Wow. I really hope that isnt true. Its almost unbelievable. I was raised to believe that Jerry Brown was a hero. Mainly from my dad.
Haha!! My dad used to say Brown was a "Hopped up Hippy"!!
So yeah...I always thought he was cool too-- lol
Wow. I really hope that isnt true. Its almost unbelievable. I was raised to believe that Jerry Brown was a hero. Mainly from my dad.
pugnacious said:Wow. I really hope that isnt true. Its almost unbelievable. I was raised to believe that Jerry Brown was a hero. Mainly from my dad.
Haha!! My dad used to say Brown was a "Hopped up Hippy"!!
So yeah...I always thought he was cool too-- lol
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.
Would you mind telling me how you made that conclusion of my feelings?
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.
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?
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)--
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?
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.
I just remember bonnie dumbass and her predecessor who was even worse constantly quoting lungren v peron that dispensaries didn't qualify as caregivers.