"The Washington Post reports on the Shattuck family who were not only arrested but all their possessions were stolen by law enforcement based on the asset forfeiture law."

Nothing in the Michigan "medical" marijuana law says anything about operating a dispensary. There can be no confusion because they're simply not allowed.

BUT, although ignorance of the law is no excuse, I guess it is if the local zoning authority is also ignorant of the law.

Nothing in the Michigan "medical" marijuana law says anything about operating a dispensary. There can be no confusion because they're simply not allowed.

Attaboy - just as I expected.

Do you ever tire of being a douche?

Marijuana was legalized, the owners were permitted and they asked the government to conduct a business inspection. Instead the police busted them and stole all their stuff!

Law enforcement uses all kinds of trickery in order to increase criminal convictions in order to justify their existence and budget.

Fortunately, the judge saw through their activities and invoked "entrapment by estoppel"....

When the forces of freedom are so much smaller and weaker than the forces of the oppressor, how are the forces of freedom to fight?

How did God use Moses to fight Pharaoh?

Retaliate, yes, thru retaliation.

God gave Moses every chance to fight diplomatically.

This, our fight with the oppressor g0vt of the United States must be given the chance to be overthrown by every diplomatic opportunity, but we must never forget that as each diplomatic move fails, we must use retaliation as a hammer with each retaliation stronger and more deadly than the last.

Shall I explain further? Shall I explain the Biblical means of funding thru the Spoil? Shall I amplify the word retaliation?

Marijuana was legalized

Marijuana is illegal in all 50 states. It is illegal pursuant to Federal law.

States can decriminalize marijuana possession, cultivation, or distribution by removing the State criminal statutes regarding marijuana. If there is no State criminal statute being violated, there is no law to proceed with a State prosecution.

It remains illegal as a State cannot repeal Federal law.

In the instant case, the Court explicitly held that the actions of the defendants were UNLAWFUL pursuant to Michigan law. It held the defendants could not be prosecuted for their UNLAWFUL actions due to entrapment by estoppel.

Michigan v. Shattuck, Cir. Ct. for the Cty of St. Clair, Case No 15-001155-FH (2/18/2016), Opinion:

Applicable Law and Analysis

In People v. Woods, 241 Mich App 545, 548-49; 616 NW2d 211 (2000), the first case where Michigan appellate courts applied the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel, the Michigan Court of Appeals stated:

We recognize that entrapment by estoppel ... may, in certain limited circumstances, preclude prosecution. When a citizen reasonably and in good faith relies on a government agent's representation that the conduct in question is legal, under circumstances where there is nothing to alert a reasonable citizen that the agent's statement is erroneous, basic principles of due process should preclude prosecution. However, when a citizen who should know better unreasonably relies on the agent's erroneous statement, or when the "statement" is not truly erroneous, but just vague or contradictory, the defense is not applicable.

Kimball Township Ordinance 20.233 defines "compassion center" to mean, "any retail store, store front, office building, or other structures or any type of mobile unit or entity that dispenses, facilitates, sells, or provides, in any manner, marihuana or cannabis or any other product containing marihuana or cannabis, as regu lated by Section 20.409. Following that, Kimball Township Ordinance 20.409 provides definitions, conditions, and standards of operation. Specifically, under Kimball Township Ordinance 20.409(2)(f), it is stated that "Medical Marihuana Compassion Centers shall be operated in compliance with the provisions of the Department of Community Health ."

The permits and meeting minutes provided by the People show that Defendants were licensed by the Kimball Township Planning Commission to open their Medical Marihuana Compassion Center and that their compassion center had been inspected by the Kimball Township Building Official/Ordinance Enforcer to make sure Defendants were complying with the Kimball Township

Ordinance. Also, at a public meeting of the Kimball Townsrup Planning Commission, the Chairman of the Commission went so far as to thank Defendants for following the ordinance and taking the necessary steps to open the business within Kimball Townsrup in the manner required.

Based on this information, it is clear that Kimball Townsrup Planning Commission, a government agent, represented to Defendants that the DNA Alternative Wellness Center, Defendants' Medical Marihuana Compassion Center, was legal and that Defendants relied upon this representation when conducting day to day business. And under these circumstances, there is nothing that would alert a reasonable citizen that Kimball Township's representation was erroneous. Further, it stands to reason that Defendants would not have called DTF and invited law enforcement to their compassion center for an inspection unless Defendants believed in good faith that DNA Alternative Wellness Center was properly licensed and operating within the law. Therefore, because Defendants were reasonably and in good faith relying on a government agent's representation that the conduct in question was legal, basic principles of due process preclude prosecution in this case.

Marijuana is illegal in all 50 states.

Not true, because the federal 'law' is being contested/ignored as unconstitutional in many States.

It is illegal pursuant to Federal law.

It is legal, as the Fed 'law' is NOT made "in pursuance thereof" our Constitution. (See Art VI)

It remains illegal as a State cannot repeal Federal law.

States can ignore unconstitutional Fed 'laws'. (See the 10th Amendment) --- and prevent federal agents from enforcing them.

Not true, because the federal 'law' is being contested/ignored as unconstitutional in many States.

"Being contested" does not change the supremacy of Federal law in all jurisdictions.

It is legal, as the Fed 'law' is NOT made "in pursuance thereof" our Constitution. (See Art VI)

It is not changed because tpaine deems it not in pursuance thereof. Absent a holding of a Federal court, the Federal law is the law in all jurisdictions.

States can ignore unconstitutional Fed 'laws'. (See the 10th Amendment) --- and prevent federal agents from enforcing them.

Wackaloon bullshit.

State officials who ignore Federal law may be imprisoned for doing so.

Wackaloon bullshit.

Our constitution, as written, is not "Wackaloon bullshit"..

You read it from a leftist law school position.

Our constitution, as written, is not "Wackaloon bullshit"..

You read it from a leftist law school position.

Your position is unrelated to the law or the Constitution and is wackaloon bullshit. That is why you cannot source your position to any recognized legal source.

I did not read what I opined coming from a leftist law source. I can readily quote it from YOUR PREFERRED LEGAL SOURCE.

See Randy E. Barnett, Our Republican Constitution, First Edition, April 2016, pp. 244-245:

Not only does the Ninth Amendment say that the "fights ... retained by the people" not be "denied or disparaged" by, for example, privileging certain leberties but not others, but the Tenth Amendment reserves "to the people" all powers not delegated to the federal or state governments."

[...]

We can now seehow the individual conception of poplar sovereignty that underlies our Republican Constitution requires a skeptical judiciary to secure the liberties of the people.

[...]

In sum, being able to challenge any restriction on the liberties of the people as irrational or arbitrary before an independent and impartial judge is a vital structural means to secure the sovereignty of the people, each and every one.

Professor Barnett explored the 9th and 10 Amendments at length throughout his new book. You posted the below thread devoted to Professor Barnett's book. The people have the right to challenge a law before an independent and impartial judge. The people have neither the right nor the power to deem a law unconstitution on their own authority, nor do the people have some right to disregard laws they deem unconstitutional.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45874&Disp=All

Title: Our Republican Constitution
Source: Amazon
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 21, 2016
Author: Randy Barnett
Post Date: 2016-04-21 18:54:18 by tpaine

Your position is unrelated to the law or the Constitution and is wackaloon bullshit. That is why you cannot source your position to any recognized legal source..

My source is the Constitution itself.. You quote above:---

--- the Tenth Amendment reserves "to the people" all powers not delegated to the federal or state governments."

The 10th actually reads quite differently, - and says that constitutional powers NOT delegated to the Fed govt, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the STATES respectively, or to the people.

Thus, -- Fed drug prohibition 'laws', - made under undelegated powers - assumed by the feds. - can be ignored by the States, as they are unconstitutional..

Your leftist law school interpretation is obvious.

States can ignore unconstitutional Fed 'laws'. (See the 10th Amendment)....

My source is the Constitution itself....

Fed drug prohibition 'laws', - made under undelegated powers - assumed by the feds. - can be ignored by the States, as they are unconstitutional....

Your leftist law school interpretation is obvious.

Contrary to your diversionary change-the-subject bullshit, it is patently obvious that I linked, cited, noted and quoted YOUR LIBERTARIAN SOURCE, Randy Barnett. The inside dust cover from the article YOU posted about the new Barnett book begins, "The nation's leading libertarian legal scholar tells us...." It is far right, not left.

It is equally obvious that you will not, and indeed cannot, cite any recognized legal authority to support your legal bullshit. If is purely your bullshit interpretation of the Constitution, in conflict with every known recognized legal authority.

Your leftist law school interpretation of our Constitution, to the contrary, is obvious.

----you will not, and indeed cannot, cite any recognized legal authority to support your legal bullshit. If is purely your bullshit interpretation of the Constitution, in conflict with every known recognized legal authority.

I have no need to get any 'legal authority' to support the clear words of our Constitution. --- Words you can't refute.

Your leftist law school interpretation of our Constitution, to the contrary, is obvious.

I have no need to get any 'legal authority' to support the clear words of our Constitution. --- Words you can't refute.

nolu (and the law profession in general) are like the Catholic Church before the Reformation when only the priests were considered capable of understanding scripture and the peasants had to rely on their interpretation of it.

I have no need to get any 'legal authority'

You have no possibility to provide any legal authority to support your demented personal hallucinations regarding the law. All you can do is bullshit and attempt to divert attention from the fact that no such legal authority exists.

--- Words you can't refute, and don't even try.

All you do is whimper about bullshit, and quote your leftist 'authorities', poor fella.

You really should try spreading your agitprop elsewhere.