Missouri Western District Court of Appeals and Secretary of State Ashcroft Apparently Parties to Amendment 3 Election Fraud

Preface/Article Synopsis:  Over years of research, policy work, and published papers on the consequences of marijuana legalization, I can say decisively that massive spending by internationally-financed  industries turning states into constitutional corporate marijuana monopolies is unconstitutional (documented in my recent letters to the Missouri Legislature linked below).  Due to the length of this article and the complicated issues involved, I am providing a high-level outline of the contents of the article.  It will make it much easier for average grassroots citizens to understand the article:
 
  • The Amendment 3 ballot language was fraudulent.  It promises millions in tax revenues, decreases in crime, without mentioning the billions in costs to the state and taxpayers caused by extremely large increases in consequential problems such as mental health, crime, violence, divorce, school shootings, children who become permanent drug addicts living on welfare, imprisonment, child abuse and neglect, homelessness.  Every state that legalized marijuana was buried under these costs.
  • In the Court records from the original Cole County Court Sweeney v. Ashcroft case, Jay Ashcroft admitted that there were not enough ballot petition signatures to put Amendment 3 on the ballot. On 5 out of 8 districts had enough valid petitions (possibly only 4). Six are required to certify an IP for the general election.  Certainly, he has to know that RsMO 116.140 specifically gives him this power.  Yet, Jay certified Amendment 3 for the November 8th election. 
  • In my conversations with Jay Ashcroft, I suggested he decline to certify the Amendment 3 election vote.  I was stunned when Jay said he did not think he could do that.  Below, you will witness a street hustle involving a clearly wayward Western District Court of Appeals.  Whether the Court intentionally colluded with Jay, or “innocently” issued a decision of monumental judicial mal-prudence is immaterial.  Amendment 3 never should have been certified to appear on the November 8th election.
  • We are all familiar with election fraud street hustles that took place in Georgia, Maricopa County, and elsewhere in both 2020 and 2022.  The Left has a highly-funded operation intentionally violating state laws, knowing full well that courts cannot straighten things out on the tight statutory deadlines necessary to seat elected officials. Corrupt prosecutors and City/State officials cover for them and refuse to prosecute election crimes.  Amendment 3 is the same street hustle, focused on IP ballot signature fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation of the impact of Amendment 3 in the petition language, and much easier to hide from public view. 
  • Missouri has a long history of Big Marijuana “corporations” and international marijuana financiers such as George Soros and Rex Sinquefield buying obeisance and participation of key Missouri public offices. If Jay or other Republicans received dark money campaign donations from Big Marijuana, they should give them away to charity
  • Where foreign monies and political machinery bought the passage of Amendment 3 (essentially turning Missouri into a sanctuary state for drug cartel and foreign control of Missouri politics), Executive Order 13848 Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election dated September 12, 2018, still in effect, may be relevant but probably not enforceable at the state level absent federal cooperation.  This is a major issue of national and state security.  Once drugs enter the State, the DEA and other agencies may be unable to enforce federal drug laws including RICO in Missouri, while mob control of Missouri politics advances.  The State is responsible for paying all costs while being unable to stop drug smuggling.  Illegal gun smuggling and human trafficking piggybacked on drug shipments may also likely be difficult or impossible to enforce.
  • Certifying election results by the Secretary of State is not merely a rubber stamp.  Jay Ashcroft would decline to certify results for any elected office in Missouri if there was evidence of voter fraud in any race until ballots are recounted.   The Amendment 3 issue is no different.
  • Grassroots leaders I work with are horrified about the shenanigans that occurred placing Amendment 3 on the ballot.  Grassroots leadership expects all Republicans to fulfill their duties transparently, ethically, and constitutionally serving the General Welfare of the public.  All elected officials in Missouri will be held accountable by the grassroots if they fail in that regard.  This is a very serious issue that will not go away until it is resolved.  We expect Jay to act quickly to resolve the Amendment 3 debacle.
  • There is only one way Jay can restore public trust in his office.   On a nunc pro tunc basis (with emergency ex-parte permission of the Missouri Supreme Court), he should immediately reverse certification of the November 8th vote on grounds that the IP should not have been certified to be on the ballot, and on grounds of unconstitutionality of the IP.  Big Marijuana would then have to challenge him in the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Missouri Attorney General would have to defend him.   Given the very large body of evidence we have, I sincerely doubt the Missouri Supreme Court would overrule him.  An immediate halt to Amendment 3 implementation is necessary before irreversible damage is done to businesses, and before release of so-called “nonviolent” cartel drug traffickers and expungement of the criminal records occurs.  Reversing his decision to Certify is the ideal course of action solely in Jay Ashcrofts hands that will give the Missouri Supreme Court time to fully hear the matter, with testimony from the Legislature and subject matter experts.  The Legislature is, in fact, the appropriate body for enacting sound legislation based on hearings and testimony.  We cannot allow Big Marijuana to intentionally bypass the Legislature and force their agenda on the State via a classic street hustle.
  • In parallel to the above, the legislature, all citizens, and taxpayers must demand that Jay Ashcroft act promptly, or alternately, the Missouri Supreme Court act sua sponte to vacate the Western District Court of Appeals decision, declare the Amendment 3 election results null and void, and conduct a thorough investigation of the Western District Court of Appeals.
The full length paper begins below:

My original Letter to House and Senate Republicans sent on October 27, 2022 contains points proving that Amendment 3 was likely unconstitutional:
 
1. Why Amendment 3 is unconstitutional by design:
Amendment 3 is unconstitutional and void per Moore v. Brown, 350 Mo. 256 | When Initiative Petitions Unconstitutional:

Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it modifies more than one section of the Missouri Constitution.   See line 260:

The proposed measure is not in truth and in fact a constitutional amendment for the reason that the measure contains more than one amended and revised article of the Constitution of Missouri. Section 2 of Article XV of the Missouri Constitution provides in part: "No proposed amendment shall contain more than one amended and revised article of this Constitution . . ."

