Pubdate: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA) Copyright: 2013 Chico Enterprise-Record Contact: http://www.chicoer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861 Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority Author: Roger H. Aylworth IS BUTTE COUNTY COURT CASE OVER GRADING, OR GROWING MARIJUANA? CHICO -- Butte County and a Concow marijuana grower are in the midst of a legal battle that the grower asserts is about what's growing in his garden, while the county says it's about grading. In early May, Dan Levine, who identifies himself as president of "LLL Ranch," received a letter from Mike Crump, Butte County director of the Department of Public Works, saying grading on the property had moved 2,750 cubic yards of soil, and the county requires a grading permit anytime an individual moves more than 50 cubic yards of soil. That letter triggered a series of other correspondences, and on July 25, the county filed a suit against the ranch seeking a temporary injunction ending all grading on the property and ordering the ranch operators to prepare a plan that meets all county requirements to make the site "environmentally secure." The LLL Ranch was one of seven locations that had been cited by the county for allegedly failing to obtain grading permits. Most of the others have reached out-of-court agreements, but Levine has sought to fight the allegation. Levine, who said he only wants to legally grow his medical marijuana, claimed he has a report from a certified civil engineer the ranch hired, who said less than 50 cubic yards of soil has been moved on the ranch. He planned to make that case in court at the first hearing on Aug. 30, but then he ran into to a problem. When Levine appeared in the Chico branch of the Butte County Superior Court, Judge Sandra McLean refused to let him speak. The judge told Levine since the LLL Ranch is set up as a "limited liability company," none of its owners, including the company's president, can represent the business. Such companies are set up for a number of reason, a main one being to limit the owners' liability for the actions or debts of the company. They do that by providing a degree of separation between the people involved and the business entity. Levine tried to argue he had a right to speak, but the judge disagreed. She did postpone the hearing for a week to give Levine time to employ an attorney. The following Friday, Sept. 6, Levine arrived at court accompanied by Chico attorney Robert McGhie. Greg Einhorn was also in place to represent the county. When Judge McLean asked McGhie if he was there representing the ranch, the answer was essentially "not quite." McGhie said he had met with Levine for the first time the night before and as of that moment he had not been retained as counsel. The judge said if he was not retained by LLL Ranch, LLC, he had no right to speak before the court. Even though McGhie was not being acknowledged as the ranch's attorney of record, he charged that the court was being "misled" by the county's attorney. He went on to say if the need for the grading order was to protect the area from erosion from winter rains, there didn't seem to be a need to rush. "It's kind of warm out there. Sun doesn't cause erosion," said the attorney. When he asked McLean for permission to "address one issue," the judge told him no, saying, "This is just a preliminary injunction." While the judge had not allowed McGhie to make any formal statements, he did make it clear he was claiming the county was more interested in marijuana regulation than grading issues. The question of grading versus marijuana cultivation erupted into a brief but heated confrontation in the hall outside of the courtroom when Einhorn challenged McGhie on his claim, saying there was nothing in the order the judge signed that referred to marijuana in any way. McGhie said he would be looking into what legal options he had after he was formally hired as the ranch's attorney. Then he said, "Is this about erosion or is it about something else? I suspect it is about something else." The next hearing is scheduled for Oct. 4 in McLean's courtroom. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom