Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lapsangsouchogn t1_iriepmr wrote

So if I'm doing something that's not legal under federal law, the feds don't have jurisdiction over me?

That's some big brain thinking.

25

CallofBootyCrackOps t1_iriv5t5 wrote

no, the landlord basically snitched on themself because renting to a cannabis business is illegal under federal law. so they essentially went to the federal government and turned themselves in. even though the tenant is definitely in the wrong for not paying, this is a hilarious “my how the turn tables” scenario haha landlord thought they were being so smart going to federal court

54

ArNaSTy t1_irkbakv wrote

What a shit lawyer they must have. That’s like law 101 right there.

6

immibis t1_irma7ng wrote

I assume the cannabis firm doesn't have to argue that it does illegal stuff, only that the landlord is trying to enforce a contract for something illegal, which may or may not have actually happened.

2

Biteysdad2 t1_iriplv7 wrote

Ever heard of sovereign citizens?

7

peensteen t1_irk475e wrote

I was thinking about these exact idiots. The "You can't touch me, nyah, nyah!" defense. At least gold flag fringes weren't mentioned.

3

Vroomped t1_irisj4g wrote

If your renting to me is itself illegal, the feds don't have jurisdiction over a contract that shouldn't exist OR if they recognize it the landlord will be arrested.

7

plugubius t1_irius5t wrote

This is not a matter of jurisdiction (the court's ability to rule) but about the enforceability of the contract (what the right ruling is).

9

Vroomped t1_irjiwwc wrote

It is a matter of jurisdiction if you take it to a court that's unable to provide any ruling.(Unless the landlord homes that the court wants recognize them as having an illegal lease)

−1

plugubius t1_irjj999 wrote

A ruling that a contract is not enforceable is a ruling. This is not a jurisdictional matter.

4

Vroomped t1_irjjwbk wrote

Feds say its not enforceable, State says it is.
Tell me what the difference between the two is.

4

plugubius t1_irjkcx3 wrote

I think you're wrong about the effect of federal drug prohibitions on the validity of leases, but the difference I was referring to is between jurisdiction and a judgment. Jurisdiction allows a court to enter judgment, but it doesn't sat what that judgment should be. If the contract is unenforceable, the court enters judgment for the defendant.

3

Uncle_Father_Oscar t1_irj14rh wrote

Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it but nice try. They are not challenging jurisdiction, rather the enforceability of the contract. The legal reasoning is perfectly sound but the problem is they are inviting a raid from the feds when you admit in federal court that you are operating an illegal business.

The feds have said they won't bother dispensaries that are only breaking weed laws*,* but there's still no legal reason they couldn't change their minds, and the defense they are asserting to the contract invites some analysis as to whether it may constitute some type of real estate fraud or something else that might qualify for federal intervention even under existing policy.

3

bob4apples t1_iro7xco wrote

Generally illegal contracts are unenforceable. Ostensibly, the law is not intended to help secure ill gotten gains.

This is a weird one because pot isn't very illegal. If the landlord had gone to the state court, this wouldn't be an issue. At the state level it is legal to possess, buy and sell weed. Dispensaries are just another tenant.

However, the landlord went to federal court. In federal court, it is NOT legal to possess, buy or sell weed. In fact, it is illegal to even rent to "dealers".

Which brings up the question. If the federal judge rules that the contract is enforceable then he's ruling that it is legal.

1