ROA 164)

11.24B) 22/10/26: Geraci POS (ROA 165)

11.24B) 22/11/01: Lake’s EP Application for Order Dismissing Lake (ROA 185)

11.24B) 22/11/01: Atty Hall’s Declaration in Support of Lake’s EP Application to Dismiss Lake (ROA-186)

11.24B) 22/11/01: Lake’s Proposed Order Dismissing Lake (ROA-187)

11.24B) 22/11/01: Lake’s POS (ROA-188)

11.24B.1) 22/08/23: Sherlock’s POS to COA re the Austin Anti-SLAPP Order (ROA-189)

11.24B.1) 22/08/23: Sherlock’s POS to COA re the Austin Anti-SLAPP Order (ROA-190)

11.24B) 22/11/02: Order Dismissing Lake from the First Cause of Action for Violation of the Cartwright Act (ROA-192)

11.24B) 22/11/02: Minute Order Granting Lake’s MTD (ROA 193)

11.24B) 22/11/14: Austin’s Notice of Non Opposition (ROA 191)

11.24B) 22/11/17: Tentative Rulings (ROA 194)

11.24B) 22/11/17: Sherlock’s Omnibus Opposition to Multiple Parties Motions to Strike (ROA 195)

11.24B) 22/11/21: Geraci’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Strike (ROA 196)

11.24B) 22/11/21: Geraci’s Reply to Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion (ROA 197)

11.24B) 22/11/21: Geraci’s Reply to Opposition to Demurrer (ROA 198)

11.24B) 22/11/21: Schweitzer’s Reply Brief to Special Motion to Strike (ROA 201)

11.24B) 22/11/23: McElfresh’s Reply in Support of Demurrer (ROA 202)

11.24B) 22/11/23: McElfresh’s Reply Brief in Support of Striking Portions of the FAC (ROA 203)

11.24B) 22/11/23:  McElfresh’s POS (ROA 204)

11.24B) 22/11/23: Lake’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery (ROA 205)

11.24B) 22/11/23: Lake’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ROA 206)

11.24B) 22/11/23: Lake’s Atty Hall’s Declaration ISO Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Monetary Sanctions (ROA 207)

11.24B) 22/11/23: Lake’s Proposed Order Granting Discovery Responses and Monetary Sanctions (ROA 208)

11.24B) 22/11/23: Lake’s POS (ROA 209)

11.24B) 22/11/18: Minute Order (ROA 213)

11.24B) 22/11/04: Notice of Ruling (ROA 214)

11.24B) 22/11/14: Lake’s Judgment for Dismissal with Prejudice and Awarded Costs (ROA 215)

11.24B)  22/11/04 Lake’s General Denial (ROA 216)

11.24B) 22/11/04: Lake’s POS (ROA 217)

11.24B) 22/11/30: Notice of Completion of the Record on Appeal (ROA 218)

11.24B) 22/12/01: Tentative Rulings Granting Schweitzer/Techne Motion to Strike (ROA 222)

11.24B) 22/12/01: Tentative Rulings Sustaining McElfresh’s Demurrer (ROA 223)

11.24B) 22/12/01: Tentative Rulings Granting Geraci/Berry Motion to Strike Anti-SLAPP (ROA 224)

11.24B) 22/12/02: Minute Order Confirming Tentative Ruling (ROA 229)

11.24B) 22/12/05: Notice of Ruling (ROA 230)

11.24B) 22/12/05: Proof of Electronic Service (ROA 231)

11.24B.1) 22/12/05: COA Reporters Transcript from 08/12/2022

11.24B.1) 22/12/05: COA Clerk’s Transcript Volume One of One

11.24B) 22/12/05: McElfresh’s Notice of Ruling re Motion to Strike (ROA 232)

11.24B) 22/12/05:  McElfresh’s POS (ROA 233)

11.24B) 22/12/05: Lake’s Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 234)

11.24B) 22/12/05: Lake’s Memorandum of Costs Summary and Worksheet (ROA 235)

11.24B) 22/12/05: Lake’s POS (ROA 236)

11.24B) 22/12/05: Schweitzer’s Notice of Ruling Granting Special Motion to Strike (ROA 237)

11.24B) 22/12/09: Sherlock’s Request for Default of Salam Razuki (ROA 240)

11.24B) 22/12/21: Courts Notice of Rejected Filing (ROA 241)

11.24B) 22/12/21: Sherlock’s Notice of Confirmation of Filing (ROA 242)

11.24B) 22/12/21: Sherlock’s Opposition to Austin’s Request for Attorneys Fees (ROA 243)

11.24B) 22/12/27: Schweitzer’s Notice of Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees ( ROA 245)

11.24B) 22/12/27: Schweitzer’s MPA’s in Support of Request for Attorney Fees (ROA 246)

11.24B) 22/12/27: Schweitzer’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 247)

11.24B) 22/12/27: Schweitzer’s Atty Najjar Declaration (ROA 248)

11.24B) 22/12/27: Schweitzer’s Notice of Lodgment (ROA 249)

11.24B) 22/12/27: Schweitzer’s POS (ROA 250)

11.24B) 22/12/29: Austin’s Reply to Sherlock’s Opposition to Attorney’s Fees (ROA 251)

11.24B) 23/01/05: Tentative Ruling on Austin’s Attorney Fees (ROA 252)

11.24B) 23/01/06: Minute Order on Austin’s Attorney Fees (ROA 253)

11.24B.1) 23/01/11: Sherlock’s Appeal of Austin’s Anti-SLAPP Award

11.24B) 23/01/09: Judgement for McElfresh (ROA 255)

11.24B) 22/12/13: POS (ROA 256)

11.24B) 23/01/30: Sherlock’s Notice of Appeal re Schweitzer’s Anti-SLAPP Award (ROA 257)

11.24B) 23/01/30: Sherlock’s Notice of Appeal re Geraci/Berry’s Anti-SLAPP Award (ROA 258)

11.24B) 23/01/31: Sherlock’s Notice of Filing Notice of Appeal (ROA 259)

11.24B) 23/02/01: Flores’s Declaration re Lake’s RFP Reply Being Submitted (ROA 260)

11.24B) 23/02/02: Geraci & Berry Proposed Judgment (ROA 272)

11.24B) 23/02/09: Austin Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 274)

11.24B) 23/02/09:  Sherlock’s EP Application for Stay (ROA 275)

11.24B) 23/02/09: Flores’s Declaration in Support of Sherlock’s Application for Stay (ROA 276)

11.24B) 23/02/10: Sherlock’s EP Application for Stay – Duplicates ROA 275 (ROA 277)

11.24B) 23/02/10: Sherlock’s Confirmation of Filing (ROA 277)

11.24B) 23/02/10: Flores’s Declaration in Support of Sherlock’s Application for Stay – Duplicates ROA 276 (ROA 277)

11.24B) 23/02/10: Sherlock’s Notice of Default – Failure to File Designation of Record on Appeal (ROA 278)

11.24B) 23/02/14: Geraci/Berry Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 279)

11.24B) 23/02/14: Geraci/Berry Proof of Service (ROA 280)

11.24B) 23/02/14: McElfresh’s Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 281)

11.24B) 23/02/14: McElfresh’s Proof of Service (ROA 282)

11.24B) 23/02/14: Minute Order (ROA 283)

11.24B) 23/02/10: Geraci/Berry’s Opposition to Sherlock’s Ex Parte Application to Stay (ROA 284)

11.24B) 23/02/10: Schweitzers Opposition to Sherlock’s Es Parte Application to Stay (ROA 285)

11.24B.1) 23/02/14: COA Case no D081109 Respondent Austin’s Brief

11.24B) 23/02/16:  Tentative Rulings (ROA 287)

11.24B) 23/02/17: Geraci/Berry Memorandum of Costs (ROA 288)

11.24B) 23/02/17: Lake’s Notice of Ruling (ROA 289)

11.24B) 23/02/17: Lake’s Proof of Service (ROA 290)

11.24B) 23/02/17: Minute Order (ROA 293)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Notice of Entry of Judgment re Schweitzer (ROA 294)

11.24B) 23/02/22: POS Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 295)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Sherlock’s EP Application for Stay (ROA 296)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Sherlock’s EP Application for Stay, Flores’s Declaration and Supporting Exhibits (ROA 297)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Schweitzer’s Opposition to Sherlock’s EP Application for Stay (ROA 298)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Geraci’s POS to Sherlock (ROA 300)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Lake’s Opposition to Sherlock’s EP Motion to Stay (ROA 301)

11.24B) 23/02/22: Lake’s POS (ROA 302)


11.24C) 19/03/11: Cross Complaint (ROA 22)

11.24C) 20/08/21: Flores Declaration (ROA 52)

11.24C) 20/08/21: EP Application to Reopen Discovery (ROA 53)

11.24C) 22/02/23: Request for Statement of Decision (ROA 113)

11.24C) 22/02/23: Flores Declaration re Rejection of Proposed Order (ROA 115)

11.24C) 22/03/04:  Judgment by Court After Trial (ROA 116)

11.25A) Unlicensed Pay to Play Cannabis Operations in San Luis Obispo Results in Suicide and Settlements.  Was Adam Hill Just The Latest Victim of California’s Post Prop 64, Pay to Play, Control, Tax and Regulate Cannabis Scheme? 

It is with a heavy heart I must report that San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam ill is dead. As of yesterday it was reported in the media that Hill was in his home when someone from some law enforcement agency (yesterdays stories that reported this are now gone and I don’t remember the specifics but I did read this) had knocked on the door then heard a gunshot. They entered into the home to see Hill had killed himself. This morning it is being reported that it was not a self inflicted gunshot that killed Hill. Once again I smell something fishy in a pay to play cannabis scheme that went a little sideways and some clean up of the “facts” had to be dealt with. I could be wrong but there are some events that preceded Hills death that should be considered by anyone who has an interest in cannabis related enterprises, licensed or not.

11.25A) 12/13/19:  CA CDFA v Lowell Farms – Original Complaint The CDFA on behalf of the BCC and all controlling cannabis agencies files a lawsuit against Lowell Farms for UNLICENSED cannabis cultivation and processing activities at their location in SLO.

It is upon information and belief that the Lowell Farms activities were given a handshake approval by Hill to operate in a pay to play scheme that allowed them to operate without state or SLO permits to conduct their operations.

11.25A) 03/12/20: Hill Attempts Suicide after FBI Raid Hill attempts to commit suicide after having his home and offices raided by the FBI in an attempt to uncover any evidence associated with Hill conspiring to violate, presumably federal law, in a bribery case that allowed cannabis cultivation in his area of supervision. I don’t want to believe that the FBI was operating on behalf of the state to ferret out this information for what would be their actions but as of now I don’t know if we will ever hear from the FBI the DOJ or certainly Mr. Hill as to what prompted the federal actions against Hill and the charges he would have faced for those activities he may have been engaged in. But we must look at the evidence before us to see what motivated these parties and how it might have contributed to Hill’s death.

11.25A) 06/11/20: CDFA/CDFW Settlement with Lowell Farms On 06/11/20 a settlement  was reached between the CDFA and CDFW who were a supporting agency to the investigation that led to the charges against Lowell Farms. In that settlement Lowell Farms agrees to terms and conditions and admits no wrong doing to the charges. There is no mention of Lowell Farms needing to maintain licensing with the local government as a term and condition of their ongoing license requirements. There is language that states they must meet ALL state cannabis law requirements for operating within the state but if Hill is an impediment to SLO licensing or his hands are dirty from previous under the table dealings with Lowell and can be proven by the FBI to be so, getting that local license is going to be impossible for Lowell to argue for that local approval when there are other applicants who would apply and are not tarnished by their previous activities.

11.25A) 08/06/20: CalCoast News Article on Adam Hill Suicide As of just the day before this article was posted it was reported in the media that Hill was in his home when someone from some law enforcement agency (yesterdays stories that reported this are now gone and I don’t remember the specifics but I did read this) had knocked on the door then heard a gunshot. They entered into the home to see Hill had killed himself. The next day it is being reported that it was not a self inflicted gunshot that killed Hill. Once again I smell something fishy in a pay to play cannabis scheme that went a little sideways and some clean up of the “facts” had to be dealt with. I could be wrong but there are some events that preceded Hills death that should be considered by anyone who has an interest in cannabis related enterprises, licensed or not.

11.25A) 08/06/20: MJ Biz Article re Lowell Farms Settlement I don’t know for certain what happened to end Adam Hills life.  I do know that the cannabis media, see Link 3, is reporting that the CDFA v Lowell Farms lawsuit and settlement is a first of it’s kind between the state and a LICENSEE. That is factually wrong as the original complaint AND settlement describes it.

MJ Biz and there are others that advertise themselves as cannabis media are in reality nothing more than a tool to suppress any opposition to Prop 64 and the illegal and unlawful schemes that stem from its passage. They work in conjunction with lobbyists and social media groups such as CCRW who are headed by self appointed cannabis activists like Broom Hilda, to twist what the reader and citizens of CA will see as normal appropriate business in cannabis law and regulation in California. Dig just beneath the surface and you’ll come to find they are frauds who promote dissension to any opposition to the status quo under post Prop 64 rule and regulation and to some degree play a part in the pay to play licensing and operating (both licensed and unlicensed) conspiracies that exist in CA today.
What happened to Adam Hill is worth investigating. He did suffer from severe depression and he was no angel but he DID NOT HAVE TO DIE. His voice has now been quieted but the facts that might be unearthed are easily there for the finding. If there is ANY FUCKING MEDIA OUT THERE THAT IS NOT IN BED WITH THE POWER ELITE, maybe you could do your job and spend a few hours and explore what I’m bringing up here. You have resources I don’t! Tell us/me who was at that door when they heard the gunshot? Tell us/me how you go from a gunshot, where there would be forensic evidence, to an ‘other’ cause of death literally overnight?

Adam Hill could have come clean. He could have told his constituents what he did wrong. He could have exposed the systemic corruption that exists in local and state government since the passage of Prop 64. He could have served some time and come out fresh similar to what CA Congressman Randy Cunningham ended up with for MILLIONS in corruption and bribery charges, but no, that is not the avenue Mr. Hill took. He was given a death sentence for those activities he was engaged in. The question I have now is who actually carried out that sentence?

11.25A) 08/07/20: KPRL News – Adam Hill Found Dead After Neighbor Reports Hearing Gunshot

11.25A) 09/30/20:  SLO Tribune – Adam Hill’s Death Ruled an Overdose

11.25A) 10/01/20: Cal Coast News – SLO Supervisor Died From Cocaine and Antidepressants

11.25A) 08/07-08/14/20: Cotton to Eric Hughes emails re 887 Mesa Rd Licensing Status

11.25A) 11/19/20: KSBY News – SLO County Reaches Settlement Over Late Supervisor Adam Hill

11.25A) 02/25/21: Indus Holdings Acquires Lowell Farms

11.25A) 09/04/21: Cal Coast News Blog Post

11.25A) 20/08/06: Hill, Adam Coroner’s Report

11.25A) 20/07/23: Despain, Sean Coroner’s Report


This lawsuit was brought on be tenants of Gabriel who used a sham lawsuit to extort monies out of Gabriel and her co-defendants.


11.25B) 12/10/20: Default Judgement

11.25B) 04/27/21: Alexander Files Motion for Appointment of Reciever

11.25B: 08/27/21: Plaintiff RFP of Documents to Anna Gabriel


11.25C:  23/02/02: Tentative Ruling Dismissing Case

11.26A) SZYMCZAK ET AL v HELIOS DAYSPRING ET AL:  William Szymczak was the former Director of HUD who put $17M into a cannabis venture in San Luis Obispo, CA.  The cross pollination between this case and the pay to play bribery that exists in SLO, see Adam Hill and Lowell Farms case at 11.25, warrant a closer look at this civil case.  In his complaint, Szymczak accuses Helios of misappropriations of funds, breach of contract, fraud and elder abuse.

11.26A) 08/17/20: SZYMCZAK ET AL v HELIOS DAYSPRING ET AL Original Complaint No 20-cv 0436

11.26A) 10/29/20: New Times SLO: Judge Coates Denies Szymcszak Request for 3rd Party Administrator

11.26A) 01/27/21:  Tentative Rulings on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss



11.26B) 05/24/18: Cal Coast News – Helios Marijuana Partnership Leads to Fraud Lawsuit Kyle Billingsley, Hal Billingsley, Sean Despain and Patrick Aurignac formed a partnership with marijuana mogul Helios Dayspring in 2016. They got a loan from the Billingsley Family Trust and bought the 106-acre Legacy Ranch located on Orcutt Road near the intersection of Tank Farm Road, according to the operating agreement.

11.26B.1)  22/06/23: NHC SLO,LLC v CITY OF SLO_Helios Declaration, Case-21CV-0734



11.26C.1) Ash Management _CA Sec of State Records

11.26C.2) Ash Management Articles of Incorporation

11.26C.3) Ash Management Google Maps This is suspicious.  Ash Management is mentioned in numerous news articles in relation to the bars and restaurants, but when you look them up it is simply a closed thrift store in downtown SLO.



11.26D) 06/01/19: Atascadero News – Templeton Area Advisory Group Report

11.26D) 06/13/19: New Times SLO – SLO County Supervisor Compton is Sued for $5.3M

11.26D) 07/25/19:  New Times SLO – SLO County Rescinds Cannabis Permit for York Mountain Road

11.26D) 08/05/19: Cal Coast News – SLOPD Chief Leaves Gun in Restroom Coverup

11.26D) 12/18/19: Cal Coast News – SLO County Supervisors Bend to Pressure from Marijuana Moguls

11.26D) 08/05/20: LA Cannabis News – Nipomo Cannabis Growers Fined $500K For Illegal Activity


11.26E) The Infamous McBurney Brothers – SlowGrow

11.26E)  04/30/14: New Times SLO – Oil Production Fire Lands One Man in Jail and One in the Hospital


11.26F) SLO INVESTMENT GROUP III, INC; Mike Spangler, Brian Alexander, Grant Kreft

11.26F) 11/06/18: Articles of Incorporation


11.26G) CCCIG III, INC: Mike Spangler, Brian Alexander, Grant Kreft

11.26G) 11/06/18: Articles of Incorporation


11.26H) SLOIG, INC:  Mike Spangler, Brian Alexander, Grant Kreft

11.26H) 09/11/17: Articles of Incorporation


11.26i) HSAKG CONSULTING INC: Grant Kreft, Brian Alexander, Mike Spangler

11.26i) 06/19/17: CA Sec of State Business Entity Filing Statement

11.26i) 09/11/17: Articles of Incorporation


11.26J) CENTRAL COAST CONSULTING, LLC:  Brian D. Alexander

11.26J) Brian Alexander CA Bar Registration No. 223473

11.26J) 07/02/18: CA Sec of State Statement of Information (LLC-12)

11.26J) 07/20/18: CA Sec of State Business Entities Filing Document (LLC-1)


11.26K) 04/24/21: Banned Members Post


11.27)  US-DEA v BCC

11.27) 07/20/20: US-DEA v BCC Petition to Enforce DEA Subpoena Includes Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Exhibits.

11.27) 07/29/20:  BCC Opposition to DEA Subpoena

11.27) 08/05/20: US-DEA Reply to BCC Opposition This is a well crafted reply that begs the question why does the DEA have to subpoena documents from a state agency that is knowingly engaged in violating federal law under the CSA with cannabis.  This reply is a must read if you are a CA cannabis licensee.

11.27) 08/31/20: Order Granting Subpoena Enforcement While this is a win for the fed I am surprised that the judge ruled on what the investigation is looking into is the illegal importation of Mexican “Crude Oil” (page 5 line 23) into the USA.  Why is the fed playing footsies with the BCC over what may provide evidence that some of the “licensed” oil is not coming through licensed manufacturing.

11.28) Harborside v IRS This is a tax matter that stems from the IRS Code 280e which requires a business that is engaging in a controlled substance, cannabis to pay all taxes without deductions as the business is deemed illegal under federal law and if the IRS accepted those deductions it would be an admission by the federal government that dealing in a business where a controlled substance is the product being sold is a federally acceptable business.  As of May 2020 Harborside has been assessed a federal tax liability of $12M.  Harborside is appealing that decision based on their not showing a COG profit.  The appeal may take a year to decide.  In the meantime interest on that liability will continue to accrue.

11.28) 12/04/19: Harborside v IRS Appeal Filing

11.28) 05/26/20: Harborside’s Opening Brief

11.28) 06/02/20: National Cannabis Industry Association Amicus Brief on Behalf of Harborside

11.28) 06/02/20: Marijuana Industry Group and Cannabis Trade Federation Amicus Brief on Behalf of Harborside

11.28) 02/17/21: Final Decision Against Harborside Subsidiary San Jose Wellness

11.29) League of California Cities:  What influence does/did this organization have on shaping local government cannabis policy?

11.29) Undated (Late 2016?):  City of Santa Monica Staff Report This staff report was developed in I believe late 2016.  One of the Recommended Actions in Para 2 was that the staff draft an ordinance prohibiting commercial cannabis related business.  What is most relevant will be the League of California Cities’ Medical Marijuana – Revisited After New State Laws, which was delivered on May 4, 2016 at the League’s City Attorney Spring Conference.  Cities across the state adopted this policy and have since followed the Leagues recommendations on evolving cannabis law and regulation.

11.30) The City of Adelanto: Examining pay to play, bribery and other forms of Canna-Greed in what has become a systemic form of corruption since Prop 64 was passed in November 2016.

11.30) 05/08/18: FBI Raids Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr Arrested Under Cannabis Bribery Crimes

11.31) RACIOPPI v GENIUS FUND ET AL This case is an excellent example of where cannabis related investment and crimes in and around The City of Adelanto, once exposed and brought to light in a federal complaint can have relatively swift reactions when the court deems it necessary to save one parties interest in the event the assets are diverted.  In this case, Racioppi requested and was granted a freeze on the defendants both corporate and personal assets of $3.7M.

