Here's something you might be interested in.
City councilmembers and San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith will meet behind closed doors on Monday January 28 to discuss the eleven pending lawsuits against Medical Marijuana facilities filed by San Diego.
The closed session meeting comes weeks after Mayor Bob Filner instructed Neighborhood Code Compliance to back off of enforcement against marijuana dispensaries for violating city code by opening their doors.
On January 14, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith wrote to lawyers for some dispensary owners telling them to abandon any hope of collecting legal fees from the City. Now Goldsmith will turn to city councilmembers to provide guidance and seek direction as to how to move forward with the eleven pending cases. Those cases are:
-City of San Diego v. Brutus Collective, Inc., et al.
-City of San Diego v. Therapeutic Healing Corporation, et al.
City of San Diego v. Rosecrans Herbal Care, Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. John I. Nobel, et al.
City of San Diego v. John David Bols, et al.
City of San Diego v. GJ San Diego, Inc. et al.
City of San Diego v. Joint Healing Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. PCSD, Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. Golden West Collective, Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. San Diego Organic Wellness Association Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. Martha L. Vitale Trust, et al.
Public comments will be heard during the regular meeting of the City Council at 2pm.
http://dockets.sandiego.gov/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=1787&doctype=Agenda
City councilmembers and San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith will meet behind closed doors on Monday January 28 to discuss the eleven pending lawsuits against Medical Marijuana facilities filed by San Diego.
The closed session meeting comes weeks after Mayor Bob Filner instructed Neighborhood Code Compliance to back off of enforcement against marijuana dispensaries for violating city code by opening their doors.
On January 14, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith wrote to lawyers for some dispensary owners telling them to abandon any hope of collecting legal fees from the City. Now Goldsmith will turn to city councilmembers to provide guidance and seek direction as to how to move forward with the eleven pending cases. Those cases are:
-City of San Diego v. Brutus Collective, Inc., et al.
-City of San Diego v. Therapeutic Healing Corporation, et al.
City of San Diego v. Rosecrans Herbal Care, Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. John I. Nobel, et al.
City of San Diego v. John David Bols, et al.
City of San Diego v. GJ San Diego, Inc. et al.
City of San Diego v. Joint Healing Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. PCSD, Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. Golden West Collective, Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. San Diego Organic Wellness Association Inc., et al.
City of San Diego v. Martha L. Vitale Trust, et al.
Public comments will be heard during the regular meeting of the City Council at 2pm.
http://dockets.sandiego.gov/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=1787&doctype=Agenda
Last month, San Diego Mayor, Bob Filner put an end to the investigation and persecution of medical cannabis dispensaries by the city’s Neighborhood Code Compliance.
Additionally, Mayor Filner directed the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith to drop all pending civil suits against medical cannabis dispensary operators for zoning code violations.
Since then, Jan Goldsmith has been reluctant to consent to dismissal of the cases "with prejudice" as opposed to dismissal "without prejudice," a scenario that allows Goldsmith to take up litigation again at anytime.
According to their Website: The City Council will meet in closed session on Monday, January 28, 2013, regarding the civil enforcement actions which were filed against these marijuana dispensary operators and property owners to compel compliance with the City’s zoning laws. The City Attorney will brief the Mayor and City Council on the status of the medical marijuana dispensary cases and will seek direction.
Public comment will be taken by filling out a speaker slip before 2:00PM on Monday in the Committee Room located on the 12th Floor of City Hall at 202 C St, San Diego, CA 92101.
Please let the City Council know the Mayor intended for these cases to end permanently and the City Council should direct Jan Goldsmith to allow the cases to be closed with prejudice. Mayor Filner made a strong stand for medical marijuana dispensaries and now he needs our backing.
If you are interested in being heard but can not attend to speak, you may use this fill-able form for public comment:
http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officialdocs/docketcomment.shtml
Information you will need for filling out the form: The meeting date is January 28, 2013 and the Docket number is CS2.
Link to Closed Session Agenda: http://dockets.sandiego.gov/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=1787&doctype=Agenda
Link to article on Jam Goldsmith’s actions: http://www.safeaccesssd.org/2013/01/jan-goldsmith-misleading-letter.html.
Thank you!
Terrie Best Court Support Coordinator San Diego Chapter, Americans for Safe Access
http://theweedlynews.com/?p=15030
Understand what A.S.A.'s real agenda is before you believe their lies,
A Coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly with which companies can operate in a given sector without any influence from competitive forces, because all potential market players are blocked from entering.
Coercive monopoly is contrary to non-coercive monopoly, in that the future of the monopoly is dependent on the measures taken to preserve the status quo. So in order to maintain the monopoly position, a firm must always consider the market dynamics at play and act accordingly.
Popular measures associated with this practice include adjusting prices and improving the production decisions, for instance, by pulling down prices to forestall any possibility of the other competitors penetrating the market.
Such a monopoly is also known as the efficiency of monopoly, because if the potential competitors can not afford to be more effective production wise, then they would find it hard to compete against the current monopoly.
Some argue that the only way for a business concern to effectively shut out any potential market entrants, and be in a position to raise prices freely without competitive worries. The firm needs the support and assistance of the government in curbing competition, otherwise prices will have to stay low.
When a company badly need to succeed in the use of coercion, thus effecting a compulsory monopoly through denial of all possibility for potential competition. It may resort to illegal or non-financial instruments such as blackmail to reach a compulsory monopoly position. A company can also achieve this through non-coercive means which include taking suitable action directly in the market, beating all other competitors to achieve monopoly target.
Once the company becomes the sole provider, it will be better placed to deal with issues of establishing effective entry obstacles. This form of monopoly was one of the most famous examples of the United States in the 1920s.
Direct government monopoly, involves a monopoly owned by the government itself, and those who manage the government monopoly under the command of the government departments. While a government-authorized monopoly, is a compulsory monopoly granted by law, but the monopoly of ownership pertain to private companies authorized by the government, the decision-making process is carried out by these private companies.
Government-granted monopolies tend to be identical to government monopolies in several ways, but the two can be separated on the grounds of the decision-making structure of the monopolist. Oil producing countries, are good examples when it comes to the development of state-owned oil firms, which are fairly common in countries such as Saudi Arabia’s (Aramco), Venezuela (PDVSA), these monopolies are designed with state nationalization of natural resources in mind.