What Is Needed To Open A Dispensary In G.r

[J4T]

There are three in G.R that have been open for at least a year that I know of !

 

All three are in Cascade Twp. a suburb of GR and I believe feds have visited at least one of those stores. am still surprised Kent County prosecutor has left them alone. Waiting on supreme's ruling no doubt.

[Juan Roberto]

Cops have cards. ...

 

This just blows me away-- Isn't that considered fraud, fabricating an MM card? Especially for the purpose of entrapment?

 

(BTW--Hi, everyone! Grower/provider in southern Shiawassee County)

Edited December 3, 2012 by Juan Roberto

[bobandtorey]

 

 

This just blows me away-- Isn't that considered fraud, fabricating an MM card? Especially for the purpose of entrapment?

 

(BTW--Hi, everyone! Grower/provider in southern Shiawassee County)

 

We all were thinking the same as you it had to be some kind of entrapment

And when it got in front of the judge the Leo even got up on the stand and testified that he even had a fake picture in is wallet of a fake family and the judge said it was OK

[Juan Roberto]

*moot post*

Edited December 3, 2012 by Juan Roberto

[Highlander]

This just blows me away-- Isn't that considered fraud, fabricating an MM card? Especially for the purpose of entrapment?

 

(BTW--Hi, everyone! Grower/provider in southern Shiawassee County)

 

You don't think any cops actually qualify for a card? Why do you assume a cop would need to make a fake card?

[Juan Roberto]

Highlander:

I guess you're right. That was a poor assumption on my part.

 

I have read elsewhere (whether true or not) that police had indeed faked MM IDs, and assumed that was what Restorium2 had meant--that the IDs had been faked.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Juan Roberto

[bobandtorey]

Highlander:

I guess you're right. That was a poor assumption on my part.

 

I have read elsewhere (whether true or not) that police had indeed faked MM IDs, and assumed that was what Restorium2 had meant--that the IDs had been faked.

 

Yes they were fake cards they used them to buy Med's they were using them all over the State at that time so who knows if they still are

[Juan Roberto]

Yes they were fake cards they used them to buy Med's they were using them all over the State at that time so who knows if they still are

 

Did the judge (or has anyone, for that matter) ever clarify why it was okay to use fake IDs?

[Juan Roberto]

So the ones that are open now without any problems are just run with big balls and alot of money for attorney's

 

From talking with a dispensary owner in Flint (where I had to go when I first got my card), the ones in Flint are operating under the consent of the local government and law enforcement; though the City has issued a moratorium on any new dispensaries opening until the State makes a ruling one way or the other. I wonder if the ones in Grand Rapids are operating, still, because they had asked for consent originally and are -- in a way -- grand-fathered in until a ruling comes down.

[t-pain]

the cops used fake ids in the past.

there is a recent case that hit the CoA where the cops got mmj recs, applied, and recieved real cards.

 

the fake id cases should be entrapment. i havent heard what happened to those cases.

[peanutbutter]

I must say .. the cops with the fake IDs ..

 

They send in a young hot one at first. They hope to get you thinking with the wrong head. I'd have failed the test, for sure.

 

As for what it takes .. being a part of the good ol' boy network helps. A lot!!

 

So .. if your family has been on the inside of local politics for a few decades, you might be good to go.

 

Back to "it's not what you know, but who you know."

Edited December 3, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

the cops used fake ids in the past.

there is a recent case that hit the CoA where the cops got mmj recs, applied, and recieved real cards.

 

the fake id cases should be entrapment. i havent heard what happened to those cases.

Entrapment is when you induce someone to commit a crime that they wouldn't likely have committed were you not involved. The only way using a fake card is entrapment would be if the defendant were charged with selling to a non-patient (someone with a fake card). I don't believe that the position is being taken that someone was selling to someone NOT allowed to use mm. I think that the position is that someone is selling to someone who isn't THEIR patient (connected throught he registry). The seller knows that they aren't selling to one of the seller's 5 patients. Therefore, entrapment isn't an issue.

 

To illustrate this more clearly we can analogize to alcohol. If a cop were under 21 but used a fake license, showing them to be over 21, to purchase alcohol and then charged the seller with sale to a minor (even after the seller confirmed the cop to be over 21 on the id) then that is entrapment. Why? Because the seller committed the crime of sale to a minor EXCEPT for the necessary element of intent. The entrapment, here, would occur if it is deemed legal to sell to ANY patient but the cop was a FAKE patient. That would be entrapment because you are leading the seller to believe that you are legal to buy. However, in these cases we are discussing the theory of the crime is that you are selling to an unconnected patient, NOT a NON-patient. That's an important distinction to understand.

Edited December 3, 2012 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

Entrapment is when you induce someone to commit a crime that they wouldn't likely have committed were you not involved. The only way using a fake card is entrapment would be if the defendant were charged with selling to afore, non-patient (someone with a fake card). I don't believe that the position is being taken that someone was selling to someone NOT allowed to use mm. I think that the position is that someone is selling to someone who isn't THEIR patient (connected throught he registry). The seller knows that they aren't selling to one of the seller's 5 patients. Therefore, entrapment isn't an issue.

 

Depending on how the SC rules.

[Hayduke]

until the Sp Ct makes a ruling, what Cav says is indeed the law. People should not operate under the presumption of how they wild arse guess the Sp Ct will rule.

[phaquetoo]

 

Entrapment is when you induce someone to commit a crime that they wouldn't likely have committed were you not involved. The only way using a fake card is entrapment would be if the defendant were charged with selling to afore, non-patient (someone with a fake card). I don't believe that the position is being taken that someone was selling to someone NOT allowed to use mm. I think that the position is that someone is selling to someone who isn't THEIR patient (connected throught he registry). The seller knows that they aren't selling to one of the seller's 5 patients. Therefore, entrapment isn't an issue.

I guess that is the bottom line, the person sold to some one they are not registered to thru the registry!

 

 

 

Depending on how the SC rules.

 

Lets hope that is the case!

 

Peace

Jim

[peanutbutter]

until the Sp Ct makes a ruling, what Cav says is indeed the law. People should not operate under the presumption of how they wild arse guess the Sp Ct will rule.

 

Incorrect. The SC is about to tell us what the law has always said.

 

Until then, any guess is just that. A guess.

 

I wish people would stop saying "thus sayeth the law" when the SC is about to say exactly that.

[Restorium2]

Incorrect. The SC is about to tell us what the law has always said.

 

Until then, any guess is just that. A guess.

 

I wish people would stop saying "thus sayeth the law" when the SC is about to say exactly that.

This is like when a football play is under review. They are going to tell us if the ruling on the field stands. While we are waiting for the play to be reviewed, the cops are going with the ruling on the field. We could be waiting for months for the play to be reviewed. You can go through a lot of bad times between now and then if you go against the ruling on the field. You could find out you were right all along. You might this out from behind bars.

[Highlander]

This is like when a football play is under review. They are going to tell us if the ruling on the field stands. While we are waiting for the play to be reviewed, the cops are going with the ruling on the field. We could be waiting for months for the play to be reviewed. You can go through a lot of bad times between now and then if you go against the ruling on the field. You could find out you were right all along. You might this out from behind bars.

 

Or the SC might send the case back downstairs and not rule at all...or might rule so narrowly that the only question answered is lockbox/club transfers

Edited December 3, 2012 by Highlander

[Itisme]

 

 

Depending on how the SC rules.

 

I do not like to be a nay sayer is their anyone on this site that really thinks the Supreme Court is going to rule that any one can sell weed to any body

 

You must be dreaming and the dispensary won't stop even after the state says to

[CaveatLector]

Or the SC might send the case back downstairs and not rule at all...or might rule so narrowly that the only question answered is lockbox/club transfers

Precisely.

[bobandtorey]

Just like last time people thought the SC made a good ruling it maid no difference in our case or Larry's

[Highlander]

Precisely.

 

Unfortunately, there is a dangerous message circulating. It goes something like this:

 

1. The COA was wrong to rule against p2p transfers

2. p2p sales really are legal

3. It is just a matter of time before the SC rules on transfers and makes p2p legal "again."

 

People are making life-changing decisions based on this false thinking.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Highlander

[bobandtorey]

We should have a poll as to who thinks its OK for p2p and who doesn't

Sorry IMHO their is no p2p

[Juan Roberto]

I think the poll should be more along the line of: "Do you want P2P transfers to be allowed within the law?"

[bobandtorey]

I think the poll should be more along the line of: "Do you want P2P transfers to be allowed within the law?"

That poll would be 100% they do

Their is nobody here that does not want p2p