Feds order pot shops to close within 45 days

[Serpo]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Federal officials are warning California medical marijuana dispensaries they must shut down within 45 days or face criminal prosecution and having their property confiscated.


The state's four U.S. attorneys sent letters Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The attorneys are to announce their coordinated crackdown at a Friday news conference.

The move marks an escalation of the conflict between the government and the medical marijuana industry.

The Associated Press obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to 12 of San Diego's dispensaries. They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling pot.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8381783

[madfranks]

They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling pot.

I know this sounds quaint, but what would happen if they sent letters back citing the 10th amendment, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution", marijuana use being one of them, "are reserved to the States respectively".

[Nomoss]

The war will be soon.
Thank for the link.

[Neuro]

They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law
Does it?

[midnight rambler]

People need to WAKE THE FUCK up to the fraud of the 14th Amendment or ELSE JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

***DAMMIT!!!

[madfranks]

Does it?

It sure would be nice if more people would ask that question. Unfortunatley, when the federal governmnet is in charge of educating the masses, it's no surprise that the masses would be taught that the federal government is supreme. It pisses me off!

[madfranks]

People need to WAKE THE FUCK up to the fraud of the 14th Amendment or ELSE JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

***DAMMIT!!!

That's not the only thing that people need to wake up to. The whole mindset of the American people and their beliefs on what is the proper role of government needs to be shaken up.

[midnight rambler]

That's not the only thing that people need to wake up to. The whole mindset of the American people and their beliefs on what is the proper role of government needs to be shaken up.

I agree, but the adversary must be attacked where they are the weakest*, and the 14th Amendment issue is where their bluff is pure smoke and mirrors. If people would just break out of the prison for their mind in this one respect it will be what turns everything else around imo.

*This is precisely what Sun Tzu says to do.

[osoab]

Seems like they are leaving a lot of money on the table by making them shut down.


10-4-11
IRS hits Oakland pot shop with $2.4M tax bill (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hT022bsabrTalgOx6Ojcu-aeWsFg?docId=820e054fe9e643b6aaffc63a5f4688ee)


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The federal government has found a new weapon in its war on marijuana — the tax man.

A San Francisco Bay area medical marijuana dispensary that promotes itself as the world's largest has been hit with a $2.4 million tax bill following an audit by the Internal Revenue Service, the dispensary founder said Tuesday.

The back taxes, penalties and interest levied against Harborside Health Center came after the IRS examined its returns for 2007 and 2008 and determined a 1982 tax code prohibiting cost deductions for businesses that traffic in illegal drugs applies to the dispensary.

Harborside is a spa-like fixture on Oakland's waterfront with 94,114 registered customers and 84 full-time employees that offers an average of 30 varieties of medical marijuana every day and has $22 million in annual sales.

"What kind of drug trafficking organization actually files a tax return? None of them do," said Harborside CEO Steve DeAngelo, who gave his auditor a personal tour of his posh apothecary. "The very fact that we filed a tax return and told the IRS all the details of what we are doing proves we are not a drug trafficking organization."

The IRS said the agency does not comment on individual audits.
DeAngelo, the subject of an upcoming Discovery Channel reality show, said the write-offs disallowed by the IRS included standard operating costs such as rent, payroll, employee health insurance and licensing fees.

Government auditors did not dispute, however, that Harborside had properly deducted its biggest expense — the millions of dollars it spent buying pot to sell to people who use it under California's medical marijuana law.

San Francisco tax attorney Henry Wykowski, who represents DeAngelo, said a 2007 case involving another California dispensary established that the cost of goods sold was a legitimate expense for businesses the IRS otherwise considers illegitimate.

"It goes all the way back to Prohibition," Wykowski explained. "They expect even businesses operating illegally to file tax returns, so they still have to give them their business deductions, and a cost of goods sold is the primary deduction that any business would have."

DeAngelo has until Dec. 22 to contest the audit in tax court. The IRS has told him it is now reviewing Harborside's returns for 2009 and 2010.

Meanwhile, a handful of state officials have written House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, on behalf of DeAngelo, asking the two lawmakers to exempt "legally operating cannabis businesses" from the tax code section for drug traffickers.