11.31) 04/24/20: RACIOPPI v GENIUS FUND ET AL Original Complaint

11.31) 05/21/20: RACIOPPI v GENIUS FUND ET AL First Amended Complaint

11.31) 08/05/20: Nunc Pro Tunc Right to Attach Order

11.32) Water is the New Oil  With the passing of Prop 64 more local government to decide on who gets a license to grow cannabis is being determined by CEQA compliance and local water authority stating that the applicant can use the available water for the stated purposes of growing cannabis.  What this section will explore is how local government reacts to an application that does not ask for water resources from that water authority.  What this section will explore is what are the local governments real intentions when it comes to issuing these licenses?  If the applicants are interested in utilizing this cultivation technique and are denied based on how their operation would affect the environment or impact the available water supplies we have a real issue.  I’ll start this section by supplying the contacts and then all email correspondence.  If this system design, one they have never heard of, gets administrative push back then their real mission must be questioned and that means taking them to court for denying those in the application queue who are not subject to traditional soil crop cultivation techniques.


Ms. Toccara Thomas, Deputy Director for Community Development, Lake County:  707.263.2270 –

Ms. Janae Fried, Permitting and Compliance, Central Valley Water Authority: 530.224.3291 –

11.32) 10/14/20: Cotton Email to Fried and Thomas re Permitting Under Closed Loop Systems

11.33) City of La Mesa Cannabis Licensing Processes

11.33) 10/09/20: Cotton to Kusiak at City of La Mesa FOIA Request re Cannabis Businesses Located in the City of La Mesa

11.33) 10/19/20: City of La Mesa Response Letter Seeking More Time.

11.34) GRANDMA’S STASH LLC v CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY ET AL  This complaint involves a cannabis licensee who sues the City of California City, 3 Councilmembers and the interim City Manager for their alleged involvement in bribery and pay to play cannabis licensing.


11.35) 11/06/20:  Jason Browne Receives a Cease and Desist Letter from HdL I’m not posting this thread in chronological order because the Cease and Desist letter is what got my attention.  Well DONE Jason.  You took a stand.  You knew what you knew and you influenced enough people in your Red Bluff City Council as to what this relationship would do to their ability run licensed cannabis the way they might want to.  The rest of these posts will provide the evidence of what Jason found and how he brought the giant lobbyist HdL proposal to its knees.

11.35) 11/12/20: JB’s Formal Response to the HdL Cease and Desist Letter

11.35) 11/12/20: JB’s Informal Response to the HdL Cease and Desist Letter

11.35) 08/18/20: JB’s Email to Council re Proposed Ordinance Language

11.35) 10/06/20: JB’s Something Fishy is Going on Here Email Trust your instincts!

11.35) 10/06/20: JB’s Email Requesting a Council Vote Against Retaining HdL

11.35) 10/25/20: JB’s Follow Up Email

11.35) 11/11/20:  JB and the Cannabis Liberation League CA Proposed Draft Ordinance (draft version)

What section  11.35 points out is that when the right pressure and information is put in front of decision makers who have not been corrupted, the power of the people can and does exist.  Great job Jason! Hopefully this is the first of many great wins for you and CLLCA!  Keep holding those feet to the fire!

11.36) The Federal and State Court House Protests: Judges Protecting Judges

11.36) 12/01/20: Federal Courthouse Protest Sign 1

11.36) 12/01/20: Federal Courthouse Protest Sign 2

11.36) 12/04/20: Justice Lost – Full Presentation

11.37) Heidi Grossman v Jacqueline McGowan and CCRW

11.37) 08/17/16 Grossman’s Cease and Desist Letter to McGowan


11.38A) 01/25/21: COMPLAINT (ECF 1)

11.38A) 02/22/21: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (ECF 10)

11.38A) 03/09/21: Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer (ECF 11)


11.38B) 02/22/21: COMPLAINT (ECF 1)

11.39) GORDON PRICE v WILLIAM BARR ET AL – Case involving the requirement of permits on federal land for photography and journalism

11.39) 12/09/19: COMPLAINT (ECF 1)

11.39) 02/11/20: Answer  (ECF 9)

11.39) 07/09/20: Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF 25)

11.39) 07/09/20: Plaintiff’s MPA for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF 26)

11.39) 07/09/20: Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiff (ECF 29)

11.39) 08/07/20: Defendants Opposition (ECF 31)

11.39) 01/21/21: Order Granting Plaintiff’s JOP and Orders Permanent Injunction (ECF 35)

11.40) ROSALYN LA LIBERTE v JOY REID (Defamation Case – Plaintiff Atty is L Lin Wood)

11.40) 09/25/18:  Complaint (ECF 1)

11.40) 01/25/21: Motion to Revoke Pro Hac Vice Status (ECF 62)

11.40) 02/09/21: Opposition (ECF 66)

11.40) 02/12/21: Defendants Reply in Support (ECF 67)

11.40) 02/12/21: Defendants Reply in Support (ECF 68)

11.40) 02/12/21: Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Motion (ECF 69)

11.40) 02/15/21: Defendants Reply in Support (ECF 70)

11.40) 03/02/21: Defendants Motion to Compel (ECF 71)

11.40) 03/09/21: Defendants Respone in Opposition to Motion to Compel (ECF 73)

11.40) 03/16/21: Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel (ECF 74)

11.40) 03/18/21: Defendants Oposition (ECF 75)

11.41A) CEQA CHALLENGES:  I=Indoor, G=Greenhouse, O=Outdoor projects and % difference between STATED and ACTUAL water demand.  If there is no brackets we have an approved project where no public records were found for the CEQA application.

Query the CEQA Data Base


San Luis Obispo County



11.41A) SLO COUNTY 2018 Initial Study Where Plant Counts are Included in Water Demand Calculations

11.41A) CA Central Coast Regional (R3) Waterboard-Members

11.41A) DRC2017-00106_05/23/19 Mondo-True Farma-3260 Nacimiento Rd-Santa Margarita (I,G,O-96%)

11.41A) DRC2017-00108_07/25/19: Delgado-8380 Carrissa Hwy-Santa Margarita (I,G,O-84%)

11.41A) DRC2017-00110_08/08/19: Culbertson Progreens-4415 N River Rd-Pasa Robles (G-113%)

11.41A) DRC2017-00118 (NO CEQA-BOS APPROVED) SLO CULTIVATION-1808 Willow Rd-Nipomo

11.41A) DRC2017-00123_(PENDING) City Boy Farms-4225 S El Pomar Dr.-Templeton (G,O-103%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00016_07/03/20 Brett Finley-630 El Pomar Dr-Templeton (G,O-UNSTATED)

11.41A) DRC2018-00018 (RESCINDED) Cellars & Coastal-7755 Airport Rd-Paso Robles (G-29%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00036_(Pending)_13350 River Road LLC-13350 River Road-San Miguel (I,G-130%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00040_11/01/19_(Formerly Helios)-7710 Cougar Ridge-Santa Maria (G-162%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00043_12/20/19_Shandon Acres-4000 Tuesdale Rd-Shandon (I,O-40%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00045_08/02/19 SLOCAL ROOTS-7515 Suey Creek Rd-Arroya Grande (G-Unstated)

11.41A) DRC2018-00075_(Pending) Agzone-11520 Tule Elk Lane-Santa Margarita (O-32%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00076 (Pending) Integrated Agriculture-2500 E Hwy 41-Shandon (G-134%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00077 (Pending) Agzone-8710 Carrisa Hwy-Santa Margarita (O-32%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00078_(Pending) Agzone-11330 Tule Elk Ln-Santa Margarita (O-32%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00079 (Pending) Agzone-11525 Tule Elk Lane-Santa Margarita (O-32%)

11.41A0 DRC2018-00081 07/03/20 Blanchard/Old Creek-12520 Santa Rita Rd-Cayucos (None Stated)

11.41A) DRC2018-00094_06/19/20_Souji Farms-12000 Nacimiento Lake Dr-Bradley (G-84%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00110_(Pending-Helios)_Bradley Canyon Farms-1255 Tierra-Bradley (G-138%) 

11.41A) DRC2018-00154_07/09/20_Arvus Axium-8015 Carrissa Hwy-Santa Margarita (G-122%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00155_08/27/20_Koenig-3919 Huasana Grande-Arroyo Grande (G-146%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00156 (Pending)Gabriel/AG Harvest 6135 Huasana-Arroyo Grande (O-60% OVERSTATED)

11.41A) 2018-00168 (Pending)_RP AGROCHIMEX-248 Carrisa Hwy-Santa Mararita ( G-156%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00177_(Pending)Pegaso-12415 River Rd-Santa Margarita (G-14% OVERSTATED)

11.41A) DRC2018-00183_(Challenged) Eden’s Farms-4337 S El Pomar-Templeton (G,O-21%)

11.41A) 2018-00188_(UNPUBLISHED) Engrained-4150 N. Ryan Rd-Creston (G,O-68%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00193_07/03/20 Ryan Lovejoy-11111Bitterwater Rd-Santa Margarita (G,O-42%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00215_(Pending) Wild Coast Farms-976 Osos- San Luis Obispo (G-43%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00223_(Pending)_Greenmilk-2685 Lynch Canyon Rd-Bradley (G-118%)

11.41A) DRC2018-00228_(Pending) SLO CAL ROOTS-1255 Penman Springs Rd-Pasa Robles (G,O-103%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00016 (Approved 08/08/19 No CEQA) 2115 Willow Rd-Arroyo Grande

11.41A) DRC2019-00042_(Not on Spreadsheet) Copper Creek-Neal Rd-SLO (G,O-77%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00058 Cortez-375 Melschau-Nipomo (G-18%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00084_03/12/20_Helios-510 Rancho Rd-Nipomom (G-134%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00086_(Pending)_Sidifoax-7575 Carissa Hwy-Santa Margarita (I,G,O 51%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00091_07/23/20-Green Gold-3033 Mount Lowe Rd (G-UNSTATED)

11.41A) DRC2019-00129_(Pending) Beanway-880 Parkhill Rd-Santa Margarita (G-129%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00180 (Pending) CA Production SVCS-1480 Penman Springs-Pasa Robles (G-101%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00183_(Pending) CA PROD SVCS-5790 Rocky Canyon Rd-Pasa Robles (G-161%)

11.41A) DRC2019-00189_(Pending) Estrella Farms-5165 Estrella Rd-San Miguel (G-157%)

11.41A) DRC2020-00115_(Pending) Engrained-4150 Ryan Rd-Pasa Robles (I,G,O-103%)

Humboldt County

11.41A) Arcata Land Company LLC-27th & Foster-Humboldt County (G-91%)

11.41A) Rolling Meadow Ranch LLC-McCann- Humboldt County (83%)

San Diego County

11.41A) A Licensing Authorities CEQA Project Comparison Between Two Property Owners

Pages 1 and 2 of the DSD requirements show two projects that were determined to be CEQA exempt and page 3, under a different applicant was required to provide CEQA submittals on a project within 300′ of the other.  I’d call that “discretionary” in a pay to play cannabis licensing scheme.  Also see section 11.41D for UMMP v City of San Diego.  In this CA Supreme Court ruling there is no such thing as a discretionary CEQA requirement.  They are mandatory.


11.41B)  Miller Starr Regalia

11.41B) Christian Michael Carrigan


11.41C) Orange County Coastkeeper

11.41C) Inland Empire Waterkeeper


11.41D) 06/15/18: City of Huntington Beach Water Control Board Minutes

11.41D) 08/19/19: CA Supreme Court: Ruling UMMP v City of San Diego re CEQA Violations



11.41E) Diehl Flow Meters Brochure and Specifications

11.41E) Badger Flow Meters Specifications

11.42A) HARREN LABS ET AL v BCC ET AL This is a remarkable case in that the BCC, CA-AG Becerra argues due process does not exist for a provisional licensee.  A process that the BCC has mandated as a way to delay CEQA applications and get cannabis licensees into the market to combat unlicensed cannabis business from competing with state ran cannabis.

11.42A) 02/26/21: Petition for a Writ of Mandate

11.42A) 02/26/21: Petitioners Counsel James Anthony Declaration

11.42) 03/04/21: Petitioner Ming Li’s Declaration

11.42A) 03/03/21: Respondents Opposition to Ex Parte Application for TSO

11.42A) 03/04/21: Petitioners Objections to Respondents Evidence in Opposition to TRO and PI

11.42A) 03/04/21: Order on TRO and Preliminary Injunction

11.42A) 03/11/21: Cotton’s Letter to James Anthony





11.44A) 12/14/20: CHRIS HAKIM v SALAM RAZUKI ET AL (ROA-1)

11.44A) 01/20/21: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES (ROA-18)



11.44A) 03/02/21: IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER (ROA-23)

11.44A) 04/19/21: MALAN’S DEMURRER (ROA-26)


11.44A) 04/19/21: MALAN’S DECLARATION (ROA-28)

11.44B) 02/09/21: VARGAS v RAZUKI ET AL (ROA-1)


11.44D) 12/01/20: ESPINOZA v RAZUKI ET AL (ROA-1)









11.44E) 05/03/21: Ninus Milan’s Oppostion to Sherlock’s Motion to Intervene (ROA 445)

11.44E) 05/03/21: Jaffe Declaration in Oppostion to Sherlock’s Motion to Intervene (ROA 446)

11.44E) 05/14/21: Order Denying Flores’s Motion to Intervene (ROA 450)

11.44F) 07/13/18: RAZUKI v MALAN & HAKIM ET AL – COMPLAINT (ROA-1)

11.44F) 10/01/18: HAKIM’S ANSWER (ROA-175)





11.44F) 04/06/21: MINUTE ORDER (ROA-1573)




11.45) 09/12/18: Valley Greens Retail Outlet, Inc CA State AOI

11.45) 03/02/21: Valley Greens Retail Outlet, Inc_ Statement of Information

11.45) 06/29/21: Valley Greens Retail Outlet, Inc _Statement of Information

11.45) 07/06/21: Civil Complaint No 37-2021-DDD28821-CU-RI-CTL_ Judge Meyers (ROA1)

11.45) 07/16/21: D&B for Marsh and Ash Cannabis Dispensary @ 2835 Camino del Rio So., SD CA 92108


11.46) 06/20/19_ECF 1: Complaint for Violation of RICO etc.

11.46) 10/29/20_ECF 73: Order on Motion to Dismiss

11.46) 11/30/20_ECF 75: Notice of Appeal

11.46) 11/30/20 ECF 75: Positive Conflict Between State and Federal Law Exists

11.46) 12/04/20: ECF 77: Request for Withdrawal of Counsel

11.46) 12/04/20_ECF 77-1: Proposed Order Granting Change of Counsel

11.46) 12/08/20_ECF 81: Order Granting Change of Counsel

11.46) 03/28/21_ECF 82: Court Costs

11.46_ 09/01/22_9th Circuit Affirms Lower Court Decision


11.47A) Ongoing Criminal Enterprise and Supporting Civil Rights Cases and Documents

11.47A1) 17/03/06 ECF 70 DAVISON v RANDALL 2nd Amended Complaint re Social Media Free Speech

11.47A1) 17/03/28_ECF 93 Amended Complaint

11.47A1) 17/11/27 ACLU Amicus Brief re Banning Free Speech

11.47A1) 19/01/07_ECF 154 USCA Affirming Order

11.47A1) 19/01/09 ECF 155 USCA Opinion

11.47A1) 19/01/29_ECF 158 USCA Mandate

11.47B)  21/09/09 Draft 1.4 Wildstar v State of CA & Jacqueline McGowan-Intro re Positive Conflict


11.48) 21/09/15 HNHPC v DCC (ROA 2)




11.50) 21/12/22:_Writ and Complaint (ROA-1)

11.50) 21/12/22: Civil Cover Sheet

11.50) 21/12/22:_ Original Summons

11.50) 21/12/22:_Notice of Related Cases

11.50) 21/22/21:_Notice of Case Assignment

11.50) 22/02/28: Declaration of Ethan Turner

11.50) 22/02/28: Defendants Notice of Demurrer

11.50) 22/02/28: Defendants RJN w Exhibits (RJN 12-17)

11.50)  22/04/18: Cotton’s Opposition to Defendants Request for Demurrer (ROA 19)

11.50) 22/04/20: Cotton’s Errata re Opposition to Defendants Request for Demurrer (ROA 21)

11.50)  22/04/22: Respondents Reply to Cotton’s Opposition to Respondents Request for Demurrer (ROA 20)





11.50) 22/04/29: Tentative Ruling (ROA 26)

11.50) 22/04/29: Minute Order (ROA 27)

11.50)  22/06/27 Notice of Errata re Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (ROA 28)

11.50) 22/06/28 Request for Judicial Notice w Exhibits (ROA 29)

11.50)  22/06/28 Cotton Declaration (ROA-30)

11.50)  AUMA-BOE Comparison of Tax Language

11.50) 22/07/04 Proposed Second Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate


11.51) 15/10/19: US v MAMM Decision


11.52) 23/03/28: FIGUEROA v FLETCHER ET AL (ROA-1)


11.53) 22/01/03: COTTON v GERACI COMPLAINT (ROA 1)

11.53) 22/01/03: Ex_Parte_Application_Other_and_Supporting_Documements (ROA 7)

11.53) 22/01/12: Minute Order (ROA 14)

11.53) 22/01/12: Notice of Hearing (ROA 15)

11.53) 22/02/14: Ex_Parte_Application_Other_and_Supporting_Documements (ROA 17)

11.53) 22/01/19: Minute Order Clarifying Previous EP Decision and Granting Plaintiff’s Request to Shorten Time (ROA 21)

11.53) 22/02/09: Geraci’s Answer (ROA 28)

11.53) 22/02/10: Geraci’s Memorandum_of_Points_and_Authorities (ROA 23)

11.53) 22/02/10: Declaration_of_Michael_Weinstein_in_Opposition_to (ROA 24)

11.53) 22/02/10: Geraci’s Request for Judicial Notice with Exhibits (ROA 25)

11.53)  22/02/10: Objection_to_Evidence_Submitted (ROA 26)

11.53)  22/02/17: Cotton’s Reply_in_Support_of_Plaintiff_s_Application_to_Set Aside void Judgement (ROA 30)

11.53) 22/02/17: Notice of Limited Scope Representation (ROA-33)

11.53) 22/02/23: Minute Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Submission by Evan Schube (ROA-41)

11.53) 22/02/23: Tentative Ruling (ROA-42)

11.53) 22/02/25: Minute_Order (ROA 47)

11.53) 22/02/25: Hearing Transcript

11.53) 22/02/28: Notice of Ruling (ROA-43)

11.53) 22/03/15: Geraci’s Ex_Parte_Application_for_Order_Shortening_Time (ROA 50)

11.53) 22/03/15: Cotton’s Opposition (ROA 52)

11.53) 22/03/16_Minute Order OST (ROA-55)

11.53) 22/05/22: Cotton’s Amended Appellant’s Notice Designating Record (ROA 66)

11.53.1) 22/05/12: Cotton’s POS (ROA 67)

11.53.1) 22/05/12: Cotton’s 2nd Amended Notice of Designation of Record on Appeal (ROA 68)

11.53.1) 22/05/12: Cotton’s POS (ROA 69)

11.53.1) 22/06/02: Cotton’s Receipt for Record on Appeal (ROA 72)

11.53.1) 22/06/02: Notice of Completion of the Record on Appeal (ROA 73)

11.53.1) 22/06/08: Receipt for Record on Appeal (ROA 74)

11.53) 22/06/24: Minute Order (ROA 76)

11.53) 22/07/29: Minute Order (ROA 80)

11.53.1) 22/04/25: Cotton Petition for Writ of Mandate

11.53.1) 22/04/25: DCA-PWOM-Exhibits 1-6

11.53.1) 22/04/25: DCA-PWOM-RJN’s Exhibits 1-11

11.53.1) 22/04/25 Notice of Appeal (ROA-56)

11.53.1) 22/04/25 Notice of Filing (ROA-56.1)

11.53.1)  22/05/05 DCA Order (ROA-58)

11.53.1)  22/05/06 Notice of Designation of Record on Appeal (ROA-59)

11.53.1)  22/05/06 POS  (ROA-60)

11.53.1)  22/05/06 Amended POS (ROA-61)

11.53.1)  22/05/06 Amended POS for PWOM (ROA-62)

11.53.1)  22/05/10 Notice of Default (ROA-63)

11.53.1)  22/05/11 Notice of Filing (ROA-64)

11.53.1)  22/05/11 POS Amended NOA (ROA-65)

11.53.1)  22/05/12 Amended Notice Designating Record (ROA-66)

11.53.1)  22/05/12 POS Notice of Designation (ROA-67)

11.53.1)  22/05/12 2ND AMENDED Notice of Designation of Record (ROA-68)

11.53.1)  22/05/12 POS (ROA-69)

11.53.1) 22/06/08_D080460-Record-Filed-Civil-Rule-8.124

11.53.1) 22/07/20: APP-008 Certificate of Interested Parties

11.53.1) 22/07/21 Appellant’s Opening Brief

11.53.1) 22/07/21 Appellant’s Appendix Volume I (0001-0117)

11.53.1) 22/07/21 Appellant’s Appendix Volume II (0119-0256)

11.53.1) 22/07/21 Appellant’s Appendix Volume III (0257-0646)

11.53.1) 22/07/21 Appellant’s Appendix Volume IV (0647-1110)

11.53.1) 22/08/16: Crosby Requests Extension to File File Reply Brief

11.53.1) 22/08/17: Crosby’s POS

11.53.1) 22/08/17: COA Grants Crosby the Extension

11.53.1) 22/08/18: COA Ordering Appellant (Cotton) Provide the Court a Letter Brief as to Why His Appeal Should Not be Dismissed

11.53.1) 22/08/23: Cotton’s Letter-Brief to the COA re Appealability

11.53) 22//08/26: Minute Order (ROA 83)

11.53) 22/08/26: Notice of Hearing (ROA 84)

11.53.1) 22/09/06: COA Order Denying Appeal (ROA 85)

11.53.2) 22/10/16: CA SUPREME COURT – PETITION FOR REVIEW w Exhibits 1-2 (accepted)


11.53) 22/11/30: Minute Order (ROA 96)

11.53) 23/01/25: Cotton’s Case Management Statement (ROA 97)

11.53) 23/01/21: Minute Order-Orders Defendant to File Judgment (ROA 98)

11.53.1) EXHIBITS

11.53.1) Yamini-v.-Zarnes_-2020-Cal.-App.-Unpub.-LEXIS-1868.pdf

11.53.1) Yamini v Barnes_18-11-16_SCUK-CVG-2018-70473-Brief-Filed.pdf

11.53.1) Yamini v Barnes_18-10-03_SCUK-CVG-2018-70473-ORDER-AFTER-HEARING.pdf


11.54) 18/01/23: CGA v CDFA Complaint

11.54) 18/02/22:  Defendant Answers

11.54) 19/01/16: Plaintiffs Request Dismissal

11.54) 19/08/16: Court Grants Dismissal


11.55) 22/01/14: Complaint (ECF-1)

11.55) 22/01/14: Plaintiff’s EP Request for TRO (ECF-17)

11.55) 22/01/14:  Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ECF-18)

11.55)  22/01/15: Defendant’s Opposition to TRO wit Forfeiture Exhibits (ECF-29)

11.55) 22/01/15: Defendant’s Notice of Errata (ECF-30)

11.55) 22/01/15: Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for TRO (ECF-31)

11.55) 22/01/19: Court Orders to Vacate TRO Hearing Date (ECF-37)

11.55) 22/01/28: Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Objection to New Evidence Being Supplied (ECF-57)

11.55) 22/01/28: Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF-58)

11.55) Combined: All Plaintiff Declarations through ECF 58

11.55) Combined: All Defendant Declarations through ECF 58

11.55) 22/01/31: Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request for a TRO (ECF-59)

11.55) 22/01/31: Order Granting Documents to be Sealed (ECF-60)

11.55) 22/02/28: Order Granting Plaintiff Time to File an Amended Complaint (ECF-73)

11.55) 22/03/16: First Amended Complaint (ECF-74)

11.55) 22/04/14: Dismissal (ECF-76)

11.55) 22/04/14: Proposed Order (ECF-76.1)


11.56) 22/02/09:_Complaint (ECF-1

11.56) 22/02/14: Jennifer Keller Counsel for Snoop Dogg (ECF-10)

11.56) 22/02/14: Steffeny Holtz Counsel for Mary Jane Events ET AL (ECF-11)

11.56) 22/02/14: Steffeny Holtz Counsel for Snoop Dogg LLC (ECF-12)

11.56) 22/02/17: Order (ECF-14)

11.56) 22/02/24: Broadus et al Motion to Dismiss ( ECF-20)

11.56) 22/02/24: Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (ECF-20-1)

11.56) 22/02/24: Defendant Cambell Notice of Joinder to Dismiss Case (ECF-22)

11.56) 22/03/10: Jane Doe First Amended Complaint (ECF-24)

11.56) 22/03/14: Minutes (ECF-24)

11.56) 22/03/24: Holtz Declaration (ECF-30.1)

11.56) 22/03/24: Supporting Exhibits (ECF-30.2)

11.56) 22/03/24: Broadus Request for Judicial Notice (ECF-31)

11.56) 22/04/06:  Broadus Request for MTD as No Opposition has been Filed (ECF-33)

11.56) 22/04/06: Jane’s Opposition to Broadus Motion to Dismiss (ECF-34)

11.56) 22/04/06: Broadus Reply Jane’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF-35)

11.56) 22/04/06: Notice of Dismissal (ECF-36)

11.56) 22/04/07: Order Dismissing Broadus (ECF-37)


11.57) 20/09/23: DCC v VERTICAL BLISS ET AL Complaint

11.57) 21/03/21: Answer

11.57) 21/11/15: Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion

11.57) 21/11/15: Turner Declaration

11.57) 22/02/04: Yun Declaration

11.57) 22/02/07: BCC Separate Statement

11.57) 22/02/07: Turner Declaration re Barsamyan Sanctions

11.57) 22/02/07: Turner Declaration re Toroyan Sanctions

11.57) 22/02/07: Yun Declaration re Costs

11.57) 22/02/07: Yun Declaration re Motion to Compel and Barsamyan Sanctions

11.57) 22/02/08: Substitution of Parties Order

11.57) 22/02/09: Plaintiff’s EP for Continuance w Supporting MPA’s

11.57) 22/02/09: Turner Declaration re EP Application to Continue Trial

11.57) 22/04/08: Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and MPA’s

11.57) 22/04/08: Yun Declaration re Sanctions Against Defendant Ruben Cross and his Attorney

11.57) 22/05/05: Turner Declaration re Motion to Compel Responses

11.57) 22/05/13: Defendant’s Protective Order

11.57) 22/05/17: Turner Declaration re Motion to Compel Responses

11.57) 22/06/21: Yun Declaration re Defendant Barsamyan and his Attorney be Sanctioned for Violating a Response Order

11.57) 22/07/01: Yun Declaration re Defendant More Agency, Inc and their Attorney be Sanctioned for Violating a Response Order

11.57) 22/09/21: DCC Separate Statement

11.57) 22/09/21: DCC Meeks Declaration

11.57) 22/09/21: Plaintiff’s MPA in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/09/21: Plaintiff’s RJN in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/09/21: DCC Rosario’s Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/09/21: Turner Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/09/21: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/09/21: Yun Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/10/10: Turner Declaration re Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant Kachian

11.57) 22/10/10: Yun Declaration re Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant Kachian

11.57) 22/10/11: Turner Declaration re Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant Barsamyan

11.57) 22/10/11: Yun Declaration re Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant Barsamyan

11.57) 22/10/24: Turner Declaration re Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant Toroyan

11.57) 22/10/24: Yun Declaration re Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant Toroyan

11.57) 22/12/07: Order Granting Summary Judgment

11.57) 22/12/13: Judgment

11.57) DCC Press Release on Vertical Bliss Win


11.58) 22/04/18: True Social Equity in Cannabis v. Akerna Corp. (ECF-1)



11.60) UL CHULA TWO LLC, vs CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ET AL – (Willie Sens case)

11.60) 20/11/13: ULCT’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ROA-1)

11.60) 20/11/18: ULCT’s Amendment to Complaint (ROA-13)

11.60) 21/01/19: ULCT’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ROA-20)

11.60) 21/01/19: ULCT’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities Declarations iso MPI (ROA-21)

11.60) 21/01/19: ULCT’s Declarations and Affidavits (ROA-22)

11.60) 21/01/19: ULCT’s Declarations and Affidavits (ROA-23)

11.60) 21/02/03: TDE’s Opposition to ULCT’s Application for TRO (ROA-33)

11.60) 21/02/03: Declaration of David Kramer iso TDE Opposition (ROA-34)

11.60) 21/02/03: CV’s Response (ROA-35)

11.60) 21/02/03: CV’s Declaration of Alena Shamos iso CV Response (ROA-36)

11.60) 21/03/15: TDE’s Opposition to ULCT’s MPI (ROA-49)

11.60) 21/03/15: Declaration of Phillip Tencer iso TDE’s Opposition (ROA-50)

11.60) 21/03/22: CV’s Opposition to Noticed Motion and Supporting Declaration (ROA-55)

11.60) 21/04/09: CV’s Answer to ULCT’s Petition (ROA-76)

11.60) 21/04/13: CV’s Notice of Lodgment of Administrative Record (ROA-77)

11.60) 21/06/17:Judgment (ROA-91)

11.60) 21/07/01: Notice of Entry of Judgment Notices (ROA-92)

11.60.1) 21/07/16: Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal-D079215 (ROA-95)

11.60.1) 21/08/03_COA-Civil-Case-Information-Sheet

11.60.1) 21/08/03_Appellants-Petition-for-Writ-of-Supersedeas-and-Other-Relief.pdf

11.60.1) 21/08/03_Appellants-Appendix-of-Exhibits-Vol-1-of-3

11.60.1) 21/08/03_Appellants-Appendix-of-Exhibits-Vol-2-of-3

11.60.1) 21/08/03_Appellants-Appendix-of-Exhibits-Vol-3-of-3

11.60.1) 21/08/03_Appellants-Petition-for-Writ-of-Supersedeas-and-Other-Relief-1

11.60.1) 21/08/06_ORDER_DENYING_WRIT

11.60.1) 21/09/20_Certified_Transcript_of_02/04/21_VOL_1_OF_3

11.60.1) 21/09/20_Certified_Transcript_of_03/26/21_VOL_2_OF_3

11.60.1) 21/09/20_Certified_Transcript_of_05/21/21_VOL_3_OF_3_CORRECTED

11.60) 21/10/30: Notice of Case Reassignment to Judge Mangione (ROA-107)

11.60.1) 21/12/21_Appellants-Opening-Brief

11.60.1) 21/12/21_Appellants-Appendix-Vol-1-of-2

11.60.1) 21/12/21_Appellants-Appendix-Vol-2-of-2

11.60.1) 22/03/24_Joint-Respondents-Brief

11.60.1) 22/03/24_Respondents-Motion-to-Strike-Portions-of-Appellants-Opening-Brief

11.60.1) 22/03/4_Respondents-Notice-of-Lodgment

11.60.1) 22/04/07_Appellants-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice

11.60.1) 22/04/08_Appellants-Opp-to-Respondents-MTS-Portions-of-Appellants-Opening-Brief

11.60.1) 22/04/22_Respondents-Opposition-to-Appellants-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice

11.60.1) 22/04/28_Appellants-Reply-Brief

11.60.1) 22/08/22_Respondents-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-of-Cannabis-Licenses

11.60.1) 22/09/16_ORDER-ON_JUDICIAL_NOTICE.pdf

11.60.1) 22/10/24_Opinion-Filed

11.60.1) 22/11/14_Respondents-Request-that-the-Opinion-be-Published

11.60.1) 22/11/16_ORDER-Denying-Request-for-Publication

11.60.1) 22/12/02_CA-SUPREME-COURT-Plaintiffs-Petition-for-Review

11.60.1) 23/01/11_CA-SUPREME-COURT-Denial-of-Review-and-Publication

11.60.1) 23/01/08: Appellate Courts Case Information Sheet-D079215

11.60.1) 23/01/18_REMITTITUR

11.61) City of San Diego Fraud and Abuse Complaint Requesting an Audit of DSD

11.61) 23/06/07: City of San Diego Fraud Report re DSD Case No. 23-06COSD10003


11.62) 23/06/12: Steering Doc for SD Planning Commission Cannabis Related Items

11.62.1) EXHIBITS

11.62.1) City-of-SD-Appeals-Requirements_dsdib505


11.62.1) 19/05/29_Alan and Trenton Austin Criminal Case_CD281863

11.62.1) A Path of Travel Distance Comparison Between 6176/6220 Federal Blvd and Two Licensed Child Care Facilities

11.62.1) City of San Diego Business Tax License No. 2013028638 for Cuddles Academy

11.62.1) 24/09/08_City-of-San-Diego-Unlicensed-Cannabis-Actions

11.62.1) 23/06/13_Ebon-Alee-Johnson-TruthfinderReport

11.62.1) EJ Marketing – Ebon Johnson Customer Information Sheet No 368343

11.63) WOOD v MAGAGNA ET AL Case No. 37-2021-00053035-CU-OE-CTL

11.63) 2021/12/20 WOOD v MAGAGNA ET AL Class Action Complaint (ROA-1)

11.63) 2022/03/29 Answer (ROA-19)

11.63) 2023/03/20 Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ROA 57)

11.63) 2023/03/20 Waltman Declaration (ROA 58)

11.63) 2023/03/20 Salinas Declaration (ROA-59)

11.63) 2023/03/20 Wood Declaration (ROA-60)

11.63) 2023/05/22 Notice of Final Order and Judgment (ROA-74)

11.64) Magagna-Kenamar Court Holdings

11.64) 2022/08/31_PC-22-047_7720_kenamar_court_rezone

11.64) 2022/09/08 Planning Commission Minutes and Archived Video


Section 12A) US District Court Federal Case No:  18-cv-0325-GPC-MDD:  In January 2018 I had seen enough evidence that there was an intent by multiple parties to defraud me of my property and my rights.  Those acts of collusion and conspiracy by nearly everyone that I had encountered in the litigation and the DSD MMCC CUP application process had reached a point where I believed there were  constitutional issues at play that demanded a higher court look at the charges.  On February 9, 2018, acting as a Pro Se litigant, I filed a complaint in Federal Court charging those parties that had been involved in certain acts of deception and fraud against me, with 20 counts of civil misconduct.

That case was accepted and would be presided over by the  The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California .  The case was placed on a stay while the lower courts first ruled on the litigation before them. Once the lower courts have ruled the case you see listed below will be heard in Federal Court.

12A) 02/09/18: Cotton vs Geraci, ET AL (ECF 1) (Referred to in Court Filings as Cotton III)

12A) 02/09/18: Cotton’s Exhibits 1-15 (ECF 1.2)

12A) 02/09/18: Cotton’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2)

12A) 02/09/18: Cotton’s Memorandum in Support for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF 3)

12A) 02/20/18: Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies (ECF 4)

12A) 02/20/18: Supplemental Document (ECF 5)

12A) 02/21/18: Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF 6)

12A) 02/28/18: Order on Motion the for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and to STAY the Matter (ECF 7)

12A) 12/23/19: Cotton’s Motion to Unstay the Case (ECF 8)

12A) 01/10/20: Judge Curiel Recusal (ECF 9)

12A) 01/10/20: Judge Whelan Recusal Judge Bashant is Assigned (ECF 10)

12A) 01/15/20: Judge Bashant’s Order Showing Motion to Lift Stay (ECF 11)

12A) 01/16/20: Summons Issued (ECF 12)

12A) 04/09/20: Cotton’s Application for Appointment of Counsel, Leave to Amend and Cotton Declaration (ECF 13)

12A) 04/16/20: Judge Bashant’s Order Denying Ex Parte Motion for Court Appointed Counsel (ECF 14)

12A) 05/05/20: Cotton Files Judge Bashant Judicial Misconduct Complaint and Statement

12A) 05/06/20: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF 15)

12A) 05/06/20: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF 16)

12A) 05/07/20: Notice of Withdrawal Document No 15 (ECF 17)

12A) 05/13/20: Cotton’s Pro Se Amended Complaint (ECF 18)

12A) 05/14/20: Amended Summons (ECF 19)

12A) 05/14/20: Judge Bashant’s Order Denying Austin’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 20)

12A) 05/19/20: Judge Bashant’s Order on Notice of Errata (ECF 21)

12A) 05/19/20: Cotton’s Notice of Errata – Amended Complaint Exhibits (ECF 22)

12A) 05/27/20: Magistrate Case Transfer (ECF 23)

12A) 05/27/20: Austin’s Motion to Dismiss-RJN-MPA-Dalzell DEC-POS (ECF 24)

12A) 06/26/20: Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss-RJN & Ex 1-13 (ECF 25)

12A) 06/26/20: Austin’s MTD Exhibits (ECF 26.1-14)

12A) 05/29/20: Cotton’s XMAS Eve and Birthday Emails with Attachments

12A) 06/10/20: Judge Bashant – Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Received

12A) 06/29/20: Cotton’s Opposition to Austin’s MTD-RJN & Ex 1-8 (ECF 27)

12A) 07/01/20: Weinstein Withdraws Motion to Dismiss (ECF 28)

12A) 07/06/20: Austin’s Reply to Cotton’s Opposition for Motion to Dismiss (ECF 29)

12A) 07/15/20: Court Document Nunc Pro Tunc Order (ECF 30)

12A) 07/15/20: Cotton’s MPA Opposition to Weinsten’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 31)

12A) 07/17/20: Weinstein’s Reply to Cotton’s Opposition on Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 32)

12A) 07/16/20: Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies (ECF 33)

12A) 07/15/20: Cotton’s RJN Oppostion to Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 34)

12A) 07/14/20: Cotton’s Notice of Errata on RJN (ECF 35)

12A) 08/03/20: Cotton’s Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF 36)

12A) 08/06/20: Judge Bashant’s Nunc Pro Tunc Order Showing Ex Parte Document Discrepancy Resolution (ECF 37)

12A 08/05/20: Motion to Supplement (ECF 38).  Cotton notices Judge Bashant that his page 27 Conclusion Page was missing from the (ECF 36) documents filed on 08/03/20.  Cotton served all the parties, including Judge Bashant, with the full motion, including page 27 on his Proof of Service dated 08/03/20.  Had Cotton not caught that page 27 was missing he could have expected a decision that had not considered the arguments made in his concluding statements and the signature page would have been missing.  Maybe when considered as stand alone issue this does not mean much but when you consider everything from how Judge Wohlfeil played hide the pea with his his DQ motion, Cotton’s report of Judge Bashant to the Judicial Council, her attributing language to Flores things he did not say, calling Corina Young a defendant when she is a material witness and she worked together with Wohlfeil for 7 years while they were in the SD Superior Court leaves little doubt that there may be more to this omission than just sloppy record keeping at the court.  Of note.  Now that the court has to add this page in and since the original filing is time date stamped having been received by the court on Monday 08/03/20 and since Proof of Service to all named parties was done by email and included Judge Bashant with page 27 in that attachment.  It will prove interesting as to how she responds to this latest issue from within her court.

12A) 08/17/20: Weinstein’s Reply to Cotton’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel (ECF 39)

12A) 08/27/20: Order and Notice of Document Discrepancy (ECF 40)

12A) 08/27/20: Cotton’s Reply to Weinstein’s Opposition to Cotton’s Request for Appointment of Counsel (ECF 41)

12A) 09/24/20: Judge Bashant Recusal.  Judge Robinson is Assigned (ECF 42)

12A) 10/19/20: Judge Bashant Ninth Circuit Judicial Complaint is Dismissed

12A) 10/30/20: Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies (ECF 43)

12A) 10/30/20: Cotton’s Ex Parte Motion Seeking a Preliminary Injunction, Lis Pendens, Declaration and Exhibits (ECF 44)

12A) 11/03/20: Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies (ECF 45)

12A) 11/03/20: Motion for Leave to File Document (ECF 46)

12A) 11/03/20: Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies (ECF 47)

12A) 11/03/20: Notice of Errata – Nunc Pro Tunc (ECF 48)

12A) 12/21/20: Judge Wohlfeil’s Proof of Service (ECF 49)

12A) 01/04/21: Judge Wohlfeil’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF-50)

12A) 01/05/21: Judge Wohlfeil’s US Marshalls Notice of Service (ECF 51)

12A) 01/07/21: Notice of Document Discrepancy (ECF 52)

12A) 01/07/21: Cotton’s Ex Parte Motion for an Expedited Hearing (ECF 53)

12A) 01/19/21: Notice of Document Discrepancy (ECF 54)

12A) 01/19/21: Cotton’s Opposition with RJN’s to Judge Wohlfeil’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 55)

12A) 01/20/21: Cotton’s POS to Koski (ECF 56)

12A) 01/28/21: Cotton’s POS to McElfresh (ECF 57)

12A) 01/28/21: Cotton’s POS to Demian (ECF 58)

12A) 01/28/21: Cotton’s POS to Austin (ECF 59)

12A) 01/28/21: Cotton’s POS to Weinstein (ECF 60)

12A) 01/28/21: Cotton’s POS to Berry (ECF 61)

12A) 01/28/21: Cotton’s POS to Geraci (ECF 62)

12A) 01/28/21:  Cotton’s POS to Judge Bashant (ECF 63)

12A) 2/08/21: Judge Bashant’s MTD & POS (ECF 64)

12A) 02/11/21: McElfresh’s MTD (ECF 65)

12A) 02/11/21: Geraci and Berry’s MTD (ECF 66)

12A) 02/11/21: Demian’s MTD (ECF 67)

12A) 02/25/21: Notice of Document Discrepancy (ECF 68)

12A) 02/25/21: Application for Entry of Default of Weinstein (ECF 69)

12A) 03/11/21: Order Denying Court Appointed Counsel (ECF 70)

12A) 03/17/21: Order Granting Weinstein/Austin Motions to Dismiss (ECF 71)

12A) 04/07/21: McElfresh’s Reply to Cotton’s No Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF 72)

12A) 04/07/21: Wohlfeil’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Cotton’s FAC (ECF 73)

12A) 04/14/21: Cotton’s Notice of Errata

12A) 04/14/21: McElfresh’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF 74)

12A) 04/15/21: Nunc Pro Tunc Order – Untimely Filing (ECF 75)

12A) 04/15/21: Cotton’s MPA in Opposition to McElfresh’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 76)

12A) 04/15/21:  Order to Hearing on McElfresh and Wolfstein’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 77)

12A) 05/05/21: Demian’s Reply to Cotton’s Non-Opposition (ECF 78)

12A) 05/07/21: Nunc Pro Tunc Order (ECF 79)

12A) 05/07/21: Cotton’s Omnibus Opposition to MTD’s (ECF 80)

12A) 05/10/21: Demian’s Reply to Cotton’s Opposition to MTD’s (ECF 81)

12A) 05/12/21: Bashant’s Reply to Cotton’s Opposition to MTD’s (ECF 82)

12A) 05/14/21: Order to Vacate 05/19/21 Oral Arguments (ECF 83)

12A) 05/14/21: Cotton’s Notice of Appeal Order of 03/17/21 (ECF 84)

12A) 05/19/21: USCA Case Number (ECF 85)

12A) 05/19/21:  USCA Time Schedule Order (ECF 86)

12A) 06/11/21: USCA Order Dismissing Cotton’s Appeal (ECF 87)

12A) 06/24/21: Notice of Appearance of Douglas Pettit on Behalf of Gina Austin (ECF 88)

12A) 06/24/21: Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance of Julia Dalzell of Behalf of Gina Austin (ECF 89)

12A) 06/24/21: Notice of Appearance of Michelle Probst on Behalf of Gina Austin (ECF 90)

12A) 07/06/21: USCA Mandate and Order (ECF 91)

12A) 08/28/21: Notice of Special Appearance (ECF 92)

12A) 08/28/21: Ex Parte Motion Requesting Court Appointed Counsel (ECF 93)

12A) 08/28/21: Attorney Jacob Austin Declaration (ECF 93-1)

12A) 08/28/21: Cotton Declaration with Exhibits (ECF 93-2)

12A) 08/28/21:  RJN Exhibits 1-8 (ECF 93-3)

12A) 08/28/21: RJN Exhibits 9-12 (ECF 93-4)

12A) 08/28/21: RJN Exhibits 13-17 (ECF 93-5)

12A) 08/30/21: Certificate of Service (ECF 94)

12A) 10/22/21: Order Granting Motions to Dismiss (ECF-96)

12A) 11/22/21: Second Amended Complaint (ECF-97)

12A) 12/06/21: Demian MTD  (ECF 98)

12A) 12/06/21: Austin MTD (ECF 99)