2.  The text of Amendment 3 fraudulently misrepresents the impact to the state and the people. 
Proponents completely misrepresented impact of the bill on the state, citizens, and public safety, as follows:

A. It will not create tax revenue.  All other states that legalized pot suffered profound and exponentially growing costs due to increased drug trafficking, crime, violence, welfare, mental health, child abuse and other direct consequences. 

My fiscal note sent to Nicole Galloway for failed IP 20-125 calls out the misrepresentations of fiscal and socioeconomic damage to the state and citizens. Nicole liked my analysis.  She did not have to place my analysis in the fiscal note but found it credible.   See pages 67 – 112 of the file on the Auditors webpage:
Mo Auditor USHER Fiscal Note Final_20-125 .pdf Marijuana IP

B. The Centennial Institute of Colorado Christian University issued a detailed report iterating my analysis.  This came out months after my analysis was done.  The Director Jeff Hunt and I are good friends now.
C. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) is a longitudinal tracking program operated by the office of the President of the United States for over 25 years.  Their findings dovetail with those of the Centennial Institute and mine as well.  The socioeconomic costs to states and the People are, in fact, horrendous.

3.  St. Louis has been the gateway to the East for Mexican cartel drug smuggling for decades. 
The old Pruitt-Igoe complex in St. Louis was run by drug cartels back in the 1960’s.  It became a "no-go" zone for police.  The City had to tear it down to get rid of the problem now fully embedded in neighborhoods all over St. Louis City and North County.
 
A. Open borders caused a flood of drugs from China, California, Oregon, and Colorado to come through St. Louis.  With open borders, drug cartel gangs are fighting for control of the turf in St. Louis.  That is why we see so many rolling gun battles, gang shootings in public places (the Galleria for example), killings in neighborhoods, with much collateral killing.  I personally know 3 people shot and one killed in the Soulard area in drive-by shootings. 
B.  In 1977, a grandmother was shot and killed by an addict on Lake Avenue near Waterman to steal her bag of groceries in the classy Central West End.  We sold our home on Westminster Place ½ block away due to the killing and frequent break-ins of cars and our home. 
4. Cartels significantly control St. Louis City politics and have some sway in St. Louis County.
 
A. Cartel threats and bribery of St. Louis City officials has drug gangs calling out “defund the police” and non-prosecution / release of serious drug and other felony offenders (found in Amendment 3). 
B. Col. Joe Adams of Washington, MO has more experience enforcing border laws in Texas and working special ops all over the world than Dan Bongino.  In 2018, he warned that drug gangs are in St. Louis and taking control.  We now know that they achieved this goal. This short Fox 2 News video is expert testimony:

5. Drugs and alcohol are the primary drivers of all forms of serious violence including mass school shootings.  The costs to local jurisdictions and the state are unmanageable. 
A. Mass Shootings Are Caused By Kids Loaded on Drugs, Not Loaded Guns -- and How to Stop Most Mass Violence | David R. Usher | intellectualconservative.com 

B. Seattle is Dying | A KOMO News Documentary - YouTube  This prescient one-hour video documents the fact that substance abuse is driving homelessness and urban crisis.  An effective Rhode Island prison policy is discussed at the end of the video that has significantly decreased post-relapse post-release.  
The State of Washington implemented a very effective prison substance-abuse recovery program with job training for good paying positions in HVAC, plumbing, and other trades, preparing inmates to succeed after release.  I suggest that implementation of a similar policy in Missouri would be a big budgetary plus.  See: Substance Abuse Treatment | Washington State Department of Corrections

6. Perverse and dangerous political and corporate interests

Donors funding progressive legislation strongly support marijuana legalization because it is part of the Social Justice “Great Reset” agenda.  Secondly, national corporations representing Big Marijuana, big tobacco, and big beer are spending fortunes in Missouri on Amendment 3 because it establishes a constitutional corporate monopoly on the marijuana business.   Special-interest corruption must not sway the Missouri Republican legislators. 
 
A. Donors supporting the Great Reset political agenda include:
B.. Amendment 3 establishes Big Beer, Big Marijuana, and Big Tobacco corporations already operating in other states as a constitutionally-protected monopoly under the protection of the state.  These companies want no competition.  The Amendment puts the state in the position of policing and prosecuting everyone outside the monopoly, while drug cartels expand sales of low-cost marijuana.
 
7. How to reduce substance abuse and strengthen families while significantly shrinking state costs for crime, violence, school failure, welfare, homelessness, and other problems.