DeAngelo said he does not have the $2.4 million the IRS wants. Like all legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California, Harborside operates as a nonprofit corporation while paying state sales taxes and a 5 percent local tax to Oakland — for a total of $3.1 million this year, he said.

"We would be happy to pay taxes like every other business does," he said. "No business, including Harborside, could survive if it's taxed on its gross revenue. All we want is to be treated like every other business in America."

Wykowski said he represents at least two dozen other California and Colorado pot dispensaries dealing with IRS audits. Some have persuaded auditors to accept deductions for auxiliary services such as on-site yoga classes, the time employees spend counseling customers as opposed to preparing marijuana, and quality testing. Others such as Harborside have been less successful.

"What the taxing authorities are losing sight of is if you tax these places out of business and make it so they can't compete, all it is going to do is boost underground sales," he said. "The guys on the street aren't paying their employees and if they are, they certainly aren't withholding taxes."

[7th trump]

I know this sounds quaint, but what would happen if they sent letters back citing the 10th amendment, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution", marijuana use being one of them, "are reserved to the States respectively".
Nothing!
Us citizens dont get the 9 or 10th amendment protection.
Go to www.1215.org and read the official Senate document that interprets the US Constitution for federal "US citizens".
Federal citizens are not allowed to enjoy the medical or recreation uses of smoking maryjane as are the People!

[7th trump]

I agree, but the adversary must be attacked where they are the weakest*, and the 14th Amendment issue is where their bluff is pure smoke and mirrors. If people would just break out of the prison for their mind in this one respect it will be what turns everything else around imo.

*This is precisely what Sun Tzu says to do.
Damn skippy its what turns everything around. Without the 14th the government doesnt have subjects period!
Without the 14th all subsequent congressional "Acts" apply not!
Including the Social Security Act that makes all white man who participate fall under the 14th.
The SS5 application form is signed under penalty of perjury of being a 14th amendment US citizen!

[willie pete]

...it's Totally Disgusting and more, that a few hundred people in Washington hold the entire country Hostage....

[Joe King]

I know this sounds quaint, but what would happen if they sent letters back citing the 10th amendment, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution", marijuana use being one of them, "are reserved to the States respectively".While I agree that's how it should work, the fact is that US citizens do not have direct access to the 10th Amendment.
US citizens have access to the first 8 Amendments in a manner as defined by the Courts.

[Joe King]

Seems like they are leaving a lot of money on the table by making them shut down.


10-4-11
IRS hits Oakland pot shop with $2.4M tax bill (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hT022bsabrTalgOx6Ojcu-aeWsFg?docId=820e054fe9e643b6aaffc63a5f4688ee)

Ultimately they not concerned about the "money". Rather, the fed govs actions are being made to enforce the Single Convention on narcotic drugs.

[palani]

The state's four U.S. attorneys sent letters Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws

They had better be viewing these letters as offers to contract and prepare a suitable counteroffer, one that reflects the value of the PRIVATE PROPERTY involved.

Personally I don't think much of the terms they are offering.

[k-os]

I think it's absurd that naturally occurring plants and fungi are not legal. It defies logic.

[osoab]

I think it's absurd that naturally occurring plants and fungi are not legal. It defies logic.

take your prozac! ;D

[palani]

I think it's absurd that naturally occurring plants and fungi are not legal. It defies logic.

Not a bit. You need to understand each of the several States is common law rather than civil law. In common law what is not forbidden is allowed. In civil law what is licensed is permitted. The two systems of law have been duelling for many centuries. Most of the world operates on civil law. In the united States only California and Louisiana have traces of civil law left over from the original countries that claimed those territories.

[gunDriller]

Not a bit. You need to understand each of the several States is common law rather than civil law. In common law what is not forbidden is allowed. In civil law what is licensed is permitted. The two systems of law have been duelling for many centuries. Most of the world operates on civil law. In the united States only California and Louisiana have traces of civil law left over from the original countries that claimed those territories.

even if some US gov. schlemiel thinks they have the right to rip up 100 plants shared by a group of 20 patients ... or to tax Harborside ... i think it still defies logic. not only is it a naturally occurring plant, it's a DAMNED USEFUL naturally occurring plant.

i would think Obama would get involved - he could score some quick brownie points ;) by defending medical marijuana laws. but still the DEA prosecutes & persecutes.


Life Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness - where is the attorney who will defend our freedoms based on the Declaration of Independence ?

or do people just have do practice being free and keep a low profile ...


the 14th - had to look it up in WikiJewPedia

"The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.[1]

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

[palani]

You act like an animal you are going to be treated as one. For the past 100 years drug and medicine laws treat man as just another animal. This is per Adask. Animals have to be controlled. That is the function of government.

Now if you don't like being treated as an animal maybe it is up to you to prove you are not?

[Buddha]

I think it's absurd that naturally occurring plants and fungi are not legal. It defies logic.

Take your DXM! :D

In all seriousness I wish that the states would grow some balls. Especially in this case since dispensaries in Cal have been raided pretty regularly. Step up and give your own people some backing, tell the Fed to fuck off, and stay from away activities that we as a state deem legal. But we know this isn't likely to happen, especially in Cal.

[Joe King]

even if some US gov. schlemiel thinks they have the right to rip up 100 plants shared by a group of 20 patients ... or to tax Harborside ... i think it still defies logic. not only is it a naturally occurring plant, it's a DAMNED USEFUL naturally occurring plant.That my friend, is its biggest strike against it.
As long as it cannot be patented, the naturally occuring substance will always be illegal under our current regulatory system.
...but if you need Marinol, a patented drug that is an exact, yet synthetic copy of its main active ingrediant and you have a disease that the regulatory system has defined its use for, you can have it all day long.

BTW, did you know that the US gov holds a patent for the use of cannibinoids for neurotherapy, yet at the same time claims those same cannabinoids have no medicinal use?
This is what American Indians would call speaking with a forked tongue.



i would think Obama would get involved - he could score some quick brownie points ;) by defending medical marijuana laws. but still the DEA prosecutes & persecutes.What they're enforcing is on-par with our Constitution as defined within the regulatory system.



Life Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness - where is the attorney who will defend our freedoms based on the Declaration of Independence?The DOI is an historical document and carries no legal weight under our regulatory system as it is not a document of the federal gov as created by the Constitution and as defined by the Courts within the regulated system.


or do people just have do practice being free and keep a low profile ...You mean like they always have when engaging in activities frowned upon by the State?



the 14th - had to look it up in WikiJewPedia

"The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.[1]As pointed out numerous times already, the 14th created a new form of citizenship whose Rights are defined by what the creator of that status says they are.
Guess who that creator is? Go ahead, guess! Did you say the US gov? If so, you get an "A".



Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.See? It's even got its own type of Due Process. Ain't that special? lol
You'd think it wouldn't need its own due process clause if the original one applied to that newly created citizenship status, wouldn't ya?


Its Equal Protection ClauseWow! It's got one of those too, huh? Imagine that.


requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.Yep. The Fed gov will in fact enforce its decisions about its citizens. Make no mistake about that.



The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tionRemember people, they are merely enforcing the Constitution as defined within the regulatorty system.
Treaties are on-par with the Constitution.
The Single Convention on Narcotics is a Treaty the US gov entered into with the peoples represenatives blessing.
....and they are enforcing it on their citizens.

Perhaps it would help to look at their actions as one of the myraid of benefits provided by the fed gov to its citizens.
....and people think there's no such thing as a free lunch. lol

[Nomoss]

The 14th amendment is some times called the
Red amendment. Why is that??
Is it for the 10 planks of the jew manifdesto?
Just had to ask.
This is not to go down well here in CAL.
I know as I'm here.

[Buddha]

The 14th amendment is some times called the
Red amendment. Why is that??
Is it for the 10 planks of the jew manifdesto?
Just had to ask.
This is not to go down well here in CAL.
I know as I'm here.

I always thought it was called the red amendment because of the doubt that surrounds it's ratification.

[Ares]

I always thought it was called the red amendment because of the doubt that surrounds it's ratification.

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

[milehi]

I'm a fun gi.

[LastResort]

I don't know how many times I've been in the bush "gardening" picking dead leaves, checking up on things and thinking to myself WTF kind of world do we live in when what I'm doing here is illegal?....:(