Williamston, MI bans the use of Medical Marijuana

st0wandgrow said:

But what about federal law? Doesn't federal law supersede state laws? If a municipality tries to abide by federal laws by passing an ordinance (like Livonia has done) how does that play out? Are they ignoring the state law, or just abiding by federal law?

Click to expand...

You raise a very interesting point and I'd be willing to bet somewhere in Colorado or California that game has already been attempted and played out so I'll be doing some digging around to see what I can find on how other State courts have handled such a hostile move by a municipality. In any event, there will be municipalities that are hostile towards medical marijuana patients and there will be municipalities that respect the law that the voters overwhelmingly passed and leave the patients and cg's the hell alone.

My suggestion for those looking to setup shop is to make sure you settle down in the right place.

st0wandgrow said:

But what about federal law? Doesn't federal law supersede state laws? If a municipality tries to abide by federal laws by passing an ordinance (like Livonia has done) how does that play out? Are they ignoring the state law, or just abiding by federal law?

Click to expand...

US Supreme court has RULED Federal Law is for Federal Authorities to handle. States must turn it over to fed, but they can not Try to force a federal case without a federal Attorney pushing for them.. So the US Supreme Courts have rules, States CAN NOT enforce federal law, only state law. all they can do it turn it over to federal authorities and they can move forward on it if THEY (Fed) wants. So yes, they are Ignoring State Law, and have Zero authority to enforce fed law...

It plays out when someone/entity sues Livonia for overreaching authority with a Constitutional Attorney. A mediocre Constitutional Attorney would Tear UP a city lawyer and the city lawyer Knows it... if they dont, the city is full of dumb asses hiring dumb ass lawyers.....

Get a good lawyer and lay this on them. point them to the city council and push with papers in one hand and a dank fatty in the other...

To: The City Of Muskegon
Muskegon Area Child protective Services
WEMET
Others Not Listed or intentionally omitted

It was recently brought to our attention that you had enacted a repressive ordinance that negatively impacts the sick and disabled in your community. In addition we have been informed that you did so after being informed that your actions were both illegal and unconstitutional. We find this blatant disregard of the law to be extremely disturbing. We demand that you immediately repeal this ordinance and honor the law and the Constitution of the State of Michigan as you have sworn to do. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist in your illegal and unconstitutional activities. You are also ordered to comply with the spirit and intent of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. You are further ordered not to initiate any action that could be construed as an act of aggression or intimidation towards the protected class. Further more you compliance does not remove our option to peruse legal remedy.

I would first like to remind you that Section 9 of the Michigan State Constitution defines all levels of government that can alter a “Peoples Initiative“. An initiative is a constitutionally protected law. Only both houses of the legislature can alter it and only with a 3/4 super majority. Not even the governor is allowed to modify it's intent. It is the constitution which gives your township the right to exist. If you ignore it's confines, you will not only defy the constitution and the people, but also your own charter.

Under color of law, you have willfully misled the protected classes under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act(Patients/Caregivers) to believe that they were subject to the conditions of your zoning ordinances. The facts are that the law prohibits you from enacting any ordinance that conflicts with state law.

The Home Rules City Act repeats the constitutional limitation on a municipality's authority, expressly stating that "[n]o provisions of any city charter shall conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the state," MCL 117.36, and that a city charter may provide "through its regularly constituted authority to pass all laws and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns subject to the constitution and general laws of this state," MCL 117.4j(3). See Mack, supra at 194 n 7.
Although cities have the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to municipal concerns, that power is "'subject to the constitution and law.'" Rental Prop Owners Ass'n of Kent Co v Grand Rapids, 455 Mich 246, 256-257; 566 NW2d 514 (1997), quoting Const 1963, art 7, §
has been held pre-empted. [Llewellyn, supra at 323-325 (citations omitted).]

The supreme court has ruled on numerous occasions that local governments can’t pass ordinances that conflict with state law, via it’s ruling on the Home Rules Act.
" Rental Prop Owners Ass'n, supra at 257; accord People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 322; 257 NW2d 902 (1977); Frens Orchards, Inc v Dayton Twp Bd, 253 Mich App 129, 132; 654 NW2d 346 (2002). With respect to whether the state statutory scheme preempts a municipal ordinance by completely occupying the field of regulation that the municipality seeks to enter,4 in Llewellyn, supra at 323-325

Further more, under color of law, you willfully deceived the protected classes under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, that those caregivers and patients that were engaged in the rights granted by the act, prior to the passage of your zoning changes, would be forced to comply with those zoning changes. The Council and The City Attorney either knew this to be false or are grossly negligent in administering the law as Michigan State Law is clear about the effects of zoning changes.








125.3208 Nonconforming uses or structures.

Nonconforming uses or structures. Sec. 208.

(1) If the use of a dwelling, building, or structure or of the land is lawful at the time of enactment of a zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance, then that use may be continued although the use does not conform to the zoning ordinance or amendment. This subsection is intended to codify the law as it existed before July 1, 2006 in section 16(1) of the former county zoning act, 1943 PA 183, section 16(1) of the former township zoning act, 1943 PA 184, and section 3a(1) of the former city and village zoning act, 1921 PA 207, as they applied to counties, townships, and cities and villages, respectively, and shall be construed as a continuation of those laws and not as a new enactment.


This law provides the city with remedies, but none of those were exercised or made public to the effected class. Instead a campaign of fear and intimidation was initiated that included brutal police action and the action of various local and state agencies in defiance of not only the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, but also the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of The United States. This is a clear abuse of power and clearly violates

Article V (5), The Bill of Rights
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


TITLE 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.



Monell v. City of New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (197 was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape in holding that government agencies qualify as "persons" under Section 1983.[1]
The case began in July of 1971 as a challenge to the New York City Board of Education's forced maternity leave policies. In a different lawsuit in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities were liable for damages under the Civil Rights Act. Following the decision, New York settled for $375,500, to be divided among all women employees placed on forced maternity leave from July 1968 to the time of the case being filed. New York increased the money available for compensations to $11 million after an unexpectedly large response from women to notices announcing the settlement. The claims were paid in the fall of 1981.[2]

Clear evidence of this abuse occurred when two local compassion club leaders were stopped by township police. The stated reason was because , “ The windows were tinted to dark”. The police asked to search a bag on the back seat. The victims demanded to see a search warrant. The officer stated he did not have one, but that the prosecuting attorney wanted the bag searched. If the victims refused, they would be taken to jail. The driver then extended his arms to be cuffed and said, “then take me to jail”. The officer then extracted the victim from the car and slammed him to the car. The other occupant of the vechicle, a female, and fellow director of the compassion club, was extracted from the car and placed in cuffs. They were then chained to a wall and left standing for four hours while the officers and the prosecuting attorneys sorted it out. The victims property was not return to them at the time, even though it was lawful for the victims to possess.



Section 333.26424

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card 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, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.
(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card 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, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

In other instances Child protective services has visited patients homes and seized children. Extracted children from school and questioned neighbors about the victims use of medical marijuana in defiance of state law. Section 4 of the law applies as well as Section 6 below.

Section 333.26426
(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.


Recently the city has demanded to inspect the Compassion Club for code violations. The victims chose not to submit to the extortion by the council, so the council further abuses it’s power under color of law.

There are other instances of abuse and criminal behavior that will be documented, but are redundant for the purposes of this correspondence.

Prior to the acts of extortion by the council, the council deliberately ignored a constitutionally protect initiative of the people by enacting restrictions that conflicted with the initiative in defiance of state law. The council compelled caregivers to register with the city, despite state law that made it a criminal offense to do so.

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

This section of the law was made known to the council prior to the passing of the zoning ordinance that compelled caregivers to reveal their identities to city employees and make themselves known at communal grow facilities. It was a willful act of the council to deny the caregivers the rights defined under The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, The Attorney General of the State of Michigan defined the information so confidential that not even temporary workers of the health department could view the data.