12A) 12/06/21: McElfresh MTD (ECF 100)

12A) 01/03/22:  Judge Transfer Robinson to Jinsook Ohta (ECF 101)

12A) 01/05/22: Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint (ECF 102)

12A) 01/14/22: Notice and Notice of Document Discrepancies (ECF 103)

12A) 01/18/22: Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel for Gina Austin (ECF 104)

12A) 01/21/22: McElfresh’s Opposition to Cotton’s Request for Extension of Time (ECF 105)

12A)  01/21/22: Demian’s Opposition to Cotton’s Request for Extension of Time (ECF 106)

12A) 01/24/22: Austin’s Notice of Joinder (ECF 107)

12A) 01/27/22:  Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for an Extension of Time (ECF 108)

12A) 01/28/22: Plaintiff’s Notice of Errata (ECF 109)

12A)  01/28/22: Notice (ECF 110)

12A)  03/02/22: Order Granting Extension (ECF 111)

12A)  03/30/22: Cotton’s Opposition to MTD (ECF 112)

12A) 04/06/22: Demian Opposition to Cotton’s Reply to MTD (ECF-113)

12A) 04/06/22: McElfresh Opposition to Cotton’s Reply to MTD (ECF-114)

12A) 04/06/22: McElfresh POS (ECF-114-1)

12A) 04/06/22: Austin Opposition to Cotton’s Reply to MTD (ECF-115)

12A) 04/13/22: ORDER Canceling Oral Arguments – Matter is Submitted

12A) 22/05/23: Motion for Electronic Filing (ECF-116)

12A) 22/09/21: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (ECF-117)

12A) 22/09/21: Judgment for Dismissal (ECF-118)

12A) 22/11/16: Cotton’s Notice of Appeal Judgment to Dismiss (ECF 119)

12A) 22/11/16: Receipt (ECF 119-1)

12A.1) 22/11/21: COA Ninth Circuit Time Schedule Order Case No 22-56077 (ECF 120)

12A.1) 22/11/21: COA Parties and Counsel Listing (ECF 120-1)

12A.1) 22/11/21: Office of the Clerk Documents (ECF 120-2)

12A.1) 22/11/21:  COA Ninth Circuit Time Schedule Order (ECF 121)

12A.1) 22/11/21: COA Appellants Opening Documents Packet (DE-1)

12A.1) 22/12/06: Demian’s Motion to Dismiss (DE-2)

12A.1) 22/12/12: Austin’s Motion to Dismiss (DE-5)

12A.1) 22/12/21: Cotton’s Opposition to Austin and Demian’s Motion to Dismiss (DE-6)

12A.1) 22/12/21: Cotton’s Declaration in Support of his Opposition to Dismiss (DE-6)

12A.1) 22/12/21: Cotton’s Motion for Request for Judicial Notice (DE-7)

12A.1) 22/12/23: McElfresh’s Motion to Dismiss (DE-8)

12A.1) 22/12/27: Demian’s Opposition to Cotton’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss (DE-9)

12A.1) 23/01/03: Cotton’s Opposition to McElfresh’s Motion to Dismiss (DE-10)

12A.1) 23/01/03: Cotton’s Declaration in Support of Denial of McElfresh’s Motion to Dismiss (DE-10)

12A.1) 23/01/09: Austin’s Reply to Cotton’s Opposition to Austin’s MTD (DE-11)

12A.1) 23/01/10: McElfresh’s Reply to Cotton’s Opposition to McElfesh’s MTD (DE-12)

12A.1) 23/03/29: 9th Circuit Dismissal (DE-13)


I normally post up court documents that have been filed so the document numbers can be verified that what we’re discussing is already in the courts purview. But here’s the thing. I’m so impressed by the legal work I’m seeing being done in NorCal right now I’m going to drop these links early because it is precisely a result of people having had enough of the corrupt lawyers working in concert with state and local government larceny that exists in pay to play cannabis, that information is being shared amongst us that will find it’s way into a federal courtroom. With that being said I welcome any litigant who benefits from these links to use them if it helps your case.  A special thanks goes out to Adam Mintz for confirming what I suspected was going on and through our mutual collaboration avoided being ripped off by these Canna Land Use Scum Lawyers like Cynthia Morgan Reed (CMR) and the clients they serve.
So the dark forces try to silence and rip me off by building a competing dispensary @ 6220 Federal within 1000 ft of the one I was going to build on my property @ 6176 Federal. But the application at 6220 is done, from start to approval in just 6 months with the City of San Diego’s “special handling” of his application. Well guess what? The City got an easement and $22K (see Exhibit 6) at least was spent on bribing officials and Magagna, who has ZERO development or engineering experience marches on to get his CUP. Here is the 09/16/20 County of San Diego record of title for 6220 Federal Blvd.
It really took knowing what Adam Mintz and others had shared with me to get it clear in my head what the powers that be had in mind that would work towards denying me the CUP at my property and giving the competing CUP to Magagna. And then it became clear. The 6220 CUP was in San Diego. The adjacent property at 6302 Federal is in Lemon Grove. Magagna bought that property and intended on actually building the dispensary over there. He just couldn’t have me get a dispensary up first. So with the help of the City of San Diego and some well placed bribes through CMR, his Land Use Attorney that was the only attorney that Adam could use in negotiating the purchase of that 6220 property he almost got away with it.
Here is the 09/16/20 San Diego County record of title for the 6302 Federal Blvd Lemon Grove property that shows Magagna having bought that property through a straw man corporation, 6302 Federal LLC, back in 05/21/18 and then taking full title in 06/16/20.  Notice that both Magagna and 6302 Federal LLC did easements for this property.
On 09/29/20 I began a series of discussions with the City of Lemon Grove over that 6302 property. I memorialize everything in emails. So what you’ll see in the next exhibit is my email correspondence and two Permit History spread sheets for the 6302 property. Keep in mind that the spread sheet dated 09/29/20 does not give an application date or a completion date for the Boundary Adjustment that Magagna had been applying for. The application date for the dispensary is also missing. Now go to the same spread sheet dated 10/08/20. The City of Lemon Grove told me that they were canceling the Boundary Adjustment request and that Magagna would be getting a letter to that effect. Sorry Magagna. This is nothing. Wait till we get you and your attorneys, Gina Austin, Jessica McElfresh and Cynthia Morgan-Reed in front of a federal judge.
How does your lobbyist-attorney pay the very same planning commission people $22K as listed on CMR’s lobbying report on behalf of Magagna for the 3 month time period of 7/01/18 thru 09/30/18 and NOBODY from the Geraci side, the nitwit that was in charge of and paying for the CUP on my 6176 property was up in arms over that? Not one peep of protest! He just accepts the loss and leaves quietly.  Geraci is a sham bullshit con artist. I expected his style of connivery. But what I wasn’t ready for and I have been truly impressed by, are the depths that certain lawyers and city officials will go to in the interest of Canna-Greed. I give you the Vanst Law Group and Cynthia Morgan-Reed:
What was NOTABLY missing in my 12A1.6 FOIA request was information relating to the MMD application that had been applied for at the 6302 property back in March 2017.  I continued to demand this information and it was finally provided in this link.  What it proves dispositively is that in the unredacted sections of these documents it can be seen that the same architect and design team were working on a competing CUP to the 6176 CUP.  There are more elements to this exhibit as can be seen in Section 13.2.40
Section 12B) US District Court Federal Case No:  18-cv-02751-GPC-MDD: In December of 2018 Cotton and his anonymous litigation investor jointly sued a number of parties in Federal Court with charges, of among others, Legal Malpractice.  This section refers to that action:

12B) 12/06/18: COTTON ET AL v GERACI ET AL COMPLAINT (ECF 1) (Referred to in Court Filings as Cotton IV)

12B) 02/07/18: Summons Issued (ECF 2)

12B) 12/20/18: Order of Transfer Pursuant to Low Number Rule (ECF 3)

12B) 03/05/19: Witt, Adam Executed Summons (ECF 4)

12B) 03/05/19: Berry, Rebecca Executed Summons (ECF 5)

12B) 03/05/19: Demian, David Executed Summons (ECF 6)

12B) 03/05/19: Finch, Thornton and Baird Executed Summons (ECF 7)

12B) 03/05/19: Geraci, Larry Executed Summons (ECF 8)

12B) 03/05/19: Austin, Gina Executed Summons (ECF 9)

12B) 03/05/19: Toothacre, Scott Executed Summons (ECF 10)

12B) 03/05/19: Weinstein, Michael Executed Summons (ECF 11)

12B) 03/05/19: Austin Legal Group Executed Summons (ECF 12)

12B) 03/05/19: Ferris and Britton Executed Summons (ECF 13)

12B) 03/07/19: Miller, Sean Unexecuted Summons (ECF 14)

12B) 03/22/19: Austin’s Notice of Motion for Extension of Time (ECF 15)

12B) 03/25/19: Austin’s Motion to Withdraw (ECF 16)

12B) 03/25/19: Austin’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF 17)

12B) 03/25/19: FTB’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18)

12B) 03/26/19:  Geraci and Berry Answer (ESC 19)

12B) 03/26/19: Weintstein’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 20)

12B) 03/26/19: Austin’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 21)

12B) 03/26/19: Austin’s MPA in Support of Motion to Dismiss Exhibits (ECF 21)

12B) 03/28/19: Order Setting Briefing Schedule (ECF 22)

12B) 04/05/19: Weinstein’s Notice of Appearance (ECF 23)

12B) 04/19/19: Cotton’s Opposition to FTB’s Motion to Dismiss Cotton’s Complaint (ECF 27)

12B) 04/19/19: Cotton’s Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF 28)

12B) 05/03/19: Austin’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF 29)

12B) 05/03/19: FTB MPA in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF 30)

12B) 05/03/19: Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Case (ECF 31)

12B) 05/14/19: Order Dismissing the Complaint (ECF 32)

12B) 05/14/19: Clerk’s Judgement (ECF 33)


Section 12C) Flores v Austin; US District Court Federal Case No:  20CV0656 JLS LL

With approximately 3500 hours of research into the Cotton v Geraci matters Flores realized what was happening in this sham lawsuit decided that when the offer came to purchase the property and take on those forces that had conspired against Cotton and Flores himself, during the Cotton trial, he decided to take matters into his own hands by filing this federal complaint.  Along the way Flores also became aware that Michael “Biker” Sherlock’s widow, Amy Sherlock and her two minor sons had been taken advantage of by many of the same people both in government and private enterprise that had conspired against Cotton to rob her of her rights in the mad dash to monopolize cannabis licensing.  Once they realized what had happened Flores came to represent Amy Sherlock and her sons in this federal complaint as well.

12C) 04/03/20: FLORES ET AL v AUSTIN ET AL (ECF 1) (Referred to in Court Filings as Cotton V)

12C) 04/03/20: Flores’s Motion for TRO (ECF 2)

12C) 04/03/20: Flores’s Motion for RJN (ECF 3)

12C) 04/06/20: United States District Court Summons (ECF 4)

12C) 04/07/20: Flores v Austin: Judge Sammartino Recusal (ECF 5)

12C) 04/13/20: Flores’s Notice of Errata on Exhibit 6 (ECF 6)

12C) 04/17/20: Order Transferring Case from Judge Sabraw to Judge Bashant (ECF 7)

12C) 04/20/20: Order Denying TRO (ECF 8)

12C) 05/27/20: Transfer Order (ECF 9)

12C) 06/25/20: USDC Notice (ECF 10)

12C) 06/25/20: Flores’s USDC COA – Writ of Mandamus

12C) 06/26/20:  USDC Denial (ECF 11)

12C) 06/30/20: Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF 12)

12C) 06/30/20: Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss – RJN – Ex 1-7 (ECF 13)

12C) 07/01/20: Weinstein Withdraws Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14)

12C) 07/07/20: Flores’s First Amended Complaint (ECF 15)

12C) 07/09/20:  Flores’s Notice of Withdrawal of Document (ECF 16)

12C) 07/09/20: Flores’s First Amended Complaint  (ECF 17)

12C) 07/10/20: Summons (ECF 18)

12C) 07/10/20: Order Ruling on Motion to Dismiss is Denied (ECF 19)

12C) 07/15/20: Weinstein’s Notice of Errata (ECF 20)

12C) 07/202/20: Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ECF 21)

12C) 07/20/20: Weinstein’s Request for Judicial Notice with Exhibits 1-8 (ECF 21.1-9)

12C) 08/11/20: Flores’s Opposition to Weinstein’s ET AL Motion to Dismiss (ECF 22)

12C) 08/13/20: Flores’s Notice of Errata to Flores’s Opposition to Weintein’s MTD (ECF 23)

12C) 08/17/20: Weinstein’s Reply to Flores’s Opposition to Weinstein’s MTD (ECF 24)

12C) 08/18/20: Flores’s Ex Parte Sur-Reply to Weinstein’s MTD, Flore’s Declaration & RJN in Support of Surreply (ECF 25)

12C) 09/24/20: Judge Bashant Recusal.  Judge Robinson is Assigned (ECF 26)

12C) 01/13/21: Wohlfeil’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 27)

12C) 03/22/21: Order Granting Flore’s Ex Parte Application to File a Sur-Reply (ECF 28)

12C) 03/29/21: Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Dismiss the First Amended Compliant by Weinstein, Toothacre, Kulas and Ferris and Britton  (ECF 29)

12C) 04/15/21: Reply in Support of Wohlfeil’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 30)

12C) 04/22/21: Flores’s Response in Opposition to Wohlfeil’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 31)

12C) 04/26/21: Notice of E-Filed Document Discrepancy (ECF-32)

12C) 04/26/21: Order Vacating Hearing and Taking Matter Under Submission (ECF-33)

12C) 05/07/21: Wohlfeil’s Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF-34)

12C) 01/04/21: Order of Judge Transfer (ECF-35)

12C) 03/23/22: Order (ECF-39)

12C) 06/21/22: Transcript (ECF-42)

12C) 10/12/22: Ex Parte Application for Motion to Vacate Judgment (ECF-43.0)

12C) 10/12/22: Attorney Flores’s Affidavit w Exhibits (ECF-43.1)

12C) 10/12/22: Amy Sherlock’s Affidavit w Exhibits (ECF-43.2)

12C) 10/13/22: RJN’s Volume I (ECF-44)

12C) 10/13/22: RJN’s Volume II (ECF-45)

12C) 10/13/22: RJN’s Volume III (ECF-46)

12C) 10/13/22: Proof of Service (ECF-47)

12C) 10/19/22:  Order Denying Sherlocks Motion to Vacate (ECF-48)

12C) 11/09/22: Sherlock’s Response to Order to Show Cause (ECF-49)

12C) 11/09/22: Exhibit to Sherlock’s Response (ECF-49.1)

12C) 11/16/22: Civil Chamber Rules (ECF-50)

12C) 12/09/22: Dismissal (ECF-51)

12C) 12/09/22: Dismissal Order (ECF-52)

12C.1)  23/01/05: NOA (ECF-53)

12C.1) 23/01/09: POS (ECF-54)

12C.1) 23/01/10: Clerk’s Notice (ECF-55)

12C.1) 23/01/10: Time Schedule (ECF-56)


In Chapter Ten I described the MMCC CUP process in some detail from the standpoint of what it took in document production and time to move the CUP application from a Step One to a Step Three status with DSD.  As I also stated, it was on 04-05-18 when I received a Notice of Public Application that a competing MMCC CUP Application had been submitted at 6220 Federal Blvd by a Mr. Aaron Magagna.   In this chapter I will be describing and showing historical captures of online DSD screenshots to make the case of DSD handling and processing of the 6220 CUP application in comparison to that of the 6176 CUP application.  With this evidence the viewer can decide for themselves if DSD has handled both of these CUP applications in the same manner.  But before we get into the side by side comparisons of the two CUP applications we’ll give you whatever Rules, Regulations and Ordinances that pertain to the licensing aspects of these business’s so you might have a better understanding of how these rules were applied against the two projects.

13.0.1) June 6, 2023 San Diego City Council Meeting -Darryl Cotton’s Statement.pdf  During non-agenda public comments we are given 2:00 minutes to make a statement to the City Council.  This is the written statement that was entered into the minutes and delivered in oral comments, to the extent time allowed, at that hearing.

City and State Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Marijuana Licensing

13.1.0) DSD Employee Directory

13.1.1) DSD IB-170 Application Requirements for a Marijuana Outlet (October-2017)

13.1.2) SDMC Marijuana Outlets Section 141.0504(a)

13.1.3)) SDMC 113.0225(c) Measuring Distances Between Uses  ‘When measuring distance for separation requirements for medical marijuana consumer cooperatives, the measurement of distance between uses will take into account natural topographical barriers and constructed barriers such as freeways or flood control channels that would impede direct physical access between the uses. In such cases, the separation distance shall be measured as the most direct route around the barrier in a manner that establishes direct access.’

13.1.4_SDMC Child Care Regulations Section 141.0606

13.1.5) City of SD Website re Child Care Centers Setbacks

13.1.6) DSD Home Based Businesses Form DS-540

13.1.7) SDMC Separately Regulated Use Residential 141.0308

6220 Federal Blvd San Diego CA.  92114 &

6302 Federal Blvd., Lemon Grove, CA  91945 (begins at

13.2.1) 6220-DSD-Notice-of-Application-4-05-18  The Notice of Application was generated just 3 weeks after the application was accepted on 03-14-18 by DSD.   You can find that date on the 13.2.2 document in the upper right hand corner of the document.

13.2.2) 6220-DSD-Customer-Information-5-31-18 John Ek is listed as the property owner for this site.  I’ve known John for over 25 years since I bought my property just down the street from him in 1998. John had a crane service that he ran out of that yard and I would use him to set equipment of ours when we were contracting years ago.  When I saw his name on this application I called him and followed up with an email to him to memorialize our conversation.  John told me that he first met Magagna in March of 2018.  Magagna offered to pay for all the costs associated with putting up a licensed MO on his property.  They would work out the details once the CUP was approved.  According to John he does not even have a written contract with Magagna.  With just that statement there is no way that DSD could have processed this CUP application to be competing with the 6176 CUP application.  Furthermore the 6220 application doesn’t list any of the professional designer, architects or engineers as was found on the 6176 application and that took 6 months to even get into a Step Three level where it was assigned a Project Manager.  From what I now know from having spoken to John that was not required as Cherlyn Cac is the same Project Manager for 6176 and 6220.  Something is very wrong here and it just gets worse with time.

13.2.3) 6220-DSD-Online-Approval-Details-Version One- 4-05-18 I call this Version One because on page two of this document you can see the property image as 6220 Federal Blvd and that is in fact that property.   The assessors parcel number is listed as 543-020-04-00.  Pay attention because in Version Two that is not the case.

13.2.4) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 6-Review-Status-5-31-18  In less than 2 months they have completed Landscaping, Geology and Addressing.  Geology shows a Completed date of 05-30-18.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1668310.  LDR-Geology Review ID 1668312.

13.2.5) 6220-DSD-Online-Approval-Details-Version Two-6-08-18 Here in Version Two DSD has changed the property address, the image of the property and the parcel number to 533-433-28-00 from what was posted online just 2 months ago.  Something is very very wrong here.

13.2.6) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 6-Review-Status-6-09-18  This shows the Community Planning Group requirement has been completed in a Cycle 6 review as 06-01-18.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1668310.  I was very surprised to see that Completed Date Approval since I knew 6176 had not had any public hearings that were required by Mr. Ken Malbrough of ECNPG to facilitate.

On 6-11-18 I sent Mr. Malbrough an email to find out why 6220 had gotten the ECNPG approval and we had not.  After a couple of cordial exchanges with Ken he told me in his final message he would no longer be responding to anything regarding the CUP for 6220 Federal Blvd. This will all be explored in greater detail later in Chapter 13-Section 13C:  Community Planning Groups.

13.2.7) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle-6-Review-Status-6-13-18  Every item shows completed in Cycle 6.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1668310

13.2.8) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-6-14-18 In one day Community Planning Group goes back into an Assignment Pending status with a different Review ID no  1686813.

13.2.9) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-6-21-18  Every item previously showing closed in Cycle 6 now shows open in Cycle 7 with new due dates listed.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1686813.

13.2.10) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 7 – Review-Status-7-11-18  6220 Community Planning Group has been Assigned.  6176 has not.  6220 Fire-Plan Review has been assigned. 6176 doesn’t even list Fire-Plan Review as a required item.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1686813.

13.2.11) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-7-12-18  Engineering Transportation and Landscaping reviews were approved from just yesterday.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1686813.

13.2.12) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-7-13-18  Community Planning Group shows an Assigned status.  The Due Date of 07-11-18 has been passed.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1686813.

13.2.13) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycles 8, 9 & 10-Review-Status-7-20-18  All listed in Assignment Pending with no Due Dates and Completed Dates.  Community Planning Group is now in a Cycle 10 and back in an Assignment Pending status.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1701575.

13.2.14) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycles 8,9,11 & 12-Review-Status-7-24-18  Cycle 10 disappeared from the previous post.  Community Planning Group is now in Cycle 12 with yet another Reviewer ID no 1702828.

13.2.15) 6220-DSD-Online-Cycle-8-thru-12-Review-Status-08-01-18  Cycle 8 shows the LDR-Transportation (Traffic Study) has been completed.  6176 never had one one of these studies.  Cycle 9 shows nothing in it.  Cycles 10 & 11 have disappeared.  Cycle 12 all tasks have been assigned except for Community Planning Group which remains in an Assignment Pending status.  What other task has had to go through this many review cycles by DSD?  One thing appears certain here, the Community Planning Group task is not being handled the same way between the 6176 and 6220 CUP applications.

