Owner Of Former Marijuana Dispensary Pleads Guilty To Drug Charge

[bobandtorey]

CADILLAC — The owner of a now closed marijuana dispensary in Cadillac has pleaded guilty to a drug charge.

 

The plea was entered Friday in 28th Circuit Court in Wexford County by Christopher Frank Gee, 36, according to court records.

 

Gee, who was the owner of the Twinn Bridges Compassion Club in Haring Township, pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting delivery/manufacture of marijuana.

According to a brief filed by Assistant Attorney General Paul Cusick, Gee facilitated transfer of marijuana to customers. At issue, Cusick said, was that neither Gee nor his

employees were connected in any way to the customers through the state's registration process that was established under the medical marijuana statute.

Charges against Gee previously had been dismissed after a successful defense by his attorney, Jessie L. Williams, of Traverse City.

At sentencing, Gee could face up to four years in prison and/or a fine of up to $20,000. Nine counts of aiding and abetting delivery/manufacturing of marijuana, as well as a charge of racketeering, were dismissed.

 

Missaukee County Prosecuting Attorney William Donnelly Jr. served as special prosecutor because one of Gee’s employees had previously been represented by attorney Anthony Badovinac prior to his taking office as Wexford County prosecuting attorney.

 

http://www.cadillacnews.com/news_story/?story_id=1812867&year=2013&issue=20130928

[pic book]

that is on the low end of punishments to expect from operating a disp.  the lowest likely cost of running a dispensary in mi is:

4 years and $20,000.

Guessing this would be the eventual result of operating a disp--even in lazily-enforced detroit--i voluntarily shut my doors March 23, 2011.

seeing this guy's prob i put my decision to close in the wins column.

since then i've cost myself 2+ million gross, one of my good losses.

cause eventually LEO is gonna get you in a disp--only ? is when?

every open disp is a siiting duck and leo has plenty of shells.

Edited September 29, 2013 by pic book

[bobandtorey]

I will have to disagree to the 4 years and $20,000

1. Blue Water dispensary just had their case dismissed a few months ago Clinical Relief had their case dismissed long ago and it was inn Oakland County 

There our many Cites coming on line just last day i posted a new one opening up in AnnAbor the  friendlies  of all, most of the city's know theres about to pass a new Law and are getting ready for the Green Rush thats coming to a town near us all

[+Malamute]

Don't fail to mention the appeals going on there Bob.  May not be dismissed aye.

[Hayduke]

Last I looked the Clinical Relief case was lost at the Court of Appeals.  That means a Supreme Court challenge, or going back to Oakland County Circuit.  

 

So Bob, no disrespect, but how is that a victory?

[bobandtorey]

Last I looked the Clinical Relief case was lost at the Court of Appeals.  That means a Supreme Court challenge, or going back to Oakland County Circuit.  

 

So Bob, no disrespect, but how is that a victory?

i would not call it a victory The Lawyer say it is Not me

I hate to say it but the Ferndale people our going to be in sooooo much trouble and even if they don't go to jail they will be peeing in a cup for a long time IMHO

[bobandtorey]

[Dr. Bob]

This one was shut down, another opened a few blocks away.  Folks just don't learn.

 

Dr. Bob

[jointedone]

Just stay across the street,in Macomb County. Mind your own and they don't bother you. Oakland County seems to have some kind of vendetta.

[bobandtorey]

Just stay across the street,in Macomb County. Mind your own and they don't bother you. Oakland County seems to have some kind of vendetta.

true Oakland County must have a vendetta against all Cannabis users 

But this is a State Law not a county by county Law

Right ?

[Dr. Bob]

It is whatever the local courts say it is until a higher court tells them they are wrong.

 

People will continue to do what they want until they are stopped.  Just TODAY in Marquette I had a patient come in with a colored piece of paper talking about the new 2 year cards (so it came out after 4-1) offering to renew his card for 120 buck sight unseen by a physician.

 

Folks KNOW this is illegal, but are continuing to send out those offers because they want to make a few bucks before the AG stops them.  Fortunately that is $120 they will never see and I wouldn't be surprised if AG and Lara pay them a visit in the near future..  Getting tired of this nonsense.  We need to start enforcing standards ourselves before these profiteers destroy the act for those that need it. 

[t-pain]

 We need to start enforcing standards ourselves before these profiteers destroy the act for those that need it. 

 

easy to say, what could we do about it?

making sick patients do all this extra work, is the burden really on US? (thought experiment)

 

it would be something to come up with some kind of FAQ or semi-legal guidelines for lara to put on their website.

i mean, did you call lara and ask them to put stuff like that in their FAQ?

Edited October 1, 2013 by t-pain

[bobandtorey]

easy to say, what could we do about it?

making sick patients do all this extra work, is the burden really on US? (thought experiment)

 

it would be something to come up with some kind of FAQ or semi-legal guidelines for lara to put on their website.

i mean, did you call lara and ask them to put stuff like that in their FAQ?

I agree easy to say 

And putting stuff on LARA it should say Enter at your own risk i  still remember the time when the program was ran by MDCH and at that time they would have meeting about the do's  and don't when people would raise their hand and ask where do we get this Medical Marihuana at she would tell them you can ask your grandson or someone they know that goes to collage to bring some home for them

 

i would just think and wonder how that may work out for someone

 

Leo so son why do you have this Pot in your car i was only trying  to help my grandmother get her Meds she has that their card

 

 IT'S NOT MINE  Leo OK then fine you can go on your marry way and tell your Grandmother i hope she feel better soon

[Dr. Bob]

As long as patients support the cattle calls they will exist.  Just last week in TC, one doctor certified 500 patients in ONE DAY, no records required.  If they were there 10 hours that is 50 patients per hour, just over 1 min a patient.  Long enough to sign the paper and collect $79 bucks.

 

What the patients don't understand, is that if they want pain management at my practice, and want to use one of those cards, I am going to charge them to recertify properly with me or another legitimate practice.  I will be requiring the original paperwork from the doctor and if it is from a mill, I and many other doctors will not recognize it until they are recertified properly. 

 

Dr. Bob

[Kingdiamond]

 Oakland County must have a vendetta against all Cannabis users 

Seriously Bob?

 

This has been well known since they arrived at your door no?

[Chauncy Gardner]

I agree easy to say 

And putting stuff on LARA it should say Enter at your own risk i  still remember the time when the program was ran by MDCH and at that time they would have meeting about the do's  and don't when people would raise their hand and ask where do we get this Medical Marihuana at she would tell them you can ask your grandson or someone they know that goes to collage to bring some home for them

 

i would just think and wonder how that may work out for someone

 

Leo so son why do you have this Pot in your car i was only trying  to help my grandmother get her Meds she has that their card

 

 IT'S NOT MINE  Leo OK then fine you can go on your marry way and tell your Grandmother i hope she feel better soon

 

Not trying to start anything here, but the scenario you describe above may not be all that farfetched.

 

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

How better to assist a registered qualifying patient with using marijuana than by obtaining said marijuana for the patient?

[Wild Bill]

Not trying to start anything here, but the scenario you describe above may not be all that farfetched.

 

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

How better to assist a registered qualifying patient with using marijuana than by obtaining said marijuana for the patient?

 

I believe the courts have said that they narrowly define helping as things like lighting the pipe for them, not obtaining it.

[Dr. Bob]

I would say it would extend to bringing it from the kitchen to the living room, but not from outside the home. 

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

Not trying to start anything here, but the scenario you describe above may not be all that farfetched.

 

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

How better to assist a registered qualifying patient with using marijuana than by obtaining said marijuana for the patient?

Note the definition of "medical use."

 

"Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Because "acquisition," "delivery," and "transfer" are listed as are "use" and "administration"  there is no choice but to conclude that "use" and "administration" are separate and distinct activities from "acquisition," "delivery," and "transfer."  As such, "assisting with using or administering" is not the same as "assisting with acquisition."

[bobandtorey]

Note the definition of "medical use."

 

"Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Because "acquisition," "delivery," and "transfer" are listed as are "use" and "administration"  there is no choice but to conclude that "use" and "administration" are separate and distinct activities from "acquisition," "delivery," and "transfer."  As such, "assisting with using or administering" is not the same as "assisting with acquisition."

i do agree but most Lawyers would not agree

[Chauncy Gardner]

Note the definition of "medical use."

 

"Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Because "acquisition," "delivery," and "transfer" are listed as are "use" and "administration"  there is no choice but to conclude that "use" and "administration" are separate and distinct activities from "acquisition," "delivery," and "transfer."  As such, "assisting with using or administering" is not the same as "assisting with acquisition."

 

 

OK. So, just for argument, let's say that the law was written with the words "assisting in the medical use of marijuana". Then the acquisition and delivery to a patient would be legal, right? So, for what reason, other than medical, would a qualifying patient be using marijuana? In other words, "use" and "medical use" are synonymous terms when it comes to defining a qualifying patient's

relationship with medical marijuana. They aren't using it for any reason other than medical, ergo all use by a qualifying patient is medical use.

[bobandtorey]

OK. So, just for argument, let's say that the law was written with the words "assisting in the medical use of marijuana". Then the acquisition and delivery to a patient would be legal, right? So, for what reason, other than medical, would a qualifying patient be using marijuana? In other words, "use" and "medical use" are synonymous terms when it comes to defining a qualifying patient's

relationship with medical marijuana. They aren't using it for any reason other than medical, ergo all use by a qualifying patient is medical use.

I need more time to think about that one

[Highlander]

OK. So, just for argument, let's say that the law was written with the words "assisting in the medical use of marijuana". Then the acquisition and delivery to a patient would be legal, right? So, for what reason, other than medical, would a qualifying patient be using marijuana? In other words, "use" and "medical use" are synonymous terms when it comes to defining a qualifying patient's

relationship with medical marijuana. They aren't using it for any reason other than medical, ergo all use by a qualifying patient is medical use.

 

They are not the same.  "Medical use" is defined in the Act. It doesn't matter that it looks and seems a lot like "use."   I would agree that if the law said "assisting with medical use" then things would be a lot rosier. 

[Highlander]

OK. So, just for argument, let's say that the law was written with the words "assisting in the medical use of marijuana". Then the acquisition and delivery to a patient would be legal, right? So, for what reason, other than medical, would a qualifying patient be using marijuana? In other words, "use" and "medical use" are synonymous terms when it comes to defining a qualifying patient's

relationship with medical marijuana. They aren't using it for any reason other than medical, ergo all use by a qualifying patient is medical use.

 

It is still possible for a qualifying patient to use MMJ for recreational purposes.  So we can't make the leap that any use by a patient can be nothing other than "medical."

 

In other words, it is possible (not legal) for a patient to use MJ for a non-medical purpose.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Highlander

[+Malamute]

"Medical Use" has 9 things that it is within the law. "Use" is only one of the nine:

 

acquisition

possession

cultivation

manufacture

use

internal possession

delivery

transfer

transportation

 

 

As you stated there Chauncy, If it were defined as "medical use" instead of just "using" in the added protection section pertaining to being within vicinity and such:

 

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

 

 then yes,... there would be no need for caregiver status basically.  It would be covered for anyone under that phrase. And that is why writing a law is so difficult and one single minor miniscule word can change the entire law. :-)