SCOTUS has ruled that money = speech. WTF isn't money = growing?
LA pot law draft would set no limits
- Thread starter richyrich
- Start date
Here is something that might open all of your eyes. I'm going to side with the Secretary of State and their legal counsel on this one.
Just to let you know this was from my first attempt to file articles of incorporation with the state. Also another reason I can legally sell bud!
Really guys... It would seem that I am lightyears ahead of most when it comes to these sort of legal issues.
Just to let you know this was from my first attempt to file articles of incorporation with the state. Also another reason I can legally sell bud!
Really guys... It would seem that I am lightyears ahead of most when it comes to these sort of legal issues.
I'm not sure what you are citing in your document that makes you legally sound to sell MMJ in California.
Also, the Secretary of State's staff attorney's interpretations of law will never trump the California Supreme Court's opinion in Mentch. Therefore, it does not make it legal. The real test would be in court. Would you bank your freedom on the staff attorney's interpretation, which of it I'm not sure what you are alluding to in your document?
Also, the Secretary of State's staff attorney's interpretations of law will never trump the California Supreme Court's opinion in Mentch. Therefore, it does not make it legal. The real test would be in court. Would you bank your freedom on the staff attorney's interpretation, which of it I'm not sure what you are alluding to in your document?
I'm not legal to sell weed in California. I'm paranoid and delusional and am making everything up. Prop 215 and SB 420 are figments of my imagination. I didn't found a corporation in California that is Cannabis specific. The IRS didn't give that corp and EIN, blah blah blah...
Dude that document wasn't to prove that I am legal to sell. It was to prove that the current draft ordinance in LA goes against what the STATE says. The D's can't grow their own, they have to have their patients do it. So the question is how do you grow enmasse legally? Now thats a secret that I Won't completely share because it's so blatantly obvious.
This is really tricky legal stuff man. Truth be told the tightrope that this is to be in 100% compliance with all aspects isn't easy. However I can guarantee that I am in said compliance. How do I know? Because I have a friend who was shot buying a bag of weed back in 94. His mother happens to be a lawyer. She works in the Attorney Generals office here in California. I ran everything past her. She asked me which lawyer did it, I said I did it myself. She asked how many years I have been practicing for, I told her none,... She said that I should be a lawyer and get into law school asap. She said it was PERFECTLY done. There isn't a more credible source that I could find in terms of knowing the laws and how they are applied in the prosecution of citizens. If there is anyone that believes in Safe Access for patients it's her, above all others.
There is only a handful of lawyers in the Secretary of State who are even willing to sign on to approve of any organization that is involved with Cannabis. I should know because I got off the phone today with 1 of the 3. We discussed business entities and the appeal process for rejected filings. Without approval from the Secretary of State it is next to impossible to be 100% legal selling cannabis. It is the same secretary of state who certifies various important aspects of government and law. The secretary of state has the power to declare any election/canidate invalid. They have the power to kill things before they can begin. Thats their job to kill things on legal technicalities.
A picture is worth a thousand words...
Actually it looks like I have specific PERMISSION from the state.
richyrich said:
Nope I wouldn't bank my freedom on that. It's on something much deeper, greater and profound that you could fathom. Honestly how long have you been aware of medical marijuana? I am not talking about just knowing that it exists either, but actually knowing a patient or being one yourself? Well my friend I have 15 years direct experience with medical marijuana. Yes before there was a prop 215. My father is an AIDS patient. He had a PERSCRIPTION (yeah I know not a rec blah blah blah) back in 1994 two years before prop 215 passed. In 1996 my mother was told to smoke pot by her physician when she was diagnosed with Cancer. Guess what. They are both still alive to this day. I first became a patient in 2001. I've done time in prison. I've fought a 3 strikes case pro per and got it down to misdemeanors at jury selection. I've had lawyers tell me that I should be a lawyer. My friend is the author of prop 215...You really have no clue what it is like to walk in my shoes.
and yeah I am willing to risk it.
Check out https://www.california-cannabis.com/ if you need proof.
*Disclaimer* Link provided for credential references. *
Last edited:
Let me ask you a question. What is your definition of sales regarding MMJ.
1. Is it a sale constituting a compensatory transaction? E.g: Exchanging cash money for expenses incurred for producing said MMJ.
or
2. Is it a sale constituting a mere retail sale? E.g: Like a purchase at the super market or your favorite store.
I'll show you my pictures, too, once I scan them.