13.2.16) 6220 DSD Customer Info and Cycles-9, 12 & 13 Review Status-8-08-18  Like today’s update at 6176 what is most notable at first and no doubt also a result of the email I sent to DSD last week (13C.7) is the fact that DSD has also made a significant change to the 6220 Customer Information sheet.  In this case Terry Strom of Strom Entitlement and Permitting Services , has been taken off the DSD site as a Point of Contact.  This is an important development because if there was ever to be an argument that Strom was doing all the design, engineering and architectural work to meet the rigorous demands of the CUP process he or someone from his staff would have had to be listed and maintained that POC listing on the DSD website.  To remove him so that everything has to flow through Magagna who lack any experience or professional licensing yet has managed to surpass the 6176 CUP application where there is only ONE POC and that is Abhay Schweitzer of Techne, with over 30 submitted and approved MMCC/MO projects under his belt,  his in house staff Ben Peterson, (not listed as a POC), the AIA Architect Michael Morton of Marengo Morton Architects, and both Jared Jones and Bree Harris of Barbara Harris Permitting Services.  What DSD, Magagna and Strom would have us believe is that unlike the 6176 CUP application where there is only one POC named and where Barbara Harris Permitting Services could have handled everything that DSD would have required to accept the 6176 CUP application, Bartell and Geraci elected to hire Techne and a real architect that would have not been necessary of they had just engaged the services of a Permitting Services Company.   While there may have been an argument that could have been made that Strom had coordinated all the professional services behind the scenes for Magagna without any of that information making it to the DSD website that argument is gone now.  On the 6176 CUP application Geraci should have just made Rebecca Berry and listed Jim Bartell as the agent and the second POC.  Based on what I’m seeing at 6176 that would have been acceptable to DSD.

Now what has happened in one week with DSD and the processing of the CUP application is much different than what is happening over at 6176.  6220 has now begun a Cycle 13 Review Cycle, Due Dates are listed in both Cycle 12 and 13 Review Cycles and LDR-Planning has show been completed  as of 08-02-18 in Cycle 12.  Why did Geraci spend over $300K on a CUP application at 6176 when he could have just hired Magagna and Strom?  This team has outperformed everyone he brought to the table.

13.2.17) 6220 DSD Online Cycle 9 thru 13 Review Status-08-22-18  In this update we can see that all the Due Dates have been added to Cycle 12 and 4 of the tasks are showing have been completed.  Community Planning Group is showing Assigned status.  Cycle 13 the LDR -Transportation (Traffic Study) is showing been completed and the Cycle 13 section is labeled Reviews Complete.

13.2.18) 6220 DSD Online Cycles 9 &14 Review Status 09-08-18 Since the recent filing of the Petition in the Court of Appeals, which names officials in the DSD as Persons of Interest there has been a notable slow down in how DSD is processing the 6220 CUP application.  As can be seen here in this update there are no Due Dates being given for either Cycle and with Cycles 10-13 having been completed and closed since the previous update what is curious is that in the previous update there were ‘No Reviews’ associated with Cycle 9.  What is now noteworthy is that in this screen shot update it can be seen that the LDR -Engineering and LDR-Planning tasks that show having been completed in the previous Cycle 12 update are now showing an ‘Assignment Pending’ status with no ‘Due Date’ status in this screen shot update.  How is that the very tasks that show having been completed in the 08-22-18 screen shot now show not having been completed and are now open awaiting assignment in a cycle review that as 9 goes was junior to the cycle review that cleared those tasks at an earlier date?   Unless DSD is trying to hide the fact that 6220 has an unnatural processing of this CUP application there is NO REASON these types of ‘hide the pea’ public postings  by DSD would need to be done.  There are no other plausible explanations.

13.2.19) 6220 DSD Online Cycle 9 &14 Review Status – 09-18-18  There have been no changes to the 6220 CUP application since the previous update.  This in and of itself is highly unusual since prior to the COA Petition having been filed this CUP application had been processing at breakneck speed with cycle processing and advances occurring on a near daily basis.  I want to find out who the Team Magagna architects, designers and engineers are.  Even with this most recent slow down in processing they are doing a super human job in moving the Magagna CUP project along.

13.2.20) 6220 DSD Online Cycle 9 & 14 Review Status – 09-28-18  There have been no changes to the 6220 CUP application since the previous two updates.   Cherlyn Cac remains the Project Manager for 6220 but as you will see by today’s 6176 DSD update she is no longer the PM at the 6176 CUP application.  This means 6176 has now had 3 different PM’s compared to the 6220 project only having had one.

13.2.21) 6220 DSD Online Cycle 9 & 14 Review Status -10-12-18 There have been no changes to the 6220 CUP application since the previous three updates.  One would think that with one less project to oversee, Ms. Cac would have been able to update the project file with status reports.  That has not been the case.

13.2.22A) CITY OF SAN DIEGO HEARING OFFICER MEETING TO APPROVE THE 6220 CUP APPLICATION – ITEM 9 — 10-17-18 It was during the course of this hearing that the HEARING OFFICER assigned to the hearing, Duke Fernandez ruled that after hearing the testimony that was provided he granted the Magagna CUP.  Since the 6176 CUP is within 1000 ft of the already granted 6220 CUP that would effectively eliminate the 6176 CUP from further consideration.

13.2.22B) 10/26/18 Vanst Law Group Lobbying Report Of note, Tirandazi is not listed on this lobbing report.

13.2.23) 6220 DSD Customer Info and Online Cycles 9 & 14 Review Status-11-07-18  The Customer Information Sheet shows a new Agent; Carlos A Gonzales with the Firm; Techne.  It also shows Abhay Schweitzer from the same Firm; Techne being added as a Concerned Citizen.  What is the actual Role DSD applies for defining a Concerned Citizen?  At the 6176 CUP Customer Information Sheet, DSD gives me that same Role as a Concerned Citizen and while it’s true I am a Concerned Citizen I am also the Owner of the 6176 property which, unlike John Ek listed by DSD as the Owner of 6220, DSD has never acknowledged.  Also how is it that Carlos A Gonzalez (any relationship to Sandra A Gonzales just added onto the 6176 CUP App?) is now listed as an Agent for this CUP and the principal of Techne is acting on behalf of the CUP Applicant; Aaron Magagna as a Concerned Citizen?  Of note; Abhay Schweitzer was the only agent that Team Geraci had opposing the City Council hearing that granted the Magagna CUP on October 17, 2018 and here he is, just 3 weeks later, representing a competing CUP.  Something is very wrong with this picture.

13.2.24) 6220 DSD Online Cycles 9 & 14 Review Status – 12-04-18 There have now been no DSD website updates to the 6220 CUP application in going on 90 days which would be since the 9-18-18 update (Exhibit 13.2.18).  We know the project has seen activity if because of nothing else, Ms. Cac attended and presented at the October 17, 2018 City Council hearing on the CUP application being approved for 6220.  Which of course it was.  Why has none of this information been posted to the DSD website?  Why is the new PM, Hugo Castaneda for the 6176 CUP application continuing to process that CUP application as if nothing happened at 6220?

13.2.25) 6220 DSD Online Review Cycles – No Cycle Reviews are Due as of 12-11-18  After a 90 day period where DSD does no updates to the site for this project, after the hearing of 10-17-18 grants this project a CUP with virtually no opposition by Team Geraci from the 6176 CUP application we see that DSD has somehow completed all the Cycle 9 and 14 tasks and ‘there are now no longer any review cycles associated with this project’.  In light of this development, why is the 6176 CUP continuing to be processed?  It can not possibly be approved since the approval of 6220 means that thee can not be another licensed CUP within 1000 feet of each other.  These 2 properties are within 1000 feet of each other,

13.2.26) DSD Online Customer Info and Review Cycles as of 01-01-19  When compared to the previous Customer Information status, this update now shows Carlos A Gonzales of Techne having gone from an Agent to a Concerned Citizen status.  Also the Review Cycles information went from the update of 12-11-18 where the Review Cycles status lists this project as ‘there are now no longer any review cycles associated with this project’ to instead read ‘Review Cycle data cannot be loaded for this project right now’.   One thing is for sure from this update; DSD is continuing to update their website with this latest information.  They are just being very careful as to what they are willing to publicly disclose.  This is unlike the 6176 DSD update from 1-1-19 where all the Review Cycle information is continuing to be processed and available for the public to see.

13.2.27) 6220 DSD  and 6220 CUP Issuance on 07/24/19 It’s been a little while since my last update but now that my state court trial has ended back on 7-15-19 and I lost the jury verdict overwhelmingly it would seem that DSD is now all systems go with approving and issuing the CUP that would allow the competing dispensary to be built and eventually open for business.  What is worth noting in this latest DSD update is Cherlyn Cac, who was the Project Manager for the unbelievably fast (7 months) processing  of the 6220 CUP process has been replaced by Firouzeh Tirandazi who was Ms. Cac’s supervisor and testified during my trial with Geraci. 

What the jury was convinced was that I had somehow interfered with the CUP processing of 6176 which delayed it’s processing and allowed 6220 to complete their process before 6176 was completed.  Since SD Municipal Code states that there can only be one Marijuana Outlet (MO) within 1000 ft of each other and the 6220 completed their process first they were rewarded the MO and 6176, the Berry CUP, was denied because that project site is located only 300 ft from theirs.  Simply put the 6220 CUP crossed the finish line first.

Well some might wonder why I didn’t ardently object to the entire 6220 CUP application and for that I will state those reasons here for the first time and as I also stated in my sworn testimony during the trial.  There is no way 6220 should have passed because while 6176 had no setback restrictions with schools, parks and licensed child care facilities, 6220 most definitely did.  And the City ignored those conditions to still pass 6220 anyway.  For that you’ll need to read 13.2.28.

13.2.28) 10/17/18 DSD Report to the Hearing Officer for 6220 Federal CUP

13.2.29) 12/04/18 Techne Appeal of the 6220 CUP Approval Decision 12-04-18 In this appeal Ahbay Schweitzer of Techne did a marvelous job of bringing up their objections to the DSD recommending approval of the competing 6220 CUP application.  One would think that based on the work that went into the appeal Schweitzer did everything in his power to reverse that approval decision.  He described the project drawings as required by DSD to be (EXHIBIT 149-001) ‘grossly lacking basic information, gross errors and omissions’.  Page Two (EXHIBIT 149-002) gives Schweitzer the chance to lobby on behalf of his work on the 6176 Berry CUP over the 6220 CUP as Techne has performed the CUP application services per their requirements whereas the 6220 CUP process did not.  I won’t go into the entire details over the course of this appeal Schweitzer filed.  To cut to the chase it was denied which torpedoed the 6176 CUP application while approving the 6220 CUP application.  The only thing I will point out here is that under sworn testimony at trial, neither Schweitzer or that of the political lobbyist who was hired by Geraci to acquire the CUP at 6176, Mr. Jim Bartell, or the various Land Use Attorneys of Team Geraci ever raised the fact that there were not one but TWO licensed child care facilities within the 1000′ setback radius for a MO business to remain outside of in order for that CUP application to even be accepted.

Schweitzer is very familiar with Geraci Trial Exhibit no 135 6176 – DS 190 Form and the radius map setbacks that DSD requires as he submitted this all in the 6176 CUP full submittal to qualify for that project CUP application .  What is particularly noteworthy is that Schweitzer never once raised this Licensed Child Care encroachment issue in any objection to the continued processing and ultimate approval of the 6220 CUP application over the 6176 CUP application.

13.2.30) 12/06/18 DSD Report to the Hearing Officer – APPEAL 

13.2.31) 07/31/19 Licensed Marijuana Outlets and My Story of Setbacks When it’s all said in done and the jury has reached their final verdict and I was handed defeat, sometimes the best thing to do is to just accept the fact that the other side was better prepared for this fight than you.  Or the other thing you can do is wait it out and see what the other side is really up to.  Were they actually planning on building out the site to become a marijuana outlet or was the entire competing CUP just a way to deny my CUP at 6176 Federal?  Do the setbacks for child care not apply when the client has political quid pro quo connections with the City of San Diego?  I DON’T ACCEPT THE JURY VERDICT BECAUSE THE STATE COURT JUDICIAL SYSTEM FAILED ME.  I KNEW THAT AT THE TIME BUT IT WOULD ALSO TAKE TIME TO TELL WHAT WERE TEAM GERACI’S REAL INTENTIONS FROM THE START AND FOR THAT ALL WE NEED TO DO IS TRACK THE POST APPROVAL DEVELOPMENTS at 6220 FEDERAL BLVD.  DUKE FERNANDEZ chaired and Judi Strang was public comment at this hearing. 

13.2.32) 01/23/20 is the new Grant Deed that transfers the 6220 property ownership from John Ek to Aaron MagagnaThe problem Team Magagna has is that per this Grant Deed he IS the property owner of 6220 Federal Blvd as of this date.  When you go to the new CUP at 13.2.36 Ek is listed as the property owner which of course is yet another lie that went to DSD processing of the new CUP No 644432.

13.2.33) 03/12/20 DSD Website Screenshots What we’ll see here is that Tirandazi took back the PM position now that the project is closed out.  Also the accounting pages and a time date stamp is shown at the bottom of each page have been added to the site

13.2.34) 03/12/20 DSD Project Status Report  I got this Report when I visited the DSD Records Division on 3/11/20 for 3279 (Portilla) and 3/12/20 for 6220 (Ricafort).  What I found noteworthy on the 6220 project is that when I asked to see the building plans Records did not have them.  I was told they were still in plan review, being held by Tirandazi.  Not Cac who was the Project Manager and who had reported to the Hearing Officer that the plans were submitted and approved and the DSD website showed; “There are no Cycle Reviews associated with this project”. In other words, according to Cac, the 6220-598124 project design had been submitted, reviewed, approved and completed whereby the CUP could be issued on 12/06/18 and DSD should have been done with it and the project drawings and filed routed over to Records.  That did not happen and it would take 17 months after the 12/06/18 CUP Approval to see why!  

Take a close look at the Project Status Report in this link and under Approval Information it shows Tirandazi issued the CUP under Approval No 21 14346 on 07/24/19.  This is COMPLETE BULLSHIT!  Tirandazi spoke under oath in her deposition and at trial that she supervises Cac and that she had little to no direct oversight of the plan approval process.  Yet she sits on these drawings for 17 months before she approves them and then, per normal routing procedures the approved drawings and files would move over to Records.  This is all COMPLETE BULLSHIT because not only did those drawings NEVER make it over to records, Tirandazi passed the project off to Maryam Forootan under a NEW PROJECT NO 644432 as will be fully detailed in 13.2.35.

The Project Status Report has now been adjusted to show Carlos Gonzales as an Agent and a Concerned Citizen.  On 13.2.26) DSD Online Customer Info and Review Cycles as of 1-1-19 Carlos Gonzales was listed as a Concerned Citizen only.  He is now listed as an Agent for this project as well.  As an employee of TECHNE for the 6176 project this would be a direct conflict of interest.  Also the expiration date on the CUP is listed as 7/18/20.  This is not the normal 5 year window that CUPs are given.  Considering the plans are being delayed at DSD, Carlos is now an Agent and the CUP will expire after the 6176 CUP was denied because the 6220 CUP got there first, I suspect that not only is there no intention by Magagna to not build a MO on the site but this was the plan all along and Bartell, Geraci, Austin, Tirandazi, Magagna and Ek were in on it from the start.

13.2.35) 03/12/20  Business CARDS These were business cards I picked up while at DSD and the Mayors Office.

13.2.36) 06/30/20 DSD Records Visit – NEW PROJECT NO 644432 I visited the DSD Records office to see if the 6220 plan files were available to be seen yet only to be told that DSD was closed to the public due to the COVID-19 conditions.  I went back to the office and called Elvi @ DSD Records who had been one of the cards I got during my 03/12/10 visit as she had helped me with trying to access the 6220 files during that visit.  During our call, Elvi told me her internal records showed some unusual activity in that the Project No 598124 showed CUP APPROVED on 12/06/18.  Also per her records she was showing that Tirandazi had “cleared and approved” the drawings from her hold on 04/20/20, which would explain why they weren’t available on 03/12/20 but would not explain (10 why they had not yet been “routed” to Records or why the drawings would have been held by Cac’s supervisor, Tirandazi from the 12/06/18 CUP APPROVAL date, until 04/20/20, a total of 17 months for 1,682 sq-ft new building that had already cleared all the prerequisite plan check requirements?   It made NO SENSE WHATSOEVER and Elvi was perplexed and unable to account for what was going on since both projects numbers used the SAME APN’s.  She took my phone number and told me she would research this and call me back with an explanation.  I followed up that phone call with an email to her that cc’d the Mayor and others within the City that warned them that I was on to what had developed here and the City was being given ONE LAST CHANCE to provide notice to Judge Bashant that they, the City of San Diego, had been complicit in committing a Fraud Upon the Court.

The first question that has to be answered is why did Tirandazi hold drawings that had been CUP Approved on 12/06/18 for 17 months that had been completed by the Project Manager she held direct supervisory control over?  What was the purpose of holding these drawings?  Were their disciplines that contrary to Cac’s assertions not been completed?  If so which disciplines were required to revisit the design work that Magagna had supposedly already paid for and had approved?

The second question I have is related to this link which shows that a NEW PROJECT NUMBER 644432 was assigned to 6220 to replace the 598124 number. The new Project Manager is Maryam Forootan @ 619.533.6300 and  Her LinkdN profile shows she has a Masters Degree in Architecture and unless things have changed at DSD works under the direct supervisory control of Tirandazi.  Why did Tirandazi initiate her staff to oversee a new CUP application under Project No 644432 when the previous Project No 598124 is one, Cac had closed out on 12/06/18 and she personally closed approved on 07/24/19?

The third series of questions I have goes to the information on this new 644432 Project Status Report.  It shows no OWNER.  Where is the OWNER information, of John Ek as had been shown on the 598124 project?  It shows Magagna as the agent and the PARCEL OWNER.  Magagna does NOT own that parcel.  John Ek does!   Also why did Magagna have to resubmit the entire design drawings and pay Expedited Plan Check Admin Fee under DSD invoice no 902983?   I want to know who paid that fee and I want a copy of the check or credit card.  If Magagna paid it the question again will be why?  Was Bartell and/or Geraci involved in this?  We need to know.  To do that we need to see all payments received by DSD and by whom, on both the 598124 and the 644432 projects.    If additional questions or concerns are raised from this information it would take subpoenaing bank records to see how this money made it into bank accounts that ultimately paid down DSD charges.  Keep in mind when doing this that in the Trial Exhibit no 140 Geraci claims that only $13,500.00 was spent on DSD fees for the 6176 CUP application.  However all you have to do is flip through their own exhibit to page 140-012 and it shows that DSD had charged and been paid $20,645.00.  I believe and the forensic accounting evidence will show Geraci misrepresented the amounts paid to DSD at trial because he had to pay for the 6220 CUP and DSD was complicit in hiding those payments on behalf of Geraci.

The forth question I have is similar to what occurred on the 598124 Customer Information sheet.  There is no architect specified on this project.  Is it that the City of San Diego plans on using the new PM who is a licensed architect to stamp these drawings as the architect of record?

13.2.37) 06/30/20 Project No 644432 Cycle Issues This is a 106 page DSD Cycle Issues report dated 08/06/19  literally days after Tirandazi ISSUED the CUP on 07/24/19 that details all of the various disciplines requirements to have a new CUP issued at 6220 on a whole new application!  This is ABSURD!  Considering the state court matter in Geraci v Cotton and that this matter is now being tried in federal court, the shear chutzpah being displayed by DSD is astonishing!

13.2.38) 07/01/20 Cotton Emails to DSD, Mayors Office, Vanst Law ET AL regarding 6220 having a new CUP issued.

13.2.39) 07/09/19 All DSD Project No 644432 Invoices As a result of the 13.2.38 email DSD had to make these new payments look publicly like they were building permit fee’s.  That is not going to fly.  First of all in 13.2.37 you have a 106 page cycle review report that records had sent to me and is not to be found on the DSD website which shows this to be a complete plan resubmission.  Second of all Tirandazi gave the project to a new Project Manager Maryam Forootan to oversee the new CUP submission.  I wonder at what point the mayor gets involved in puts an end to this chicanery? What’s more when you add up the 3 paid invoices for 644432 from between 03/06/19 and 07/06/20 and 1 estimated invoice number you see that Magagna had to pay ANOTHER $62,783.50 for a project that HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED under DSD Project No 598124,  DSD Approval Letter of July 23, 2019. This makes no sense as the new project number was already being completely funded the $62K as shown in this link.

13.2.40) 09/15-09/16/20 Cotton Emails, JJH Construction, Marengo Morton and DSD Issues In this series of emails I began with the prime contractor JJH Construction who was building the new 6220 project to notice him of the irregulatiries with the the project and that it was the subject of litigation.  I had noticed construction had stalled for something like two weeks so that got me to thinking the may not have been paid.  Then I noticed, for the first time ever in a communication with him, the architect for the 6176 project to advise him of the same situation of litigation and irregularities.  As you can see by both of their responses they want nothing to do with me or any future communication.  With that I sent an email to DSD Supervisor Firouzeh Tirandazi informing her that the prime contractor is advertising the project address under an incorrect address and that the City, under what would be normal inspection services, require that the address be accurate.  I now have a record of what these parties are knowingly doing to deprive me of my rights as a property owner in the City of San Diego. 09/18/20: 6220 Federal Blvd San Diego, CA  92114 (APN 543-020-0400) San Diego County Public Records Search 09/18/20: 6220 (addressed as 6230 but the correct APN) Federal Blvd., San Diego, CA  92114 Lawyers Title Property Profile 2018 FMO, LLC all CA Secretary of State Filings 09/18/20: 6302 Federal Blvd Lemon Grove CA  91945 (APN 478-290-0500) San Diego County Public Records Search 09/18/20: 6302 Federal Blvd., Lemon Grove, CA  919145 Lawyers Title Property Profile 6302 Federal, LLC all CA Secretary of State filings

13.2.43A) 09/29/20: 6302 Federal Blvd, City of Lemon Grove, Emails, Permit History and FOIA Document Production Request. The last line item on the City of Lemon Grove Permit History document shows a Boundary Adjustment (BA) application but it is not dated which I find odd.  Also the third line item from the bottom shows a Zoning Clearance for a  Medical Marijuana Dispensary (MMD) application having been made but again it is undated and it shows having been denied.  Finding our who made that MMD application and when will go a long way to explaining the Magagna/Geraci strategy as led by Gina Austin and Jim Bartell.

13.2.43B) 10/08/20: 6302 Federal Blvd., Lemon Grove Permit History The difference in this Permit History since the one I was given on 09/29/20 by Mike Vilgione from the City of Lemon Grove is that on this one he told me he was adding the Application and Completion Dates to the Permit History since he knew that it would better explain what had transpired at the 6302 property.  He also told me that since I was inquiring he was going to officially close the pending Boundary Adjustment that had been pending since 08/24/2018 because of lack of response.

