HALT, YOU CANNOT TAKE MY DRUGS FROM ME BECAUSE I DO NOT POSSESS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, I LAWFULLY POSSESS WITH

INTENT TO USE ALL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES PURSUANT TO RCW 69.50.301 (c)(3) & RCW 69.50.101 (bb) FOR MY OWN INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL AND RECREATION USE FOR WHICH NO WASHINGTON OR FEDERAL STATUTE PROHIBITS PERIOD!!!! It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) and the CrR 1.1 decisional case law that one cannot be found guilty of possession with intent to deliver based on the mere bare possession of a controlled substance absent other essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hutchins, 73 Wn.App. 211, 216, 868 P.2d 196 (1994); State v. Harris, 14 Wn.App. 414, 418, 542 P.2d 122 (1975), rev. den. 86 Wn.2d 1010 (1976); State v. Brown, 68 Wn.App. 480, 843 P.2d 1098 (Div. 1, 1993). In State v. Kovac, 50 Wn.App. 117, 747 P.2d 484 (1987), the court found that seven baggies containing a total of 8 grams of marijuana was found insufficient to establish possession with intent to deliver. The Kovac ruling was supported in State v. Cobelli, 56 Wn.App. 921, 788 P.2d 1081 (1989). In that case the police observed the defendant in an area known for drug trafficking and engaging in several brief conversations with small groups of people in what they believed to be drug transactions. The defendant was then found to be in possession of several baggies containing a total of 1.4 grams of marijuana. The Cobelli court found that merely having controlled substance divided into several baggies was insufficient to establish even a prima facie case of intent to deliver. In State v. Liles, 11 Wn.App. 166, 521 P.2d 973, review denied, 84 Wn.2d 1005 (1974), the court reversed a possession of heroin conviction with intent to deliver where there was a single baggie containing 6.88 grams of 5 percent heroin. In State v. Johnson, 61 Wn.App. 539, 811 P.2d 687 (1991), a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver was reversed and remanded for re-sentencing on a lesser charge of simple possession where untainted evidence showed at most constructive possession of seven bindles of cocaine. Brown at 483. In State v. Wade, 92 Wn.App. 885 (Div. 2, 1998) the court overturned a conviction for possession with intent to deliver where juvenile dropped nine rocks of cocaine after being observed walking away from a vehicle. Other evidence included expert testimony regarding cocaine sales in high crime area and evidence the defendant was not a cocaine user. Lastly in State v. Davis, 79 Wn.App. 591, 904 P.2d 306 (Div. 3, 1995), it was insufficient for the defendant to have 6 baggies of marijuana, two baggies of seeds, film canister with marijuana in it, a baggie with residue, and a box of sandwich bags. The court specifically stated that there was no weighing devices found, there was no money found, and the weight of all the marijuana together was only 19 grams. A police officers opinion as to what a person would carry for normal personal use is insufficient, standing alone, to justify a finding of possession with intent to deliver. State v. Brown, 68 Wn.App. 480, 485, 843 P.2d 1098 (Div. 1, 1993). I POSSESS A SCALE & MEASURING DEVICES & MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM GETTING WHAT I PAID FOR SO I DONT GET RIPPED OFF WHEN I BUY DRUGS FOR MY OWN PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL AND RECREATIONAL USE WHICH CONSTITUTES LAWFUL POSSESSION UNDER RCW 69.50.301 (c)(3) & RCW 69.50.101 (bb)!!!! All six statutes, RCW 69.50.401; RCW 69.50.101 (q); RCW 69.50.4014 ; RCW 69.50.102; RCW 69.50.412 (1); RCW 46.61.502 (1)(b)(c), proscribes the unlawful possession with intent to deliver and/or delivery of a controlled substance and calls for a term of imprisonment or a fine or both, where the commission of the crime was an actual delivery of

drugs or an actual attempted delivery of drugs. The operative section of the statute states:
Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance.

The Washington State Supreme Court defined delivery in State v. Langworthy, stating that delivery thus necessarily requires the participation of two persons the deliverer and the intended recipient. IF THERE IS NO INTENDED RECIPIENT, THERE CAN BE NO DELIVERY UNDER THIS STATUTE. State v. Langworthy, 92 Wn.2d 148 (1979); State v. Valdobino 122 Wn.2d 270 (1993). RCW 69.50.401 (a) makes it unlawful for any person to deliver, but it does not proscribe either receiving or possessing with intent to use the controlled substance yourself!
RCW 69.50.401 (a) provides: Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance.

A receiver or possessor cannot be convicted of a sale or a delivery. State v. Sherman, 15 Wn.App. 168, 547 P.2d 1234 (1978). State v. Matson, 22 Wn.App. 114, 587 P.2d 540 (1978) says:
[T]he new statute makes no distinction between the selling and the purchasing of drugs and eliminates the distinction between whether a buyer or seller acts as a principal or agent so long as an illegal transfer [or delivery] of a controlled substance occurs. State v. Matson, 22 Wn.App. 114, at 118, 587 P.2d 540 (1978).

I cannot be charged with the mere possession, the plaintiff has failed to charge or prove the required essential element of either an actual distribution or an actual attempted distribution in violation of article 1, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution in violation of State v. Holt, which reads: The omission of any statutory element of a crime in the charging document is fatal to the information. State v. Holt, 104 Wn.2d 315 (1985); State v. Leach, 53 Wn.App. 322 (1988); State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679 (1989); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782 (1995); State ex rel. Clark v. Hogan, 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); Auburn v. Brooke, 60 Wn. App. 87 (1991); Auburn v. Brooke, 119 Wn.2d 623 (Sept. 10th, 1992); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 (1991); State v. Jeske, 87 Wn.2d 760 (1976); State v. Ashker, 11 Wn.App. 423 (1974); Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299 (1935); State v. Heath, 57 Wash. 246 (1910); State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, (1988) Blanton v. State, 1 Wash. 265 (1890); Leonard v. Territory, 2 Wash. Terr. 381 (1885). Contact Tribal Lawyer Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com> mailto:rcwcodebuster@comcast.netor <> or <www.luisewing.com>. Please send CASH ONLY DONATIONS to: Luis Ewing, c/o General Delivery, (City of) Copalis Crossing, The State of Washington [98536]mailto:rcwcodebuster@comcast.netmailto:rcwcodebuster@gmail.com

mailto:rcwcodebuster@yahoo.commailto:RCWCODEBUSTER@comcast.netmailto:k urt@gunsandyoga.com