Haha!! My dad used to say Brown was a "Hopped up Hippy"!!
So yeah...I always thought he was cool too-- lol
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
DA: We'll Prosecute, No Matter How Council Votes
- Thread starter bigbrokush
- Start date
Haha!! My dad used to say Brown was a "Hopped up Hippy"!!
So yeah...I always thought he was cool too-- lol
B
Blue Dot
pugnacious said:
Yeah, it couldn't be true that maybe Jerry is right and you are wrong.
K
Kola Radical
Rize Up and Fight!
Give US the Friggin' Weed, Or Else!
God help you right wing hypocrites when the civil war starts. DA's and other brainwashed government shills only understand violence and they respond to the threat of violence.
Regardless of what you think about McVeigh and his group of crazies... we have not had a single Waco or Ruby Ridge since they blew up that friggin' building.
Think about it.
Fear can go both ways.
Give US the Friggin' Weed, Or Else!
God help you right wing hypocrites when the civil war starts. DA's and other brainwashed government shills only understand violence and they respond to the threat of violence.
Regardless of what you think about McVeigh and his group of crazies... we have not had a single Waco or Ruby Ridge since they blew up that friggin' building.
Think about it.
Fear can go both ways.
pugnacious
Active member
^ wow.
If I had to pick a political party then you could say that I am a moderate anarcho libertarian.
But my guns are lubed and sighted in specifically for the white nationalists.
I can go on and on about my opinions on Ruby ridge and Waco, but ill stay on topic.
If I had to pick a political party then you could say that I am a moderate anarcho libertarian.
But my guns are lubed and sighted in specifically for the white nationalists.
I can go on and on about my opinions on Ruby ridge and Waco, but ill stay on topic.
Jerry Brown can only go as far as the law allows him to. New case law has been laid out since his guidelines. Things change. As I have been saying, repeatedly, case law is on Cooley and the LA City Attorney's side. Like it or not, the law is the law. If you don't like it then go rogue, but don't act as if the law is not so and spit out a bunch of convoluted-spun justifications and unreasonable loopholes.
Case law is not on the side of sales. That does not mean case law can't change again real soon; in this ever evolving MMJ movement.
This was not intended toward anyone for the sensitive.
Case law is not on the side of sales. That does not mean case law can't change again real soon; in this ever evolving MMJ movement.
This was not intended toward anyone for the sensitive.
What do you mean by that?? Do you mean that since the Law is in place, that nobody should question it?? Or that we should not throw around some "What if's" or other means of discussion??
I don't understand the stance that since the Law is on their side, then that is how it is, period-- It just isn't so--
This whole MMJ Movement has been going on for years...can you really tell me that the Powers that Be cannot write Legislation that outlines in detail just exactly how MMJ will be dispensed?? Bullshit!!
They are using "Unreasonable Loopholes" to continue this being in a "Grey Area" of Law--
Sorry bro, I am not a Lawyer, but I can see through this BS as quickly as anyone else--
Yes, they have the (Grey) Law on their side...but all we are doing here, as Laymen (No offense to any real Lawyers that might be here) is discussing the many ways which they are using this to fuck over the MMJ Movement as a whole--
Remember...some of us are not exactly the "Law & Order" type--
No disrespect intended...it just seems that you and BD get joy from repeatedly telling us "That is how it is"--
If we cannot believe we can change things...then we are useless--
Too many here make their opinions with no regard to the current case law. Emphasis on current. That is what I mean.
I do not take joy in repeating myself. I try to give some here an eye opener whether they like it or not; the vast majority don't because it is against their wants. It is against what I want too, but I don't lose touch with rational thought and the reality of the current MMJ movement. I analyze, interpret the current law and post.
Would you mind telling me how you made that conclusion of my feelings?
I do not take joy in repeating myself. I try to give some here an eye opener whether they like it or not; the vast majority don't because it is against their wants. It is against what I want too, but I don't lose touch with rational thought and the reality of the current MMJ movement. I analyze, interpret the current law and post.
Would you mind telling me how you made that conclusion of my feelings?
