Anti-Christ California Cannabis?
Anti-Christ California Cannabis? – we have never been shy when it comes to explaining our experience and expertise in connection with matters where we have skills that just might benefit a business, another professional, or an industry as a whole. Our focus in this article is on the legal commercial cannabis industry in California. We would be the first to admit we can be rather prickly, perhaps outright aggressive when provoked…but, in almost every case, its about the issue, not the individual. We detest self-aggrandizement and self-designation as experts [Andrew Hunzicker, CPA and Naomi Granger, MBA, CPA of DopeCFO.com] appear to be prima facie examples of conduct that Circular 230, Secs. 10.35,10.51(13) and 10.52 expressly prohibits.
We have commented extensively on Circular 230 practitioners as they are, as a group, vetted and credentialed professionals who should, arguably know better and be held to a higher standard. We are going to take this opportunity to focus on another group which includes “consultants”, “gurus”, soothsayers, and “public affairs and government relations consultants”, [collectively “lobbyists and influence peddlers”].
We trust that everyone is aware of the substantial amount of time and effort we spend publishing articles and doing what we believe is our best to share information related to tax, accounting, regulatory compliance and the licensing process for cannabis industry businesses in California. [As an example, we just updated our collection of whitepapers and core documents for the cannabis industry in California which you can assess for free, and without registering here.] The mere act of signing up to receive our articles by email registers you for access to numerous additional resources. Our belief that “content is king” and that it speaks for itself is the most effective way to obtain paying clients for our firm. The significant benefit to the industry is that the information is available to the entire industry. Jackie McGowen of K Street Consulting runs City and County Regulation Watch, a Facebook group with > 7K members which purport to provide similar information.
Amazingly, Ms. McGowan seems to be of the mindset that she alone possesses the magical ability to understand and comprehend the mysteries of cannabis business licensing and regulation in California. The snippet from our exchange on the right purports to justify our being banned from her Facebook group…she seemed to be aghast with the notion that anyone else would have anything valuable related to the subject matter. We quickly got over her banishment, the industry as a whole suffers when anyone throttles off valuable information.
Well, that is a sport that more both parties can engage in, and after Ms. McGowan made an absolutely false statement in an MJBizDaily article we offered a little dart to both correct the misstatement, and highlight the fact that neither Ms. McGowan nor her colleagues at K Street are either an attorney or a certified public accountant, which are the relevant credentials for the subject matter of the article.
We would not have had a problem with comments that were critical of our comments or stayed with the subject matter at hand. What we have no patience for, and will NOT tolerate is being attacked through surrogates, savants, and stooges like Maximillian “MAD MAX” Mikalonis who is a fellow consultant at K Street.
We are particularly amused that the number of knowledgable individuals with substantial relevant experience and expertise in the California cannabis industry has been banned by Ms. McGowan that they have their own Facebook group,
BANNED MEMBERS OF California – City and County Regulations Watch
which has hundreds of members. Once again, we are flabbergasted at the time, energy and effort that seems to go into perpetuating this “Through The Looking Glass” mindset, and it is the cannabis industry in California. Just when we thought it had hit bottom, an example that proves “every bottom has a trapdoor” appeared through the persona of VivCK, whomever that is. She was kind enough to question the veracity of our competence, and when we responded with verifiable proof of our assertions, she got PISSY.
This is a wonderful example of an article that we should NOT have to spend the time writing. However, we have no intention of permitting a group of petulant, self-designated “experts” to spew a toxic stream of blather, gibberish, and prattle that they label as knowledge.
How can you tell the difference…permit us to quote SCOTUS jurist Potter Stewart in Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)
“It is possible to read the Court’s opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court’s decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. “But I know it when I see it”, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
We would like to thank Darryl Cotton and his websites 151farmers.org and http://www.knowmoreon64.org/ for invaluable information that allowed us to add to our materials.
Anti-Christ California Cannabis?