Guidelines won't help 2 charged in pot raid

[richyrich]

I feel you are determined to be correct in your view; that's okay. I will repeat, it is deeper than what it appears here--on how law works.

(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.

^^^ In red above is all Trial Court. In blue is the appellate court. What I mean by deeper is--what the appellate court discussed. The discussion section of an appellate decision is where they interpret the law to applicable circumstances of the factual background. The only thing they discussed were mmj rights now giving precedent to sue in civil court. Read the discussion portion of the appellate opinion and see if you find any analysis and opinion on the inner workings of a collective, then you will be correct. Maybe I missed it, you never know; I speed read.

Above speaks of the Trial Court opinion on the inner workings of a collective. Only in that lower court, no precedent. When an appellate court upholds a lower courts ruling/opinion, it is not necessarily everything the lower court opined; only what the appellate court chose to review/discuss as I mention above. It is good news for the plaintiff in the trial court, though.

 

[richyrich]

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.”

It's a shame this case ^ is not published. This is what you are looking for. The appellate court specifically opined on the issue of financial contribution. Not published means not citable, therefore, more or less equals no precedent.

 

[zenoonez]

Why wasnt it published?

 

[richyrich]

Why wasnt it published?

It's a decision by the three appellate justices to publish their decision or not. There are other reasons too. If the supreme court chooses to review the case, it goes unpublished. The plaintiffs can ask for it not to be published, too. I believe the recent Kelly case, ASA had it de-published. It was a good case for us, too. IDK why ASA did that???

 

[SDbudz]

It's a decision by the three appellate justices to publish their decision or not. There are other reasons too. If the supreme court chooses to review the case, it goes unpublished. The plaintiffs can ask for it not to be published, too. I believe the recent Kelly case, ASA had it de-published. It was a good case for us, too. IDK why ASA did that???

the kelly case has gone to the supreme court,until the supreme court rules the appellate ruling is on hold

 

[richyrich]

07/23/2008 Request for depublication filed (another request pending) American for Safe Access, non-party, by Joseph D. Elford, Counsel
**request filed with permission**

Need I say more??? This request was made months before the CA Supreme Court decided to hear the case, so your attempt, here, to find something partially wrong with what I have stated fails, again. Would you like to continue to try?

If you want to see where I got this; look at the case docket in the link below.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1896508

 

[SDbudz]

07/23/2008 Request for depublication filed (another request pending) American for Safe Access, non-party, by Joseph D. Elford, Counsel
**request filed with permission**

Need I say more??? This request was made months before the CA Supreme Court decided to hear the case, so your attempt, here, to find something partially wrong with what I have stated fails, again. Would you like to continue to try?

If you want to see where I got this; look at the case docket in the link below.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1896508

easy boy,with your if's and I believe's,I just posted the current status of the Kelly case not trying to point out your faults,so can a collective members only contribution be monetary? I still say yes

 

[Pythagllio]

Let's see, should a quadriplegic with money be forced to do anything other than contribute money to the 'collective'? I suppose the collective could arrange to wheel him over to the grow for a few hours every other week so that he might contribute 'security'. Could the quad pay someone to make his physical contribution? I'd presume it's ok for the 'collective' to take contributions from people outside the loop, just not provide them with medicine. But really, what's the point of such a facade?

 

[richyrich]

easy boy,with your if's and I believe's,I just posted the current status of the Kelly case not trying to point out your faults,so can a collective members only contribution be monetary? I still say yes

It's a decision by the three appellate justices to publish their decision or not. There are other reasons too. If the supreme court chooses to review the case, it goes unpublished. The plaintiffs can ask for it not to be published, too. I believe the recent Kelly case, ASA had it de-published. It was a good case for us, too. IDK why ASA did that???

Above in blue, simple reading comprehension would lead one to understand that I already stated what you have. Maybe if I would have put "for example" it would have been more easily comprehended???

I went on further to say that ASA was in support of depublishing the opinion. The plaintiff in the case was opposed to depublication.