1. Is it a sale constituting a compensatory transaction? E.g: Exchanging cash money for expenses incurred for producing said MMJ.
or
2. Is it a sale constituting a mere retail sale? E.g: Like a purchase at the super market or your favorite store.
I'll show you my pictures, too, once I scan them.
I'm not legal to sell weed in California. I'm paranoid and delusional and am making everything up. Prop 215 and SB 420 are figments of my imagination. I didn't found a corporation in California that is Cannabis specific. The IRS didn't give that corp and EIN, blah blah blah...
Dude that document wasn't to prove that I am legal to sell. It was to prove that the current draft ordinance in LA goes against what the STATE says. The D's can't grow their own, they have to have their patients do it. So the question is how do you grow enmasse legally? Now thats a secret that I Won't completely share because it's so blatantly obvious.
This is really tricky legal stuff man. Truth be told the tightrope that this is to be in 100% compliance with all aspects isn't easy. However I can guarantee that I am in said compliance. How do I know? Because I have a friend who was shot buying a bag of weed back in 94. His mother happens to be a lawyer. She works in the Attorney Generals office here in California. I ran everything past her. She asked me which lawyer did it, I said I did it myself. She asked how many years I have been practicing for, I told her none,... She said that I should be a lawyer and get into law school asap. She said it was PERFECTLY done. There isn't a more credible source that I could find in terms of knowing the laws and how they are applied in the prosecution of citizens. If there is anyone that believes in Safe Access for patients it's her, above all others.
There is only a handful of lawyers in the Secretary of State who are even willing to sign on to approve of any organization that is involved with Cannabis. I should know because I got off the phone today with 1 of the 3. We discussed business entities and the appeal process for rejected filings. Without approval from the Secretary of State it is next to impossible to be 100% legal selling cannabis. It is the same secretary of state who certifies various important aspects of government and law. The secretary of state has the power to declare any election/canidate invalid. They have the power to kill things before they can begin. Thats their job to kill things on legal technicalities.
A picture is worth a thousand words...
Actually it looks like I have specific PERMISSION from the state.
Nope I wouldn't bank my freedom on that. It's on something much deeper, greater and profound that you could fathom. Honestly how long have you been aware of medical marijuana? I am not talking about just knowing that it exists either, but actually knowing a patient or being one yourself? Well my friend I have 15 years direct experience with medical marijuana. Yes before there was a prop 215. My father is an AIDS patient. He had a PERSCRIPTION (yeah I know not a rec blah blah blah) back in 1994 two years before prop 215 passed. In 1996 my mother was told to smoke pot by her physician when she was diagnosed with Cancer. Guess what. They are both still alive to this day. I first became a patient in 2001. I've done time in prison. I've fought a 3 strikes case pro per and got it down to misdemeanors at jury selection. I've had lawyers tell me that I should be a lawyer. My friend is the author of prop 215...You really have no clue what it is like to walk in my shoes.
and yeah I am willing to risk it.
Check out https://www.california-cannabis.com/ if you need proof.
*Disclaimer* Link provided for credential references. *
Pictures are worth a thousand words. Check out mine. I was way ahead of you on this one. If you seek to prove your point with your documents, then I can show you mine, too. 2005 for me and I did it all on my own. I didn't need any guidance or a thread to tell me how to do it.
Incorporated Non-Profit May 16, 2005
Los Angeles City Business License/Tax Permit
Issued May 5, 2005
I wasn't bullshitting when I said I was the 3rd pre-ICO in LA.
How is this one. A no bulllshit application for the business license. I'm probably the only one that told the truth on the description of business line.
Seller's Permit
I received this before the Board of Equalization even decided that MMJ was to be taxed.
Does this give me enough authority to speak from? You went on quite a bit about yourself. Let's not forget that I, also, built, opened and managed a dispensary. Oh, and I'm in law school if you missed that in a post some back. Some here probably can't conceive the idea that I owned a D, especially, since I rub against the grain in these threads.
Do my documents above make it legal for me to sell MMJ? NO THEY DO NOT. Your friend attorneys and others are just another person with an interpretation such as mine and yours. The only one that matters at this point is the CA Supreme Court in Mentch. That is what is going to put you in jail or not. Your choice, and all others out there.
FF
I looked over your collective's website. It appears to be nothing more than a delivery service that has patients sign up as a collective member - since we know caregiver does not work anymore. If you are just providing meds to patient's via delivery, you may want to read the following about 3 times. Because, you are not conforming to the best guidelines we have right now regarding collectives; the AG's. Please, do explain if I am wrong.
