tlb wrote:TFLYTSNBN wrote:Up until passage of HB-3200, the corrupt bureaucrats who administer the Oregon Medical Marinjunna Program were gleefully handing out address specific licenses to tenants or anyone else to commit Federal Felonies on rental properties. The Cole memorandum notwistanding, Federal prosecutors were also invoking civil forefeeiture of rental properties that had been utilized to commit these Federal feelonies without the landlord's knowledge or consent. The policy on issuing grow site permits was intended to circumvent the reluctance of marijunna growers to put their own property at risk and the reluctance of landlords to assume the risk. Such licenses could enable grows with hundreds of mature plants. Amanda Marshall, former US Attorney for the State of Oregon, was particularly eager to invoke civil forefeitute when she wasn't to buy perrforming oral sex on her subordinates.
Of all the things that you list, the only thing that comes close to corrupt is the sex, because it was surely a firing offense as contrary to department rules. For the rest when state laws are in conflict with federal laws, then you take your chances. It might well be the case that Oregon law required that licenses be address specific, otherwise it was just an example of bureaucratic fumbling.
I would expect better from you.
Just to save you the trouble of Googling:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1 ... sis/HB3200Yes, Oregon marijunna decrimilization law has always required OMMP medical marijunna grow site permits to be address specific. OLCC production permits have always been address specific as well. However; the OMMP also accepts GPS coordinates as a grow site address in applications. Neither the OMMP nor the various County assessors have the ability to determine property ownership by inputting GPS coordinatesr, so this policy obviously enables fraud.
The premiss of address specific grow site permits was to honor the intent of the citizenry by having verification, monitoring, regulation and sanctions for violations to prevent marijunna to be diverted to the black market in Oregon or exported to other states wehere it remains illegal. The key is knowing which grows are licensed asnd wehich astre not as well as on site inspections. I have been told by an Oregon State trooper who is in the marijunna task force that the OMMP had never conducted a grow site inspection prior to my discovery of my tenants' grow.
You should also peruse the OMMP plant limit charts. The voters were assurred that patients or their "care givers" would be permitted only six plants per patient. This would limit production that might be diverted and limit the income to reduce incentive for bootlegging. The plant limits actually adopted by the OMMP allowed six MATURE plants per patient plus varying numbers of immature plants depending on situation. In certain circumstances, a grower was permitted six mature plants per patient plus an unlimited number of immature plants. Even in the most limited circumstances, a patient could produce about six mature plants every two months. The yield could be about 72 kilograms per year wortth over $1/2 million per year on the black market. The regulations and policies adopted by the OMMP along with lack of enforcement has been so egregious that jurisdiction for grows for more han two patients has been transferred to the OLCC.
I seriously disagree with you about civil forefeiture being a corrupt practice. The premiss was that the loss of property that was purchased with proceeds for crime or utilized to commit a crime would be an additional sanction. Unfortunately; no conviction is neccessary for civil forefeiture. Police and prosecutors routinely invoke civil forefeiture to confiscate property and the alleged suspect then has the burden to prove their innocence. Among the many victims are illegal aliens who keep their savings from their earnings in cash because they dont trust banks. They can work their asses off for a year to save maybe $10,000 or $20,000, get pulled over for a minor traffic violation, then have a corrupt cop seize money on an unfounded accusation that it was proceeds from narcotics trafficking. The only "evidence" needed to substantiate the asccusation is that the accussed was carrying a large amount of cash.
In my case, my tenants and their associates had no growers licenses or grow site permits. They were totally illegal under Oregon as well as Federal law. Their avowed intention to sell to the legal marijunna dispensaries was not possibled because they didnt have licenses or perrmits. Their only plausible markets were to Oregon children or to smuggle out of state.
Our retired tenants aquired a very large travel trailer about the time that their first crop matured. They then went on vacation. I had reasonable suspicion that they were using their status as senior citizens on vacation as cover for smuggling their marijuana out of state. If they had been arrested, it would have been a Federal crime. Once the Feds identified the house that they rent from me as the source of the pot, the Feds would have invoked civil forefeiture of our property. Our ignorance of the grow and innocence would have been irrellevant.