We know it is a losing proposition funding prison, welfare, crime interdiction, and homelessness problems.  We know these programs end up magnets for drug users, welfare dependency, and more never-ending means-tested entitlement programs as predicted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1960s.   As of 2011, according to Phyllis Schlafly, there were over 80 means-tested federal programs.  You can bet there are many more today.

The metrics below document why it is necessary to heal the problem in the family:



How it works: Even when both spouses are using substances, there comes a point where one spouse is addicted and the other is fed up with fighting, money problems, employment problems, and filling the gap for an irresponsible spouse.  The “responsible” spouse desperately wants the partner to get into recovery. 

Since no legal tool exists the responsible spouse can use to put pressure on the addicted spouse to recover, the family breaks up, too often violently, and the state and taxpayers end up having to pay for the disaster for years to come.

To win, the legislature must enact a simple low-cost non-entitlement legal tool families can use on their own to correct chronic-phase chemical dependency before the family falls apart. Families need a simple legal tool to heal substance abuse in the family when it becomes a serious problem – before it adds to the immutable public disaster we are struggling with today.   

I have an excellent greenback drafted by former St. Louis City criminal courts judge Robert Dierker that should have been passed in Missouri 10 years ago, but Republicans did not understand the seminal importance of my policy model.  I need House and Senate sponsor/cosponsor.  House/Senate leadership can cut spending on drug/violence consequence by perhaps 500 million within two years.

8. Protecting the Authority of the Missouri Legislature

Amendment 3 is an attempt to unconstitutionally circumvent the authority of the Missouri Legislature to enact sound policy.

Many of the elements of Amendment 3 were introduced by Shamed Dogan.  He is a Trojan Horse Democrat who ran on a Republican ticket.  The Legislature has not yet been fooled by him.  All except one of his bills never got past the first committee reading.  Only one of his 2021-2022 bills, HJR 83, moved forward.  This Constitutional Amendment would have fully legalized marijuana in Missouri was voted “do pass” in committee, but leadership wisely pulled the bill and sent it to die in the House Rules committee.

Shamed Dogan – Radical Democrat Running as a Republican for St. Louis County Executive | David R. Usher | intellectualconservative.com

The Missouri Legislature must now protect its authority as defined in the Missouri Constitution Article 3 Section 1 by expecting the Missouri Attorney General and Governor to take aggressive action to ensure that Amendment 3 is ruled Unconstitutional.
 
9. Action Items: 

Article 1, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution requires the state to provide for and protect the welfare of the People.  Therefore:
A. We need the Attorney General to have his staff prepare an Emergency Stay Order pending hearing, and a challenge filed by him or his successor in the Missouri Supreme Court to be filed the morning of November 9th.  I assume that it will not be possible to prepare the suit in two weeks time or less.  Therefore an Emergency Executive Order should be filed early on November 9th barring Amendment 3 from taking effect pending filing of the Attorney General’s case.  Protecting the constitutional authority of the Missouri Legislature is an important element of the case.
B. Governor Parson should issue an Emergency Executive Order, for cause above stated, barring Amendment 3 from taking effect for a period of 60 to 90 days pending filing of the Attorney General’s challenge.
C. After this case is heard, we should pursue filing a similar to suit to remove the language inserted into the Missouri Constitution legalizing "Medical Marijuana", which may have modified more than one section of the Constitution and was also fraudulently misrepresented in the IP.
 
My Updated Letter to House and Senate Republicans dated November 21, 2022 contains the original Cole County court documents containing admissions by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft that there were enough petition signatures in only 5 out of 8 districts – not the six required to certify Amendment 3 on the November 8th election, and demonstrating that the Legislature will be unable to pay for several billion dollars in consequential costs given constraints of the Hancock Amendment:

To the Missouri House and Senate:

I am sending this important letter updating the issues surrounding Amendment 3.  It is far worse for the legislature than suggested in my letter of October 27.

Contents:
 
  1.      Synopsis of facts in Sweeney v. Ashcroft
  2.      Constitutional Destruction of the Authority, Constitutional purpose, and spending/ budgeting capacity of the Missouri Legislature
  3.      Case law research suggesting the Legislature has a good case challenging Amendment 3
  4.      Who Has Standing To File Lawsuits?
 
 
     The following synopsis of facts contained in the original Cole County court case about Sweeney v. Ashcroft, and the hearing of the Appeal by the Western District Court is damning.

An excerpt from the original Cole County court filing in Sweeney v. Ashcroft contains an admission by Jay Ashcroft that he knew that there were only enough petition signatures in 5 out of 8 districts – not enough to certify Amendment 3 for inclusion on November 8th:

“With respect to the Marijuana Initiative Petition, Defendant determined that there were sufficient signatures for Congressional District Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Defendant found that there were insufficient signatures for Congressional District Nos. 6 and 8.”
 
Jay's statement warranted that valid signatures were found in only 5 of 8 districts. District 4 was not mentioned in the above because both Jay and Petitioner Joy Sweeney agreed that District 4 did not have enough ballot petitions. Jay Ashcroft admitted that there were only 5 districts with enough votes, not the six required to place Amendment 3 on the ballot.