CA Supreme Court Opinion in Mentch
We thus agree with the Court of Appeal in People v.
Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 823 [27 Cal. Rptr.
3d 336], which rejected the argument that "a 'primary
caregiver' is a person who 'consistently grows and
supplies physician approved marijuana for a medical
marijuana patient to serve the health needs of that patient'
... ." The Frazier court concluded that, while if one were
already qualified as a primary caregiver one could
consistently grow and supply medical marijuana to a
patient, the consistent growth and supply of medical
marijuana would not by itself place one in the class of
primary caregivers. (Ibid.; see also People v. Windus
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634, 644 [81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227]
["Case law is clear that one who merely supplies a patient
with marijuana has no defense under the [Act]."].) 6
6 Mentch directs us to the Attorney General's
Act guidelines concerning medical marijuana (see
§ 11362.81, subd. (d)) as supporting a contrary
definition of "primary caregiver," but in fact the
guidelines are wholly consistent with case law
and the statutory text and afford Mentch no
support. The guidelines note: "Although a
'primary caregiver who consistently grows and
supplies ... medicinal marijuana for a section
11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the
patient,' someone who merely maintains a source
of marijuana does not automatically become the
party 'who has consistently assumed responsibility
for the housing, health, or safety' of that
purchaser." (Cal. Atty. Gen., Guidelines for the
Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown
for Medical Use (Aug. 2008) pt. II.B., p. 4.) They
do not suggest provision of medical marijuana is
alone sufficient to qualify one as a primary
caregiver, but recognize instead that the provision
of marijuana may be one part of caregiving for an
ailing patient.
The trial court accurately assessed the law when, in
denying Mentch's request for a primary caregiver
instruction, it explained: "I'm satisfied that simply
providing marijuana, in and of itself to these folks does
not--you don't bootstrap yourself to becoming the
primary caregiver because you're providing [marijuana]"
and "you have to be a caregiver before you can provide
the marijuana." (Italics added.) Later, in denying
Mentch's motion for a judgment of acquittal (Pen. Code,
§ 1118.1), the trial court reiterated the point: "There has
to be something more to be a caregiver than simply
providing marijuana. Otherwise, there would be no
reason to have the definition of a caregiver, because
anybody who would be providing marijuana and related
services would qualify as a caregiver[,] therefore giving
them a defense to the very activity that's otherwise
illegal, and I don't think that makes any sense in terms of
statutory construction, nor do I think it was intended by
the people or the Legislature."
The ballot arguments in support
suggest a patient is generally personally responsible for
noncommercially supplying his or her own marijuana:
?Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own
marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of
marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those
laws." (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996) argument
in favor of Prop. 215, p. 60.) But as the focus is on the
"seriously and terminally ill" (ibid.), logically the Act
must offer some alternative for those unable to act in their
own behalf; accordingly, the Act allows "'primary
caregiver' the same authority to act on behalf of those
too ill or bedridden to do so" (People ex rel. Lungren v.
Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394). To exercise
that authority, however, one must be a
"primary"--principal, lead, central--"caregiver"--one
responsible for rendering assistance in the provision of
daily life necessities--for a qualifying seriously or
terminally ill patient.
The Act is a narrow measure with narrow ends.
As we acknowledged only months ago, "'the
proponents' ballot arguments reveal a delicate
tightrope walk designed to induce voter approval,
which we would upset were we to stretch the
proposition's limited immunity to cover that
which its language does not.
Having closely analyzed the text of section
11362.765, however, we conclude it does not do what
Mentch says it does. While the Program does convey
additional immunities against cultivation and possession
for sale charges to specific groups of people, it does so
only for specific actions; it does not provide globally that
the specified groups of people may never be charged with cultivation or possession for sale.
Here, this means Mentch, to the extent he assisted in
administering, or advised or counseled in the
administration or cultivation of, medical marijuana, could
not be charged with cultivation or possession for sale "on
that sole basis." (§ 11362.765, subd. (a).) It does not
mean Mentch could not be charged with cultivation or
possession for sale on any basis; to the extent he went
beyond the immunized range of conduct
I looked over your collective's website. It appears to be nothing more than a delivery service that has patients sign up as a collective member - since we know caregiver does not work anymore. If you are just providing meds to patient's via delivery, you may want to read the following about 3 times. Because, you are not conforming to the best guidelines we have right now regarding collectives; the AG's. Please, do explain if I am wrong.