When I type "I believe", I am recalling from memory. In this instance, I was recalling from memory that ASA, a non-party submitted for depublication. My memory served me correct. The, "I believe the recent Kelly case, ASA had it de-published.", was stated after I made the statement about the CA supreme court taking review for example. The Kelly case was an example, on that example.

 

[richyrich]

Let's see, should a quadriplegic with money be forced to do anything other than contribute money to the 'collective'? I suppose the collective could arrange to wheel him over to the grow for a few hours every other week so that he might contribute 'security'. Could the quad pay someone to make his physical contribution? I'd presume it's ok for the 'collective' to take contributions from people outside the loop, just not provide them with medicine. But really, what's the point of such a facade?

IMO I believe that patients can contribute financially, only. The lower court judge's opinion discussed above is the way that things will eventually turn out with some more appellate decisions to come in the future.

My analysis now, it is murky still. The case law does not currently support this and people have found loopholes, as they always do. Your example of wheeling over a quad is an extreme example. As we all know, most MMJ patients are not at that point and could possibly contribute somewhat. For the most part, I know from experience, that all my past patients were more than capable of getting themselves to the dispensary all by themselves driving. One could presume that many of them could do something collectively other than just spend money and get wheeled over.

Out of over 1,000 patients, I had only around 3 patients that had a caregiver.

"Could the quad pay someone to make his physical contribution? I'd presume it's ok for the 'collective' to take contributions from people outside the loop, just not provide them with medicine."

Those are good questions. I assume the quad would assign a caregiver to work for him at the collective and reasonably compensate him/her. Second question, I would say yes. It would be a real donation (charity); money or labor. Not the "donation" term coined inside dispensaries. I never agreed with the term and advised all my staff to call it "compensation."

I believe the point of a facade is to be law compliant for the time being until more favorable appellate opinions are made. But, for all the "rotten apples" that do not like to be law compliant and exploit all the loopholes, they have ruined the bunch. Look at LA now. The wild west in LA pissed off a city. Now LAPD is raiding again; not the feds. This one paragraph, here, is where I come from in my stated personal opinions.

 

[kmk420kali]

IMO I believe that patients can contribute financially, only. The lower court judge's opinion discussed above is the way that things will eventually turn out with some more appellate decisions to come in the future.

My analysis now, it is murky still. The case law does not currently support this and people have found loopholes, as they always do. Your example of wheeling over a quad is an extreme example. As we all know, most MMJ patients are not at that point and could possibly contribute somewhat. For the most part, I know from experience, that all my past patients were more than capable of getting themselves to the dispensary all by themselves driving. One could presume that many of them could do something collectively other than just spend money and get wheeled over.

Out of over 1,000 patients, I had only around 3 patients that had a caregiver.

"Could the quad pay someone to make his physical contribution? I'd presume it's ok for the 'collective' to take contributions from people outside the loop, just not provide them with medicine."

Those are good questions. I assume the quad would assign a caregiver to work for him at the collective and reasonably compensate him/her. Second question, I would say yes. It would be a real donation (charity); money or labor. Not the "donation" term coined inside dispensaries. I never agreed with the term and advised all my staff to call it "compensation."

Bro...I could comb Walmart...and not come up with one person worthy of working in my grow--
No...every Patient cannot be a grower...well...let me rephrase that....
Every Person cannot be a "Quality" Grower--
It takes experience--

 

[richyrich]

Bro...I could comb Walmart...and not come up with one person worthy of working in my grow--
No...every Patient cannot be a grower...well...let me rephrase that....
Every Person cannot be a "Quality" Grower--
It takes experience--

I agree. IME, also, it is a pain in the butt to teach people to grow. Then for them to achieve quality is way out there. Like you said, it comes with years of experience.

Just to be clear, I stated that it would be presumable that most patients could contribute manually to some degree. We know that they are not going to be master growers out the gate. I'm sure there would be plenty of simple tasks and errands that could be available for willing contributors to do. I know there are plenty of things I hate doing in my garden. For one, cleaning big a** trays, etc..

 

[Blue Dot]

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

Maybe that was the intent of 215?

 

[kmk420kali]

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

Maybe that was the intent of 215?

