[PoopyTeaBags]

• STATE OF MICHIGAN
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE [COURT#] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
[COUNTY] COUNTY
STATE OF MICHIGAN
EX REL., [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
No. [#]
Plaintiff, HON. [JUDGE'S NAME]
[DEFENDANTS],
Defendants.
[Attorney's Name] (P#)
Prosecuting Attorney for County of [County Name]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[Address]
[Phone Number]
PUBLIC & COMMON LAW NUISANCE COMPLAINT
FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising
out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this
Complaint.
County Prosecutor
Introduction
[County] County Prosecuting Attorney, [Name], brings this action pursuant
to MCL 600.3801 and 600.3805 in [his or her] official capacity in the name of the
State of Michigan for the purpose of enjoining, abating, and preventing an ongoing
public and common law nuisance occurring at Defendants' business premises.
Defendants' business is engaged in the unlawful sale, keeping for sale, bartering, or • furnishing of marihuana in violation of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act,
MCL 333.26424(k), and controlled substance laws of this state. Relief is sought to,
among other things, require that: the occupants vacate the property; the business
be padlocked for a period of one year; the illegal contraband be destroyed pursuant
to law; and all contents of the premises be removed and sold pursuant to
MCL 600.3801 and MCL 600.3825(1).
Parties

1. Plaintiff, the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of [County], brings
this suit in the name of the State of Michigan pursuant to MCL 600.3801 and
600.3805.

2. Defendants [names] are the lessees, operators, workers, or employees
of the business commonly known as [name of business] and are operating,
maintaining, or conducting what purports to be a medical marihuana
[dispensary, cooperative, etc.].

3. Defendants [names] are the owners of the property on which
Defendants [names] are operating, maintaining, or conducting what purports to be
a medical marihuana [dispensary, cooperative, etc.].

4. Defendant [name of business] is the business entity incorporated as
[type of business entity (corporation, non-profit)] and owns the contents of the
building.
2
• Jurisdiction

5.Plaintiff is authorized under MCL 600.3805 and by common law to initiate this lawsuit. MCL 600.3805 provides:
The attorney general of the state of Michigan, the prosecuting attorney or any citizen of the county, may maintain an action for equitable relief in the name of the state of Michigan, upon the relation of such attorney general, prosecuting attorney or citizen to abate said nuisance and to perpetually enjoin any person, his servant, agent, or employee, who shall own, lease, conduct or maintain such building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place, from permitting or suffering such building, vehicle, boat, or aircraft or place owned, leased, conducted or maintained by him, or any other building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place conducted or
maintained by him to be used for any of the purposes or by any of the persons set forth in section 3801, or for any of the acts enumerated in said section. When the injunction has been granted, it shall be binding on the defendant throughout the judicial circuit in which it was issued.

• 6. Pursuant to MCL 600.2940(1), all claims based on or to abate nuisance may be brought in the circuit court.
Venue

7. Each Defendant does business in [City, Township, or County]. Venue is accordingly proper under MCL 600.1621.

8. [Insert business name] is located at [insert business address] in
[City, Township, or County] of [Name].
General Allegations

9. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through [insert paragraph #], as if set forth verbatim herein.

10. On November 4, 2008, Michigan voters passed a measure, effective • December 4, 2008, allowing certain registered patients with debilitating medical conditions to use, grow, consume, and possess medical marihuana. Under the • Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) "[t]he medical use of marihuana is
allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act." MCL 333.26427(a).

11. In enacting the MMMA, the people did not repeal any statutory
prohibitions regarding marihuana. The use, possession, sale, delivery, manufacture, and cultivation of marihuana remains a crime in Michigan. MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii); MCL 333.7403 (2)(d); MCL 333.7404 (2)(d). Instead, the MMMA
protects specific categories of persons from arrest, prosecution, or other penalty under those laws only if they comply with the requirements of the MMMA. Anyone who is not in one of the protected categories who uses, possesses, sells, delivers,
manufactures, or cultivates marihuana remains subject to state criminal prosecution. Indeed, even a properly registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under the MMMA shall, inter alia, be "guilty of a
felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana." MCL 333.26424(k).

12. The MMMA does not expressly authorize or provide any protection from prosecution, regarding the operation of dispensaries, clubs, consignment shops, or any other type of business or storefront at which marihuana is transferred, delivered, or sold to registered patients or primary caregivers. State of Michigan u McQueen, Mich App NW2d ; 2011 WL 3685642
(2011).

13, Furthermore, the MMMA does not authorize transfers or deliveries of marihuana between qualifying patients; between primary caregivers and unconnected qualifying patients; or between primary caregivers. Absent an express authorization, these activities are prohibited by the existing controlled substance
laws.