CA Supreme Court Opinion in Mentch
We thus agree with the Court of Appeal in People v.
Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 823 [27 Cal. Rptr.
3d 336], which rejected the argument that "a 'primary
caregiver' is a person who 'consistently grows and
supplies physician approved marijuana for a medical
marijuana patient to serve the health needs of that patient'
... ." The Frazier court concluded that, while if one were
already qualified as a primary caregiver one could
consistently grow and supply medical marijuana to a
patient, the consistent growth and supply of medical
marijuana would not by itself place one in the class of
primary caregivers. (Ibid.; see also People v. Windus
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634, 644 [81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227]
["Case law is clear that one who merely supplies a patient
with marijuana has no defense under the [Act]."].) 6
6 Mentch directs us to the Attorney General's
Act guidelines concerning medical marijuana (see
§ 11362.81, subd. (d)) as supporting a contrary
definition of "primary caregiver," but in fact the
guidelines are wholly consistent with case law
and the statutory text and afford Mentch no
support. The guidelines note: "Although a
'primary caregiver who consistently grows and
supplies ... medicinal marijuana for a section
11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the
patient,' someone who merely maintains a source
of marijuana does not automatically become the
party 'who has consistently assumed responsibility
for the housing, health, or safety' of that
purchaser." (Cal. Atty. Gen., Guidelines for the
Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown
for Medical Use (Aug. 2008) pt. II.B., p. 4.) They
do not suggest provision of medical marijuana is
alone sufficient to qualify one as a primary
caregiver, but recognize instead that the provision
of marijuana may be one part of caregiving for an
ailing patient.
The trial court accurately assessed the law when, in
denying Mentch's request for a primary caregiver
instruction, it explained: "I'm satisfied that simply
providing marijuana, in and of itself to these folks does
not--you don't bootstrap yourself to becoming the
primary caregiver because you're providing [marijuana]"
and "you have to be a caregiver before you can provide
the marijuana." (Italics added.) Later, in denying
Mentch's motion for a judgment of acquittal (Pen. Code,
§ 1118.1), the trial court reiterated the point: "There has
to be something more to be a caregiver than simply
providing marijuana. Otherwise, there would be no
reason to have the definition of a caregiver, because
anybody who would be providing marijuana and related
services would qualify as a caregiver[,] therefore giving
them a defense to the very activity that's otherwise
illegal, and I don't think that makes any sense in terms of
statutory construction, nor do I think it was intended by
the people or the Legislature."
The ballot arguments in support
suggest a patient is generally personally responsible for
noncommercially supplying his or her own marijuana:
?Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own
marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of
marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those
laws." (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996) argument
in favor of Prop. 215, p. 60.) But as the focus is on the
"seriously and terminally ill" (ibid.), logically the Act
must offer some alternative for those unable to act in their
own behalf; accordingly, the Act allows "'primary
caregiver
too ill or bedridden to do so"
Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394). To exercise
that authority, however, one must be a
"primary"--principal, lead, central--"caregiver"--one
responsible for rendering assistance in the provision of
daily life necessities--for a qualifying seriously or
terminally ill patient.
The Act is a narrow measure with narrow ends.
As we acknowledged only months ago, "'the
proponents' ballot arguments reveal a delicate
tightrope walk designed to induce voter approval,
which we would upset were we to stretch the
proposition's limited immunity to cover that
which its language does not.
Having closely analyzed the text of section
11362.765, however, we conclude it does not do what
Mentch says it does. While the Program does convey
additional immunities against cultivation and possession
for sale charges to specific groups of people, it does so
only for specific actions; it does not provide globally that
the specified groups of people may never be charged with cultivation or possession for sale.
Here, this means Mentch, to the extent he assisted in
administering, or advised or counseled in the
administration or cultivation of, medical marijuana, could
not be charged with cultivation or possession for sale "on
that sole basis." (§ 11362.765, subd. (a).) It does not
mean Mentch could not be charged with cultivation or
possession for sale on any basis; to the extent he went
beyond the immunized range of conduct
So you are gloating at attempting to undermine the progress of Legalization?? Really??
C'mon dude...either you are Pro or Con?? Which is it--
I get that you are taking the standpoint of "The Law"...but The Law is not always right--
C'mon dude...either you are Pro or Con?? Which is it--
I get that you are taking the standpoint of "The Law"...but The Law is not always right--
My points of discussion are related to MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
I am pro legalization, but that is ANOTHER TOPIC.
I do not support legalization veiled through the exploitation of MMJ patients and laws written for them.