Ok bro...teach a mo-fucker without arms to fish...he might not catch so many--
A lot of ppl can't grow their own--

 

[StrictlyGateway]

Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

I'll teach you how to fish.....but it'll cost you half the fish you catch for a while

 

[Surrender]

Entrapped by campaign promises: Prosecuted pot provider uses Obama’s election rhetoric in his legal defense.

As progressives complain that President Barack Obama isn’t fulfilling the promises he made on the campaign trail, one medical cannabis provider is now using the then-candidate’s words to defend himself in federal court.

James Dean Stacy, the defendant, is calling it entrapment.

Stacy, a martial-arts instructor and medical cannabis patient who ran the Movement in Action Collective in Vista, was arrested on Sept. 9 as part of the countywide raids that temporarily closed 14 medical marijuana dispensaries. So far, criminal charges have been filed against two individuals in state court, and two in federal court.

Last week, Joseph Nunez of Green Kross Collective, pleaded guilty in his federal case, but Stacy is holding strong. His attorneys, Federal Defenders of San Diego, filed on Dec. 9 a motion to dismiss the indictment, drawing from statements Obama made while campaigning for the presidency.

In essence, Stacy is arguing that he meticulously researched the process and did the due diligence in order to form a collective in compliance with the California Attorney General’s guidelines and the Secretary of State’s policies for non-profits. He says that he opened the collective based on the assumption that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama would stand by their statements that medical cannabis providers obeying state law would not be prosecuted.

In other words, he thought he had Obama’s blessing.

Stacy’s motion calls it a “fundamental notion of fairness: the individual must have fair warning of what conduct the government intends to punish.”

The defense relies on “entrapment by estoppel,” which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defines as “when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official.”

Stacy cites everything from the LA Times to the Huffington Post to back up his claim. Here’s the big one he throws in Obama’s face, a statement the candidate made during an interview with the Medford Mail-Tribune on March 22, 2008:

“When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. I mean, my attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom andpop shops, because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate. And again, I am not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate. What I am not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue. Simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.” (bolding added)

He also cites a May 12, 2008, statement by Obama’s spokesman (and current White House staffer) Ben LaBolt:

“Voters and legislators in the states – from California to Nevada to Maine – have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. . . Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice – though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs.” LaBolt also said Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws. (bold added)

And, of course, the defense also draws from Holder’s much publicized statements and official guidelines for prosecuting medical marijuana cases, that is, that the Department of Justice shouldn’t if the provider’s operations are in keeping with state law.

Stacy is making this a Constitutional issue, arguing that the prosecution subverts state law, breaking the 10th Amendment, and violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

The process Stacy underwent to set up his collective is laid out in detail: He researched web sites, hired an attorney, went back and forth with the Secretary of State’s office to get the non-profit’s articles of incorporation just right. Ultimately, he claims that the case must be dismissed because prosecutors cannot prove he was breaking California’s medical cannabis laws—and, as Holder and Obama promised, the DOJ should use the resources to investigate and prosecute real crimes, like terrorism.

I guess that's one way to do it,

 

[richyrich]

Actually, it sounds like a good argument. Can't wait to see what comes of it.

 

[Blue Dot]

Actually, it sounds like a good argument. Can't wait to see what comes of it.

Charles lynch tried to use "entrapment by estoppel" so.......

In the official memo Obama sent out all it said was make MMJ enforcement the "lowest" priority, NOT ZERO priority. There's a big difference there, hence the inevitable guilty verdict for James Stacy.

 

[johnnyla]

LOL. The President of The United States's word is not good enough for BD.

LMFAO. Laughing at you. What makes you laugh BD? You laugh today? It's healthy mayne.

 

[kmk420kali]

Charles lynch tried to use "entrapment by estoppel" so.......

In the official memo Obama sent out all it said was make MMJ enforcement the "lowest" priority, NOT ZERO priority. There's a big difference there, hence the inevitable guilty verdict for James Stacy.

Lucky that, as we have seen...Juries may surprise everyone, and refuse a Guilty Verdict--