California Herbal Remedies, Inc. v. Sara Perez

Transacting up to 50 kilograms results in prison for up to 5 years and a fine of up to $250,000. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). There are likely over 425,000 cannabis employees in 41 States and U.S. Territories within licensed marijuana facilities engaging in ‘prohibited acts’ violating this Federal statute. Here, this petition arrives to this Good Court, likely as alluded to in the dissent in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1752 (2019) pitting the greed of an unscrupulous plaintiff’s lawyer and client who lied to gain employment against the unrecognized plight of likely 425,000 cannabis employees nationwide presented by a licensed cannabis facility and its hearing-impaired lawyer who were sanctioned $10,000 for upholding the privacy rights of third-party cannabis workers while Congress has yet to decriminalize their legal trade under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The Questions Presented Are:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause vindicate third-party privacy rights in State class action proceedings and prevent the State, like California, from creating regulatory judicial schemes touting civil litigation efficiency in favor of the class action plaintiff’s bar when, in practice during COVID social distancing protocols, the programs actually violate third-party privacy, attorney-client confidentiality, and the preservation of attorney ethics and the integrity of the judicial system?

2. Did a California Court violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when over a privacy objection it issued $10,000 in discovery sanctions and compelled disclosure of the class list of third-