Is that to hard to understand? Really???
I am pro legalization, but that is ANOTHER TOPIC.
I do not support legalization veiled through the exploitation of MMJ patients and laws written for them.
Is that to hard to understand? Really???
gloat
–verb (used without object)
1. to look at or think about with great or excessive, often smug or malicious, satisfaction: The opposing team gloated over our bad luck.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
Try using the link for proper application of verbiage.
–verb (used without object)
1. to look at or think about with great or excessive, often smug or malicious, satisfaction: The opposing team gloated over our bad luck.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
Try using the link for proper application of verbiage.
Yeah it is...since all use is Medical...in my opinion--
And vise versa--
Did you understand that ^^^?
Ok..I am going to be as plain as possible here...You, and BD seem to take extraordinary joy in posting things that are subject to interpretation as is they were written in stone...but it is on the OTHER side--
I think it is safe to say that most of the serious Posters here, understand what the Law says...actually, some of them have helped to write them--
But do you really think that any of us are just gonna curl up and lick our nuts??
Laws are traditionally subject to interpretation...and I simply do not understand your apparent stance of subjectivity to the Powers that Be--
It would be your belief that I take joy out of opposing most here. Don't you think it would be more beneficial and easier for me to go along with the gang and get along. Of course, it's easy to think I do since I have differing opinions, interpretations and ethics.
Either your with us or your against us is never a logical point; pro or con, democrat or republican--how about independent?
Exactly, the law is always up for interpretation. That is why there are different levels of court. They can't even agree.
I have a very neutral stance when I analyze and interpret the law. It seems that nearly everyone here wants it to be there way, their ideological way. They put their ideological biased and wishful views into their interpretations. I put that aside even though I am pro medical marijuana and pro recreational legalization. That is what drive "you guys" crazy. You just can't understand that position.
I have already done the very thing that is all the rage in this debate. When I opened 4 years ago, there wasn't 4 years of new case law as there is now. Talk about gray back then. The range for interpretation in much much narrower now. Back then I would have argued the laws supported sales back then. But, now they just do not as written and opined, ideals aside. I'm not going to jail because of my ideals.
Either your with us or your against us is never a logical point; pro or con, democrat or republican--how about independent?
Exactly, the law is always up for interpretation. That is why there are different levels of court. They can't even agree.
I have a very neutral stance when I analyze and interpret the law. It seems that nearly everyone here wants it to be there way, their ideological way. They put their ideological biased and wishful views into their interpretations. I put that aside even though I am pro medical marijuana and pro recreational legalization. That is what drive "you guys" crazy. You just can't understand that position.
I have already done the very thing that is all the rage in this debate. When I opened 4 years ago, there wasn't 4 years of new case law as there is now. Talk about gray back then. The range for interpretation in much much narrower now. Back then I would have argued the laws supported sales back then. But, now they just do not as written and opined, ideals aside. I'm not going to jail because of my ideals.
And, when I offer interpretation I usually provide sound logical reasoning for said interpretation and citations to other logical analysis, usually, from case law, the AG, etc. I can't say the same for the majority here. It's all opinionated rhetoric and ideology.
What gets me is that these debates get going with citations in support to the very laws that are claimed to be wrong and naturally unlawful. If they are so, why even cite them or pay any attention to them. Why use them to prove points if there should be no laws regarding MJ. Then fuck the laws and disregard them completely.
After said persons run out of any applicable law citations to prove their points, they always resort to ideological views. All MJ use is medicinal or everyone should be able to use MJ and it should be legal.
Then why even start a debate regarding anything about the law????????????????????
What gets me is that these debates get going with citations in support to the very laws that are claimed to be wrong and naturally unlawful. If they are so, why even cite them or pay any attention to them. Why use them to prove points if there should be no laws regarding MJ. Then fuck the laws and disregard them completely.
After said persons run out of any applicable law citations to prove their points, they always resort to ideological views. All MJ use is medicinal or everyone should be able to use MJ and it should be legal.
Then why even start a debate regarding anything about the law????????????????????
B
Blue Dot
The other side of who? you?
Some of us here feel that 215 is just fine and there is no need to go ballistic on the legal system.
Not everyone here is a 'mersh grower.
There are some who like pot, grow a little and are content.
I get it that my ideals threaten your livelyhood. So what?
B
Blue Dot
Pro or con MEDICAL legalization or pro or con Recreational legalization?
Which is it kmk420kali?
How can they be the same if some are sick and some aren't??????????????
