Archive for January, 2011

Los Angeles City Council Tries to Adapt to Judge’s Medical Marijuana Ruling with Lottery: Bad Idea

Author: admin

Jan 21

Imagine graduating physicians by lottery instead of by their merit and performance, or imagine lawyers passing the bar by lottery, or restaurants granted ‘A’ ratings by lottery. Foolish? Of Course, yet that is the solution that city council have come up with for medical marijuana collective regulation in the city. I am Stewart Richlin, one of the medical marijuana lawyers that worked to obtain the recent injunction against the Los Angeles Ordinance in the Court of Hon. Anthony J. Mohr.

I am really hoping that clearer heads will prevail, but it looks like the city has cast its lot with a lottery concept. Although on the surface it seems fair to use a lottery system to adjudicate between equally situated claimants to a limited number of positions, there are quite a few assumptions to deconstruct in the City’s lottery solution. First off, the collectives are not equally situated, either in terms of their current location, and zonability (proximity to sensitive uses), or their various indicia of compliance with California medial marijuana law. So, lottery is not a reasonable solution since it may lead to the least qualified being permitted to stay open, and the reverse, just due to luck of the draw.

Furthermore the notion that there should be a limited number of collectives itself questionable on a number of grounds, firstly, such legislation is not consistent with supply and demand. If there are too many collectives for the patient demand, the law of supply and demand will dictate that the less successful collectives will close and the natural selection of the marketplace will lead to a moderate concentration of quality centers, that have passed the test of time and patient loyalty. But since the law in California holds that patients may cooperatively or collectively cultivate, transport, and distribute marijuana among their patient members (Cal. Attorney General’s Guidelines, Page 8, section IV (A) 2 and Page 10 section IV (B) 7).  Secondly, the basic notion of freedom of association as interpreted in the US Constitutional landmark case of NAACP v Alabama should be extended to the notion that patients should be free to associate freely and select the individuals with which they wish to collectively cultivate, transport and distribute medical marijuana.  Thus, and since the State law empowering patients can easily be destroyed by being regulated to death by NIMBY.

There are many further issues in the ordinance, rather than a piecemeal approach, the city must get to the table with the representatives of the patients and collectives so a constructive meeting of the needs of the various parties can be struck.  Otherwise, the litigation goes on as the piecemeal editing and patching of a hopelessly flawed ordinance continues.

If you have a collective affected by the City of Los Angeles’ regulatory history and you desire legal services, I would be glad to be of service, just give our office a call at 888-420-LAW-1 .

3 Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged as: , , , , , ,

Los Angeles City Council wants New Medical Marijuana Ordinance

Author: admin

Jan 12

This evening city council voted to task the city attorney with rewriting the medical marijuana ordinance, presumably to be consistent with the findings of Hon. Judge Anthony J. Mohr in his ruling granting an injunction to the plaintiff medical marijuana collectives. Will the third time be a charm? Doubt it for some reason.

We need the city to confer with the patients and collectives to create a good solution but I’m not sure they are ready to sit down with us. In the last hearing Colleen Courtney, city attorney, rather than focus on substance, resorted to ad hominem attacks…”they’re all illegal” and personal job complaints about “staying up all night working” and “not being paid well”. Unfortunate comments from the prosecutor-mentality dominated city attorneys office. It is left unmentioned that their payoff is later as they attempt to rise to higher office and political power, in this case by creating political hay out of demonizing a minority whose rights are clearly protected under California law. Here is a video about it from medical marijuana lawyer Stewart Richlin, Esq.

0 Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged as: , , , ,

Judge Upholds Injunction against Los Angeles, Sets Bond Amount, Refuses LA’s request to Stay or Reinterpret his Decision

Author: admin

Jan 11

As the LA Times recounts, “Stewart Richlin, who represents eight dispensaries, likened it to splitting up a bar tab. ”
‘It’s going to be tricky, and it might be the death knell of the injunction as it is,’ he said. But he said that even without an injunction in place, the city would still be stuck with Mohr’s conclusions. ‘They can enforce their unconstitutional ordinance, but what luck will they have in front of any judge doing so?’ he asked.”

The hearing was replete with the usual legal advocacy that characterizes our adversarial system. The city attorneys on one side, the lawyers for the medical marijuana collectives on the other. In this case the collectives are plaintiffs, and they have successfully obtained an injunction against the Los Angeles ordinance for medicinal cannabis. “Richlin has been an outstanding advocate for medical marijuana collectives and a leader in the seven or so oral arguments we have seen over the last six months culminating in the recent injunction against the City,” said a courtroom observer for the collectives. Mr. Richlin’s website is 420LawOffice .

The full Los Angeles Times coverage of the hearing is published here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medical-marijuana-20110111,0,401331.story and the article is cut and pasted below for your reference:

——————–
Medical pot shops must post $350,000 to get injunction
A judge ruled in their favor last month, finding several parts of Los Angeles’ ordinance unconstitutional. The injunction will take effect if they post the bond within 10 days.

By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times

January 11, 2011

The Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensaries that won an injunction blocking enforcement of key parts of the city’s pot ordinance must post a nearly $350,000 bond within 10 days for the court order to take effect, a judge ruled Monday.

David Welch, an attorney who represents many dispensaries, said he was confident the bond would be posted. “It’s a sizable bond, but it’s not insurmountable,” he said. “It’s our intent to go forward.”