14. With respect to the cultivation or manufacture of marihuana, the MMMA does not authorize any individual, including qualifying patients or primary caregivers, to form cooperatives or collectives to jointly cultivate, store, and share marihuana with other registered patients or caregivers. See OAG, 2010-2011,
• No 7259, p (June 28, 2011). This is because the MMMA requires that each patient's plants must be grown and maintained in a separate enclosed, locked facility that is only accessible to the registered patient or the patient's registered primary caregiver. Id. Any activities conducted contrary to these requirements are
prohibited.

15. Notwithstanding the MMMA, under federal law, the possession, use, and transfer of marihuana—whether possessed for medical purposes or not—remains illegal. The Department of Justice (DOJ), in a letter dated June 29, 2011, expressed concern about an increase in the scope of jurisdictions that have implemented legislation sanctioning and regulating the commercial cultivation and distribution of marihuana, purportedly for medical use. While recognizing United States Attorneys' broad prosecutorial authority, the DOJ reminded their attorneys • that "[p] ersons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marihuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of
the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law." Exhibit 1.
Factual Allegations

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through [insert paragraph #], as if set forth verbatim herein.

17. Notwithstanding the narrow protections afforded by the MMMA, Defendants [names] are involved in a business or enterprise known as [insert business name] which, upon information and belief, [insert type of business and how it is operating].

18. Upon information and belief, Defendants [owners' names] own the property located at [insert address] on which Defendants [operators' names] are [insert type of business and how it is operating].

19. Plaintiff asserts [his or her] authority under MCL 600.3805 to remedy these injuries to the public interest by seeking to enjoin Defendants' violations of law and to assess equitable and monetary penalties against Defendants for violations of law.

20. Upon information and belief, the [dispensary, cooperative, etc.] is a business or enterprise operated for profit that unlawfully sells marihuana to members of the public.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendants [operators' names] were and are either the agents or principals of [insert name of business] and [insert name of business entity] participated in the acts and conduct alleged herein.

22. Defendants' business premises and its contents are used for the unlawful sale, keeping for sale, bartering, or furnishing marihuana.

23. Defendants' conduct (1) significantly interferes with the public's health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience; (2) is proscribed by law; or (3) is known or should have been known by the actor to be of a continuing nature that produces a permanent or long-lasting, significant effect on these rights. Capitol Properties Group, LLC v 1247 Ctr. Street, LLC, 283 Mich App 422; 770 NW2d 105
(2009).

24. Under MCL 600.3801, any person or his servant, agent, or employee who owns, leases, conducts, or maintains any building, or place used for any of the purposes or as set forth in this section, is guilty of a nuisance.

25. Under MCL 600.3815, proof of knowledge of the existence of the nuisance on part of the Defendants, or any of them, is not required. State ex rel Wayne County Prosecutor v Bennis, 447 Mich 719, 737-739; 527 NW2d 483 (1994).

26. [Specify the unlawful activity in this paragraph] Example: On or about [date], informant/agent made control buys of marihuana from Defendants' business or records from a search warrant show multiple sales of marihuana, Defendants advertise and market their business as a marihuana dispensary, Defendant has incorporated as a marijuana dispensary, etc.

27. That Defendants [operators' names] lease, conduct, maintain, keep, or • use [insert business name] for the unlawful manufacture, transporting, sale, keeping for sale, bartering, or furnishing of a controlled substance as defined in section 7104 of the Public Health Code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.7104 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
COUNT I Public Nuisance

28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through [insert paragraph #], as if set forth verbatim herein.

29. The public nuisance statute, MCL 600.3801, in relevant part, defines public nuisances subject to abatement: Any building . . . or place used for the . . . unlawful manufacture, transporting, sale, keeping for sale, bartering, or furnishing of any controlled substance as defined in section 7104 of the Public Health
Code, 1978 PA 368, being section 333.7104 of the Michigan Compiled Laws . . . is declared a nuisance, and the furniture, fixtures, and contents of the building . . . or place . . . are also declared a nuisance, and all controlled substances and nuisances shall be enjoined and abated as provided in this act and as provided in the court rules. Any person or his or her servant, agent, or employee who owns, leases, conducts, or maintains any building, vehicle, or place used for any of the purposes or acts set forth in this section is guilty of a nuisance.

30. Marihuana is a controlled substance under the Public Health Code. MCL 333.7212(1).

31. The building located at [insert business address] and its contents therefore constitute a nuisance.

32. Defendants' conduct violates MCL 600.3801, and must be enjoined as a public nuisance. McQueen, supra. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant a temporary and
permanent injunction against each and all of the Defendants, individually and collectively, to abate and prohibit the public nuisance maintained by them in violation of Michigan law and provide further relief as requested in this complaint.
COUNT II
Common Law Nuisance

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through [insert paragraph #], as if set forth verbatim herein.

