LA pot law draft would set no limits

[JackTheGrower]

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.

Having spoken with FredomFGTR I have to back up what he said up. I believe he has a natural ability in this area.

Tempering the sword is good advice for you FF on a couple levels and for all of us.

Now that I had the chance to hear you talk I now get your writing style and I need to cut you more slack..

Not that we all don't have things to learn..

So in light of your consistent efforts to aid us in learning that we can! I offer my respect.

 

[JackTheGrower]

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.

LOL Since when do we all get along.. I kinda like the spirited discussion.

If anyone here is needing to read everything you all write it's me!

I'm so frustrated that I have considered going to the Board of Supervisors and ask them!

"Hello I'm ...... and I want to form a Medical Cannabis Collective where do I start... "

That should be interesting...

 

[toohighmf]

Maybe allow the dispensaries to contract with private growers for the supply. If allowing only on site grows there will be violent robberies at each one. Better to have inconspicuous contractors supplying the product.

Why can't a not for profit org "hire" me to grow their meds for them at a high enough salary to keep You the not for profit corp and ME the grower happy? As for safety, I think that the meds should be grown in a remote off site location with the highest, or strictest forms of security. Rent me a warehouse, sign the utilities to your NFP corp, buy me some gear, pay me the salary cap, and bam... we got 200 lights of 50 different strains comin down every week. give me sick pay and vacations+ some healthy bonuses and I am happy to get payed a salary and report my income & pay taxes for doing what I love. I have been running commercial for years. I even opened a shop downtown because I knew I wasnt the only big fish in town. unfortunately My competitor and myself were both violently robbed. And thats the real issue with L.A. We got cholos, bloods, homeless crackheads, pimps, balllers all trying to rob you. I want to feel safe and secure growing pot, particularly if I'm growing it for someone else.

 

[kmk420kali]

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.

Ok...just so you understand part of why I stand against this line of thinking, I am closely associated with (But not an Owner, just to be clear) a Dispensary that is formally opening tomorrow...with full disclosure to, and full backing of the City Counsel, to operate and sell Cannabis-- Just to be straight, I am not pretending to be an operator, and I am simply helping with set up, so I do not know all the legalities of it...tho as I find out I will post...but I do know that it has been over a year of paperwork and meetings with City Officials to make this happen-- His Lawyer is confident that he is good to go, and in full compliance--
So no, I do not believe that all sales are illegal--
My argument has basically been that it is NOT a clear cut thing when it comes to sales--
Also, I know my style of writing can often be misinterpreted as hostile....sorry about that...I really am not-- I just write the way I talk....bluntly-- So no hate intended....I actually enjoy these debates mostly, and appreciate the knowledge that I do gain....Thanks--

 

[richyrich]

kmk

No worries, I have thick skin, lol. Watch, things will be changing and evolving more quickly, soon I predict. There are a lot of MMJ related cases lined up. Hey, I wish your friends place the best.

 

[johnnyla]

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?

hey couldn't find the thread where you asked me where SB420 exempts legal cannabis patients from H&S codes against selling but here it is. SB420 patients cannot be charged for growing, selling, possesing cannabis solely based on their medical use.


patients who associate together. i don't associate with non patients in cannabis related matters.

so go fuck yourself.

""11362.775. Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570."

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

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.

Cool thanks its nice to see someone else show how they did it.

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.

Neither did I. Infact I wrote the thread... twice... had to bring it back by popular demand.

Incorporated Non-Profit May 16, 2005

Why is your specific purpose so vague? Doesn't seem to specific to me. Whereas the specific purpose for California Cannabis Inc. is very descriptive and to the point to state which activities we are specifically engaged.

Its a transparency issue. Which seems to have become a government priority lately.

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.

That is pretty cool too. Except for there is a problem. There is no mention in prop 215 of collectives and dispensaries. But thats just semantics.

However the business description for California Cannabis is technically more accurate and legal.

Non Profit Collective of Seriously Ill Patients

It is fully accurate and more legal as the AG guidelines and specifically SB 420 require entities that sell weed to be non profit.

Secondly These are required to be collective or cooperative ventures per SB 420

And being a seriously ill patient is specifically who prop 215 authorizes to have access to mmj.

Seller's Permit
I received this before the Board of Equalization even decided that MMJ was to be taxed.

See the thing is that I told them I was selling weed. No lies or deception. Full 100% transparency.

Does this give me enough authority to speak from?

It does show that you have the experience in filing the right paperwork. But thats about it. Liek I pointed out what you have said is vague and not specific. Thats the difference, and thats why I can sell weed.

You went on quite a bit about yourself. Let's not forget that I, also, built, opened and managed a dispensary.

Well congratuations man! So how is it doing? hrmmm nevermind I already know...

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2753479

Corporation [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] NATURES WAY COMPASSION GROUP [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Number: C2753479 [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Date Filed: 5/16/2005 [/FONT] Status: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] dissolved [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Jurisdiction: California[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Address [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1111 S PACIFIC AVE[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]SAN PEDRO, CA 90731[/FONT]
Seeing that your business is dissolved it shows that you truely lack the ability and knowledge to operate succesfully in this area, and if it's not that then it's a lack of dedication.

Oh, and I'm in law school if you missed that in a post some back.

Great another shitty lawyer to screw over clients...
I say this because your focus on the mentch case shows that. It's pretty simple to see the case law development in California and how they relate. But then again I'm not a lawyer, don't need to be because I use them for my needs.

Some here probably can't conceive the idea that I owned a D, especially, since I rub against the grain in these threads.

OWNED being the keyword.

Do my documents above make it legal for me to sell MMJ? NO THEY DO NOT.

Exactly they don't because your company is dissolved.

Your friend attorneys and others are just another person with an interpretation such as mine and yours.

Really? thats why she is a current member of the California State Bar association and works for the California AG's office. Ultimately it's the AG's interpretation of the law that matters the most, because they choose who to prosecute.

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.

Mentch doesn't mean shit because I'm not a caregiver, I'm the President of a non profit mutual benefit corporation, that operates collectively for the benefit of its members.

 

[richyrich]

Cool thanks its nice to see someone else show how they did it.



Neither did I. Infact I wrote the thread... twice... had to bring it back by popular demand.


Why is your specific purpose so vague? Doesn't seem to specific to me. Whereas the specific purpose for California Cannabis Inc. is very descriptive and to the point to state which activities we are specifically engaged.

I never stated my articles were specific. My LA Business License (tax permit) was. I didn't care to be clear on my articles with the Secretary of State because they have no authority concerning enforcement of the law regarding "sales" as you still think they do. Because you were clear with The Secretary of State does no make you de facto legal to sell MMJ as you continue to imply. Go sell in right now with full transparency in front of the fuzz and get hauled to court and then let us see what happens to you when you say the Secretary of State authorized me.

Its a transparency issue. Which seems to have become a government priority lately.



That is pretty cool too. Except for there is a problem. There is no mention in prop 215 of collectives and dispensaries. But thats just semantics.

However the business description for California Cannabis is technically more accurate and legal.

Yes, it is, but over 4 years ago was another world out there.

Non Profit Collective of Seriously Ill Patients

It is fully accurate and more legal as the AG guidelines and specifically SB 420 require entities that sell weed to be non profit.

Secondly These are required to be collective or cooperative ventures per SB 420

And being a seriously ill patient is specifically who prop 215 authorizes to have access to mmj.




See the thing is that I told them I was selling weed. No lies or deception. Full 100% transparency.


It does show that you have the experience in filing the right paperwork. But thats about it. Liek I pointed out what you have said is vague and not specific. Thats the difference, and thats why I can sell weed.

The Secretary of State does not make you de facto legal to sell weed.

Well congratuations man! So how is it doing? hrmmm nevermind I already know...

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2753479

Corporation [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] NATURES WAY COMPASSION GROUP [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Number: C2753479 [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Date Filed: 5/16/2005 [/FONT] Status: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] dissolved [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Jurisdiction: California[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Address [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1111 S PACIFIC AVE[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]SAN PEDRO, CA 90731[/FONT]
Seeing that your business is dissolved it shows that you truely lack the ability and knowledge to operate succesfully in this area, and if it's not that then it's a lack of dedication.

You think you can discredit anything I have to say by pointing out that I dissolved the non-profit. Pretty, pathetic. I sold the spot, so your speculation right above is out the door. That was rather lame on your part.

Great another shitty lawyer to screw over clients...
I say this because your focus on the mentch case shows that. It's pretty simple to see the case law development in California and how they relate. But then again I'm not a lawyer, don't need to be because I use them for my needs.

Who said I was going to practice criminal law? I see you like to make a lot of speculation. Is that your way of making yourself sound more correct by attempting to put down or discredit the other? Do I do that???


OWNED being the keyword.

"OWNED", what is your point? To make me look like a failure. Again, another lame attempt. Remember, I sold; so, what do you speculate now?

Exactly they don't because your company is dissolved.

Dissolved has nothing to do with it. What if it wasn't?

Really? thats why she is a current member of the California State Bar association and works for the California AG's office. Ultimately it's the AG's interpretation of the law that matters the most, because they choose who to prosecute.

Who cares who she is. It don't matter. ROFL, really, the AG chooses to who prosecute? Is the AG directing Bonnie Dumanis in San Diego? How about Cooley getting ready to go raid crazy in LA?

Mentch doesn't mean shit because I'm not a caregiver, I'm the President of a non profit mutual benefit corporation, that operates collectively for the benefit of its members.

Mentch speaks of sales and caregivers. Emphasis on SALES.

And who are your collective members? The people you deliver to? Nice delivery service there. Prove me wrong, but your paperwork looks like a facade to cover up your non-collective, straight delivery service business which would fall under Mentch and Hochanadel because you are outside the range of conduct to assert an affirmative defense under SB420.

Standing to be answered and corrected.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

The secretary of state is responsible for the administration of the Uniform Commercial Code, an act which provides for the uniform application of business contracts and practices across the United States, including the registration of liens on personal property. Hand in hand with this duty,the Secretary of State is responsible state trademark registration and for chartering businesses (usually including partnerships and corporations) that wish to operate within the state. Accordingly the secretary of state also maintains all records on business activities within the state. The secretary of state has actual wide-ranging regulatory authority over businesses as well.

In addition to business records, the secretary of state's office is the primary repository of official records. This includes the official copies of state documents including the actual official copy of the state constitution, formal copies of legislative acts enacted into law, executive orders issued by the governor, and regulations and interpretations of statutes issued by state regulatory agencies.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Oh and that was paraphrased from Wests Encyclopedia of American Law.

 

[richyrich]

The state's secretary of state is just like the counties clerk-registrar. Again, what official authority do they give you derived from their filing of your articles of incorporation. I would really appreciate seeing some citations to any California Codes (laws) that state they have this authority to grant you.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Here is an idea... why dont you just use one of these numbers. Please tell them that
Keith C. Kimber II is distributing marijuana to people with doctors recommendations. Please tell them that I am only using the law as a shield.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/bne/contact.php

State of California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement

Sacramento
3046 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 1
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone: (916) 464-2030
Fax: (916) 464-2058

 

[johnnyla]

looks like FF put his balls on RR and BD's chins.

would those be chin nuts?

FF: as long as you are all medical patients you are not in violation of any H&S codes, but of course you know that.

Your website is sick bro!!!! I can't believe i didn't look at that before. That's the true model of how it should be done. Mad props.

 

[richyrich]

The state's secretary of state is just like the counties clerk-registrar. Again, what official authority do they give you derived from their filing of your articles of incorporation. I would really appreciate seeing some citations to any California Codes (laws) that state they have this authority to grant you.

^^^ Because you can't. Nice red herring attempt.

Don't you mean "selling" and not "distributing?"

You have been touting "selling" all along. Which is it, selling or distributing? The two words have distinct perceived differences.

 

[richyrich]

How about you answer and respond to my post #68. You are selective and dodgy, aren't you?

 

[richyrich]

I had to bring this over from the DC thread. So, sure you were. Your interpretations and reasoning = questionable?????????????

What were you thinking?

OMG THIS IS SO FUCKING AWESOME!!!! WOOHOO!!! WOOOHOOO!!! WOOHHOO!O!!OH!HO!H!OHOhdashnfasdhnfkl/sdagasdjkgbadfjk;n

OH man!

Its legal!
Its legal!
IT'S MOTHERFUCKING LEGAL!

OH YEAH BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!

DC is the Federal City. It's laws are Federal Laws. Congress by passing Medical Marijuana for DC has specifically stated that Marijuana has accepted medical use.

Too late, I've been standing in the doorway for months now, door firmly against my rump.

People are moving out of CA. Christ it's simply amazing that the gov't that elected Marion Barry is more competent than the State of California.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not true at all. DC has home rule (sort of), and the laws that the initiative exempts are DC laws. This is entirely equivalent to Prop 215. Federal laws will still be in full force in DC just like they are in CA and the rest of the states. Congress didn't pass these laws for the District, the voters did. Congress is just allowing DC to implement the law.

Hrmm thanks for the correction, its nice to learn something new.

However though with congress allowing the implementation it is still congress recognizing a valid medical use for weed.

 

[kmk420kali]

Here is the latest Draft....
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-0923_rpt_atty_12-9-09.pdf

6. No collective shall operate for profit. Cash and in-kind contributions.
reimbursements, and reasonable compensation provided by members towards
the collective's actual expenses of the growth. cultivation, and provision of
medical marijuana shall be allowed provided that they are in strict compliance with State Law. All such cash and in-kind amounts and items shall be fully
documented in accordance with Section 45.19.604 of this article;

"Reasonable compensation." Compensation commensurate with
reasonable wages and benefits paid to employees of IRS-qualified non-profit
organizations who have similar job descriptions and duties, required level of
education and experience, prior individual earnings history, and number of hours
worked. The payment of a bonus shall not be considered "reasonable
compensation ."

 

[johnnyla]

do they have to grow their own meds onsight?

 

[kmk420kali]

do they have to grow their own meds onsight?

I don't think they ever said it all had to be grown on site...just that they could only get medicine that was grown by Members of the Collective--

 

[richyrich]

Here is the latest Draft....
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-0923_rpt_atty_12-9-09.pdf

Thanks for posting this. Been waiting to read it.