The reason why many ballots in District 6 were not certified is because that district is a large area spanning the northern part of the state. Each county had to get enough signatures to put Amendment 3 on the ballot.  Proponents were unable to get enough ballot signatures in the northwest area of District 6, so they had a large number of activists from Jackson County (just south of District 6) go up to District 6 to sign the ballot petitions.  The courts adjudicating the ballots discovered a large number of signatures by people not residents of the county, so a lot of ballots were “lined out”.  

This reminds us of forged and multiply-counted ballots in the 2020 races in Georgia and other states by corrupt progressive activists.

I will summarize the mockery of Court process exemplified in the Sweeney v. Ashcroft case  by the Western District Court of Appeals.     The court failed to hear the case impartially, but instead acted as defense for Jay Ashcroft. Complex manipulative jiggering of law and sleight of hand worthy of David Copperfield were applied to systematically and improperly destroy Joy Sweeney's case. 

The Appeals court improperly rewrote Missouri RSMO 116.140 (which authorizes the Secretary of State to properly reject fraudulent or forged petition ballot signatures).  On the basis of unrelated case law, the Court improperly gave Jay the authority to accept forged and fraudulent petition ballot signatures, reversing the proper work of election circuit court judges on their theory that the Secretary of State should also have authority to (tamper with circuit court rulings) to certify fraudulent petition ballot signatures. The judges who heard the case should be removed from the bench and/or resign their positions.

Jay Ashcroft knew that Amendment 3 was an unconstitutional nightmare.  My letter to Jay dated November 6th, 2022 makes this abundantly clear. I recommended he decline to certify the Amendment 3 IP results for a variety of constitutional reasons.  Little did I know that he has been cooperating with Amendment 3 proponents all along, and put Amendment 3 on the ballot despite knowing it only had sufficient ballot signatures in only 5 of 8 districts.  6 of 8 districts are required to put an initiative on the ballot.   
 
  1.     In Sweeney v. Ashcroft, Jay Ashcroft and proponents wasted most of the Court’s time, with cooperation from the Court improperly challenging Joy Sweeney’s standing to file the case.  Standing was a matter of record that should have been accepted in no more than 5 minutes.  Joy has been a registered voter in Cole County for decades and owns a home located in Cole County.  That she has to maintain a small home office in Washington for her current job is immaterial.  The court eventually ruled that Joy had standing.
After wasting all this time, the Court failed to address the valid issue of invalid signatures used by Jay Ashcroft to place Amendment 3 on the November 8th election. There were two counties that did not have enough signatures.  Jay let them (and/or proponents) either borrow votes from other counties or modify/tamper with the rulings of the Circuit Courts to restore line-out petition ballots, which is impermissible.  Depending on what was done, this may also be criminal. 
Instead of properly ruling on the petition ballot issue, the Western District Court of Appeals instead improperly rewrote Missouri RSMO 116.140, giving Jay authority to do what he admitted he did not have authority to do – accept fraudulent or forged election signatures to place Amendment 3 on the November 8th ballot. 

This makes the Western District Court of Appeals an apparently active accessory to and participant in ballot petition fraud. 

I will be sending a letter to the Missouri Supreme Court about this.  These judges should be censured and removed from the bench.  The Western District Court of Appeals should be barred from hearing any issues related to Amendment 3 so long as any of the judges involved are still on the bench. 

The Supreme Court should also sua sponte vacate the ruling in Sweeney v. Ashcroft.    Given the weight of evidence we have, the Missouri Supreme Court should sua sponte consider voiding the election results of Amendment 3.   Justice has been denied far too long.   The immediate and unavoidable harms to the legislature, state, and citizens are far too heavy to allow Amendment 3 to take effect or to delay justice for even one day.  We believe that the Missouri Supreme Court will not permit any court in the state to be an active participant in election fraud – particularly where it rises to the level of the Appellate courts.  

The other issue litigated was the Article XII, section 2(b) of the Missouri Constitution single subject requirement, which was improperly sidestepped by the court as follows:
 
[12] Article XII, section 2(b) of the Missouri Constitution repeats the single subject requirement for proposed constitutional amendments.
[13] "Provisions [in an initiative petition] that are incidental to effecting the measure's central purpose are not treated as separate subjects." Knight, 282 S.W.3d at 18 (citing United Gamefowl, 19 S.W.3d at 140).
[14] In the argument portion of her brief, Sweeney raises a new and distinct challenge to the Initiative Petition that was not pled in Sweeney's petition, that is not addressed in the Judgment (suggesting strongly that it was not timely or effectively raised as an issue with the circuit court), and that exceeds the scope of Sweeney's point relied on. Specifically, Sweeney's brief makes the additional argument that the Initiative Petition violates article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution because it amends more than one article of the constitution. Even if we could be persuaded that this argument was preserved by being raised below, "[a]rguments advanced in the brief but not raised in the point relied on are not preserved, and will not be addressed by this court." Burg v. Dampier, 346 S.W.3d 343, 354 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (citing Rule 84.04(e))

My original letter to the Missouri House and Senate Republicans dated October 31, 2022 raises a number of legal points demonstrating that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional and should be invalidated by the Supreme Court.
     Constitutional Destruction of the Authority, Constitutional purpose, and spending/ budgeting capacity of the Missouri Legislature

Amendment 3 has destroyed the ability of the Missouri Legislature to budget and control spending.   Amendment 3 fraudulently lied to the public, projecting a revenue-positive outcome.   The reverse is true.  Every state that legalized THC-containing marijuana has suffered massive unavoidable costs of mass drug abuse.   Massive expansions of illegal drug gang crime, violence, shootings, imprisonment cost the state fortunes.  Drug abuse drives a broad variety of costly mandatory expenses including mass school shootings, homelessness, child abuse and neglect, bankruptcy, divorce, domestic violence, failure of kids to mature and enter the workplace, and kids who end up disabled permanent welfare recipients.    The taxpayer is on the hook for all of this. 

