Jan 24
The California Supreme Court has granted Certiori as to the Pack and Inland Empire cases both of which were negative holdings for the patients of California. The former effects of the cases were to permit cities to ban storefront dispensaries (Inland Empire) and to prevent cities from affirmative regulation of the industry (Pack).
Time will tell whether the Supreme Court will move the pendulum towards further patients rights or not…but indications are good….
Dec 8
This segment of our 420lawoffice radio show has a new introduction, plus the complete 5/11 interview with the history present and future of the great medical marijuana conspiracy. Must know information…..
Oct 13
What about the “NEW FEDERAL CRACKDOWN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA?” It is definitely the question of the day, on the lips of patients, landlords, collective managers and city councils.
The inherent conflict of law that has always salted the medical marijuana issue has finally boiled over. Patients don’t know whether they should continue in collectives. But, why now? Why are we seeing a federal crackdown on medical cannabis in the states that permit it under their laws. Many legitimate patients, particularly those who can’t grow their own for various reasons, will wind up going to the black or grey market to get their cannabis. This is the law of unintended consequences.
In this same week we saw the Rand Corp. study recanted under Lysenko-style political pressure. Hopefully Rand will not be bullied, but will do a full blown study and truly help stop this unfairness, dishonesty, duplicity and lack of compassion.
Did anyone in government read the 9th and 10th amendments of the constitution? Listen to Michael Badnarik interviewed on Alex Jones, and consider whether the federal government’s crackdown on medical marijuana is legal under the constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Oct 10
The federal government is making it clear: it reserves the right to enforce the Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana uses in California in particular if they are near schools and sensitive uses with children, and if they permit on site consumption of medical marijuana.
Obviously this is a shade different than the original campaign and early presidential announcements of the Obama administration. Ironically, Ron Paul, a medical doctor and multi term congressman, and presidential candidate totally differs on the risks inherent in driving under the influence of marijuana…
Aug 29
Open letter to Governor Brown (if you feel the same, contact him, below)
1. SB 847 will make patients collectives that are established but within 600 feet of a residence, have to close. This ignores their pre-existing rights, stigmatizes patients, and reduces safe access.
2. AB 1300 will allow cities to ban dispensaries. This will make a patchwork of city rules, and it will lead to “small town thinking” and local rule of an item of state-wide concern that should be governed by state law, not small minds and their belief systems about medical marijuana.
Both of these lousy measures were written by DEMOCRATS (shame, shame) and both passed both houses of the state legislature. There is only one last ditch chance, the veto and the pocket veto.
Get involved, let’s send the message to the Gov: don’t sign these bills which clearly derogate from State rights!
Aug 9
Why you should never speak with police? Because even the innocent can be ensnared in prosecution…Enjoy this terrific lecture on the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States!
A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. Never! Watch the whole presentation, and learn…
Jul 25
As the new Cole Memorandum on medical marijuana federal law enforcement continues to sink in, it is notable that it specifically refers to the “caregiver” defense.
California law has permitted the caregiver defense since 1996, however, in the 2005 Mensch case, the California Supreme Court found that to properly raise the caregiver defense, the caregiver must have had an ongoing prior relationship with the patient in which the caregiver provides for the patient’s health, safety and/or housing. Merely reciting the word “caregiver” is of no legal effect, what is significant is the actual legal relationship of the patient and caregiver.
Since the Cole Memo specifically states that the caregiver defense will, along with the actions of sick patients, qualify for “lowest priority” in terms of the federal government’s enforcement expenditures of time and money, you could say that since the Cole Memorandum, the Caregiver Defense’s stock has gone up!
Stewart Richlin, Esq. is a California lawyer with over 25 years of experience in civil law. Having represented thousands of patients and hundreds of collectives, Mr. Richlin has been court-qualified as an expert in the field. Mr. Richlin’s “MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLEGE” is a one on one legal conference in his Hollywood office which includes a detailed analysis of FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL law on the topic; it includes a copy of his book on 420 law, the latest edition of which is just off the presses, and contains about 125 pages of materials to facilitate your mastery of the legal issues raised by medical marijuana rights in the State of California. Call us at 888-420-LAW-1 or locally at 323-540-4420.
Jul 13
MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: James M. Cole Deputy Attorney
SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use
Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department’s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use o f marijuana (the “Ogden Memo”).
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale o f marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source o f revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.
The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of…
[Memorandum for United States Attorneys Page 2 Subject: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions
Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use]
commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.
cc: Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC
Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Kevin L. Perkins Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations
[ You can see the memo at http://420lawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/guidance_regarding_medical_mariju.pdf ]
Jul 8
As promised, Mr. Eric Holder, US Attorney General, has delivered a restatement of federal enforcement policy for medical marijuana. As patients and their representatives have now had a bit of time to reflect on the new medical marijuana enforcement guidelines of the Federal government, the Cole memorandum, some glaring issues emerge.
In particular, the Los Angeles ordinance for medical marijuana seems to be going the wrong direction in that it calls for centralization of the mom and pop collectives. Simultaneously the Feds warn that large operations are a target for federal law enforcement. Well, contradiction and conflict are nothing new to the medical marijuana patients.
As to these New Federal Government Guidelines for Medical Marijuana Enforcement, please enjoy these video ruminations and Further Reflections by Stewart Richlin, Esq. of 420LawOffice.com.
You can see the memo at http://420lawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/guidance_regarding_medical_mariju.pdf
Jul 2
The federal government has announced its newest medical marijuana enforcement policy. The new federal guidance comes in the form of a medical marijuana memorandum, “The Cole Memorandum”.