Almost 50 dispensaries and operators asked for the injunction, which Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr issued last month. Mohr ruled that several parts of the law are unconstitutional, including the complex process the city intended to use to decide which dispensaries would be allowed.

City lawyers are now working with the City Council to develop an alternative method for culling the number of dispensaries, but also plan to appeal Mohr’s ruling.

Lawyers for the dispensaries had urged the judge at a hearing Friday to set no bond, saying the city would not suffer any harm from the injunction. But the city’s attorneys pressed for a $1-million bond, saying that closed pot stores are now returning to business and new ones are popping up.

“Dispensaries are opening with abandon,” said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney. “I can tell you from the volume and intensity of the phone calls that we’re receiving and e-mails from the neighborhoods that the court has far underestimated the damage.”

The judge set the bond at $348,102.30, based partly on the city’s estimates of the cost of police investigations and attorneys’ fees. He indicated that he would consider increasing the amount if the city can show that his injunction led to higher costs, or if more plaintiffs are added.

Attorneys for the dispensaries differed over how easy it would be to come up with the bond money. They had pressed the judge Friday and in letters sent Monday to set separate bonds for each plaintiff, but Mohr sided with city attorneys and ordered a single bond.

Stewart Richlin, who represents eight dispensaries, likened it to splitting up a bar tab. “It’s going to be tricky, and it might be the death knell of the injunction as it is,” he said. But he said that even without an injunction in place, the city would still be stuck with Mohr’s conclusions. “They can enforce their unconstitutional ordinance, but what luck will they have in front of any judge doing so?” he asked.

john.hoeffel@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
——————–

1 Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged as: , , , , ,

Victory for Medical Marijuana Lawyer Stewart Richlin: Los Angeles Judge Upholds Injunction against the City

Author: admin

Jan 7

Judge Anthony Mohr, Los Angeles Superior Court, has again today mpartially meted out justice, ie a further victory for medical marijuana patients and their collectives in Los Angeles. Lawyer Stewart Richlin who represents eight of the plaintiff collectives awarded an injunction, was pleased with the result: “The city attorney noticed an add-on to our normal bond hearing, literally just before new years’ vacation, on emergency or ex-parte notice, in the middle of the only down time for most lawyers. I wrote and objected to the short notice.

“The city attorney refused to present the motion on normal notice, which is about three weeks’ notice, so we spent new years analyzing their emergency papers and drafting considerable paperwork in opposition. In a nutshell, the city was trying to get the judge to stay or freeze the effective date of his ruling for 45 days or more. This would make no sense as it would permit the city to continue to do something unconstitutional to our clients, despite a judge’s determination that it was unconstitutional. Of course such an order would be unconstitutional, in a moebius strip of wrong. The City also wanted the judge to “clarify” his order by “legislating from the bench” or making “advisory opinions” which the judge, cognisant of the constitution and the separation of powers, declined to do in the end.

We objected to declarations presented by the City as they were fraught with hearsay and unsubstantiated conclusions; it was the usual reefer madness stuff. In the end their strategy failed, the declarations didn’t sway the judge to stay the effective date of the injunction against the city, nor to clarify the order, and he took the bond matter under advisement for ruling by email. The emergency ruling was for naught and another vacation was spent increasing myopia instead of decompressing. But winning has its own rewards. So we and our clients can gloat, for a day, and then back to work…”

1 Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged as: , , , , ,

Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ban discussed at “Uneventful” City Council Meeting in Los Angeles

Author: admin

Jan 4

Los Angeles City Council met today to discuss the future of medical cannabis collectives in Los Angeles. In what appears to me, medical marijuana attorney Stewart Richlin, a bit of sour grapes, having had an injunction granted against the existing L.A. ordinance, because it was not a perfectly thought out bit of legislation to say the least, now members of city council have made a motion to ban dispensaries (and collectives? are City Council immune to reading SB420?) entirely. This seems misguided and will fail again: my prediction, the judicial branch won’t allow a ban, only reasonable regulations. Until the City gets this they will certainly have lots of lawsuits and claims for money damages on their hands.

Thus far, the Council has been largely ineffective at crafting legal, consistent and fair rules to govern the topic, and this author hopes that the City might consider convening a real working committee comprised of residents, patient advocates, the departments of planning, and health and safety, and the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit that have successfully presented the case for injunction. This would put all of the most knowledgeable people at the same table, and would probably save lots of money and grief for all concerned, in the crafting of a new ordinance, with adaptations and clarifications based on the litigation and the input of the patients and the city departments.

The Council took public comment and then considered the matter in closed session.

Those of you that have been participating in the hearings over the years have seen that the patients and collectives have patiently attended dozens of hearings in mass numbers to present their cases, only to be given a minute, and then ignored anyway. Attrition has occurred and we don’t see the mass numbers we did in the earlier days of the movement, however thank goodness for the steadfast including Dege Coutee, who attended on behalf of CannabisSavesLives.com and her nonprofit 501(c)(3) patients’ advocacy group. This author hopes to get more details from Dege soon for another post or possibly an interview for this Thursday night’s radio show, catch it at http://420lawoffice.com . In the future, patients and collectives of LA, you gotta roll out and speak, write, yell, chat, tweet, and get organized. Let’s MegWhitman every anti-420 politicians, shall we?

5 Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized