Jump to content

One Set Of Inter-Linked Caregivers And Patients


grewett
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recently became familiar with this situation in super-cool Ann Arbor, so just these guys' geographic jurisdiction (in an Ann Arbor industrial park) may shelter them somewhat more than the average bear somewhere else in MI. Caregiver A is signed as a patient with Caregiver B, and they grow cooperatively. They reason that farming 99 plants under one roof in one large room halves the work and lowers the rent expense to produce meds, and that they gain some measure of legal protection when being in the room alone in the other's absence. (Both are professionals working demanding jobs and given their careers you would not expect them to be caregivers/growers. (Golfers, yes. Growers, no). While A is both Patient and CG, B is a Caregiver only, with 5 Patients, OK to possess 60 plants (one of whom is A). Even though A gave up his right to possess his own plants, with 5 Patients he too has the right to possess 60 plants; yet together the 2 CG's never intend to grow their full quota of 120 plants, and limit themselves to 99. (Due to a split with a 3rd CG (Caregiver C) and the resulting shadow of a 'dime' overhead, possibly sometime to be dropped by the angry former link, A & B have decided to never host over 99 in the one building). I've seen the letter in which legal counsel advised this inter-linked organization, along with some other recs and precautions that the two CG'S have chosen not to follow.

 

They paid for professional advice. I'm really curious what is the judgement of the legal mavens on this board?

Edited by grewett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the letter in which legal counsel advised this inter-linked organization, along with some other recs and precautions that the two CG'S have chosen not to follow.

 

What were the rec and precautions from their legal counsel? It would help to know the other side of the coin to discuss this.

 

Dizz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard today that similar interlinking is occuring in the Russell Industrial Building in Detroit, which offers grow spaces from 500 square feet(for $800 plus utilities, on up to 8,000 square feet). Supposedly several of the larger spaces have been taken by caregivers who, based on opinion from legal counsel, have interlinked by becoming each other's patients. The results are mega plant grows, interconnected and supposedly supra-legal making production numbers "safe" well beyond that of 5 patients, 1 caregiver and 60 plants. And I hear that the attorney in the Ann Arbor situation retracted his advice and issued to his clients a warning; cautioning, against any one CG, group or association considering interlocking registrations to be a reasonable conduit a use to end-run the risks given the current Federal environment. Maybe a member of one of the Russell "coops" could comment on how their group of grower/tenants is using one of those 8,000 square foot blocks of grow space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they gain some measure of legal protection when being in the room alone in the other's absence

 

You will have to explain to me exactly how this works. What legal protection is gained by combining grow operations? You get extra legal protection by going over the statutory limit for a single caregiver and crafting some excuse? Is 90 that much different than 72? My plan would be to flower 72 bad girls at the warehouse under about 12,000 watts of fire and use another smaller room at the home of the other CG/partner to supply the ladies room...this keeps you BOTH under the limit in both locations (and you don't have to worry about the smell in the home).

 

Your plan looks to me like yet another test case. Hope to be proven wrong.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the idea is that a caregiver/patient who is the patient of another caregiver may be figuring on a defense--if it comes to that--that wile they were found present in a room with over 60 plants, they (as a patient of the other and having the right to their own 60 as a CG with 5 patients), had the legal OK to be present in the other CG's grow and were not in "possession" of over 60. The plants over 60 were the property of the other CG. A test case? I agree, one of these arrangements will come to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...