Homeless in Arizona

Marijuana criminal defense lawyer had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose it to everybody involved. For that matter, I don't think Tom Dean has disclosed that conflict to anybody, other then in a response to my lawsuit when he admitted he worked for the legal medical marijuana cartel.

When I joined Safer Arizona I thought it was a group that wanted to legalize marijuana.

Sadly it seems now that Safer Arizona is sleeping with Arizona's legal medical marijuana cartel and doesn't really want to completely legalize marijuana. And in fact it seems Safer Arizona wants to keep marijuana as illegal as possible, and only make marijuana legal enough for the cartels to sell and grow. But illegal for anybody else to sell or grow.

Tom Dean had not one, but two conflicts of interest because he makes money from the fact that marijuana is illegal.

Tom Dean's first conflict of interest is because he is a criminal defense attorney that specializes in defending people who have been arrested for victimless marijuana crimes. If of course if marijuana is legalized 100%, Tom Dean's law firm which specializes in marijuana will go out of business, and Tom Dean will lose a lot of money if marijuana is legalized.

Tom Dean's second conflict of interest is because he works for the legal medical marijuana cartel in Arizona.

The legal medical marijuana has a vested interesting in keeping marijuana as illegal as possible so the police can arrest and jail anybody that cuts into their government monopoly on growing and selling medical marijuana at the rip off price of $300+ an ounce.

The 150 members of the legal medical marijuana also have a vested interesting in keeping marijuana as illegal as possible to prevent new businesses from entering the marijuana business. Prop 203, or Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act limits the number of businesses that are allowed to sell marijuana to about 150.

So since Tom Dean represents the legal medical marijuana cartel, he had a conflict of interest he should have disclosed before working for Safer Arizona.

When me, Alex, and Dave wrote the 1st version of the Safer Arizona initiative to legalize marijuana, it was 100% legalization of marijuana with 2 exceptions:

1) we added an age limit of 21 to the initiative

2) we allowed the government to put a small sales tax on marijuana no greater then the sales tax on food.

When Tom Dean got involved with previewing the Safer Arizona initiative for "constitutional" and "legal" problems, he didn't do that.

Instead Tom Dean gutted the Safer Arizona initiative and seem to add a bunch of stuff to keep marijuana illegal, so he would have a steady supply of customers arrested by the police so his law firm would have business. And two added a bunch of stuff to give the members of the legal medical marijuana cartel, which Tom Dean represents an upper hand over newcomers to the marijuana business.

Tom Dean added garbage requiring you to get a license to sell marijuana.

Tom Dean added garbage making it illegal to grow marijuana within 1000 feet of a school.

Tom Dean added garbage requiring you to get a license to grow over 48 plants.

Tom Dean added garbage requiring you to get a license to grow marijuana for commercial purposes.

I suspect the reason Tom Dean added the requirement for those licenses were to make it easy for the DEA to find and arrest marijuana users/growers/sellers on Federal marijuana charges. Which would make money for Tom Dean, if the arrested people used Tom Dean's law firm to defend themselves.

I suspect the reason Tom Dean added the requirement for those licenses was also to make it difficult for newcomers to cut into the business of the current legal medical marijuana cartel, which Tom Dean represents.

I suspect Tom Dean was the guy who had me kicked off of the Safer Arizona board of directors because of my views that marijuana needs to be legalized 100%.

Source

Source

Dual agent must fairly represent home's value Christopher Combs, Special for The Republic

azcentral.com Published 9:54 p.m. MT April 24, 2015

Question: Both of us retired from our jobs in Chicago and decided to move to east Mesa where my husband's sister lives. We contacted a real estate agent recommended by my husband's sister and traveled to Arizona to buy our retirement home.

The real estate agent only showed us three homes, which were all listed by that real estate agent. One home we really liked. We signed a form that said that the real estate agent represented both us and the seller of this home. Acting upon our real estate agent's advice, we made an offer of $310,000, which the seller accepted.

When we went back to Chicago, my husband's sister arranged for the home inspection and termite inspection, and we never came back to Arizona until we moved into our home. Soon after we moved in, however, we talked to several of our neighbors who said that our home was worth no more than $250,000 based upon sales of similar homes in our community.

Our neighbors were very happy, however, because our high purchase price probably increased the value of their homes. We are upset that we paid at least $60,000 more for our home than its value. Do we have a claim against the real estate agent that represented both the seller and us? Do we have a claim against the seller?

Answer: Although the real estate agent was a dual agent representing both you and the seller, the real estate agent still had a duty to fairly and properly represent you. If the real estate agent negligently or fraudulently misrepresented the value of your home to you, you should have a claim against the real estate agent for damages for this misrepresentation.

In addition, under the doctrine of respondeat superior ("the master is responsible for the wrongs of his servant"), the seller also should have liability to you for this misrepresentation, even though the real estate agent was a dual agent.

Reach real-estate attorney Christopher Combs at azrep@combslawgroup.com.