I wonder how much the attorneys get. 13,500.00 doesn't sound like much now. I bet the will be paying that bill for years, assuming they are on the streets to make any money. The cost for security in that business also has to be expensive, thats a dangerous business, must have insurance also not cheap. The more I think about it 13,500.00 doesn't so like much at all.
More nonsense assuming profitability based solely on gross receipts.
I wonder how long it would take me to sell 100 ounces of top shelf shit at $135 per. I'll bet I could do it in less than 1 day, much less two. Did I make a profit? LOL, the correct answer is 'insufficient data'.
I wonder how long it would take me to sell 100 ounces of top shelf shit at $135 per. I'll bet I could do it in less than 1 day, much less two. Did I make a profit? LOL, the correct answer is 'insufficient data'.
B
Blue Dot
But if you sell it at less then street the buyers will just resell it right? I mean that's what everyone here (even you maybe) have been saying so your arguement doesn't hold weight.
You can't have it both ways.
What? Just because someone would turn around and resell it invalidates his claim that we don't have enough info to determine if they were running a "for profit" business? How exactly?
you take it cert was denied ,so you are not sure?,supreme court upheld what you already posted ?that clears it right up
County of Butte v. Superior Court, C057152, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 175 Cal. App. 4th 729; 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 421; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1079, July 1, 2009, Filed, Review denied by County of Butte v. S.C. (Williams), 2009 Cal. LEXIS 10302 (Cal., Sept. 23, 2009)
See that ^^^^ in blue. I knew without looking because there was no review granted and there was no supreme court opinion, therefore, the supreme court denied to hear the case (cert. denied). We know these legal things, so I could guess pretty right without actually looking it up for sure. Does that help you. You are still incorrect.
The court found County's argument without merit. The court explained: “While it is true that the medical marijuana provisions do not specifically authorize an action by a patient for unlawful seizure of his marijuana, the constitution and laws of the state which otherwise protect the rights of citizens may nevertheless provide an avenue for relief. Thus, if plaintiff can show that he had a legal right to possess the marijuana in question, and that his rights were violated, he may bring his action based on generally applicable legal principles. Seriously ill patients certainly should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights. The plaintiff states a theory which would allow a civil court, rather than the criminal courts, to interpret and determine what constitutes Compassionate Use, who are qualified patients and what cooperative/collective efforts are included under the statute. The civil court appears to be an equally appropriate forum to address the issues of medical patients' rights.”
^^^ There is the issue and the gist of the case. Not about financial contributions. That was just part of the story. It means nothing at the appellate level.
^^^ There is the issue and the gist of the case. Not about financial contributions. That was just part of the story. It means nothing at the appellate level.
review denied by supreme court, exactly,by not reviewing the case,appellate and trial court rulings stand,so I am correct,as explained by you
Here is what the ASA lawyers think
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5767
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5802
Okay, believe what you will. The reviewing court process is a little more involved and deeper than what you think. ASA has skewed there reporting in those links on it just a little; of course, they were part of it and they tend to be glory hounds at times.
Danknuggler
Active member
Seriously you two WTF is the real deal?Did the ASA "Skew" it so much as to make us think this latest hearing accomplished something other than what it really did?I still dont get it.One of you is saying that "Reveiw Denied" means one thing and well I dont really know what the other is trying to say what it means.Please explain further why each of you think your stance is right.
The trial court had several issue before it, usually known as claims or causes of action. The main claim was whether a mmj patient can sue the police in civil court for violating their rights. The county claimed that they could not because the current mmj laws only give an affirmative defense against criminal prosecution- not rights. The trial court ruled that you could sue in civil court and also made the opinion that not all members of a collective have to physically help and could contribute financially.
The county appealed to the appellate court third district. The court reviewed the issue regarding suing in civil court and ruled that mmj patients could. That current mmj laws do give rights too, not just the affirmative defense against criminal charges. They did not take up issue of defining collective inner workings.
County appealed to the high court - CA Supreme Court - and they refused to review (cert. denied) the case, therefore, the appellate ruling stands (upheld) and is now case law. What is case law is what they reviewed - the right to sue in civil court. That is now a new precedent.
Since the appellate court did not review collective inner workings it is not precedent. The trial court did review or opined on the inner workings of collectives but they do not set case law, therefore, no precedent either.
If this was the precedent, that you could contribute financially only, then dispensaries would be safe now, butttttt - they are being raided once again. Because of People v. Hochanadel.
The county appealed to the appellate court third district. The court reviewed the issue regarding suing in civil court and ruled that mmj patients could. That current mmj laws do give rights too, not just the affirmative defense against criminal charges. They did not take up issue of defining collective inner workings.
County appealed to the high court - CA Supreme Court - and they refused to review (cert. denied) the case, therefore, the appellate ruling stands (upheld) and is now case law. What is case law is what they reviewed - the right to sue in civil court. That is now a new precedent.
Since the appellate court did not review collective inner workings it is not precedent. The trial court did review or opined on the inner workings of collectives but they do not set case law, therefore, no precedent either.
If this was the precedent, that you could contribute financially only, then dispensaries would be safe now, butttttt - they are being raided once again. Because of People v. Hochanadel.
Knocking down yet another straw man, the nemesis of straw men everywhere, the illogical, the addle minded,.......****Blue Dot****
Never let it be said that facts are important to his assumptions.
Danknuggler
Active member
Thank you that explains it much better for the law lingo impaired.People v Hochanadel was about running a collective where everybody signed a form that Canna help was their primary caregiver right?And the court ruled that was illegal correct?
Case Law Interpreting Health & Safety Code 11362.775
Case law interpreting California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, which provides specific
legal protections for the association of qualified persons within the State in order to collectively
or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes:
(1) People v. Hochanadel, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (filed 8/18/2009) – Court concluded that “the
MMPA’s authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a
distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified
medical marijuana patients under the CUA….” The court also concluded “that storefront
dispensaries that qualify as ‘cooperatives’ or ‘collectives’ under the CUA and MMPA, and
otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at
trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA.”
(2) County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 (filed 7/1/2009) –
County of Butte was sued by a member of a medical marijuana collective after being ordered by
a sheriff to destroy some of the marijuana plants in accordance with the County’s underlying
policy to allow qualified patients to grow marijuana collectively only if each member actively
participates in the actual cultivation of the marijuana by planting, watering, pruning, or
harvesting the marijuana. Trial court sustained the civil lawsuit for money damages against the
County and concluded that contrary to the policy of the County, “the [State] legislature intended
collective cultivation of medical marijuana would not require physical participation in the
gardening process by all members of the collective, but rather would permit that some patients
would be able to contribute financially, while others performed the labor and contributed the
skills and ‘know-how.’” Court of Appeal upheld the trial court ruling.
(3) People v. Newcomb et al., 2009 WL 1589574 (filed 6/9/2009) (Not Officially Published) –
Defendants appealed their convictions based upon the collective/cooperative defense under
California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Appellate court upheld the convictions, but
elaborated that “other than merely purchasing marijuana, not every member must contribute to
some aspect of the collective or cooperative; … Because some patients may be too ill to
contribute to the collective or cooperative, requiring them to do so, in order to be part of the
collective or cooperative, would be impractical.”
(4) People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (filed 9/12/2005) – Appellate court reversed
and remanded a trial court’s determination that a defendant was precluded from raising a
“collective, cooperative defense” under Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. The appellate court
found that the defendant had presented the trial court with sufficient evidence that: the defendant
was a qualified patient; the co-defendants were qualified patients; the procedures of the
collective, in question, verified the prescriptions and identities of the various members, making
them qualified patients, as well; members paid membership fees and reimbursed the defendant
for cost incurred in the cultivation through donations; and members volunteered and participated
at the collective, by helping with cultivation, delivery, processing of new applications, etc. The
court elaborated that Health & Safety Code § 11362.775’s “specific itemization of the marijuana
sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana
cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in
conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”
Case law interpreting California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, which provides specific
legal protections for the association of qualified persons within the State in order to collectively
or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes:
(1) People v. Hochanadel, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (filed 8/18/2009) – Court concluded that “the
MMPA’s authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a
distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified
medical marijuana patients under the CUA….” The court also concluded “that storefront
dispensaries that qualify as ‘cooperatives’ or ‘collectives’ under the CUA and MMPA, and
otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at
trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA.”
(2) County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 (filed 7/1/2009) –
County of Butte was sued by a member of a medical marijuana collective after being ordered by
a sheriff to destroy some of the marijuana plants in accordance with the County’s underlying
policy to allow qualified patients to grow marijuana collectively only if each member actively
participates in the actual cultivation of the marijuana by planting, watering, pruning, or
harvesting the marijuana. Trial court sustained the civil lawsuit for money damages against the
County and concluded that contrary to the policy of the County, “the [State] legislature intended
collective cultivation of medical marijuana would not require physical participation in the
gardening process by all members of the collective, but rather would permit that some patients
would be able to contribute financially, while others performed the labor and contributed the
skills and ‘know-how.’” Court of Appeal upheld the trial court ruling.
(3) People v. Newcomb et al., 2009 WL 1589574 (filed 6/9/2009) (Not Officially Published) –
Defendants appealed their convictions based upon the collective/cooperative defense under
California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Appellate court upheld the convictions, but
elaborated that “other than merely purchasing marijuana, not every member must contribute to
some aspect of the collective or cooperative; … Because some patients may be too ill to
contribute to the collective or cooperative, requiring them to do so, in order to be part of the
collective or cooperative, would be impractical.”
(4) People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (filed 9/12/2005) – Appellate court reversed
and remanded a trial court’s determination that a defendant was precluded from raising a
“collective, cooperative defense” under Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. The appellate court
found that the defendant had presented the trial court with sufficient evidence that: the defendant
was a qualified patient; the co-defendants were qualified patients; the procedures of the
collective, in question, verified the prescriptions and identities of the various members, making
them qualified patients, as well; members paid membership fees and reimbursed the defendant
for cost incurred in the cultivation through donations; and members volunteered and participated
at the collective, by helping with cultivation, delivery, processing of new applications, etc. The
court elaborated that Health & Safety Code § 11362.775’s “specific itemization of the marijuana
sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana
cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in
conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”