13.2.43C) 10/15/20: The following 6302/6304 documents were provided to me by the City of Lemon Grove under my FOIA request and have been combined in the year they were dated.  Many of these documents have been redacted before they were sent to me.

13.2.43C) 2016: These were not FOIA provided documents and combine years.

13.2.43C) 2017: 6302 & 6304 FOIA Files 

13.2.43C)  2017: 6302 & 6304 FOIA Marijuana Dispensary Application and Denial

13.2.43C) 2018: 6302 & 6304 FOIA Files

13.2.43C) 2019: 6302 & 6304 FOIA Files

13.2.43C) 2020: 6302 & 6304 FOIA Files

13.2.44) RECORDED DOCS 03/25/19: Affadavit of Death Doc No 2019-0105977

13.2.44) RECORDED DOCS 01/23/20: Grant Deed Doc No 2020-0035282

13.2.44) RECORDED DOCS 01/23/20: Interspousal Grant Deed Doc No 2020-0035283

13.2.44) RECORDED DOCS 06/16/20: Grant Deed Perpetual Easement and Agreement Doc No 2020-310969

13.2.44) RECORDED DOCS 08/12/20: Grant Deed Public Street Easement Doc No 2020-0449395

13.2.45) 02/25/21: 6220 Building Permit Screenshot

13.2.46) 03/18/21: 6220 Grant of Easement and Agreement

13.2.47) 04/20/21: Grant Deed

13.2.47) 04/20/21: Grant Deed Parties- FTRUCK2 & 2021 BPRE LLC INFO

AMY SHERLOCK’s 09/26/22 FOIA REQUEST to DSD for CUP Project Information at 6220 Federal Blvd. (All Responsive Documents)

13.2.48) 07/24/19_6220-DSD-CUP-2nd-Set_CUP No 598124

13.2.49) 08/20/19_6220-DSD-CUP-3rd-Set_CUP No 644432 In addition to the fact that the project number is inexplicably switched, what is troubling here begins on page 33 where the exterior lights are being required to meet City of San Diego Outdoor Lighting Regulations, Section 142.0740 and the final project does not meet those standards.  For example, one can not light up their neighbors property yet that is exactly what 6220 does.  The amount of light that 6220 emits is far outside the Title 24 requirements which dictate exterior lighting designs yet this project passed a final inspection with HID wall packs mounted at 20′ above grade facing the neighboring property.  WTFF?!!

13.2.50) 05/28/20_ 6220-DSD-CUP-Application How does this second application square with CUP No. 598124, from 04/05/2018?  Why was it necessary?

13.2.51) 07/06/2020_6220 Project-Status-Report_CUP No 644432 What is extremely odd is how DSD treats this as a new permit number with new construction plan issues when this project was finalized and approved upon appeal on 12/06/2018 @

13.2.52) 12/06/19_6220-DSD-Geology-and-Soils-Reports  Here we have another anomaly in the DSD process.  Here we can see, that a geotechnical report, dated August 28, 2019, to assure the applicant, Aaron Magagna and DSD that there were no geotechnical issues with the proposed new building.  The problem here is that not only was the building substantially completed by this time the 6220 CUP was approved on appeal back on 12/06/2018.  That approval was based on the geotechnical survey already having been done to the satisfaction of DSDs Project Manager Cherlyn Cac on .  See f.  Which begs the the question, why would Magagna and DSD want a new one done under a different CUP number?  What was the matter with the first one?  Perhaps it never existed?

Clearly DSD was not entirely responsive in their document production.  In fact their production leaves more questions not than it answers.

13.2.52) 6220 Federal Property Profile with Grant Deed History

6176 Federal Blvd San Diego, CA  92114

13.3.0) EXHIBIT 30-6176 DS-318 10-31-16

13.3.1) 6176-DSD-Notice-of-Application-3-27-17

13.3.2) 6176-DSD-Online-Customer-Information-5-31-18  The architect and point of contact are listed.  I am listed here as an Agent here whereas on the 6220 CUP application (Exhibit 13.2.2) John Ek is listed as the ‘Owner’.  Why is this different?  I am the property owner of record for 6176 Federal Blvd and I’m listed as the ‘Agent’.  In fact there is no Owner listed on this document at all.

13.3.3) Cotton; DSD-Quinn-and-Cac 05-30-18  I had been ordered by the court (see Chapter 11) to have a Geraci appointed soils report performed on my property.  This work required 2 ea., 20 ft core holes to test the soils for the proposed project (new 1900 sq-ft bldg) on the lot.  I vehemently resisted this test being done by a Geraci appointed contractor.  These are subjective analysis that the soils company’s come back with.  I was very concerned that if Geraci wanted a way out of the 6176 Berry CUP he would simply rely on a soils report that recommends the project be denied.  In any event the soils testing was done on 5-11-18/  Since I did not see an LDR-Geology deadline for the submission of this report and I knew it would be critical to the legal matters we were still facing with Geraci, I wanted DSD to pin down a deadline when the soils report would be due.  That was the purpose of this communication.  The reply by Ms. Cac was when I first found out that due to inactivity for 90 days she would be closing the project.  She stated that the POC intended to continue with the project and in her close she said she was waiting for a resubmittal from the applicant to address all the previous review comments.  To me this would have included those comments made by Ms. Tirandazi on a project resubmittal due to the change in ownership but that must have been a misinterpretation because as you’ll see more documents were submitted after this date and DSD did accept them.

13.3.4) 6176-DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-5-31-18  All in Assignment Pending Status.  No Due Dates shown. No Fire-Plan Review.  6220 has one 6176 does not. Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.5) 6176 DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-6-09-18 All in Assignment Pending Status.  No Due Dates shown.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.6) 6176 DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-6-13-18  All in Assignment Pending Status.  No Due Dates shown. Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.7) 6176-DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-6-21-18  This is the first change I’ve seen in months. Today’s post Due Dates have been added and there is an LDR-Engineering Review now showing completed.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.8) 6176 DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-7-05-18  LDR-Geology now shows complete as of 07-02-18.  That got me moving down to DSD so I could see the soils report that Geraci’s contractor had done for him.  If there was a chance Geraci was going to use the soils report to sabotage the CUP I wanted to know about it immediately.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.9) 6176 DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-7-09-18 LDR-Landscaping shows completed.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.10) 6176 DSD-Online-Cycle 7-Review-Status-7-11-18  PUD-Water and Sewer show completed.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.11) 6176-DSD-Online-Cycles 7 & 8-Review-Status-7-20-18  The only remaining uncompleted item in our Cycle 7 Review cycle is the Community Planning Group which remains in an Assignment Pending status and has now passed the Due Date of 7-11-2018.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120

13.3.12) 6176-DSD-Online-Cycles 7 & 8-Review-Status-7-24-18  Cycle 7 shows Community Planning Group Completed.  Community Planning Group Review ID 1589120.  Cycle 8 is showing, for the first time, BDR-Structural as an Assignment Pending with no Due Date.

13.3.13) 6176-DSD-Online- Cycles 8 & 9 Review Status-08-01-18  In the previous screen capture  the only remaining uncompleted task was LDR-Environmental Cycle 7   In this update we don’t show Community Planning Group moving up for another Cycle 8 Review like you see happening in the 6220 Cycle reviews.  When it comes to Community Planning Group 6176 just stopped here.

13.3.14) 6176 DSD Customer Info and Online-Cycles 8 &9 Review Status-08-08-18  The reason the Customer Info has been included in today’s update is because DSD  has not responded to my email (13C.7) in which I ask anyone with DSD or in the City Attorney’s office to go on record that there is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in the way DSD is processing the 6176 or the 6220 CUP applications.  As of today I have not had a response.  Instead I see changes to the DSD website which you can see changes my status from an ‘agent’ to a ‘Concerned Citizen’.  While true I’m a concerned citizen I am also the Property Owner of Record and should be treated as such.  How is it that DSD lists John Ek as the Property Owner at 6220 and can’t seem to recognize me as the Property Owner for 6176?  To be a ‘Concerned Citizen’ means they have read my emails and made a conscious decision to not address my points or the evidence I raised in those emails.

Next we can look at what DSD has done on the 6176 CUP application in the last week and you’ll see the answer to that is nothing.  DSD has not even added Due Dates to the review status.  Nothing.  Now compare that to the flurry of activity that’s happened over at the 6220 CUP since the last update and you’ll see why I would consider myself a ‘Concerned Citizen’ to put it mildly.

13.3.15) 6176 DSD Online Cycles 8 & 9 Review Status – 08-22-18  When comparing the 6220 CUP application to today’s 6176  CUP application you can see that there are still no Due Dates for 6176 and no tasks have yet to been completed.  There is no comparing the rate of completed work between the two CUP applications and when considering that 6220 is being handled by an untrained Point of Contact applicant this is utterly absurd.

13.3.16) 6176 DSD Online Cycles 8 & 9 Review Status – 09-08-18  What is noteworthy in this update, especially when compared to how the 6220 CUP is being processed, is that the Cycles for 6176 maintain a steady pattern of numerical sequential order and consistency in how they are opened and closed.  Unlike 6220 there are no big jumps or gaps in cycle numbers with the 6176 CUP application.

Since the previous DSD screen shot on 08-22-18 what has developed for the 6176 CUP application is that task ‘Due Dates’ have been added to the open tasks in Cycle 9.  This shows there is ongoing processing of this CUP by DSD, which could be considered good.  I don’t see it that way.  What is troubling to me is that DSD has only given Geraci and his team of political lobbyists, architects and engineers (Team Geraci) just 15 working days from the previous update to complete 5 of the 6 tasks in Cycle 9.  Based on the size and scope of these tasks I now have grave concerns that due to the enormity of the work all being requested on the same day that Team Geraci will have it prepared and submitted within the DSD ‘Due Dates’.  Since I have no way of knowing what is happening between Team Geraci and DSD this, once again, highlights why in my civil case I had requested that there be a 3rd party court appointed administrator who would have overseen the CUP process and been able to assure the court and all parties in interest that the CUP process was being handled properly, fairly and impartially.  Sadly for me, Judge Wohlfeil,  who presides over this case, didn’t see the need for this protection and denied my requests for that 3rd party administrator.  This means that if Team Geraci fails to meet a DSD deadline and the CUP is rejected because DSD can blame the rejection on an untimely submission by Team Geraci and it is also in Geraci’s own personal best financial interest to see that the CUP is rejected, neither the court or me will ever know what went on between Geraci and DSD that led to that rejection.

13.3.17) 6176 DSD Online Cycles 8 & 9 Review Status – 09-18-18  What can be seen by this update is that within 10 days there are now task ‘Due Dates’ and ‘Completed Dates’ having shown progression on the 6176 CUP application by both Team Geraci and DSD.  While on the other hand the competing 6220 CUP has not had any activity at all in its latest screenshot update.  This in an of itself is unusual considering the hyper speed processing 6220 had been experiencing in the DSD processing.  Could there have been a cause and effect from the emails I had sent to DSD or the COA Petition that named certain individuals in DSD as Real Parties of Interest in how these two CUP applications were being processed?  You decide.

13.3.18) 6176 DSD Online Cycles 8 & 12 Review Status – 09-28-18  What we see in this update is that Cherlyn Cac has been replaced as the DSD Project Manager with Hugo Castenada.  This now represents the 3rd DSD PM that has been assigned to this application.  Also unlike the 6220 CUP application there has been progress on the 6176 tasks with Cycle 9 having been closed and a new Cycle 12 being opened.  In Cycle 12 it can be noted that since the first time the Community Planning Group task had been deemed completed on 7-20-18, it has now reappeared for what is now the second time in this latest update.

13.3.19) 6176 DSD Online Cycles 8 & 12 Review Status-10-12-18  There have been no changes to this projects status since the previous update.

13.3.20) 6176 DSD Online Cycles 8 & 12 Review Status-10-27-18  There have been no changes to this projects status since the previous update.

13.3.21) 6176 DSD Customer Info and Online Cycles 8 & 12 Review Status – 11-07-18  A new Agent has been added to the Customer Information Sheet; Sandra A Gonzalez.  There has been no change to the Cycle 8, BDR Structural, Assignment Pending status since the first public notice of this task back on 7-20-18.  I take this to mean that DSD is responsible for a greater than 90 day administrative delay that has occurred under two different Project Managers in the Cycle 8 task assignment.  Has Michael Morton, AIA, the architect of record for this project been responsible for this delay?  I can’t say because my request for a 3rd party court appointed administrator for the 6176-Berry CUP application processing was denied by Judge Wohlfield on the grounds that Geraci’s counsel put forth that it was an unnecessary action and expense.  On the other hand, ALL Cycle 12 tasks status have now been given Due Dates of 11-27-18.  With the City Council granting the 6220 CUP during the October 17, 2018 public hearing I am left to wonder why DSD is continuing to process the 6176 CUP application at all?  Additionally why would Team Geraci continue to absorb these ongoing DSD expenses especially when one considers that the same firm, Techne,  who Geraci has employed to process the 6176-Berry CUP application, is also representing the competing CUP application @ 6220 Federal Blvd?  This is clearly a conflicting interest by Techne since the upcoming Due Dates of 11-27-18 for the 6176-Berry CUP  application are also being processed by Techne.  Which project will Techne serve?  If I were Mr. Geraci I would fire Techne immediately and consider what legal remedies are available to me for having breached their professional ethics when they decided to represent my competitor for the Berry CUP.

13.3.22) 6176 DSD Cycles 8 & 12 – 12-04-18  On this update we see all of the tasks from the previous review status, with the exception of the Landscaping task,  having been completed.  What is particularly noteworthy with this update is that the Community Planning Group task under Review ID no 1730060 shows completed on 11-29-18.  Why would that be?  What work was actually done by the new PM, Hugo Castaneda?  The Community Planning Group made their recommendation at the City Council hearing on October 17, 2018 (see previous update) that the competing CUP at 6220 had their endorsement and 6176, expressly, did not. Now it is true that the 6220 DSD website information has not been updated in going on 90 days now (see Exhibit 13.2.22) , but are we really expected to believe that 6176 is continuing to be processed as if nothing happened at 6220?  If that’s the case why hasn’t there ever been a public noticing campaign/hearing for the 6176 Community Planning Group hearing like there was at 6220?  To get to the bottom of these questions we’d like to know exactly what Castaneda did to complete the Community Planning Group task on this update?

13.3.23) 6176 DSD Cycle 12 – 12-11-18  I’m providing this update to coincide with the 6220 update of 12-11-18 which shows that as of today, there are no Review Cycles associated with the 6220 project meaning DSD approved the CUP for that location.  If that is the case and the tasks that showed uncompleted just 6 days ago at 6220 why is it that 6176 is still being processed at all?  With the approval of 6220 there is no way that 6176 can be considered eligible for a CUP as it is within the 1,000 foot minimum of separation that must exist between any two licensed dispensaries.

13.3.24) 6176 DSD Customer Info and Review Cycles 8 and 12 as of 1-19-19  This update shows no changes in the Customer Information status, most notably Abhay Schweitzer of Techne continues to represent this project as the Point of Contact.  Review Cycle 8 still shows BDR-Structural in an Assignment Pending status and of note, there has been full completion of all pending Cycle 12 tasks with the completion of the LDR-Landscaping task on 12-18-18.

13.3.25) 6176 Cycles 8 and 13 as of 2-15-19 This update shows that since the previous update the project has moved into a Cycle 13 status and the CUP application has been WITHDRAWN.  The 6176 CUP has been lost to the competing 6220 CUP.

13.3.26) EXHIBIT 135 – 6176 DS-190   This is the DSD Affidavit required by DSD that states the applicant location does not fall within protected setback areas for a MO.

 An Analysis

So what happened between DSD, Geraci, Berry and Magagna?  I don’t know all the details that’s for sure.  For example DSD might argue that the Review ID numbers change when the task goes from one cycle to the next.  When a task in shown as Assignment Pending to Assigned to a Completed status.  And that would be a fair explanation if it applied over both CUP applications.  It doesn’t.  For example if you compare the 6176 CUP application for the Community Planning Group task on 5-31-18 (Exhibit 13.3.4) the same Review ID No 1589120 was used from the Assignment Pending stage to the Completed stage on 7-20-18 (Exhibit 13.3.12).  Another  Community Planning Group task Review ID No 1730060 was issued on the 9-28-18 Cycle 12 update (Exhibit 13.3.18) and shows completed on the 12-04-18 update (Exhibit 13.3.2).

Now compare that to the 6220 CUP application for the Community Planning Group tasks which required 5 different Review ID’s starting from 5-31-18, Review ID No 1668310 (Exhibit 13.2.3), 6-14-18 Review ID No 1686813 (Exhibit 13.2.8), 7-20-18 Review ID No 1701575 (Exhibit 13.2.13),  7-24-18 Review ID No 1702828 ( Exhibit 13.2.14), 9-8-18 Review ID No 1716385 (Exhibit 13.2.18).

Either 6176 has been shortchanged in the Community Planning Group review process by not having had 5 different reviews for this task or the more likely scenario exists that DSD has been treating 6220 differently.  To find out if that is the case I would require that each of the DSD personnel associated with each of the Review ID No’s being cited above be asked to provide all evidence that was associated with the work they did relative to the Community Planning Group Reviews they were asked to perform,

Another resource that exists which can help put this puzzle together comes from certain emails and documents that were provided in litigation Document Production that gives me information I had not had before.  It is with this information a more complete picture can be created but it will still have gaps and unanswered questions.  This will not be an entirely complete picture until such time that we get some of these people under oath.  For now it’s more like having a giant jigsaw puzzle where certain pieces will come in and fit at different times and the puzzle will slowly get filled in.  With what I’ve posted previously there are obvious issues that belie the normal DSD:Client relationship.  With the following posts I will provide links to that publicly available information with reference to source document/page number and any comments I have that are applicable to that document to further that analysis;


13.4.1 Geraci-GERL Shared File Acknowledgement 9-26-16 This document shows that Geraci was invited to collaborate on the two working document I had drafted in preparation for our Final Agreement and it shows that shared file was received by Geraci on 9-26-16 @ 8:51:47 AM.  Taken from Geraci Production Documents Page 6 of 497 pages. 

13.4.2) Cotton-Tirandazi-emails-3-21-17  This document shows that on March 16, 2017 Tirandazi was the Project Manager and that the project had been deemed complete as of March 13, 2017 and was now in it’s First Review Cycle.   Taken from Geraci Production Documents Page 35 of 497 pages.

13.4.3) 6176 DSD-1st-Assessment-Letter-5-19-17 This is reposted from an earlier chapter to show that Tirandazi had wanted, due to the property changing owners, a new CUP submittal that would have included a new grant deed.  As previously stated that new grant deed did not get signed by me.

13.4.4) FTB Setbacks Memo of 07-13-17 FTB sent this memo regarding existing Marijuana Outlet (MO) projects that were affected by property line setbacks and what Relevant Authority applies for MO located in the City of San Diego specifically as it relates to measuring the distances between subject properties and where SDMC 113.0255(c) shall be applied as a Walking Distance measurement not a Line of Sight measurement between these properties.  When FTB sent this memo they were only considering this variance if it could be applied to the residential setback variance possibilities with Federal Blvd.  It would become relevant later in the case when the distances between two child care facilities if measured in Line of Sight would have denied the 6176 CUP project but when measured in Walking Distance the 6176 CUP would be outside the 1000′ barrier and eligible for a MO CUP.  6220 would not be eligible in either case as it is inside the 1000′ distance by Line of Sight and Walking Distance measurements.

13.4.5) SD Ordinance No 600-24_Section 141.0504_ 04-05-2016 Chapter 14 (page 9 of 14) would describe the way setback distances for Marijuana Outlets need to be measured as Line of Sight measurements as closest property to property line measurements.  However this section also tells you that these distances need to comply with Section 113.0225 which allows MO measurements to be taken as Walking Distances between the properties.   This can be easily overlooked unless you research it and know that this applies to a MO setback provision.

13.4.6) SD Ordinance No 600-24_ 04-05-2016 See Section 113.0225(c) which amends the SDMC for measuring distances between Marijuana Outlets as follows:  When measuring distance for separation requirements for medical marijuana consumer cooperatives, the measurement of distance between uses will take into account natural topographical barriers and constructed barriers such as freeways or flood control channels that would impede direct physical access between the uses. In such cases, the separation distance shall be measured as the most direct route around the barrier in a manner that establishes direct access.

13.4.7) Schweitzer to Geraci email on the successful CUP resubmittal 09-16-17  What this email signifies is that Schweitzer believes the CUP resubmittal package was accepted by DSD as per the 1st Assessment Letter requirements of Tirandazi.   In this email he cc’s Geraci counsel Michael Weinstein and Jim Bartell.  What do you want to bet that it was NOT Tirandazi that took in this ‘resubmittal’ but instead Cac?   Taken from Geraci Production Documents Page 74 of 497 pages.

Rebecca Berry   

13.5.1) DSD Silva to Berry Email-03-13-17  I find this email being directed to Berry unusual since on the Online Customer Information she is listed as the Applicant, not the Point of Contact.  Why would DSD want to direct the Community Planning Group work towards her and not Ahbay Schweitzer like every other document between DSD and this CUP?  Also Silva is tasked with taking on the Community Planning Group work the very day the application was deemed complete.  There are at least 7 or 8 review cycles that would have to be successfully completed before this application would even be noticed by the Community Planning Group.  Taken from the Berry Document Production Page 1 of 327 pages.  

13.5.2) Schweitzer-to-Bartell-email-re-zoning-issue-11-14-16 This is an interesting email in a number of respects.  First it shows communication between the 6176 Berry CUP POC Ahbay Scweitzer and Mr. Nathan White of DSD.  It shows that on 11-14-16 Mr. White is performing the STEP TWO: COMPLETENESS REVIEW.  This is important because as it relates to the 6176 timeline that would be 2 weeks into the DSD processes and we are not yet in a STEP THREE PROCESS where a Project Manager had yet to be assigned.  So somehow 6220 had jumped past STEPS ONE and TWO and had gotten to STEP THREE where Cherlyn Cac was put in charge of the 6220 and the 6176 CUP applications in less than 30 days?  How did that happen?  Did Nathan White or anyone else perform STEP ONE and TWO reviews on the 6220 CUP application?  I’d like to know who they were.