Opinion #7250 Michigan Attorney General
The confidentiality provisions apply to a "person," including DCH and other state agencies and local units of government, as well as law enforcement agencies. Section 6(h) of the Act specifically describes the information deemed confidential or expressly exempted from public disclosure:
(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians,
are confidential.
(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names
and other identifying information on the list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231
to 15.246.
(3) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is
reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.
(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential
information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than
$1,000.00, or both. [MCL 333.26426(h).]2
While names, other personal identifying information, applications and information regarding patients, primary caregivers or physicians are deemed confidential and must not be disclosed contrary to the Act, DCH is implicitly authorized to disclose this information to the extent necessary to fully perform its duties under the Act.3 For example, in verifying the information contained in the application, DCH would need to disclose the name of the applicant to the physician listed on the application. Similarly, the MMA would not prohibit DCH from sharing the information with an outside vendor under contract with DCH to assist it in carrying out the application and registration process, so long as the contractual arrangement protected the confidentiality of the information. Under the MMA, any person who gains access to the confidential information would be required to protect its confidentiality under threat of criminal fines and incarceration: "A person . . . who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both." MCL 333.26426(h)(4).

The Michigan Right To Farm Act. You as a city do not have the authority to regulate farming in the state of Michigan, even if it is next door to the mayor. This has been upheld in the Michigan Supreme court in multiple court cases. Two of which are Padadelis v. City of Troy and Shelby v. Papesh. Marijuana is a legal crop for caregivers. As long as Caregivers stay within generally accepted agricultural and management practices. The caregiver's intent must be to make a profit.
(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.

Click to expand...

ya im just a dumb hick.

On that note, you all can Thank Michael Komorn of Kormorn Law, and owner of PlantetGreenTrees and the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (3MA), which is a full Not for Profit organization recognized in the State of Michigan as such.

Alot of citites are passing city ordiences to ban medical marijuana but heres the thing. Livonia is the ONLY city that has submitted the ordience to the state for approval and has got the ok. Citites are voting on these ordinances and theyre publishing they passed to SCARE people. fucked up huh?!?

^^i didnt hear this from a stoner buddy either. i attended a compassion club meeting and i learned it from there. this is real info not made up internet bullshit. BTW if anyone hasnt heard of CRCWM look them up on crcwm.com , theyre the most helpful, informed club on marijuana ive ever seen out of michigan. theyll help u with literally anything marijuana related.

most of the raids are actually being done on a state/local level contrary to common perception that its the feds. the feds will laugh if you tell them you know a guy growing alot of pot. theyre looking for the coke, heroin and especially meth. Unless the number of plants are in the thousands, they have better things to worry about. Out of all the big busts this year only ONE has been by the feds. You think it'd be the other way around.

I know in right now the city of kalamazoo is having severe financial problems. They have to come up with 2 million dollars by the end of the week. they're broke. This is a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is that they are cutting police which is always good, the drug agencies that are raiding people are broke and they dont have the money to prosecute people. Which is awesome until you start thinking about it. People are getting raided and theyre not being arrested. Rarely will you see someone get arrested. BUT they take all you plants, assets, guns and money. YES MONEY. and since the city is broke we just have to pray that they dont start raiding more people to cover their bills.

It's already happened Timmah. The ACLU got involved.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/12/aclu_sues_birmingham_bloomfiel.html

They were not successful.

Any other suggestions??

that case is being appealed to the CoA, and then ofcourse it will have to go to the SC.....

Timmahh said:

that case is being appealed to the CoA, and then ofcourse it will have to go to the SC.....

Click to expand...

No it's not. The ACLU dropped the appeal.


http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20120322/NEWS10/120322003/ACLU-drops-appeal-over-Livonia-ordinance-banning-marijuana-growing?odyssey=nav|head

"While the ACLU has dropped the case against Livonia, the case against Birmingham is apparently continuing..."

I would assume if the Birmingham case makes it to the COA and the ACLU wins, that would then set the precedent to invalidate similar laws in other municipalities.

jonnynobody said:

"While the ACLU has dropped the case against Livonia, the case against Birmingham is apparently continuing..."

I would assume if the Birmingham case makes it to the COA and the ACLU wins, that would then set the precedent to invalidate similar laws in other municipalities.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that after I posted the article. I wonder why they dropped one case, and are pursuing the other? Maybe like you mentioned it will only take 1 case to set precedent.

2 cases same fight twice the expense Stow. Simple economics. beat it once, and its beat permanently.

Timmahh said:

2 cases same fight twice the expense Stow. Simple economics. beat it once, and its beat permanently.

Click to expand...

Understood. That makes sense.

I can garauntee that these township ordinances that try to ban MMJ outright even to patients and caregivers will lose in the end. Once the FINAL word is said on it the townships will be shown that they can not make ordinances that trump state law. The true sad part is that it has to go so far to get it right. How much money does all that cost? To in the end find out that state law says a patient or cg can possess and grow it and the townships have NO RIGHT or AUTHORITY to say otherwise. So in the end these township people will find out that they are not REALLY politicians and are not in the big show HAHAHAHA.

These civil servants of ours in Michigan sure do love to waste taxpayer money fighting their own citizens on lost causes eh?

What message does something like this send to the kids of this state in high school or college right now who are observing how and what their government is doing to thwart the will of the people on medical marijuana? It tells them that democracy and decency is dead in this country unless you're willing to fight for it!

ozzrokk said:

I can garauntee that these township ordinances that try to ban MMJ outright even to patients and caregivers will lose in the end. Once the FINAL word is said on it the townships will be shown that they can not make ordinances that trump state law. The true sad part is that it has to go so far to get it right. How much money does all that cost? To in the end find out that state law says a patient or cg can possess and grow it and the townships have NO RIGHT or AUTHORITY to say otherwise. So in the end these township people will find out that they are not REALLY politicians and are not in the big show HAHAHAHA.

Click to expand...

sorry to say this but they will win in the end

jsteezy1290 said:

sorry to say this but they will win in the end

Click to expand...

On what legal grounds would a municipal community have to override state law or are you just pissing in the wind?

jonnynobody said:

On what legal grounds would a municipal community have to override state law or are you just pissing in the wind?

Click to expand...

No Idea of the legal grounds..but consider this:

Before the md law was passed, Ann Arbor had local ordinances that wer more liberal for cannabis than State Law was. Point being, if that was legal..why wouldn't a more restictive ordinance be allowable..

bob harris said:

No Idea of the legal grounds..but consider this:

Before the md law was passed, Ann Arbor had local ordinances that wer more liberal for cannabis than State Law was. Point being, if that was legal..why wouldn't a more restictive ordinance be allowable..

Click to expand...

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Like a lot of other legislation, I guess the details will have to be worked via the court system.

Hopefully we have some forward thinking judges hearing these cases. There doesn't seem to be much consistency from judge to judge, county to county.

bob harris said:

No Idea of the legal grounds..but consider this:

Before the md law was passed, Ann Arbor had local ordinances that wer more liberal for cannabis than State Law was. Point being, if that was legal..why wouldn't a more restictive ordinance be allowable..

Click to expand...

The point is that if a local boy caught ya you got local punishment under their more liberal local law but if you're caught by a state boy or a county boy, you're getting charged under state statute. If the law were challenged it would most likely be struck down but nobody in the Ann Arbor electorate seems to be interested in challenging their more liberal law because that's what their community wants for their marijuana policy.

They can do anything that is Less restrictive, but they can not do anything that is MORE restrictive.


the Constitution of the State through the charter of being a county in the state, has specific guidelines they must follow. while they can do some things, the one thing they can not to do, is create rules, mandates, legislation ect, that are More restrictive than the state allows in which the charter resides.