34. The public has an interest in the observance of the laws passed by the legislature and to abate public nuisances affecting health, morals, or safety and to protect a public property right or interest. See Attorney General v PowerPick • Player's Club of Michigan, 287 Mich App 13, 22; 783 NW2d 515 (2010).

35. "At common law, acts in violation of law constitute a public nuisance. Harm to the public is presumed to flow from the violation of a valid statute enacted to preserve public health, safety and welfare." Attorney General v Peterson, 381 Mich 445, 465; 164 NW2d 43 (1969).

36. Marihuana is a controlled substance under the Public Health Code. MCL 333.7212(1).

37. The building located at [insert business address] and its contents are used for the unlawful sale, keeping for sale, bartering, or furnishing marihuana.
38. The building located at [insert business address] and its contents therefore constitute a common law nuisance and must be enjoined. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant a temporary and permanent injunction against each and all of the Defendants, individually and collectively, to abate and prohibit the public nuisance maintained by them in violation of Michigan law and provide further relief as requested in this complaint.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff respectfully requests the following:
a. That the business and property be declared a public and common law nuisance and, under MCL 600.3801, be permanently abated in accordance with MCL 600.3805 and/or MCL 600.3825(1).

b. That the Court grant a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, permanent injunction, and order of abatement enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors,
officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf, from
unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or
giving away controlled substances on the property because
Defendants are not operating within the narrow confines of the
MMMA.
c. That all marihuana and/or controlled substances located, used, or
sold at the property or within the possession or constructive
possession of Defendants be confiscated or removed by the
[insert name] Police Department and be destroyed.
d. That an order be issued:
(1) directing [insert name] Police Department to remove from the business and/or Defendants' building or place all furniture, fixtures, and contents therein;
(2) directing the sale thereof in the manner provided for the sale of chattels under execution; and
(3) the effectual closing of the building or place against its use for any purpose, and so keeping it closed for a period of 1 year, pursuant to MCL 600.3825(1).
e. That costs allowable under the Michigan Court Rules and Michigan statute be awarded.
f. That reasonable attorney fees be awarded to Plaintiff.
g. That such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper be awarded to Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name of Plaintiffs Counsel]
[Address of Plaintiffs Counsel]
Dated: [Date]

[resinryder]

"e. That costs allowable under the Michigan Court Rules and Michigan statute be awarded.
f. That reasonable attorney fees be awarded to Plaintiff.
g. That such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper be awarded to Plaintiff."

Damn. Fuck ya over and expect ya to pay for it.

[PoopyTeaBags]

yea if you read it they changed everything that they thought they could ever lose on and made it damn near impossible to find patients get doctor recommendations or comply with all the regulations...

each 12 plants need to be in a seperate locked room... lol i have to protect my plants from eachother....

on top of that they are now telling cops to take everything and they are no longer allowed to give it back...

so if you get pulled over and a police smells weed you have to tell them im a med patient i have weed but you cannot see it without a warrant as they WILL confiscate it and NOT give it back as where just a week ago if you were compliant they HAD to give it back....

[PoopyTeaBags]

not to mention he basically told each county how to get rid of dispensaries on a public nuisance even if they have never had a complaint.

[PoopyTeaBags]

o yea if mitt romney wins this guys are attorney general bill shuette will be the nations attorney general.. he owns more stocks in dupont then anyone... lets just say he doesnt like us.....

[resinryder]

Damn glad Michigan has apparently gotten rid of the meth, crack, and gang problem so they can focus on mmj. Fuckers

[vaped]

Damn, this sucks! Is this the appellate decision or has the Supreme Court ruled this? IF this is the Supreme Court ruling, Im going back to S.O.G... Maybe even vertical S.O.G. Lets blow it up!

[silver hawaiian]

Help me understand this, as a dumb Hawaiian Michigander.

Is this a bill? Or a law now?

edit: Did s'more reading. In 11., what is the definition of "Protected classes?" Are we to interpret that as "Has a state-issued card?" (..and is otherwise complying with #s, etc)

[schwilly]

Yea, I'm confused too.

Is that just the details of a dispensary getting shut down?

Does this just set shitty precedents or actually change anything?

[PoopyTeaBags]

Originally Posted by vaped

Damn, this sucks! Is this the appellate decision or has the Supreme Court ruled this? IF this is the Supreme Court ruling, Im going back to S.O.G... Maybe even vertical S.O.G. Lets blow it up!

this is bill shuettes opinion which is considered law until challenged and overturned in court.

there are many cases that we will win but they are still trying to just let there friends grow it and kick out everyone else thats the fall back plan if they cant kill it in its entirety.