Deputy US Attorney James Cole has set forth a restatement of the Obama administration’s enforcement policy on medical marijuana in the various states that have legalized the activity. Most importantly the memo reiterates that the reduced law enforcement priority on medical marijuana extends to individual patients and their caregivers, but not to groups, and in particular not to those who engage in sales or trafficking.
Notably, many of California’s sister-states have implemented “for profit” schema for medical cannabis. This seems to fly directly in the face of established law (the Controlled Substances Act) as well as the enforcement policy enunciated by Mr. Cole. And even in sunny California, where the legal defense of medical marijuana has always required only non-profit activity, ideas like the large scale grow operations contemplated last year for Oakland, are clearly on the outs. Under the language of the memorandum, even licensed dispensaries such as the approximately 200-1000 in Los Angeles (depending on whose numbers you trust) are not protected from federal enforcement. Sales and Cultivation are both federal felonies with serious consequences ranging from 5 to 20 to even more years in prison, fines from $250,000 to $1,000,000 plus, and forfeiture of property used or derived from the sale or cultivation. So, Caveat Emptor, and govern yourself accordingly. Try not to consider that the penalties for murder are less than these penalties for MARIJUANA….because it might make your head explode like the head in Total Recall.
Unfortunately, many patients can’t grow their own due to illness and other considerations, and some of them don’t have caregivers willing to risk felonies to help them. Without collectives, group activity, and readily available medicine, lots of patients would be unable to get medicine except on the black market, and that certainly isn’t an intended consequence of the current law, although it certainly occurs for many in California, not to mention the millions who must either break the law or forgo their physician-recommended medicine in the 33 remaining states in which there are no medical marijuana rights at all. Mr. Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, pre-announced the forthcoming Cole memorandum about three weeks ago.
You can see the memo at http://420lawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/guidance_regarding_medical_mariju.pdf
Jun 8
We sometimes need the larger elements of government to protect us from “mob rule.” We need state law to protect medical marijuana patients from the wrath of small minded local politicians and local special interest groups. The last thing patients want is for the State legislature to hand our hard fought medical marijuana rights over to the cities, but that’s exactly what this terrible bill will do.
AB 1300, by a democrat, Bob Blumenfeld, is poorly thought out and yet it passed with an overwhelming majority. Presumably the State Senate sister bill will pass as well, so we need to get the state senate aware of the problems with local rule. We need patients, collectives, NORML, ASA, etc. to wake up on this one!!!!!!!!
May 25
This is a one hour audio clip from RadioFetzer, in which Professor James H. Fetzer interviews Stewart Richlin, Esq. about Marijuana, Medical Marijuana, and the Marijuana Conspiracy.
Apr 9
Be sure to check out http://LA420suit.com for information on the upcoming challenge to the Lottery, and the other details in the new Los Angeles medical marijuana ordinance. If your collective has received a shut down letter, or if you are on the lottery list for less than 50% chance of staying open, either way you may want to join the challenge to the new Los Angeles medical marijuana ordinance. Stewart Richlin, Esq. and Graham Berry, Esq. worked for the last successful injunction won in December and have a proven track record. Contact 888-420-LAW-1 today to join the facial challenge to the Los Angeles medical marijuana ordinance, time is of the essence, don’t delay!
Apr 6
If your collective has been threatened with closure by the City of Los Angeles, STOP LOOK AND LISTEN you have a limited time to join the lawsuit against LA’s new ordinance…Listen to the detailed video from the same team that was instrumental in obtaining the December, 2010 injunction against LA’s old ordinance, Stewart Richlin, Esq. and Graham Berry, Esq.
Mar 12
The city, which seemed unable to maintain lists of collectives to notify them of any changes in upcoming rules or dates, had no trouble maintaining a database list in order to send “shut down” letters to 140 collectives this past week. These are collectives which tried to comply with the city’s mishmash of rules. The rogue collectives, those that never registered in any way with the city, remain unaffected, while those that dared tangle with the city and its web of confused rules, are now targeted for destruction.
What about the constitution and the right of free association? How can the City tell people that their State rights are null, that that have no right to associate with other patients of their choosing, cooperatively or collectively to cultivate, transport and distribute? And how can the City enact laws which POSITIVELY CONFLICT with federal law? (Note: medical marijuana does not positively conflict, per the San Diego v. Norml case. Decriminalization, per the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act does not conflict with Federal Law. Over-regulation by the City in fact does conflict with Federal Law. Ironically, Federal Law may be the best legal argument to de-fang the cities which have tried to regulate medical marijuana to death!)
420LawOffice.com is the internet home of medical marijuana lawyer Stewart Richlin, Esq. Contact our office on March 14 or 15 to get details on our upcoming no-charge Legal Strategy Meeting for collectives being shut down by Los Angeles.
Feb 10
When you read the form ( See http://cityclerk.lacity.org/ ) and then read it together with Ordinance No. 181530, Effective 01-28-2011 (LINKS FOR THE form and this ordinance are at the city clerk’s website for download), you realize you need to order a Certificate of Good Standing for your corp, which needs to come from Sacramento and takes weeks by mail. You need an attorney to rush order a copy, and to counsel you with regard to the Lottery Form because it is fraught with dangerous traps and tricky questions! Why would City Council continue to make safe access a problem for LA patients?
Feb 4
As a medical marijuana lawyer, I am always doing my best to keep you up with developments, and now under the new Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Ordinance as amended, there is a new form called and INTENT TO REGISTER form which must be filed by every collective that wishes to remain open and participate in the planned Lottery. The form is available at http://tinyurl.com/420Intent or you can get it from the City’s website.
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 .
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.
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
——————–
____________________________
____________________________
