abe supercro
Well-Known Member
commercial grows ypsi wld be a guess.
City ordinance = Inspections?!
- Thread starter jamiesname
- Start date
GregS
Well-Known Member
Commercial grows are fair game under the law, and the law is enforced against them under state, rather than municipal law. These ordinances invade patient and caregiver protections, and do not, at least typically, address commercial ventures. Municipalities can restrict commercial operations, but the law requires they leave us the hell alone. Inspections under municipal safety codes, e.g., plumbing and electrical... are entirely legitimate. Inspections for the purpose of regulating patients and caregivers in their medical use of marijuana are not.
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
homeless use to say, "stay the f*** out of my garden", he probably does still say that too.
GregS
Well-Known Member
And I can't agree more.
PaxEtBonum
Member
Did you read it? You spend a lot of time drafting and editing legislation? Please read it again.
"State and local legislators[SUP][86][/SUP] and judges[SUP][87][/SUP] are protected by absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacity for damages or injunctive relief, while prosecutors[SUP][88][/SUP] are entitled to absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacities for damages only. In any event, as discussed above, all individual capacity defendants are, at a minimum, entitled to qualified immunity."
GregS
Well-Known Member
Point taken. Shhh. Don't tell them. There are nonetheless other workable approaches, and that issue was brought up before the Saginaw Council. In public testimony we are not sworn, and can get a little, shall we say, inventive with our arguments. Between that and other arguments, the proposal was immediately tabled even though it was scheduled for a vote at that meeting. If you are up to speed with the process you might understand. We later went into head to head talks with some council members, who didn't know whether to shit or go blind. In the end they decided to take the simple approach and do nothing. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than right, or good.
BTW. There is this too: [FONT=&]States and state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court,[SUP][64][/SUP] but local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability.[SUP][65][/SUP] Further, state law sovereign immunity and state law limitations on damages do not protect local governments from liability under section 1983,[SUP][66[/SUP][/FONT]
It is at least enough to give them pause, letting them know we are interested in their bank accounts, and likely a viable option to sue. According to that law, local hayseeds just ain't ready for the big show.
Soo. Are you inclined and capable to pull together an organized effort? By all means, knock yourself out. I'd be glad to see it even if it proves no more than an amusing clown act. There are others who like the shout 'n pout method. You might like to meet Joe Cain. It just ain't my style.
I am and have been working with the issue. Just prior to the grant of leave to appeal by the SC in Ter Beek, a number of us were locked and loaded and on the firing line and ready to squeeze off the first round in an initiative to shut down Flushing's ordinance in the first move to shut the damn things down across the state. Correspondence had been drafted, postage applied, and I had assembled a volunteer legal bar to help work the negotiations and lend some gravitas. The day that first correspondence was to go out the news came out about the appeal. Until it is heard we are treading water. When the opinion is issued we will know which direction to take, and aim to go after the scores of ordinances and moratoria around the state when they fail to rescind those ordinances, presuming they will be nixed and which can be expected. If not we will do whatever is necessary.
And we will laugh.
BTW. There is this too: [FONT=&]States and state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court,[SUP][64][/SUP] but local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability.[SUP][65][/SUP] Further, state law sovereign immunity and state law limitations on damages do not protect local governments from liability under section 1983,[SUP][66[/SUP][/FONT]
It is at least enough to give them pause, letting them know we are interested in their bank accounts, and likely a viable option to sue. According to that law, local hayseeds just ain't ready for the big show.
Soo. Are you inclined and capable to pull together an organized effort? By all means, knock yourself out. I'd be glad to see it even if it proves no more than an amusing clown act. There are others who like the shout 'n pout method. You might like to meet Joe Cain. It just ain't my style.
I am and have been working with the issue. Just prior to the grant of leave to appeal by the SC in Ter Beek, a number of us were locked and loaded and on the firing line and ready to squeeze off the first round in an initiative to shut down Flushing's ordinance in the first move to shut the damn things down across the state. Correspondence had been drafted, postage applied, and I had assembled a volunteer legal bar to help work the negotiations and lend some gravitas. The day that first correspondence was to go out the news came out about the appeal. Until it is heard we are treading water. When the opinion is issued we will know which direction to take, and aim to go after the scores of ordinances and moratoria around the state when they fail to rescind those ordinances, presuming they will be nixed and which can be expected. If not we will do whatever is necessary.
And we will laugh.
NurseNancy420
Well-Known Member
Take aim at Ludington. They all have bucko's to fill our war chest.
One of the cousins,a registered caregiver, is there now. Very obviously hiding his grow
and not following any of their silly rules.
Remote cameras. Locks. Fences.
All for his heritage tomatoes......lol
One of the cousins,a registered caregiver, is there now. Very obviously hiding his grow
and not following any of their silly rules.Remote cameras. Locks. Fences.
All for his heritage tomatoes......lol
GregS
Well-Known Member
These ordinances always carry penalties for non compliance. So we don't comply. The MMMA says they cannot penalize us. The ordinances are void and unenforceable. Read the COA opinion in Ter Beek.
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
But what would happen when they REFUSE that inspection? That is where your penalty comes in. The mere fact of the threat of penalty is the begining.
I will add that just because the cities do not have a legal standing does not mean that they wont try, as you can see....... I agree that patients and caregivers in these communities have got to fight these things. But when it comes down to it they do not have the LEGAL standing to stop a caregiver from doing what the MMMA says they can do.
And I agree STAY THE FUCKKKKKKK OUT OF MY GARDEN