Based on prior experience with costs to the state caused by marijuana legalization (see pages 67-112), I estimate that Missouri Amendment 3 will cost the state $6.3-billion annually within two years.  My cost estimates are mirrored by the Report of the Colorado Christian University Centennial Institute.

The legislature has its hands tied by the Hancock Amendment.  Based on the projected Missouri 2023 budget of approximately $48-billion, the legislature could only raise taxes by about $500-million.  The rest would have to be saved by cutting services, turning I-70 into a toll road (so the taxpayer has to pay for its road twice), and hiking fees.   

Taxpayers will be furious with the Legislature, while Democrats blame Republicans and take over the state.  Every red state that legalized recreational marijuana turned Blue within six years.  Amendment 3 is the beginning of the end for the Missouri Republican Party.  That is why the drug lobby spent so much money getting Amendment 3 on the ballot.
 
     Case law research suggesting the Legislature has a good case challenging Amendment 3
 
  1.     Fitzpatrick v. Ashcroft contains a line stating that the measure will have no impact on taxes.  Amendment 3 states that the Amendment will be revenue-positive, with costs of implementation covered by tax receipts.  Given this fact, Amendment 3 language should have included the statement “Amendment 3 will have no impact on taxes”.    This creates a presumption that the language of Amendment 3 may be fraudulent and a material misrepresentation of fact.   Big Marijuana proponents have forced this style of Initiative in many other states.  It either knew or should have known that marijuana legalization always results in massive downstream costs to the state and taxpayers.
This case is instructive where the Court heard a pre-election challenge and affirmed the right of the state and Treasurer to put forth a ballot initiative allowing the state to invest on long-term securities (and did not involve signature collection challenges).  This is unusual because courts are skeptical of involving themselves in pre-election litigation, partially on grounds that the initiative has not been passed yet.
 
  1.     Moore v. Brown (2018) has a one point that may help win our case.  While Amendment 3 does not explicitly appropriate funds, it silently appropriates a tremendous and unavoidable sum I have estimated to be about $6-billion annually. The legislature is responsible for covering all consequential costs of marijuana legalization.  I believe the Court may agree that “silent appropriation” or “passive appropriation” in an IP is unconstitutional, especially where the dollar amount is tremendous. 
The below suggests Amendment 3 would not have passed had it contained a statement “Amendment 3 may result in tax increases to pay for costs associated with increased substance abuse and other consequences”.
 
6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Proposed Amendment: Appropriation For Aid to Aged Persons And Dependent Children: Undisclosed Conflict With Other Sections. The proposed amendment provides that "There shall annually stand appropriated out of any money in the general revenue of the State of Missouri the sum of $29,000,000" to pay grants to specified aged persons and in aid of dependent children. It is in direct and undisclosed conflict with Sec. 43, Art. IV, designating how all revenue shall be appropriated; with Sec. 19, Art. X, prohibiting payment of money from the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law (meaning statutes and not constitutional amendments); and with Sec. 7, Art. XI, setting apart not less than twenty-five per cent of the State revenue for the public schools.
 
  1.     Ritter v. Ashcroft reiterates the fact that courts have essentially nullified Section 2 of Article XV of the Missouri Constitution provides in part: "No proposed amendment shall contain more than one amended and revised article of this Constitution.”  Circuitous decisions by the courts make it impossible to invoke this section of the Constitution.  If an Inititiative does NOT directly call out changes to more than one section of the Constitution, but other non-directed changes are necessary, courts do not see them as changes, but rather, administrative in nature.   The defeats the purpose Section 2 Article 5.   This may be ripe for challenge, but is not central to our Amendment 3 challenge. I suggest we not argue Point 1 of the Letter to Jay Ashcroft in our suit.  This may be an important legislative issue.  The legislature needs to plug this gap quickly.
 
