How To Use Progressive Web App aka PWA On 420 Magazine Forum
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So from the deduction of analysis of the above as far as your plant value going to your AG we have :
When the damage is to a "productive tree," such as a fruit tree, the proper measure is the tree's production value.
Now we have the sentencing commission and the court showing in delineated fashion this here as for "Production Value of "A" single plant " , One marijuana plant is treated as equivalent to 1 kilogram
(not 100 grams).
2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including. Possession ..... 520 U.S. 751, 757 (1997), and "commentary in the Guidelines ...
Note: One marijuana plant is treated as equivalent to 1 kilogram
(not 100 grams) of marijuana for purpose of setting the statutory
penalty range. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), (B)(vii), (D).
Marijuana Plants. A marijuana plant is defined as "an organism
having leaves and a readily observable root formation." See
§2D1.1, comment. (n.17). See also United States v. Foree, 43 F.3d
1572, 1581 (11th Cir. 1995) (a cutting or seedling from a
marijuana plant is not considered a plant until the cutting or
seedling develops roots of its own)
Courts have generally applied the equivalency even if the
actual weight of harvested marijuana plants is lower than 100
grams per plant. See United States v. Olsen, 537 F.3d 660, 665 n.2
(6th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases)
Now go to any website that has pricing for an Oz. of top shelf and you have your market value created by the above government guidelines. This is just an "average" of their created value. As I also have case law distinguishing hybrids from non hybrid strains, which they claim makes a big huge difference in price.. as the THC level is different for each and every hybrid strain they have evaluated .
Raising the market value from schwag to 1 hit wonder .. every 2 weeks.. lol.
Enjoy your retirement my friend !!
Sorry my last post was so short I was just getting ready to go for dinner with the family. I want to thank you again for this I know it is a lot of work and research but this is exactly what I will need in Court. Written decisions, and appeals are lacking in Medical Marijuana cases (at least here in RI) and anything that we can extrapolate or use as a point of reference will help. I am very grateful
In addition to this case I was burgularized days before last Christmas with the scumbags taking all my childrens presents, 24 Mature (10th week of flower) Marijuana Plants, 12 mother plants that were fully vegged, (each able to produce 24-36 proper cuttings to run a single strain at a time), various pipes, and about 4 ounces of jarred cured Marijuana.
The punks were arrested after I reported the break in and the DA called to ask the value of the Marijuana Plants. I informed him I was willing to go by what the DEA, and Police estimate the worth at. He asked what that was and I said to the best of my knowledge it is $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars), per plant. After a brief pause he said "we are not going to pay you for your Marijuana" so I know this will help when trying to recover money for stolen Plants as well as the crimminal case.
All for 1 and 1 for all.
WHAT IS THE "FAIR" MARKET VALUE SET FOR "A" CANNABIS PLANT ?
GotClones1 wrote:
I would love to chime in on this . That really all depends on what the end use is to be.
For example a healthy mother should produce up to 75+ clones a month at 10.00 ea. that's 9,000.00 annual . If it's one of our six way x's that took over three years to make and stabilize I would say a lot more than 12,500.00 per plant (they're priceless). Were these indoor/outdoor ? I lost two nurseries in the past few years I valued the generic strains (meaning anything easily acquired and common) at no less than 1500.00 min. per mother if she was uncut and within the first 90 days of rooting. These are just estimates and my opinion only. Remember and I am assuming you're an experienced grower ,inexperienced growers should never count on certain values there are just too many variables. Even with years of experience stuff sometimes happens. I wish you all of the luck and truly hope someone with real legal knowledge answers you and that you get the results you wish for. Sorry about your garden whatever it was.
The "MILKING COW/GOAT" legal theory .. love it. !!
________________________________________________________________________
Wingman,
I have more coming soon..
The "milking cow" case law..
Now the caselaw on the search warrant stuff, shows if you reverse engineer it.. it is what your looking for..
A warrant is required unless they can show you committed a felony in front of them.. presumption in your law says, nope, must make sure not a qualifying patient/caregiver without a card first before any PC attaches... i.e. Miranda doesn't attach until after investigation of registry system verification.
Any informant must be checked due to the registry system .. i.e. no PC attaches to the info until after registry verification you are in fact in violation of a "public offense" .
In your state, being a medical cannabis patient or caregiver is not a public offense.. if you have a card and are registered.. it is a "prescription" equivalent .
Ram that down their necks, and watch this all go away..
* * * When a man is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found upon his person or in his control which it is unlawful for him to have and which may be used to prove the offense may be seized and held as evidence in the prosecution. * * *" Carroll v. U. S., supra.
If it isn't illegal for you to "have" , it can not be used as "evidence" in a prosecution for that which you lawfully possess .
That would be like prosecuting you because you: have clothes on.. use an appliance in your home.. own a car outright and is registered to you... drink water, eat food, breath oxygen.. you get my point..
To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due
process violation of the most basic sort. See North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 738 (opinon of Black,J), and for an agent of the state to pursue a coarse of action whose objective is to penalize a persons reliance on his legal rights is “patently unconstitutional.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 32-33.n. 20
The doctrine of informed consent, which is premised on the principle that “every human
being of adult years and of sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with
his/her own body .’” reflects judicial recognition of the critical importance of this right.
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C. Cir. 1972), (quoting Schloendorff v.
Soc’y of new york hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 129 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914) (Cardozo, J.)). See
also Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (1990) (doctrine of
informed consent is “firmly entrenched in American tort law”). To ensure that patients
can exercise this right, the informed consent doctrine requires physicians to provide
patients sufficient information and advice necessary to “evaluate knowledgeably the
options available and the risks attendant upon each”. Canterbury, 464 F.2d 772, 271.
Physicians must offer enough medical information and advice to give a patient
“familiarity with the therapeutic alternatives and their hazards.” Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d
229, 243 (Cal.(1972); see also American Medical Association, code of medical Ethics
120 (1996-1997) (“AMA Code of Medical Ethics”.)
Perhaps more significantly, patients have a constitutional right to receive all information
and advice that the physician sincerely and reasonably believes is relevant to the patients
condition and which he/she wishes to convey. Thus, in the medical context, as in other
areas, the listeners right to receive information from a willing speaker is paramount. See,
e.g. First Nat’l bank v. Belotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) ( the First Amendment “prohibits
government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public
may draw”); Virginia state bd. of pharmacy v. Virginia citizens consumer council, 425
U.S. 748 (1976) (First Amendment “protection afforded is to the communications, to its
source and to its receipts both”); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (it is “now well
established that the constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas”).
This information and advice which patients do not have and cannot easily obtain. If
physicians cannot share the recommendations and advice they reasonably believe are
relevant to their patients condition, those patients first amendment rights are infringed, as
are the rights of the physicians to inform, recommend, and counsel their patients
according to their best medical judgment.
If these idiots don't see a legal "double barrel shotgun" in their face, pull the trigger .. make them an example for your community.. HOLD NO PRISONERS !!
And then document it for all to see !!
The U.S. senate just signed a bill of the same effect..
If ya can't beat em' , join them.. just make sure when you do, your the captain.