Not at all--
When you repeatedly say things that are contrary to ppl's "Wants"..you will invariably be thought of...even if it is in a sub-conscious state...as "The Enemy"--
No, I don't consider you as an "Enemy"...quite the opposite really...I appreciate your knowledge, and have learned a lot from you--
But that does not change how I feel about how you feel...you feelin' me??
(Although maybe I could have worded that (joy) part differently--)My bad for coming to such a personal conclusion, on an anonymous Board--
I just spent the last week and a half trimming weed...and I have a shitload of weed and finger & scissor hash...so I am going to load another bowl..since unintended periods of sobriety might have an adverse effect on my brain process (or lack of)--
pugnacious
Active member
Im going to have to read the Mentch case. But from my understanding it was about a primary caregiver, not a collective or dispensary.
So how does Cooley have case law on his side?
So how does Cooley have case law on his side?
dank_stanky
Member
HEY RR NEW HERE SO HAVN'T HAD TIME TO READ ALL THREADS YET. i AM FAMILIAR WITH THE STRUGGLES YOU AND ALL THE SHOP OWNERS ARE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW AS I HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER WHO OWNS A PRE-ICO SHOP AND WORK THERE FREQUINTELY. i GUESS WHAT PISSES ME OFF THE MOST IS THEY WERE A TRUE CASE FOR THE HARDSHIP, THEY HAD RECIEVED THE LANDLORD LETTER AND COULD NOT RENEW THIER LICENSE SINCE THEY DIDNT HAVE AN ADDRESS, BUT FOUND ONE SHORTLY AFTER, BUT HAD TO APPEAR INFRONT OF THE CITY COUNCEL. THEY HAD THERE 2 MINUTES TO PROVE THIER CASE BUT WERE REJECTED JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD ALL THE PROOF THEY NEEDED ( OLD LICENSE, LANDLORD LETTER ETC.) THE CITY WROTE THAT CLAUSE JUST FOR THE SHOPS LIKE THIERS, BUT YET THEY DIDNT RESEARCH ALL THE APPLICATIONS TO SEE IF INFACT THEY WERE PRE-ICO LICENSEES AND JUST HANDED OUT LICENSES, AND SO THE SOLUTION TO THIER INCOMPENTENCE IS TO PUNISH THEM ALL. WHICH I AM CURIOUS ARE THEY GOING TO GO AFTER EVEN THE PRE THAT ARE REGISTERED NON-PROFITS OR ARE THEY GOING TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.
I believe the city council could care less. They are more concerned about digging themselves out of the shit hole they created for themselves. Politicians, go figure.
Read People v Hochanadel, filed this August. The court opined that a dispensary cannot be a caregiver to that many patients. This case is why things are happening now. Since this August, haven't you notice all the changes in positions by persons?
Not at all--
When you repeatedly say things that are contrary to ppl's "Wants"..you will invariably be thought of...even if it is in a sub-conscious state...as "The Enemy"--
No, I don't consider you as an "Enemy"...quite the opposite really...I appreciate your knowledge, and have learned a lot from you--
But that does not change how I feel about how you feel...you feelin' me??
My bad for coming to such a personal conclusion, on an anonymous Board--
I just spent the last week and a half trimming weed...and I have a shitload of weed and finger & scissor hash...so I am going to load another bowl..since unintended periods of sobriety might have an adverse effect on my brain process (or lack of)--
Very clear and honest. I feel you.
B
Blue Dot
Richy, I'm curious. Why does Hochanadel hold so much weight now when I thought the exact same thing was decided long ago in 1996 in Lungren v Peron?
I am going to have to read that older case, I don't remember reading it. I assume there are some minor, but very distinct opinions handed down between the two. Small details in court opinions can mean worlds of difference.
B
Blue Dot
I just remember bonnie dumbass and her predecessor who was even worse constantly quoting lungren v peron that dispensaries didn't qualify as caregivers.
I just printed out Mentch and Peron. I'll be reading them today and will get back with my analysis. In the meantime I advise anyone interested to read Hochanadel. Use this link
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/
Type in people v hochanadel