  1.     Cady v. Ashcroft re-affirmed the court’s position of viewing pre-election challenges with great trepidation.  The take-aways instructive to our post-election case are:
  • Courts probably are more likely to entertain post-election challenges where harm can be proven. 
  • By refusing to entertain constitutional challenge of small unfunded mandates, the Missouri Legislature and taxpayers must fund any and all unspecified costs of an Amendment.   Our challenge must be heard. We know that Amendment 3 will cost the state tremendous sums of money, perhaps about $6-billion annually, of 12% of the projected Missouri 2023 budget within two years of implementation of Amendment 3.  This is a seminal threat to the finances of the state and the taxpayers, driven by known massive increases in crime, violence, homelessness, murders that occurred in every state the legalized recreational cannabis.
  1.     Lawsuit seeks to force Jay Ashcroft to begin review of 2024 Missouri initiative petitions reported on a very recent case (I could not find the case on the web) The Court did not allow proponent of a constitutional abortion IP the right to file early in order to force Jay Ashcroft to process the IP within the 51-day statutory time window.  They allowed Jay to wait until after the 2022 elections to process the ballot initiative.  This may be useful to us where courts were involved in pre-certification issues and moved the statutory time to November 9, 2022.   Our case involves post-ballot issues where harm is immediately likely and courts should hear all issues carefully.
    Who Has Standing To File Lawsuits?
 
  1.     It has been suggested that the Missouri Attorney General should file any lawsuit(s) on behalf of the Missouri legislature.  This is impossible due to conflict of interest.  If any lawsuit is filed against the Missouri Secretary of State, the attorney general must defend him.  He could not also represent the Missouri legislature in the same case.
  1.     I see no case law or constitutional element barring state legislators, either individually or collectively, from filing a lawsuit on behalf of their constituents or the legislature.  This is an historic, unprecedented situation that will provably wreak tremendous harm on the citizens, the taxpayers, businesses, families, and the legislature itself.
It appears that the legislature may need to consult with its most knowledgeable legal advisors, and perhaps engage the services of an experienced independent counsel, to determine how this can be done.

My letter sent to Jay Ashcroft on November 6, 2022, on the eve of the election, pointed out Jay’s duty to decline certification of the vote on Amendment 3. 

Hello Jay,

Amendment 3 was received by your office on August 27, 2021 legalizing recreational marijuana and making various changes to the Constitution.  At the time, it was not considered a dangerous or unconstitutional amendment.  Our legal, social, and economic research now proves that it is unconstitutional.

Should Amendment 3 pass on November  8th, legal scholars I am working with indicate that you have the authority and constitutional duty to decline certification of the Initiative results for reasons of fraud and misrepresentation stated below. 

Proponents would then have to file suit in the Missouri Supreme Court, and the new Attorney General would have to defend you.  We believe there is a good chance that the Missouri Supreme Court would agree with you, in principle, without needing full hearing on the merits of the points.

You could later file a follow-up action with the Missouri Supreme Court to hear the merits of the points to declare Amendment 3 unconstitutional. We have expert witnesses to try the case.  This would set a precedent ensuring that fraudulent ballot initiatives will not succeed in the State of Missouri.

I apologize if anything in this letter is not spot-on. I suggest having one of your staff attorneys clean up the below, and draft your decision on Monday/Tuesday so it is ready to publish on Wednesday.  I recommend including the points below in your public decision declining to certify for the causes stated.  Proponents will know they will have a tough go challenging your decision.  There is a possibility they might not want to risk being overruled by the Missouri Supreme Court.  Secondly, your decision will frame public discourse and shed light on the same kinds of fraud successfully executed in other states.   

I suggest prefacing your decision with the paragraph below since this is not in any way a partisan issue.  It is the objective duty of your office:

“The decision to not certify the Amendment 3 results is in no way partisan.    Amendment 3 is a dangerous, costly, and unacceptable social, economic, public policy, legal, public safety, and security risk to all citizens of the State of Missouri.  Constitutional duty of the Secretary of State is to ensure the general welfare of all citizens, the rule of law, and to ensure that the Constitutional authority of the Missouri Legislature to legislate and budget are not abrogated by corrupt business interests.  For the reasons stated below, the Office of the Secretary of State must decline to Certify the election results of Amendment 3”.

Below are the reasons why Amendment 3 must be rejected:

1. Amendment 3 is unconstitutional by design:

Amendment 3 is unconstitutional and void per Moore v. Brown, 350 Mo. 256 | When Initiative Petitions Unconstitutional:

Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it modifies more than one section of the Missouri Constitution.   See line 260:

The proposed measure is not in truth and in fact a constitutional amendment for the reason that the measure contains more than one amended and revised article of the Constitution of Missouri. Section 2 of Article XV of the Missouri Constitution provides in part: "No proposed amendment shall contain more than one amended and revised article of this Constitution . . ."

2.  The text of Amendment 3 fraudulently misrepresents the impact to the state and the people. 

Proponents completely misrepresented impact of the bill on the state, citizens, and public safety, as follows:
 
A. It will not create tax revenue.  All other states that legalized pot suffered profound and exponentially growing costs due to increased drug trafficking, crime, violence, welfare, mental health, child abuse and other direct consequences. 
 
 
My fiscal note sent to Nicole Galloway for failed IP 20-125 calls out the misrepresentations of fiscal and socioeconomic damage to the state and citizens. Nicole liked my analysis.  She did not have to place my analysis in the fiscal note but found it credible.   See pages 67 – 112 of the file on the Auditors webpage:
B. The Centennial Institute of Colorado Christian University issued a detailed report iterating my analysis.  This came out months after my analysis was done.  The Director Jeff Hunt and I are good friends now.
C. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) is a longitudinal tracking program operated by the office of the President of the United States for over 25 years.  Their findings dovetail with those of the Centennial Institute and mine as well.  The socioeconomic costs to states and the People are, in fact, horrendous.
 
