Clare Cc 3/23

[GregS]

I travelled to Clare over the weekend. Curious to find more about Jamie Lowell's position, he proved entirely predictable. Most of us can rest assured that our position is just the one we want to stay with. There was nothing new that has not been aired out here, with the exception that he did answer a question, in a query to his statement regarding dispensaries that there are other laws that can play in their continued operation, despite McQueen. His answer was that they expect to be protected from closure by way of estoppel. A brief definition of the term is:

 

"A rule of law that when person A, by act or words, gives person B reason to believe a certain set of facts upon which person B takes action, person A cannot later, tohis (or her) benefit, deny those facts or say that his (or her) earlier act was improper."

 

He did not explain except to drop the word and then move hastily along. I am not at all convinced that it applies in this instance.

To the best of my recollection (and I need at least the Cliff's Notes refresher), estoppel is a rule of evidence that prohibits parties in an agreement from reneging on promises that have been made. It is common in contract law. What is not clear to me is whether or how it plays in criminal law. In order for a party in an agreement to a contract to successfully bring an estoppel argument, there must be consideration, which is defined as, "Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances." There are varieties of estoppel:

Major types

The main species of estoppel under English, Australian, and American laws are:

    Reliance-based estoppels: These involve one party relying on something the other party has done or said. The party who performed/spoke is the one who is estopped. Under English law, this class includes estoppel by representation of fact, promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel (see Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol 16(2), 2003). Although some authorities have used language to suggest reliance-based estoppels are mere rules of evidence,[citation needed] they are rules of substantive law.
       

Estoppel by representation of fact (English law name), equitable estoppel (American law)
       

Equitable estoppel (in English law), including
           

Proprietary estoppel
           

Promissory estoppel
   

Estoppel by record: This frequently arises as issue/cause of action estoppel or judicial estoppel where the orders or judgments made in previous legal proceedings prevent the parties from relitigating the same issues or causes of action,
   

Estoppel by deed (often regarded as technical or formal estoppels)—Where rules of evidence prevent a litigant from denying the truth of what was said or done
   

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.
   

Laches: estoppel in equity by delay. Laches has been considered both a reliance-based estoppel, and a sui generis estoppel.

 

To have estoppel judged against you is to be estopped

Will you please explain this further Jamie? Will our legal heads please chime in? Will the crowd cheer wildly?

Edited March 25, 2013 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Thanks Greg.

What Jamie is attempting to say here is that he wants to use the Ogden Memo for an 'estopel defense'. Since the Ogden advised that entities following state law should be left alone he thinks he can use it. He's betting everything that his proposed warped dispensary law will be the bridge that links his local, presently illegal, monopoly, to state law, so he can say the Ogden gives him the estoppel defense. He had to include language that ends growing in homes, to get enough of the oppostion on board with his law designed to 'estoppel himself' out of the mess he got himself into.

[GregS]

Then there are the good people who attend the club. Greeted warnly, I found them to be happy and deeply involved in their prerogatives. Many of the group's priorities, if not all, are grounded in the same common issues that drive our agenda.. It appears that differences are largely a matter of style, and are not so different in substance. In regard to the rift between the Club and the MMMA, it is apparent that the same things that cause discord here, and that I would more than anything see put aside, are at work there, as judged by the bickering that has gone on between member of each group. There are too many threats to all patients to let that continue. With commitments from all sides to engage in productive conversation, I would like to see the division cease.

 

Are we prepared to put aside our differences, many or most that obviously take on a life of their own when egos come too largely into play, and put that energy into moving things ahead and to our best benefit? It is not to be expected that discussion will not be heated, but to let it destroy the cooperation that is necessary to prevail over the opposition, and they are legion, is to be the fool.

Edited March 25, 2013 by GregS

[Restorium2]

My only beef with the members is them bolstering up Jamie 'estoppeling himself' by us losing our right to grow at home. When they did that they crossed that red line. If they since have seen the light, then I can really get behind what they are doing. No problems at all. Just that estoppel manuevering that was bad mojo for the whole MM movement. Can't say I didn't try to bring them into the light with published facts for them to digest.

[GregS]

Thanks Resto. Jamie would not explain further and was purposely evasive. Do you think that, because there is no protection for many to most of the transfers that occur in dispensaries under the MMMA, that they are criminal undertakings under the State Penal Code, and that dispensaries that engage in less than protected activity are criminal enterprises? And again, can government be estopped from enforcing criminal law? I can hardly imagine that. How would that play in light of the fact that McQueen was decided as a civil, rather than criminal, matter?

[Restorium2]

Thanks Resto. Jamie would not explain further and was purposely evasive. Do you think that, because there is no protection for many to most of the transfers that occur in dispensaries under the MMMA, that they are criminal undertakings under the State Penal Code, and that dispensaries that engage in less than protected activity are criminal enterprises? And again, can government be estopped from enforcing criminal law? I can hardly imagine that. How would that play in light of the fact that McQueen was decided as a civil, rather than criminal, matter?

When it comes right down to it(no one likes this part) Schuette is in control of this estoppel stuff. If you had him in your pocket then you could probably pull it off. Do you think Jamie has Schuette on board?

[Restorium2]

I think you are off on this. The Ogden memo does not enter into it.

Do a little more research. This might help; http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/article.cfm?newsID=3858

[GanjaWarrior]

The folks in the Clare Club are good people.  It is the 'leadership' that is the loose cannon.  The people need a good club and good information and they have new options.

 

Dr. Bob

The folks in Clare are great people! the leadership is just fine, why  do you feel the need to attack them again( )?

idk but its old. just gotta slip in your lil sales pitch where ever possible. the people have a great club, you just need to drop your petty moo poo. there is no loose cannon, you have a personal problem with one person and really need to stop disrespecting us as a club. its not right bob. your the one taking people to court for this kind of moo poo. so with way more respect that you deserve i say flower off and stop talking about cccc.... you dont go there, you dont like em, you dont know bob, so really shut it.

[GregS]

The folks in the Clare Club are good people.  It is the 'leadership' that is the loose cannon.  The people need a good club and good information and they have new options.

 

Dr. Bob

They are on point with some good initiatives. I am trying to broker cooperation, with assurances from all sides that more effort will be put into constructive discourse, and put aside untoward crap, and with the understanding that some is to be expected in any group. I only ask that reason and professional and personal courtesy be the touchstone, When things go awry, and they will, we have plenty enough smart people to manage those instances, ostensibly well enough to minimize them, eliminate them when that becomes necessary, and keep our noses in the wind and our eyes on the horizon.

 

The CCC caters to its segment, and the members appear to be happy with things. That it is one of the oldest clubs in the state speaks loads to their commitment and tenacity; both qualities that are best put to use in communal pursuits. I find Annie to be a kind and generous soul.

 

Can we agree?

Edited March 26, 2013 by GregS

[GanjaWarrior]

They are on point with some good initiatives. I am trying to broker cooperation, with assurances from all sides that more effort will be put into constructive discourse, and put aside untoward crap, and with the understanding that some is to be expected in any group. I only ask that reason and professional personal courtesy be the touchstone, When things go awry, and they will, we have plenty enough smart people to manage those instances, ostensibly well enough to minimize them, eliminate them when that becomes necessary, and keep our noses in the wind and our eyes on the horizon.

 

The CCC caters to its segment, and the members appear to be happy with things. That it is one of the oldest clubs in the state speaks loads to their commitment and tenacity; both qualities that are best put to use in communal pursuits. I find Annie to be a kind and generous soul.

 

Can we agree?

I can....

[GregS]

My only beef with the members is them bolstering up Jamie 'estoppeling himself' by us losing our right to grow at home. When they did that they crossed that red line. If they since have seen the light, then I can really get behind what they are doing. No problems at all. Just that estoppel manuevering that was bad mojo for the whole MM movement. Can't say I didn't try to bring them into the light with published facts for them to digest.

I am not convinced that the Clare people have bought into Jamie's bill of goods altogether. There were remarks that there is a degree of skepticism toward him This is not to suggest that some members are not on board with him. With sound argument, and putting aside crude and counterproductive schit, there is reason to believe we can turn that around to our mutual interest.

 

I would like to see them resume their engagement here under the circumstances described earlier.

[GregS]

The folks in Clare are great people! the leadership is just fine, why  do you feel the need to attack them again( )?

idk but its old. just gotta slip in your lil sales pitch where ever possible. the people have a great club, you just need to drop your petty moo poo. there is no loose cannon, you have a personal problem with one person and really need to stop disrespecting us as a club. its not right bob. your the one taking people to court for this kind of moo poo. so with way more respect that you deserve i say flower off and stop talking about cccc.... you dont go there, you dont like em, you dont know bob, so really shut it.

Please be careful guys. The point is well taken and I think accurate. The tone could use work. This is how it starts.

[Restorium2]

You are totally missing my point, because your own point is all you can see.

What is your point other than I'm wrong for some reason unexplained? When you start with 'estoppel', and add in 'dispensary', there are very few choices to pick from that make even a tiny bit of sense. I choose the one that had a tiny bit of sense. Did you find something else that makes more legal sense?

[GanjaWarrior]

Please be careful guys. The point is well taken and I think accurate. The tone could use work. This is how it starts.

Ill atempt to work on that.... ive been called tone deaf b4 lol

[Restorium2]

I am not convinced that the Clare people have bought into Jamie's bill of goods altogether. There were remarks that there is a degree of skepticism toward him This is not to suggest that some members are not on board with him. With sound argument, and putting aside crude and counterproductive schit, there is reason to believe we can turn that around to our mutual interest.

 

I would like to see them resume their engagement here under the circumstances described earlier.

The proof will be 'if and when' they quit helping propose a law that hurts home grows. If no one is doing that anymore then things are just 'ducky'. They could even help us fight this bad law. That would go a long way to mend some fences.

[+Malamute]

He is trying to use estoppel based on local law and state law then?

[Restorium2]

He is trying to use estoppel based on local law and state law then?

Maybe. But when you see a dispensary owner in California trying to use it, then Jamie blurts it out, well, come on .... it's probably similar.

[GregS]

I think you are off on this. The Ogden memo does not enter into it.

I am inclined to agree. Estoppel is an issue between parties to an agreement. It is, I think, accurate to say that Jamie somehow intends to try to hold municipalities to an agreement that is without force, by token of the fact that criminal activity is involved and cannot be separated from his business plan..

Edited March 26, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Ill atempt to work on that.... ive been called tone deaf b4 lol

ty

[+Malamute]

So,... the same chance as the easter bunny hopping into your house... :-)

[Restorium2]

I am inclined to agree. Estoppel is an issue between parties to an agreement. It is, I think, accurate to say that Jamie somehow intends to try to hold municipalities to an agreement that is without force, by token of the fact that criminal activity is involved and cannot be separated from any agreement.

Greg,

Check out that link I posted.

[GregS]

Misplaced post

Edited March 25, 2013 by GregS

[+Malamute]

The problem with a dispensary using the ogden/cole memo is that is specifically disallows commercial enterprises and still says it will pursue conviction if they so choose.

[Restorium2]

For example;

Schuette would have had to say that he wouldn't mess with dispensaries if they followed municipal law, then Jamie could use estoppel. But that never happened.

[GregS]

Got it Resto. In reading the piece, I come away with the understanding that the Ogden Memo speaks to State-Federal issues. But that is only part of what is happening here. Dispensaries are in violation of U.S. and Michigan State law, again per McQueen. Subsequently, I expect the state has sufficient jurisdiction.

Edited March 26, 2013 by GregS