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?
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 .
____________________________
____________________________