The second item of relevance here is that Schweitzer sends this email to Jim Bartell, Geraci’s political lobbyist.  I have yet to see, in any documents that were provided in Declarations,  Discovery or Document Production, a single response or email ever generated by Jim Bartell.  In this particular case there is a statement being made by Schweitzer that White will be running the zoning issue ‘up the chain of command’.  What that means is on 11-14-16 the CO-2-1 zone was not eligible for a MMCC CUP application.  There are no followups provided with this email from White.

The third element of this email is that Schweitzer a design, engineer professional is relying on IB170 to the extent he is arguing it with DSD.  If that’s the case who would blame me for having argued it in my cases against the city?  Taken from the Berry Document Production Page 17 of 327 pages.  

13.5.3) Tirandazi to Schweitzer recommends CUP denial based on zoning 03-14-17  This looks like an introduction email from Tirandazi to Abhay Schweitzer.  As the new Project Manager assigned to this CUP application she is going to recommend it for denial based on the current CO-2-1 zoning being ineligible for this purpose.  Again I go back to how does the project get past the initial application Steps One – Three when the zoning at the time was ineligible deep within the Land Use Regulations (what White and Tirandazi were citing) but acceptable based on the IB-170 form that allowed the CUP application to be taken in?  Was everyone who submitted a MMCC CUP application made aware that the IB-170 form the city was offering for eligible zones was incorrect?  Once informed shouldn’t the applicant be given a chance to get a refund on their money deposited with DSD?  What about all the money the applicant spent on architects and fee’s?  Who was going to reimburse those expenses.  No I’m not buying this.  The zoning was never an issue or this CUP would not have been applied for.  Bartell, Geraci and God knows who else already had decided that by working a little behind the scenes zoning magic that what was once an eligible zone could be made ineligible then right back to eligible when the situation suited them.    The fraud being perpetrated by these people and that would include DSD begins in earnest with this email.  Tirandazi lasts until her First Assessment Letter of 05-19-17 (Exhibit 10.2.8) at which time she is replaced by a new Project Manager Cherlyn Cac.  Taken from the Berry Document Production Page 34 of 327 pages

13.5.4) Techne-Billings-from-10-05-16-thru-2-24-17  This is an invoice dated 03-23-17 from Abhay Schweitzer’s company Techne for design, engineering, drafting services at 6176 Federal Blvd with the tasks being billed separately and per the date the service was performed.  The first 2 pages show work that was done exclusively before the 6176 Berry MMCC CUP application was filed on 10-31-16.   Taken from the Berry Document Production Pages 315 thru 320 of 327 pages.  

Community Planning Groups

In previous chapters I’ve talked about how the City of San Diego Planning Department has authorized certain community groups to act on behalf of the City when it comes to gauging the community reaction in support or denial of a proposed development within that community.   Where my property is located that would be the Encanto Neighborhood Community Planning Group (ENCPG) or what is now known as the Chollas Valley Community Planning Group (CVCPG).  This section will go into the history of how zoning, particularly as it relates to my property, has been influenced by this group.

13.6.1) ENCPG-Minutes-10-7-14  In Section 6: New Business para 4 ENCPG votes to rezone the area my property is in from Light Industrial to Commercial Office.  That rezoning did not take place, Per Rowdy Sperry’s Declaration (Exhibit 6.5) until January 13, 2016.  The timing is curious as it relates to the City’s enforcement actions that began shortly thereafter.

13.6.2) City of San Diego Planning Dept – Chollas Valley Community Planning Group – Agendas  Formerly ENCPG and a list of the community meetings.  In May of 2018 the letterhead changes ENCPG to CVCPG.

13.6.3) City of San Diego Council Policy 600-24-Administrative Guidelines for Community Planning Groups  Article II Sections 2, 3 & 4 – Article III Sections 5 & 6 – Article 6 Sections 1 & 2 (a); Meeting Procedures; (d)(1-4) Meeting Documents and Records –  Article VII Section 2 ;Chairperson Responsibilities, Article VIII  Section 1 (a); Community Participation – Article IX Sections 1,2 & 3 (a) (b); Rights and Liabilities of Community Planning Groups.

13.6.4) Chollas Valley Community Planning Group Bylaws-04-10-2018 

13.6.5) CVCPG-Announcement-and-Description-07-01-18   Community Planning Groups described as an integral and highly regarded component in the DSD decision making process.

13.6.6) ENCPG Emails-Malbrough-Cotton-6-11 thru 6-13-18  With the stated importance that DSD puts on Community Planning Groups input in their decision making processes, I reached out to Ken Malbrough, Chairperson for ENCPG and later named to CVCPG, through a series of emails that began on 06-11-18 and were ceased by Malbrough on 6-13-18.  The purpose of the emails was to determine just how far along the 6220 CUP application was compared to the 6176 CUP application.  I made that very clear to Malbrough in my opening email.  After a few cordial exchanges Malbrough ceased any further communications as it related to the 6220 CUP application.  I found that very unsettling when Malbrough has a responsibility to those who live in work in this community to make sure that everyone’s interests are being treated fairly by our decision makers.   Within 2 days of my first communication to Malbrough he had, insofar as any of my concerns, abdicated that responsibility as defined in the CVCPG Bylaws  (See Chollas Valley Community Planning Group Bylaws-04-10-2018) Article II Sections 2, 3 & 4 – Article III Sections 5 & 6 – Article 6 Sections 1 & 2 (a) Meeting Procedures, (d)(1-4) Meeting Documents and Records –  Article VII Section 2 Chairperson Responsibilities, Article VIII  Section 1 (a) Community Participation – Article IX Sections 1,2 & 3 (a) (b) Rights and Liabilities of Community Planning Groups.  Also Mr. Malbrough and the Community Planning Group which he Chairs puts him in violation of the The Brown Act when he ceased representing or communicating with Cotton and his interests in the community where Cotton’s property is located and as also defined duties as set forth within; City of San Diego Council Policy and Administrative Guidelines for Community Planning Groups 

13.6.7) CVCPG-Minutes-of-06-18-18  The June minutes show that on Para 5(C) the MO CUP application at 6230 Federal Blvd (wrong address) Project No 598124 (correct project number for 6220) was on the agenda and was scheduled for the next month meeting.

13.6.8) CVCPG-Minutes-of-07-16-18  The July minutes don’t show where the 6220 MO CUP application was calendared or any action was taken.

13.6.9) CVCPG Minutes of 09-17-18 See Agenda Item No 8.  Aaron Magagna presents his case for the 6220 CUP application and it is approved.  Of note there was no public notification of this meeting I was made aware of as the property owner of 6176 Federal Blvd and Magagna would have had to have had all the DSD approved drawings for the CPG presentation.

CVCPG Related DSD Tasks Project Comparisons:

13.7.1) Gmail-Cotton-Cac-Sokolowski-7-25-thru-8-04-18  These next two email threads require the reader to go to the last page of the emails and read backward.  On this particular email thread which began with an email I sent on Wednesday July 25, 2018 to both Cherlyn Cac and Ken Malbrough was seeking additional information and clarification that it would not have taken either of them but a few minutes to respond to my very simple and straightforward questions. I list this email thread separate from the next email thread that starts with the same email as here.

Having not had  a response to my first email in over 24 hours from Ms. Cac or Mr. Malbrough I sent a followup email to a much wider audience in DSD and the Mayors Office in hopes of eliciting any kind of response.  Ultimately that response came the next day from Ms. Michelle Sokolowski, Deputy Director DSD, Project Submittal and Management Division.  Her response was coming from the perspective of Deputy Director, to point me in the direction of Ms. Cac, which I had already tried to do or ‘alternatively’ to go to Records directly.  Which of course is exactly what I did only to be told by Records Division the documents I was seeking were not available.  Read the link for more information.   Of note; Ms. Sokolowski was the only one to respond to this particular 7-26 email thread.  Ms. Cac responds but it is much later that afternoon, which is AFTER I had gotten back from DSD Records.  That email thread is provided next.

13.7.2) Gmail-Cotton-Cac 7-25 thru 7-27-18 This, like the preceding 13C.7 Sokolwski email was the first email concerning Community Planning Group tasks that I sent out to DSD to attention Cherlyn Cac and Ken Malbrough and Ms. Sokolowski replied sooner than Ms. Cac did.  The reason I am keeping it separate from the Sokolowski  email thread is based on Ms. Cac’s response to me I expanded the list of email recipients  to include the City Attorney’s office and a request that 5 questions regarding how the CUP processing of the 6176 and 6220 compare.

13.7.3) 22-09-20_Amy Sherlock’s PRA Request for 6220 Federal Blvd. FOIA No 22-4995

13.7.4_ PRA-23-2768 Federal Blvd SDPD Accidents and Injuries from 01/01/18 thru 05/22/23 As can be seen by this report, there were 204 injuries associated with traffic accidents during this period.  Of that total there were only 5 injuries in 2018.  As of May 2018 there were 199.  This represents a 3,880% increase in traffic-injury accidents since the opening of the adult-use dispensary at 6220 Federal Blvd.

13.7.5) Could this happen in La Jolla?  A District 4 CUP Comparison.

13.7.6) Sample Traffic Analysis in San Diego for a Propose Marijuana Outlet

13.7.7) 23/05/22: Cotton to Councilmember Monica Montgomery email re the issues at 6220 Federal Blvd. Neither Monica nor anyone in her office acknowledged or replied to this email.  I, along with others, presented at the June 6, 2023 City Council meeting where this and other issues were brought forward.

13.7.8) 23/06/06 San Diego City Council meeting @ 1:40:20 where Darryl Cotton speaks to Council re, among other things, the problems at 6220 Federal Blvd as a result of their granting the CUP at that location.


14.1) 6-10-17; It was a normal Saturday morning when I opened up the farm around 7:00 am.  I was joined by a long time employee Jeff Hagler and a couple of the 151 Ambassadors; Anna Martinez and Jason Walker that were offering to help with the morning chores.  Around 10:00 am I had to go to the bank and Home Depot so I left the farm while everyone else remained.  When I returned around 10:50 am I was attempting to walk into the office when I found the door was locked and being blocked from the inside.  This was not normal.  The office door is normally wide open during the day as there is a steady flow of traffic moving into and out of the office.  I was not sure what was going on but I did push hard against the door and was able to force it open.  What I found next shocked me to my core!  The reason for the door being locked and blocked was that there was a hooded black male on the other side of the door who had a gun and was now yelling at me to come into the office.  In the background I could see that Jeff had been laid out on the floor and his hands and legs had been tied behind him.  I immediately considered my options and decided to pull the door back closed and run to the other end of the yard where I could warn the others and call 911.  Which is exactly what I did.

Within approximately a minute three hooded black males came running out of the office with each carrying trash bags full of the medical cannabis we had just harvested.  One of the robbers confronted Anna who had grabbed a machete for protection and demanded he drop the cannabis he was carrying.  He was unwilling to do so but did drop one as he attempted to run past her.  I was able to grab another bag from another one of the robbers as he flew past me and ran to a getaway car that had been parked just down the street heading west for a fast getaway onto the Hwy 94 west.

As I saw the robbers piling into the getaway car I could see that there had been a driver waiting for them in that car as they did the robbery.  I was standing next to my truck telling this all to the 911 dispatcher as I decided to jump into my truck in an attempt to get a better description of the car, the driver and a license plate number.  The getaway driver pulled out heading west on Federal Blvd when he saw me pull out and begin pursuing him.  He had no doubt been planning to just hop on the 94 West but when he saw me decided to make a fast u-turn on Federal Blvd where I briefly was able to see a white skinned male driver as he began heading east driving against oncoming traffic at high speeds.  I stayed far enough back to avoid creating an accident but it wasn’t until I caught up to him at the Broadway Avenue traffic light and he got caught in traffic that I reported the license plate number to dispatch that the driver decided to jump the curb and u-turn back onto the Hwy 94 west from the Broadway on ramp.  The dispatcher told me they had all they needed and that I should cease pursing the driver so I did.  With that I headed back to the farm where I met with the police who were now on site when I arrived.

I met with SDPD Detective Eric Pollom who took my, Jeff’s, Anna’s and Jason’s statements.  I showed him the images I had of the robbers that were taken from our security cameras as well as the license plate number that I had reported to 911 dispatch.  Detective Pollom told me that the plate number came back as a rental car, having been rented at Enterprise Car Rentals in Chula Vista, CA.  He told me that he along with CVPD would be there at Enterprise to meet the driver when he returned the car.  I believed that these criminals were going to be caught.

As you can see by the image on the right the SDPD and the CVPD did detain the getaway driver who had been waiting out on the street in his getaway car while the 3 young black males as seen on the left did the actual robbery.   This driver was released without charges and the fact that he was apprehended at the rental car business later the same day was information that never even made it into either of the two SDPD Crime/Incident Reports was troubling to say the very least.    Furthermore I was never given a chance to identify the driver in a lineup.  All I know is that this is the driver of the car I was chasing and nothing  I told Detective Pollom about the incident made it into either of the two reports.  This WAS the driver who drove the robbers away and he looked like someone I had briefly seen in Larry Geraic’s office.  I explained the lawsuit and what Geraci was attempting to do by stealing my property and I even gave Detective Pollom’s Geraci’s cell phone number.  I told him that if this driver had made phone calls to Geraci it would confirm what I suspected that this entire episode was put on by Geraci as a way to put pressure on me to acquiesce to his demands that I somehow settle with him over the sale of my property.  Detective Pollom was made aware of all these elements and yet the driver was released.  Had I not had a friendly news van on site I would never have been given a chance to see the driver who returned that rental car.

On 09-13-18 I had a meeting at SDPD headquarters with my attorney Andrew Flores, Detective Pollom and the Detective Sergeant for Robbery, Chris Cameron.  I presented the 2 SDPD Incident Reports and the one I had obtained from Chula Vista PD as well the images that I had of the getaway driver being held by Officer Leonard of the CVPD.  What I wanted to know and why there was no reference in the SDPD Incident Reports as to the apprehension, interview and release of the getaway driver.  The CVPD Incident Report put the time of the rental car return by the getaway driver as of 12:00:17 PM which meant that if this was the driver who had actually rented that car prior to the robbery he would have been the same individual who would have returned it within an hour of that car having been used in an armed robbery.

I reminded Detective Pollom that a few days after the robbery I had a phone call with him in which he told me he authorized the release of the suspect because he had gotten information on one of the robbers identities and was going to conduct further investigation into the driver and his activities before filing charges.  Detective Pollom stated that he didn’t recall having told me that but I told him that I remember vividly him having told me that.  Furthermore the fact that there is no reference to the driver interview in either the Gibson or Shields report left me to believe there was no record of that interview.  Detective Pollom seemed surprised that the interview was not in either report but when I gave him the copies of the reports I had brought with me he declined to review them.  He did say that the information on the interview would have been in a 3rd report that I had not been given.  That report is referred to as an Investigation Followup Report and would be available in the Records Dept.  He told me he would check to make sure it existed and that I would be able to go to Records and get a copy of it.  The meeting ended with that and the following day I went to Records to get a copy of the report.  The lady in Records told me that Detective Pollom is not authorized to release the Investigation Followup Reports to the public and I would not be able to have a copy of it.  I sent this information to both Pollom and Cameron by email and as of a week later have not had a response.  The Followup Report, if it even exists at all, has not been made available, the identity of the getaway driver remains unknown and no charges have ever been filed in this matter.  I feel like our meeting, 15 months after the robbery, resulted in there being no past, present or future efforts being made by SDPD to bring those responsible for this crime to justice.

Why is it that these people have never been brought to justice?  Is it because we grow medical cannabis?  Are our lives somehow worth less or is there some reason that whoever was behind this robbery was given a sort of wink/wink to put the screws to us?  Eventually we’re going to find out who was behind this and when we do I will make certain that justice will prevail.

14.1.1) SD-UT Reports on the Armed Robbery at 151 Farms   

14.1.2) Fox 5 Armed Robbery at 151 Farms with Video

14.1.3) SDPD Crime/Incident Report – Officer Brandon Gibson 

14.1.4) SDPD Crime/Incident Report – Officer Bryan Shields

14.1.5) Chula Vista PD Incident Report 06-10-17

14.2.1) Are we noticing a pattern here?  Murder for Hire Plot: United States of America vs Razuki, Gonzales and Juarez 

14.2.2) SD Union Tribune Cannabis Investors Murder for Hire Plot 11-19-18

14.3.1) The ‘Suicide’ of Michael ‘Biker’ Sherlock:  Maybe We Should Follow the Money

15) Amy Sherlock’s 2022 City of San Diego FOIA Request

The following files were provided by the City of San Diego through various FOIA requests.  While Amy Sherlock did get most of these, some were found by her having searched requests by others where the information would have been previously available but not provided in Amy’s request.  In other words the information had been deleted for public distribution.  This section will be split as much as possible, by the property addresses being discussed.

15.0.0: All City of San Diego Cannabis CUP Permits Under public records request certain regions of these documents have been redacted to protect the confidential information of some of those parties.  Of note and will be seen here and in below sections the City of San Diego does not show or at least provide any information relative to the Magagna owned cannabis cups at 6220 Federal Blvd. and 3279 National Ave.  That is of no surprise since both of the known CUPS Magagna acquired did so under unlawful practices that the City of San Diego engaged in to assist him in acquiring those licenses.

15.1.0: 3279 National Ave. For  Austin Legal Group – Austin & Associates emails 12-2017 thru 10-2018  Additional information on this project may be also found which was developed outside the Sherlock FOIA request in Section 11.10

Page 22: shows Alan Austin sending Gina Austin (ALG) an email re the Magagna 3279 project in December 2017.

Page 67: shows that the project is exempt from CEQA.  This is a bold face lie!!  The City of San Diego lost a CA Supreme Court decision that explicitly demands they comply with state CEQA requirements.  How can it be CEQA EXEMPTED?!!!  The answer is it COULD NOT!!! Why did DSD defy the law and exempt it?  Because it wouldn’t have PASSED CEQA standards and DSD KNEW IT!!

Page 98: There is a large redacted area then the DSD Senior Planner Raynard Abalos asks for Marcela Escobar-Eck, CEO Atlantis Group Land Use Planning that a City Attorney be at their next meeting and Abalos acknowledges that this is not normally done. Why is this area redacted?  

Page 99: This is Marcela Escobar-Eck’s email in which she strongly disagrees with the DSD approval through conflict resolution for approval and states she will not be bringing her attorney to that meeting.  She knows that the conflicts in setbacks to churches, schools and residences can not be waived but the City of San Diego is doing so.

Pages 108-109: Here Gina Austin states that the Environmental Impact of growing indoor cannabis is no different than that of growing indoor tomatoes and suggests the project does not need a GHG report for cannabis when tomato cultivation would do.

Page 111: Here DSD Environmental Analyst Elizabeth Shearer-Nguyen, Senior Planner states that she is not going to accept the tomatoes to cannabis GHG emissions without supporting data.

Page 114: Here Nguyen reaffirms the GHG reporting requirements.

Page 120: This is an email from DSD Tyler Sherer, Associate Planner in which he provides inaccurate setback information.  The actual setbacks between a church, school and several residences are why the project was originally rejected.    See Section 11.10 for complete history and issues 2-6 detailing the reasons for the DSD denial.

Pages 131-132: Here DSD Project Manager Firouzeh Tirandazi approves the project with no resubmittals required.

Page 136: Here Tirandazi suggests that the setback deviations can be waived if there is an “interested persons noticing list” created that advises the community of the requested use and it passes for that use.  Was this ever done?  We have no record of it.

Page 147: Here Tirandazi informs Alan Austin of the major development as it does not meet separation requirements.  See para 1.7.

Page 157: Here DSD Project Manager Jeffrey A. Peterson informs Gina et al that she has time to work on the “public concerns.” Again I see no evidence this was ever done.

Page 181: Here DSD Senior Planner Duke Hernandez who is also the Hearing Officer for both the 6220 Federal and 3279 National projects directs DSD assignments.  How can a Hearing Officer be impartial if he is part of the project planning?

Page 195: Here Gina Austin acknowledges the school separation issue.  How were the school AND the residential and church setbacks addressed?

Pages 228-231 is a series of emails between Tirandazi and Gina re the NDP requirements.  At the end of the string Gina is asking Tirandazi if she is must supposed to check the not applicable box instead of complying with the separation requirements that can not be met without community deviation acceptance.  Keep in mind that this project is located in a Promise Zone that gives it special tax incentives.  It’s a highly desirable property to develop under the Promise Zone incentives.  The city was not going to let a little thing like setbacks get in the way of it’s approval.  Marcela Escobar, at page 99, can attest to that.

Page 257 Ann Burin, Word Processing at the City of San Diego has a Public Noticing link in her email which she presumably sent to all those within the affected radius of the project.  That link is broken.  I think it would be very interesting to see what that notice had to say.

15.1.1: 3279 National Ave. for DSD DS-3032 General Application 11-09-17 – Project No 585635  There are numerous Aaron Magagna applicant failures and shortcomings with this application yet the city accepted it and processed the project anyway.  As will be shown below in Section 15.1.2,  this project was also submitted under two other project numbers.

Section 6: Historical Resource Information asks if the property is located in a historical zone.  Magagna checked no.  The project is located in a historical zone as can be seen by correspondence between DSD Project Manager Jeffrey Peterson in his email on page 161 @ 15.1.0.

Section 8: Applicant’s Signature requires Magagna to certify that the information contained in the application is correct.  It is not and in fact the next sections prove willful misleading by Magagna.

Section 9: Contractor Name is filled in as N/A.  How is it that a Marijuana Production Facility, requiring drawings to be submitted by a Licensed Design Professional (Section 5) would not require a licensed contractor?

Section 10: Workers Compensation Declaration is also checked N/A, despite the fact that in large letters there is a WARNING that failure to secure workers compensation is unlawful.

Section 11: Owner-Builder Declaration is also filled in as N/A.  How was this project supposed to have been done if neither a contractor or an owner-builder were to have done the work?  More importantly how could the City of San Diego have accepted this application without this information and with contradicting N/A statements signed for by the applicant?

It is very unlikely Magagna completed this form.  It is more likely it was done by Gina Austin and quickly signed by Magagna.  If that is the case it is another document that goes to the subterfuge Gina Austin was engaged in.  This entire project needs to be investigated under a sworn deposition by Aaron Magagna, Gina Austin, Alan Austin and Firouzeh Tirandazi amongst others.

15.1.2: 3279 National Ave. for DSD Approval – Project No. 585635

Page 1: This undated DSD Approval for project no 585635, showing Firouzeh Tirandazi as DSD Project Manager. It describes the work to be done for a Marijuana Production Facility (MPF) at an existing building located within City Council District 8 and a Promise Zone.  This is all pretty clear.  What is not clear is where was the owner applicant information on this sheet?  The Issued Date, the Completed Date, the Permit Holder, the Issued By and the Completed By and Fees information is all left blank.  How was this inputted into DSD without this information?   This is the project number that was eventually used to approve the project despite the obvious separation and CEQA issues that should have prevented it from ever even being accepted for consideration.  Even assuming that the separation issues were resolved there is no way that this project should be allowed to run without having had CEQA approval or be allowed to operate today without having to acquire it.

Page 2:  04/20/17 DSD Approval for Project No 548372  showing Justy Kozachenko as DSD Project Manager. It describes an interior remodel to be done at an “existing Medical Marijuana Cultivation Facility.”  Unlike the page one document, this one shows the issued and completed dates.  The DSD issuance by Lauren Valenzuela and the Completed by Stephen Boeh.  It also shows that Aaron Magagna of A_M Industries is the Permit Holder.  The questions now become:

A) Where is the DS-3032 General Application information for this project?

B) How was there an existing (licensed) cultivation facility at this site?

C) Had there been prior code enforcement issues that began as this site having been an unlicensed cultivation facility?  If so who had been        operating that unlicensed facility?

D)  What inspections were done by the City of San Diego under this project number and when was it signed off as approved?

I would recommend that depositions of Lauren Valenzuela, Stephen Boeh, Justy Kozachenko, Aaron Magagna and Gina Austin among others be done for this project.

Page 3: 03/01/17 DSD Approval for Project No 534154 showing Jose Lopez an DSD Project Manager. It describes a change in occupancy from S1 (storage) to F1 (factory) to be used as a “Medical Marijuana Cultivation Facility.”  This could explain how the page 2 project no. 548372 would have referred to the site as an existing cultivation facility but this needs to be proven.  Nonetheless we would want to see the DS-3032 General Application that would have been submitted for this project number.

15.2.0: 3940 Home Ave. DSD DS-3032 General Application 03/21/2018 – Project No 599099

Since this project application was submitted after previous submissions to DSD one would expect that Magagna would have become more proficient in completing and signing these documents.  As can be seen here that is not the case.  As in previous applications he fails to complete, with the exception of the project address, any of the information on page two of the application.  With him, or whoever filled this form out, he ignores this ignores answering these questions.  DSD processes it and give him a project number anyway.  Having been a contractor and developer for over 25 years I can assure that not once was I able to pull a permit without having completed this information.

15.2.1: 3940 Home Ave. DSD Online Info –  Project No 599099 

15.2.2: 3940 Home Ave DSD Online Info – Project No 611536There are a number of listed people in here that warrant a look at their involvement in the MPF one that jumps to the front is Khoa Nguyen as a Rath-Miller political consultant and what may be his relationship with attorney Natalie Nguyen who represented Corina Young in avoiding a subpoena in Cotton I.

15.2.3: 3940 Home Ave DSD Report to Hearing Officer 02/27/2019-Report No HO-19-020-Project No 611536

Page 1: DSD Project Manager Hugo Castaneda recommends approval for the Marijuana Production Facility (MPF).  Castaneda also states the project is CEQA exempt.

Page 19: DSD Senior Planner Chris Tracy determines that the project is CEQA exempt.  Like other determinations on MPF’s (see 3279 National Ave-15.1.2) these are not CEQA exempt and the UMMP v CITY OF SAN DIEGO CA Supreme Court case made that clear in their ruling!

Page 25: These drawings list Pacific Design Concepts as the Architect.  A CA Architects Board search for that company or the contact Bruno Vasquez does not indicate this is a licensed architect.  The license number of C28945 shown on the DS-3032 General Application (see 15.2.0) is a licensed architect but as can be seen by his statement and stamp, he is only certifying the FAA Self Certification that is required of a building in the path of aircraft.  This stamp does not cover all of the design work done by an unlicensed architect.  This is relevant because DSD processed these drawings knowing this and the exact same unlicensed design scenario was employed at the Magagna 6220 Federal project and presented in this email to those architects @

15.2.4: 2018HMO LLC 11/23/2018 Articles

15.2.5: 2018HMO LLC 12/10/2019 LLC-12 Filing

15.2.6: 2018HMO LLC 02/02/2022 LLC-12 Filing

15.2.7: TERRELL v 2018HMO LLC Federal Case No 3:2022-cv-00883 

15.3.0: 6220 Federal Blvd DSD Project Issues 02/16/2018 – Project No 598124

15.3.1: 6220 Federal Blvd DSD Project Status Report 07/24/2019 – Project No 598124

15.3.2: 6220 Federal Blvd DSD Project Issues 08/20/2019 – Project No 644432

15.3.3: 6220 Federal Blvd DSD General Application form DS-3032_05-28-20 The problem with this new application was that the building was done. It had passed inspections and the Hearing Officers Appeal process and DSD records show it had been approved on 07/30/2019 @  Ten months later we have Magagna reapplying to build the project as if from the start?

15.3.4: 6220 Federal Blvd Soils Report of 12/06/2019 issued after the project had been APPROVED on 07/24/2019 How is this even possible to have been approved without the soils report? It’s also worth noting that in Cotton I it was supposedly my obstructing soils testing access that delayed the 6176 project from beating the 6220 project.  This is clearly not the case since 5 months after the 6220 approval the soils report became part of the DSD record.

 15.3.5: 6220 Federal Blvd Project Status Report 07/06/2020 – Project No 644432

In Customer Information Anthony Larkins, with the City of San Diego is listed as an Agent.  How does the City of San Diego get listed as an agent on a private project?

John Ek is listed as the Owner.  That is not true.  The property transferred to Magagna on 01/23/2020 and is shown on the DS-3032 General Application (15.3.3) to be Magagna as the owner.   Every single person on this report needs to be deposed to get to the bottom of this!

15.3.6: On 06/03/2020 Magagna pays San Diego Unified on behalf of Project No 644432 for a Certificate of Compliance  I have no idea what happened here other than the City might have had a requirement that the School District got this money from an adopted resolution and the previous project could not be closed unless it was paid.

15.4.0: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Project Status Report-Project No 368347 on 09/04/2015 Provides the Point of Contacts.  Additional information, obtained outside the Sherlock FOIA request on 8863 Balboa can be seen on 11.8.1.

15.4.1: 8863 Balboa Ave-Project No 368347 Recorded CUP on 07/29/2015 The City of San Diego, represented by Edith Gutierez grants the CUP to Leading Edge Real Estate LLC and United Patients Consumer Cooperative both represented by Michael Sherlock.

15.4.2: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Approval for Michael Sherlock-Project No 368347 on 09/04/2015

15.4.3: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Approval for Amy Sherlock-Project No 467963 on 03/17/2016  Of note, Amy Sherlock had lost her husband Michael “Biker” Sherlock, the licensee for the 368347 CUP 4 months prior to a questionable suicide.  From these records it would appear that Amy Sherlock had the CUP in her name for a little over 10 months.  Amy was unaware of this or who would have instructed DSD to transfer the license into her name.  On a series of February 2020 emails that Amy sent to Mayor Kevin Faulconer her visit to his office and DSD was memo4rialized whereby she tried to get information on the license ownership.  No emails were ever responded to.  Of particular note would be page 2 of the link which describes how DSD staff gave her the run around in repeated phone calls and her visit.

This document is given an approval number under a “Special Permit” and there was no charge.  Other than Edith Gutierrez who is listed as the DSD Project Manager there is nobody else listed on this that would be responsible for having done this.  The transfer into Amy’s name by DSD proves the City was aware aware Amy had an interest in the license.  Amy Sherlock also never had that background check and there was none ever provided in the FOIA documents.

15.4.4: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Approval for Ninus Malan-Project No 532982 on 01/31/2017

15.4.5: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Approval for Brad Harcourt-Project No 538985 on 02/27/2017 This is called his 2nd year background check but I’ve found no evidence of his having undergone a first year background check.  Why is this important?  I don’t believe he did.  Amy Sherlock had supposedly had a background check but that to never occurred.  Something is not right here and all 3 Approvals are done under different project numbers with a total of 5 project numbers overall.  DSD staff Edith Gutierez, Firouzeh Tirandazi and Sammi Ma issued these 5 CUP permit numbers.  We simply need answers to this.

15.4.6: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Approval of Michael Essary-Project No 661880 on 05/24/2021 

15.4.7: 8863 Balboa Ave-All DSD Background Checks from 2015 thru 2018 There is no evidence that Amy Sherlock was ever background checked.  Of note the background approvals of Ninus Milan and Brad Harcourt are on this list and they were each approved under different Project Numbers.  Amy Sherlock is not on this list.  Others not shown are a result of them being outside the 2018

15.4.8: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD DS-192 Background Check of Christopher Sheridan 11/27/2019

15.4.9: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD DS-192 Background Check of Theresa Tucker 06/09/2021

15.4.10: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD DS-192 Background Check of Michael Aon 11/21/2019

15.4.11: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD DS 192 Background Check of Michael Essary 11/21/2019

15.4.12: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD DS-318 Ownership Disclosure Statement of Michael Essary 03/06/2020

15.4.13: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Project No 368347 Issues 05/13/2014

15.4.14: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Project No 467963 Issues 03/17/2016

15.4.15: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Emails from January 2017 thru June 2017

15.4.16: 8863 Balboa Ave-DSD Emails from May 2014 thru September 2019

15.4.17: 8863 Balboa Ave-HOA-DSD Emails from March 2017 thru June 2017

15.4.18: 8863 Balboa Ave-Cotton to HOA Email of 12/29/2019

15.4.19: 8863 Balboa Ave-Cotton to HOA Email of 12/29/2019 Attachment pc 15074

15.4.20: 8863 Balboa Ave-Truth Finder Report

15.4.21: 8863 Balboa Ave-2018/10/01_pdf version Voice of San Diego article re silent investors

15.4.22: 8863 Balboa Ave-Razuki-Malan Cross Complaint 09/20/2018

15.4.23: 8863 Balboa Ave-Techne Drawings

15.4.24: 8863 Balboa Ave- FOIA Responsive 2018-2109 Documents

15.4.25: 8863 Balboa Ave-July 29, 2015 Recorded CUP

15.5.1: LERE 2015 LLC-1 Filing

15.5.2: LERE 2015 LLC-12 Statement of Information

15.5.3: LERE 2015 LLC-4/7 Dissolution Filing

15.6.1: Amy Sherlock and Steve Lake Texts 2017-2020

15.6.2: 03/05/2020 Lake to Amy Sherlock Voice Mail

15.6.3: 03/05/2020 Lake to Amy Sherlock VM Certified Transcript

15.7.1: 1210 Olive St 2015 LLC-1 Filing

15.7.2: 1210 Olive St 2015 LLC-12 Statement of Information

15.7.3: 1210 Olive St 2015 LLC-4/7 Dissolution Filing

15.7.4: 1210 Olive St Truth Finder Report

15.7.5: 1210 Olive St-Lake-OUTCO LABS v SAN DIEGO COUNTY_06-21-2017

15.8.0: 07/26/22 Lake’s Request for Production

15.8.1: 23/02/01: Sherlock’s RFP Reply

SECTION 16: DSD Deep Dive

This section is devoted to an analysis of the City of San Diego’s (City) processing of Adult-Use cannabis licenses from 2015 forward.  It is a massive undertaking that combines the applications that were submitted and how they were processed to those that were submitted and never processed to completion.

The purpose of this review is to determine where certain priorities were given to some but not others during this process.  It is a constant work in progress as more people come forward who were harmed by this process and have decided to put their story out there for all to see.  What becomes apparent is that the City, with certain rogue agents from within City agencies, such as the Development Services Department (DSD) and decision making bodies, such as the City Council, Planning Commission and Hearing Officer’s, all acting under the color of authority, would enter into agreements with that would prioritize certain licenses being applied for under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), over others.

I undertook this effort because I knew that I was not the only one affected by the City’s unlawful licensing activities. The reality is and as can be shown within this Section, that a large number of people who had invested their time, money and energy into acquiring one or more of these highly sought after licenses, believed the process would be fair, transparent and equitable.  It has not been.  Monopolies have been created. Owners and applicants who should not have acquired licenses due to their personal histories have managed to acquire licenses. Sensitive use boundaries have been unevenly applied.  Environmental protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been exempted on every project that has been processed by the City. Lives and fortunes have been lost. Communities have been harmed. Public health and safety and welfare have been compromised.

Beginning in 2015, the City began implementing licensing programs that would allow 4 marijuana dispensaries per Council District. With 9 Council Districts that comes to 36 each Medical Marijuana Consumer Cooperatives (MMCC) which were not-for-profit and later becoming to for-profit and referred to as Marijuana Outlets (MO). In addition the City began licensing Marijuana Production Facilities (MPF) whereby there would be up to 40 of these licenses issued across the City with no regard to the number issued to Council District.  To no one’s surprise acquiring these licenses became a highly competitive and bloodthirsty exercise as the City constructed the entire application process to be on a first-come, first-served basis.  And this is where the problems began. This is not a weighted system. One where a batch of applications could have been scored comparing one against the other to determine what location and operator would be best for the City.  This could have easily been done but it was not.  The City benefitted from putting on the show that DSD was following the rules but in reality the rules were being made by a ministerial agency, where some within that agency had an interest in the outcome.

Certain ethically challenged attorneys, lobbyists and applicants saw this process as an opportunity to secure licenses for those who would not qualify for a license to use a proxy, or strawman, to apply for that license.  The City allowed this to happen because they were high net worth individuals who would incentivize the application through certain payments, or a percentage interest in the new venture.  Simply not enforcing the disclosure laws allowed this to occur.

I’m not at all happy about having to expose all this.  It really saddens me, as a longtime medical cannabis patient and activist that cannabis was used to promote a greater mainstream acceptance of the plant and what it can do for people but instead was hijacked to enrich a select group while excluding many of those whose legacies have been built upon the caring and nurturing of the plant and those who’s medical needs have been improved by it.

If you are one, or even a group, that has been harmed by the practices you see described in here and would like to add your story to this, please feel free to reach out to me,, with that information.  It’s important that we shine a light on what has happened here and hold those accountable for what they have done.  They only succeed in silence and darkness. Let the evidence lead the way.  Let sunlight expose their activities.

We would ask those willing to participate in this effort to be willing to provide an affidavit with any supporting evidence to be used in substantiating those claims. Thank you.

16.1) 2023/09/19 DSD Steering Document

16.1) 2023/08/29 DSD CUPs Spreadsheet

16.2) Exhibit Links

2014/09/30 ZOBACK CEQA APPEAL_DS3031_3430 Hancock St

2015/01/13 ZOBACK CEQA APPEAL_R-309477_3515 Hancock St

2015/01/13 ZOBACK CEQA APPEAL_R-309474_4645 DeSoto Ave

2015/01/13 ZOBACK CEQA APPEAL_R-309471_3225 Bean St

2015/02/12 DSD Memo to City Council re CEQA determination @ 8863 Balboa Ave.

2015/03/03 ZOBACK CEQA APPEAL_R-309535_3487 Kurtz St

2015/12/06 San Diego Medical Dispensary hit with $1.8M Fine.

2016/12/13 Atty Robert P. Ottilie to Wagner Letter re Wagner Recusal

2016/12/14 Attorney Robert P. Ottilie to Chairman Hasse re Wagner Recusal

2018/08/01_City of San Diego 12th Annual-Municipal Code Changes Draft

2019/09/26: William Perno Planning-Commission-Marijuana-Issues-in-San-Diego PPT Presentation

2021/09/05: HNHPC v DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandate-ROA-2

2022/03/02 HNHPC v DCC Order After Hearing (ROA-68)

2022/04/25 HNHPC Designation of Record of Appeal (ROA-80)

2023/08/02 HNHPC DCC COA Opinion (ROA-94)

2023/08/15 Lance Rogers and Darryl Cotton emails re the Brown Act This would be a public record letter that Lance was asked to provide for his arguments that the Brown Act was being violated.  After two weeks he responded he could no longer access that letter.

2023/May SDMC §142.0540 Parking Where this Section is is referred to in the Steering Doc as a 10K sq-ft exemption, it has been updated to a 15K sq-ft. exemption for parking spaces in this latest version.

2023/09/18 Potential Conflicts of Interest Documentation

16.3) Financial Disclosures


2013-PEERSON-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received over $100K from Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering

2014-PEERSON-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received over $100K from her husband Ted Shaw’s Land Use firm Atlantis Group

2015-PEERSON-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received proceeds from sale of Latitude 33 stock

2016-PEERSON-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received over $100K from Atlantis Group.

2017-PEERSON-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received less than $10K from Atlantis Group.

2018-PEERSON-ORIGINAL 3/29/2019 Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received less than $10K from Atlantis Group (page 33). But reported additional sources of income FOR Atlantis Group of $10K or MORE to Atlantis Group (page 34), by Austin Legal Group and San Diego Health and Wellness.  Of note; the 6220 Federal Blvd. Planning Commission Appeal Hearing, ITEM 4, for Project No. 598124 was held on December 6, 2018.  This Form 700 does not include Aaron Magagna only Austin Legal Group.  During her trial testimony Gina Austin states she had no representative relationship with Magagna for the 6220 Federal Blvd. CUP.  With Peerson recusing herself for this matter it would bely that statement made under oath by attorney Gina Austin @ Page 60:11-26 in the 07/08/2018 trial transcript.

In addition to how the Peerson Form 700 report seems to contradict the Gina Austin testimony at trial, the question that begs an answer is what did Commissioner Peerson, and/or Atlantis Group, in which Peerson holds an ownership interest, do for these contributions?  Were there violations that would have disqualified her on ANY of the Gina Austin projects as defined in ETHICS TRAINING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION?

If Peerson/Austin/Magagna choose to argue that the Peerson conflict would have been due to Magagna’s application for the 3279 National Avenue Marijuana Production Facility (MPF) Project No. 595635 that was due to be heard on a Planning Commission Hearing on June 6, 2019 the logic does not work.  Item 2 on the June 6, 2019 Agenda was WITHDRAWN from the Planning Commission’s agenda.  That Magagna National Ave. appeal was based on a Hearing Officers decision of February 20, 2019.  Austin/Magagna had no reason to engage Peerson/Atlantis Group during 2018 because the 6220 project was decided and final approved on December 6, 2018 for the 6220 Federal Project and the Hearing Officer had not even heard the 3279 National Avenue project until February 20, 2019.  Peerson’s recusal on December 6, 2018 had to do with a combination of bribes she and Atlantis Group took from Gina Austin and Aaron Magagna for the 6220 Federal Blvd. CUP.

2018-PEERSON-AMENDED 10/21/2019 Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received less than $10K from Atlantis Group (Page 2). But reported additional sources of income FOR Atlantis Group of $10K or MORE to Atlantis Group ADDING Aaron Magagna. The AMENDED Form 700 only adds Magagna which means he was NOT the reason Peerson recused herself from the December 6, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing. The reason she recused herself because this was a Gina Austin project and she, through Atlantis Group had an over than $10K reported source of income. (Page 3)

2019-PEERSON-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form-700 Received less than $10K from Atlantis Group. Reported additional sources of income FOR Atlantis Group, regarding adult-use by Aaron Magagna and San Diego Health and Wellness.

2014-AUSTIN-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-Form Page 3 lists MEDBOX as a greater than $10K source of income for AVRP Studios, Inc. Commissioner Austin should have recused himself on the Pickwick and Sunrise projects which were both funded by MEDBOX

2013-WAGNER-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-FORM-700 Wagner shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2014-WAGNER-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-FORM-700 Wagner shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2015-WAGNER-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-FORM-700 Wagner shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2016-WAGNER-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-FORM-700 Wagner shows no special interest cannabis money having been received.  This contradicts what Mr. Scott Chipman brought to the Planning Commission in their December 15, 2016 Hearing in Item 1 of the Agenda and as can be heard in his public testimony that hearing where @ 14:40 he describes both Commissioner Wagner and Whalen’s possible conflicts of interest and asks the Deputy City Attorney Shannon Thomas, who was present at that hearing, to investigate these charges.

What is significant here is that Wagner makes this statement in 2016 and the industry contribution does not show up in filings until the 2017 filing. To our knowledge, no investigation was ever done by the City Attorney’s Office and Wagner would spend his entire time on the Planning Commission without ever having had recused himself on a cannabis related appeal.

2017-WAGNER-Statement-of-Economic-Interest-FORM-700 Per Scott Chipman, Anthony Wagner would brag about how much money was coming through his door from the “pot people.” Wagner specifically named the Southern California Responsible Growers Council as has been highlighted (page 3) in this public filing. This is disturbing because Wagner was actively lobbying for these cannabis interests while being seated on a decision making body of the City of San Diego and without having disclosed those contributions from these groups until 2017.

2014-WHALEN-Assuming-Office-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2015-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2016-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.  In his Page 13 attachment he lists a $10K or greater contribution to J. Whalen Associates, Inc from Good Earth Plant Company.  This is the cannabis special interest that Scott Chipman refers to on December 15, 2016 @ 15:00 during his public comments under Item 1 of the City of San Diego Planning Commission Hearing.

Mr. Chipman raises statements he heard Wagner state, while at a Friday, November 4, 2016 San Diego County Planning Commission Hearing, that he was there representing Good Earth Plant Company on behalf of an agreement that would put no CAP on cannabis cultivation licenses.

It should be noted that no other cannabis associations or businesses are listed on any other Whalen Form 700 statements for either Commissioner Whalen or his business J. Whalen Associates, Inc. except for this 2016 filing. And while Commissioner Wagner was at this same San Diego County Planning Commission Hearing, Wagner does not report his income until his 2017 Form 700 filing.

2017-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2018-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2019-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2020-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2021-WHALEN-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.

2022-WHALEN-Leaving Office-Statement-of-Economic-Interests-FORM-700 Whalen shows no special interest cannabis money received.


This Story is a Work in Progress.  Please Share


Keep Coming Back! .