Dana Point wants pot dispensaries' member names, records
- Thread starter richyrich
- Start date
nephilthim
Member
they would legally need a court order or the consent of everyone of their members to divulge private medical information,also the dispensaries could be potentially liable for giving patients information without consent .no way this is going to ever happen in dana point or l.a. blue dot moonbeams a.g. guidelines are just that they have no substantive legal directive,and were meant for leo interpretation not ours.
there are plenty of non-profits with obscene compensation :trinity broadcast network,red cross,political groups,and many others.
it would be myopic and hypocritical to juxtapose these nonprofits over any of the non- profit dispensaries,demanding that they can't enjoY the same benfits as other non-profits?
there are plenty of non-profits with obscene compensation :trinity broadcast network,red cross,political groups,and many others.
it would be myopic and hypocritical to juxtapose these nonprofits over any of the non- profit dispensaries,demanding that they can't enjoY the same benfits as other non-profits?
B
Blue Dot
Nobody apparantly, that's why this city attorney is asking for them to be audited, but should we really have too, I mean they sell you $60/1/8th's and according to Pythagllio these people are to be trusted so isn't it obvious that they aren't making a profit? LOL
B
Blue Dot
But this case isn't about "our" interpretation, it's about a city attorney's interpretation, you know a guy's whose boss is the ATTORNEY GENERAL of the state.
In other words moonbeams guidelines are exactly that, legal directives for all the city attornies in the state.
man I gota say bluedot; to think that you are in favor of the government coming in and taking down all of our information because we smoke bud is really quite troublesome.
im very surprised someone would take that stance on this forum.
paint it any way you want, its fundamentally wrong.
im very surprised someone would take that stance on this forum.
paint it any way you want, its fundamentally wrong.
nephilthim
Member
ahh blue dots just verbalising the b.s. you would hear by other pee pee stains.the only hope is to galvanise voters against the city attorney,you could ask biased question for a poll about the city attorneys subpeona:"would you like the goverment to access your medical records?"
B
Blue Dot
Honestly, I don't agree that patient info should be forced to be made avail but I do believe dispensaries should be transparent to the gov in order to insure they are acting as non-profit because I just don't trust many dispensary operators to tell the truth, especially when there is so much incentive for them to lie and cash in.
That would be fine, as soon as it is truly "Legal"--
Until then, we are still the victims of Gray Areas, Police Harassment, and sicko DA's--
The post you made on the Temecula ruling is hopeful...but there are still too many Cases that end up the other way--
Also, I think to expect Dispensaries to have to adhere to Non-Profit, in a more strict sense than the rest of this Countries "Non-Profit" Companies is stupid...if not Criminal--
I agree (somewhat reluctantly), I don't think city councils should be doing it though, that's why I asked who normally oversees and audits non-profit corporations.
I would think that someone would need to complain to the BBB (Better Business Bureau) they cover charities too.
I would expect it to end up in the hands of the State Department of Corporations (Co-ops are corporations after-all), they (The Department) provides protections to consumers, and services to businesses, engaged in financial transactions.
I just don't think it makes sense for city councils and police to determine non-profit status, they have to much political interest in the issue to be objective.
deejaycruise
New member
What the city is trying to find out is if it is truly a mutual benefit collective or if it is operated for the benefit of a few. They need to see the member roles and find out if in fact all members have equal standing. Some collectives actually have non voting members and a board of directors appointed for life. This is not a mutual benefit, it is for the benefit of a few.
The good new is that when this occurs the non-voting members will not be held to answer to the criminal charges that might accompany a determination that it is not for the mutual benefit and is for someones personal benefit like a salary from the shame organization. Its good to get this out of the way before they decide what to do. Dispensaries do not have this mutual benefit requirement but then dispensaries are illegal unless tolerated by a city, licensed and not for profit. Salaries at a dispensary would be more acceptable than the same salary at a collective where some members have rights different than other members.
The good new is that when this occurs the non-voting members will not be held to answer to the criminal charges that might accompany a determination that it is not for the mutual benefit and is for someones personal benefit like a salary from the shame organization. Its good to get this out of the way before they decide what to do. Dispensaries do not have this mutual benefit requirement but then dispensaries are illegal unless tolerated by a city, licensed and not for profit. Salaries at a dispensary would be more acceptable than the same salary at a collective where some members have rights different than other members.
Z
Zeinth
Heads up!
Heads up!
Dana point police dept is watching every collective....every patient that comes out..saw the patrol cars within sight...there are all over every collective over there.. way..spooky..
No more south orange county coops for me..
lets hope for full legal status next year!!
Heads up!
Dana point police dept is watching every collective....every patient that comes out..saw the patrol cars within sight...there are all over every collective over there.. way..spooky..
No more south orange county coops for me..
lets hope for full legal status next year!!
Dana Point's call for medical marijuana records halted
By BRITTANY LEVINE
2009-12-03 16:59:08
Five Dana Point medical marijuana dispensaries don't have to hand over company records, including financials and client names, to the city until after an appeals court reviews the dispensaries' request to halt the subpoena order, according to an Orange County Superior Court judge's ruling today.
Last month Judge Glenda Sanders ruled that the dispensaries have to give the city their records as part of a city investigation into the legality of the dispensaries operations. Only certain city officials would have access to client names. They were supposed to turn over the paperwork by Dec. 7, according to court records.
In July, the city served the dispensaries subpoenas to turn over their records after an organization asked the city to change its zoning laws to officially allow for the cooperatives. The municipal code currently doesn't weigh one way or another, but before changing the code the city wanted to make sure the dispensaries weren't acting illegally.
All five dispensaries appealed the decision because they said it violates medical and financial privacy rights of its members, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the First Amendment protection of freedom of association. But a procedural issue may have forced them to fork over their documents even before the 4th Distinct Court of Appeal heard their case. So they asked Sanders to halt her Nov. 2 order, officially known as issuing a stay under pending appeal. When the appellate court will hear the case has yet to be determined.
City Attorney Patrick Munoz has said the city needs the names in order to compare financial statements with individuals spending to determine if some illegal activity is occurring. But at least one attorney—Arin Avetisone of Beach Cities Collective-- has said during court proceedings that the dispensaries don't keep financial records that can be cross-referenced like that.
Munoz said the trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue the stay because certain civil procedures don't apply to "special proceedings" such as this trial, according to court documents. Every case filed with the Superior Court is either categorized as a special proceeding or a civil action. In court records the city's attorney argued that because the subpoena for records would be issued by another government agency—in this case the city, not the courts—the case should be considered a special proceeding.
But Sanders said even though the case is a special proceeding, the court could prevent the city from peeking at the names because "a failure to stay this Court's order pending appeal would deprive the appellants of the benefit of any reversal because the information they seek to protect would have been disclosed to the city attorney," according to court documents.
By BRITTANY LEVINE
2009-12-03 16:59:08
Five Dana Point medical marijuana dispensaries don't have to hand over company records, including financials and client names, to the city until after an appeals court reviews the dispensaries' request to halt the subpoena order, according to an Orange County Superior Court judge's ruling today.
Last month Judge Glenda Sanders ruled that the dispensaries have to give the city their records as part of a city investigation into the legality of the dispensaries operations. Only certain city officials would have access to client names. They were supposed to turn over the paperwork by Dec. 7, according to court records.
In July, the city served the dispensaries subpoenas to turn over their records after an organization asked the city to change its zoning laws to officially allow for the cooperatives. The municipal code currently doesn't weigh one way or another, but before changing the code the city wanted to make sure the dispensaries weren't acting illegally.
All five dispensaries appealed the decision because they said it violates medical and financial privacy rights of its members, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the First Amendment protection of freedom of association. But a procedural issue may have forced them to fork over their documents even before the 4th Distinct Court of Appeal heard their case. So they asked Sanders to halt her Nov. 2 order, officially known as issuing a stay under pending appeal. When the appellate court will hear the case has yet to be determined.
City Attorney Patrick Munoz has said the city needs the names in order to compare financial statements with individuals spending to determine if some illegal activity is occurring. But at least one attorney—Arin Avetisone of Beach Cities Collective-- has said during court proceedings that the dispensaries don't keep financial records that can be cross-referenced like that.
Munoz said the trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue the stay because certain civil procedures don't apply to "special proceedings" such as this trial, according to court documents. Every case filed with the Superior Court is either categorized as a special proceeding or a civil action. In court records the city's attorney argued that because the subpoena for records would be issued by another government agency—in this case the city, not the courts—the case should be considered a special proceeding.
But Sanders said even though the case is a special proceeding, the court could prevent the city from peeking at the names because "a failure to stay this Court's order pending appeal would deprive the appellants of the benefit of any reversal because the information they seek to protect would have been disclosed to the city attorney," according to court documents.