3.  St. Louis has been the gateway to the East for Mexican cartel drug smuggling for decades. 

The old Pruitt-Igoe complex in St. Louis was run by drug cartels back in the 1960’s.  It became a "no-go" zone for police.  The City had to tear it down to get rid of the problem now fully embedded in neighborhoods all over St. Louis City and North County.
A. Open borders caused a flood of drugs from China, California, Oregon, and Colorado to come through St. Louis.  With open borders, drug cartel gangs are fighting for control of the turf in St. Louis.  That is why we see so many rolling gun battles, gang shootings in public places (the Galleria for example), killings in neighborhoods, with much collateral killing.  I personally know 3 people shot and one killed in the Soulard area in drive-by shootings. 
B. In 1977, a grandmother was shot and killed by an addict on Lake Avenue near Waterman to steal her bag of groceries in the classy Central West End.  We sold our home on Westminster Place ½ block away due to the killing and frequent break-ins of cars and our home. 

 
4. Cartels significantly control St. Louis City politics and have some sway in St. Louis County.
 
A. Cartel threats and bribery of St. Louis City officials has drug gangs calling out “defund the police” and non-prosecution / release of serious drug and other felony offenders (found in Amendment 3). 

B. Col. Joe Adams of Washington, MO has more experience enforcing border laws in Texas and working special ops all over the world than Dan Bongino.  In 2018, he warned that drug gangs are in St. Louis and taking control.  We now know that they achieved this goal. This short Fox 2 News video is expert testimony:

5. Drugs and alcohol are the primary drivers of all forms of serious violence including mass school shootings.  The costs to local jurisdictions and the state are unmanageable. 
 
 
B. Seattle is Dying | A KOMO News Documentary - YouTube  This prescient one-hour video documents the fact that substance abuse is driving homelessness and urban crisis.  An effective Rhode Island prison policy is discussed at the end of the video that has significantly decreased post-relapse post-release.  
 
The State of Washington implemented a very effective prison substance-abuse recovery program with job training for good paying positions in HVAC, plumbing, and other trades, preparing inmates to succeed after release.  I suggest that implementation of a similar policy in Missouri would be a big budgetary plus.  See: Substance Abuse Treatment | Washington State Department of Corrections

6. Perverse and dangerous corporate interests

National corporations representing Big Marijuana, Big tobacco, and Big Beer are spending fortunes in Missouri on Amendment 3 because it establishes a pay-to-play-for-profit constitutional corporate monopoly on marijuana sales.  Corporations, Political partners, and criminals make fortunes while the state and taxpayer must pay billions in social, economic, legal, insurance, mental health, and a myriad of other consequences.

A. International and Missouri donors supporting full drug legalization include:

 
  • George Soros operates the Drug Policy Alliance and pretends that drug enforcement unfairly targets blacks. He has been a major donor funding radical city, county, and state progressive candidates, defund the police, catch-and-release, open borders, drug smuggling, human trafficking and across-the-board drug legalization.  His work benefits drug gangs from China, Mexico, South America, and Cambodia.  I believe he also funded signature efforts on marijuana ballot initiatives in Missouri.  He is known for manipulating market values and causing crises in countries to profit on hedge fund positions taken in advance.
 
Soros spent $33 million inflaming racial chaos all over the United States, including turning the Michael Brown case in Ferguson MO into a national flashpoint.  He bussed trained community activist organizers into Ferguson to ignite racial chaos in St. Louis.  After the most thorough investigation and criminal trial in modern St. Louis history found officer Owen Wilson not guilty, the city of Ferguson became a war zone was set ablazeAt least 14 malls were subsequently shut down in 2016 due to brawls instigated by Soro’s anti-American activities.
 
His spending of foreign-earned profits to violently overthrow the rule of law in the United States represents a serious national security risk.
The above caused chaos in Missouri’s urban areas.  Drug gangs essentially have political sway in St. Louis as described in point 4 above.

Large campaign donations to candidates in all Missouri state races, particularly key positions, has resulted in too many public officials serving corrupt interests, often taking profits doing so.
B. Amendment 3 establishes Big Beer, Big Marijuana, and Big Tobacco corporations already operating in other states as a constitutionally-protected monopoly under the protection of the state.  These companies want no competition.  The Amendment puts the state in the position of policing and prosecuting everyone outside the monopoly.
  • Amendment 3 does not "legalize" marijuana.  This article in the St. Louis American spells out everything that is wrong with it.  The American is furious because most people prosecuted will still be black, and all drug dealers are not let out of prison.  See: The deceitful Amendment 3 recreational marijuana bill | Political Eye | stlamerican.com.
  • Corporations have already planned and are ready to move beyond Amendment 3 if it passes. Marijuana stores sell more edibles than smoked products because edibles do not damage lungs, have no odor, can be used surreptitiously at work and in schools, and make policing of drug-impaired drivers much more difficult.   The Industry is planning to force a rule change in Missouri also defining existing THC products as a “food”.  When this happens we will see high-power cigarettes, beer, beverages including soda, and edibles sold in every restaurant, bar, gas station, and many retailers. Proprietary vaping products and vape pens, along with edibles, will facilitate dangerous and undetectable substance use in schools and the workplace.
  • Other states that legalized THC-loaded marijuana suffered big increases in cartel involvement and underground sales of marijuana.   They can sneak drugs into Missouri from Mexico and illegal grows in California, Colorado, and Oregon at far lower cost than marijuana sold by the state monopoly.   The underground market explodes because people won’t pay small fortunes for “legal” pot when they can get it cheap via the underground distribution system.  More people end up in prison, killed in gang turf wars, homeless, and bankrupt than before marijuana was “legalized”.  Below are a few articles proving that the State of Missouri MUST take immediate legal action to prevent Amendment 3 from taking effect.
 
 
7. Substance abuse and dependency are the primary compounding intergenerational drivers of all forms of violence, homelessness, divorce, educational failure, accidents, child abuse and neglect, suicide, poverty, crime, and mental health problems in the United States.
 
 
 
8. Protecting the Authority of the Missouri Legislature
 

Amendment 3 is an attempt to unconstitutionally circumvent the authority of the Missouri Legislature to enact sound policy.

Many of the elements of Amendment 3 were introduced by Shamed Dogan, a progressive activist who won a seat as a “Republican” legislator in the Missouri House.  House leadership was not fooled by him.  All except one of his bills never got past the first committee reading.  Only one of his 2021-2022 bills, HJR 83, moved forward.  This Constitutional Amendment would have fully legalized marijuana in Missouri was voted “do pass” in committee.  House leadership wisely pulled the bill and sent it to die in the House Rules committee.

Shamed Dogan’s history is documented in my paper Shamed Dogan – Radical Democrat Running as a Republican for St. Louis County Executive | David R. Usher | intellectualconservative.com

The Supreme Court has a duty to protect the authority of the Missouri Legislature as defined in the Missouri Constitution Article 3 Section 1.  The Initiative process is not intended to circumvent the legislature to constitutionalize destructive policy.
 
 
9.  According to the Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 51, a funding source sufficient to cover "mandated" costs of the initiative must be specified.  The fiscal note of the IP shows a net gain, however, the IP includes unavoidable massive unfunded fiscal mandates state agencies could not estimate for lack of subject matter knowledge, research capacity and subject matter expertise. 
 
 
This hidden mandate contains very large unavoidable costs provable by clear and convincing evidence from other states that suffered massive unanticipated costs of marijuana legalization. 

As a subject matter specialist on this issue with 12 years of experience, I estimate that roughly 12% of Missouri's projected 2023 $49-billion dollar budget will be eaten up by consequential costs within two years if Amendment 3 passes and the vote is certified.  In practice, the Legislature and Governor will be forced to come up with $6-billion in additional revenue which will escalate over time via tax hikes, stripping essential services, and fee hikes at a time when inflation is at 40-year historic levels and the economy is cratering along with IRAs and the stock market.
 

I believe we can all agree that taxpayer must not be forced to foot the very high costs of unfunded mandates driven by a highly profitable, corrupt Constitutional marijuana monopoly fraudulently misrepresented to the public as a Utopian dream.

Thank You,

David R. Usher, CEO
Civitas Economic Engineering, LLC
1381 Mirandy Dr, St Louis, MO 63146
314 624-3455

In closing, I cite two recent articles additionally proving that Amendment 3 will:
 
  • Cause an explosion in illegal drug cartel drug sales – about 80% of marijuana sales will be illegal because black market pot can be sold at half the price of “legal” sales.  “Legal” sales will be unprofitable because it costs twice as much. The State will only see a fraction of tax receipts promised by Amendment 3 promoters.  It is estimated that for every “Legal” sales outlet, there are 10 illegal suppliers.  The impact on political corruption in Missouri is inestimable.
  • Marijuana is illegal at the Federal level and for good reason.  Neither Republicans nor Democrats have moved to make it “legal”.  It is a big mistake for Missouri to become a “sanctuary state” for drug cartels and Canadian Big Marijuana underground operators placing banks and other financial institutions at risk of federal prosecution.  The health consequences of Amendment 3 and costs to the state will be serious and irreversible:
The CDC has issued a stunning report stating the following:
  •  
    • * Marijuana is the most commonly used federally illegal drug in the United States; 48.2 million people, or about 18% of Americans, used it at least once in 2019
    • * Recent research estimated that approximately 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have marijuana use disorder. For people who begin using marijuana before age 18, the risk of developing marijuana use disorder is even greater
    • * Marijuana use directly affects the brain, specifically the parts of the brain responsible for memory, learning, attention, decision-making, coordination, emotion, and reaction time. Infants, children, and teens (who still have developing brains) are especially susceptible to the adverse effects of marijuana
    • * Long-term or frequent marijuana use has been linked to increased risk of psychosis or schizophrenia in some users.
    • * Using marijuana during pregnancy may increase the person’s risk for pregnancy complications. Pregnant and breastfeeding persons should avoid marijuana.
________________________________________________________________________

David R. Usher is CEO of Civitas Economic Engineering, LLC, and a 30-year veteran involved in legislation, effective public policy, advancing the rule of constitutional free-market law, Conservative grassroots activism, and successful pro-se litigation.
 
Republicans by N/A is licensed under N/A N/A