Question for folks concerning Medical Collective Agreement

[medicalgreen]

A friend and I were talking about different coops and dispensaries we are both members of and the differences between how they are run, the types of businesses each has set up, and the way they handle legal issues. She mentioned a friend of hers who started a collective not too long ago and one of the odd bylaws or collectives rules etc. not sure what they are called, but usually all clubs have a checklist they have you go over and initial, and then sign at the end, but this person makes people sign that they are not a member of law enforcement and I think they are not allowed to testify against anyone in the collective for the cops or be an informant for the cops. You have to agree to be held liable for Ten Million dollars if you testify or provide information that ends up being used against another collective member.

Personally, since I understand law to a degree, I thought it was a good idea, but i'm not sure people would understand the purpose for it or trust in it, and I told her i'm not sure how people will react to that. Anyways, it has been on my mind lately ever since we talked and I wondered how others felt about it. If you are a patient and a member of a collective or cooperative or you visit a dispensary on a regular basis, how would you feel about signing something like this?

 

[Hammerhead]

I would not sign that. There ar plenty of Coop that dont have such rules

 

[Baddog40]

Its unenforceable, and quite frankly ridiculous.

 

[Rednick]

I know that there are many proposals that require you NOT to be in law enforcement circulating, even from the Co State Senate.
It is interesting because it could be a conflict of interest.
On the being held liable for TEN MILLION DOLLARS...Well, I don't know, I would probably join another coop. as Dave Chappelle said 'there are soooo many Amendments, that I can choose from...but I plead the Fifth...I plead the Fiiiiiiffff'.
I guess the coop is trying to say, 'Don't self-incriminate the coop, maybe this will intimidate you more than the cops?' I don't know.
But I do know, if you feel uncomfortable, don't sign on the dotted line.

And, I don't have anywhere near Ten million dollars, in fact they couldn't take much from me, except my dog.

If I could have voted for a second one, it would be 'I don't sign things that hold me financially liable', business wise, sure, personally financialy liable...hell no...all they have to do is have more money for lawyers.

 

[DevilWeed]

I would love to see the co-op in court trying to collect that $10 mil... Contract law is a bit more complicated than initialing and signing some form someone made up.

None the less, I'd go elsewhere.

 

[medicalgreen]

Well, I asked her initially what the reason for it was, and she told me the only thing she knew about it was that the group is from los angeles area maybe bakersfield, not sure and they are concerned about cops making purchases disguised as patients with proper medical notes. They feel that law enforcement will not want to sign something that makes them liable and I suppose or I guess they feel that you shouldn't have anything to worry about since it is pretty much non binding, but I can see where people are coming from, too and I would be hesitant for sure. I think I would be asking lots of questions. But it would not discourage me from signing it because of that.

 

[Jibman]

I've never heard of any collective trying to do that. I wouldn't sign it, But like i said i have never been put in the position of having to sign something like that because i have never seen it anywhere.

 

[kmk420kali]

not sure what they are called, but usually all clubs have a checklist they have you go over and initial, and then sign at the end, but this person makes people sign that they are not a member of law enforcement and I think they are not allowed to testify against anyone in the collective for the cops or be an informant for the cops.

That is like asking someone if they are a cop before you sell to them...NEWSBREAK...they are allowed to lie, while engaged in Undercover Operations--
That means nothing--

 

[Blue Dot]

Lets face it, it's not the D trying to protect against cops because like kmk said cops can't be held personally liable for anything they do on duty.

it's the D's trying to intimidate patients into thinking that they would be liable if a case is ever charged on the D.

Tell that D to stick it.

 

[smokadepep]

like its been said this will never be held up in a court system, no matter what contractual bind you have, if anything is illegal the contract becomes null and void

 

[rmccinc719]

yeh that one is a is definatly a no no. on the other hand i do believe in some situations you can have people sign a confidentiality agreement. they are used all the time by big corporations to help keep secrets from other companies. i also believe the feds have some laws to back up corporations that use these argreements and when broken can charge you criminally for giving away trade secrets.

 

[BigTop]

From a patient standpoint... it only appears that they are attempting to intimidate me into not snitching... and if that's how they want to come at me, then that's how I'll leave em.

BTW, if they came back w the cop not signing bit... would laugh out loud... at them... for thinking such a thing would work to their advantage... out loud! ;-)

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Well, I asked her initially what the reason for it was, and she told me the only thing she knew about it was that the group is from los angeles area maybe bakersfield, not sure and they are concerned about cops making purchases disguised as patients with proper medical notes. They feel that law enforcement will not want to sign something that makes them liable and I suppose or I guess they feel that you shouldn't have anything to worry about since it is pretty much non binding, but I can see where people are coming from, too and I would be hesitant for sure. I think I would be asking lots of questions. But it would not discourage me from signing it because of that.

Craig X was busted along with a few others in LA for selling medical marijuana to "patients" who had legitimate medical marijuana liscenses and identification cards who turned out to be undercover officers. I doubt it would hold up in court, but I suppose its better than nothing...

 

[Leonard NeemOil]

I've been a patient since 1995 and have signed a couple of these co-op, collective 'agreements' over the years and they aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Funny thing, after becoming a 'member' of these 'collectives' I was never invited to any meetings or asked to vote or even offered a lousy member discount and of course I was not involved in any profit sharing like true co-ops and collectives.

A cooperative (also co-operative; often referred to as a co-op or coop) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.[1] It is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.[2] A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. Collectives are also characterised by attempts to share and exercise political and social power and to make decisions on a consensus-driven and egalitarian basis. Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving (but can be that as well). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective

Show me one true MMJ collective or co-op. Just one.

 

[Bud Spleefman]

It's the old "Are you a cop?" question!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure if it's ever held up in court, but when I was younger and you met someone you didn't know and where doing a transaction you would say "Are you a cop?" and supposedly if they were, they had to identify themselves as such. It's a well justified CYA, given the LA Police strategy of disguising themselves as patients.

 

[smokesalot420]

As BHT said, I think this is a response to recent undercover cops going into clubs to buy meds and then using it against the clubs. I know of 2 clubs in the Bay area/nor cal this happened at.....

 

[lysol]

That is like asking someone if they are a cop before you sell to them...NEWSBREAK...they are allowed to lie, while engaged in Undercover Operations--
That means nothing--

Yeah, that...

If an undercover narc signs a contract stating that he or she is not a narc, is that a legal contract? Would it stand up in court?

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/drug_crimes/contract_cop.htm

 

[islander420]

If this is a Collective Agreement from Southern Cali, I'm sure they are just being paranoid since the DA's is sending cops to get Medical Recs and join collectives in order to shut them down.

I'm sure they are just trying to scare away any LEO or future snitches that may try to black mail the collective and its members. Unfortunately, it also scares away patients as well...

 

[medicalgreen]

I found out a couple of things about the club. They are run by a group of seniors or older folks that have had problems with narcs in the past.

I also followed the link, read the posting and argument and I'm wondering if maybe it is a REALLY good idea after all, to do something like this.

This is what the link says, "It's not a legally binding contract because there's no mutual “consideration” (which means that A & B each give each other something). Lacking consideration, the supposed narc "contract" is nothing more than a written statement that s/he is not a narc. It has no more weight than a similar oral statement, and since undercover police are allowed to lie about this, the “contract” is meaningless. By the way, if the “consideration” was to buy drugs, there’s no contract anyway, since committing a crime can never be “consideration” for a contract.

This sounds like an extension of the usual “Are you a cop?” issue, created by an imaginative officer with a sense of humor. The idea of bringing a “contract” to court to enforce a drug suspect’s right to avoid getting caught is somewhat comical in its absurdity. Think about it. This “contract’ puts you in the position of trying to enforce a right to evade getting caught committing a crime. Unless you were coerced into buying drugs from the undercover officer, he did nothing wrong in telling you he was not a cop.

More than you wanted to know, I suspect?"

However, coming from a standpoint of understanding a little about this sovereignty type stuff, law merchant admiralty etc., the understanding among these folks is that the federal government and state government use a form of quasi-contract to engage you in the system. Once they have you engaged in the contract, it is all presumed and they go from there assuming you are a debtor and employee of sorts.

The argument the fellow uses in this posting is that is would not be valid if the act was illegal, but if the illegality of the act itself was in dispute (medical marijuana) then maybe the contract would stand ???

Apparently they figure that the mere agreement to exchange cannabis for money or donations is still a taxable transaction unless it's covered by private contract and agreement. If it's a non taxable issue and private contracts between each member for each transaction then there is no room for the feds or state to intervene unless they are a third party intervenor and have some right to undue the contract. Otherwise it becomes breach of contract if the officer goes against the agreement.

At least that is how I understand it, so far.

Oh, also I found out about the 10 million dollars. You have to agree to be liable to the person who you testify against, not the club or the owner, only the person who is injured by the passing of information or testimony. It claims that if you are found to have testified or you provide information to police that results in an arrest and prosecution then you owe the person you damaged, that's the gist of it, I think. It doesn't say the club has the right to sue you only the person wqho was nabbed. My friend claims it protects the delivery person who does the transaction each time.

Kind of interesting, at least. I wonder how their members feel about it or if they get a lot of people who turn them down. It's cool to see all the different approaches to the law and freedom as it applies to cannabis and California seems to be quite a testing ground for it lately.

 

[medicalgreen]

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense to me. What this would effectively do is to create a debt between the agent or officer and the person who they damaged, and from what I can see here it would make the person liable in their private capacity, not necessarily as a police officer in their official duty. It could be very effective. I'm going to try to get a hold of the agreement to read it for myself.