tomcatjones
Active Member
http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-12-Term-Opinions/142695.pdf
YAY!
i'm not always the harbinger of bad news...
lol
YAY!
i'm not always the harbinger of bad news...
lol
Good News.. I swear!!
- Thread starter tomcatjones
- Start date
spencer2121
Well-Known Member
About damn time!
spencer2121
Well-Known Member
My cuz gets pulled over with 7 grams of trim and is looking at $3000 in fines all because she didn't register! I know she would qualify but she was stubborn and broke and just didn't go to the doctor! Now $3000 dollars she doesn't have will come out of the mouths of her children. It's insanity and I hope this law really works for people in her type of situation!
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
It means this law is not thiers - it is ours - until they pass those bills through the Senate and water it down...I am far too fucking baked to read all thatI did skim and read the last part. Sounds like great news. Could someone sumarize that for me?
DaleRoberts
Well-Known Member
Hopefully this will lead to legalization. Pot should be enjoyed without fear of procecution by all who want to use it!
tomcatjones
Active Member
now... must find a lawyer to help me.
we need to file a complaint in Isabella county and get control back to the MDCH..
like.. OUR laws sates.
we need to file a complaint in Isabella county and get control back to the MDCH..
like.. OUR laws sates.
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
Isn't it odd that this favorable supreme court ruling happens coincidentally (on the same day) the gnarly new-n-improved Pharmacy Bill rears its ugly dragon face?
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
summerization. Those like Myself who have been Saying time and time and time again. THis is a People's Initiative, and they CoA< Bill Shuitte, Legislation, Oakland county, all of them have been Seriously Erroneously reading the MMM Act Legislatively, or Judicially, and that is ILLEGAL and Wrong. Being a People Initiative, they MUST give the law the intent of the electing body, or We the People in this case....
A Section 4) and a Section
defense are two clear and concise, Separate protections. IE... you DONT need to qualify for sec 4) to use a section defense. You only need to have the Drs recommendation PRIOR to arrest to qualify to try to use a Section defense. Likewise as a State Registered Patient, If you are under your plant count, and under the weight limits, you SHALL NOT BE ARRESTED....
the State Supreme Court has issued a HUGE ruling telling ALL courts and LEO Agencies and Municipalities and PAs, they MUST RECOGNIZE and Respect the 08 MMM Act. They can not ARREST someone that is a card holder and WITH IN the protections of the Act.....
there is SO much more really in this ruling. but the bottom line, Get a Drs rec and you get to try to use a sec defense if your UNREGISTERED, and a registered Pt/Cg is protected from arrest, JUST as the Act Reads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Section 4) and a Section
defense are two clear and concise, Separate protections. IE... you DONT need to qualify for sec 4) to use a section defense. You only need to have the Drs recommendation PRIOR to arrest to qualify to try to use a Section defense. Likewise as a State Registered Patient, If you are under your plant count, and under the weight limits, you SHALL NOT BE ARRESTED.... the State Supreme Court has issued a HUGE ruling telling ALL courts and LEO Agencies and Municipalities and PAs, they MUST RECOGNIZE and Respect the 08 MMM Act. They can not ARREST someone that is a card holder and WITH IN the protections of the Act.....
there is SO much more really in this ruling. but the bottom line, Get a Drs rec and you get to try to use a sec
defense if your UNREGISTERED, and a registered Pt/Cg is protected from arrest, JUST as the Act Reads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
This ruling from the MSC has now Forced the courts to allow your Cousin the option of a Sec 8 Defense so long as she has a Dr recommendation. THis should now be Dismissed.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Agreed. as long as the doctor recommendation was BEFORE the arrest.
tomcatjones
Active Member
WRONG.
this is what the MSC overturned bob...
you could grow 99 plants without your card (unregistered patient) and as long as you can meet the 3 requirements in a section 8 defense then your case is DISMISSED.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
The following quote was pulled from the article that gladstoned posted......
"The Michigan Supreme Court, in its first major ruling on a case arising from the use of medical marijuana, said today that the state's voter-approved law on medicinal pot provides relatively broad legal protection from prosecution, even for patients who do not register for a state medical marijuana card."
So, if a doc makes a recommendation, then we can assert the medical defense, even WITHOUT registering for a medical card through the state?!?!?!
Why in the fuck should I renew my card then??
"The Michigan Supreme Court, in its first major ruling on a case arising from the use of medical marijuana, said today that the state's voter-approved law on medicinal pot provides relatively broad legal protection from prosecution, even for patients who do not register for a state medical marijuana card."
So, if a doc makes a recommendation, then we can assert the medical defense, even WITHOUT registering for a medical card through the state?!?!?!
Why in the fuck should I renew my card then??
bob harris
Well-Known Member
No, I'm right. You don't have to register for a card, but the Dr rec has to be before the arrest...I'll find the article..here ya go..
8. With regard to the physician’s statement required by § 8(a)(1), the defendant
must have obtained the physician’s statement after enactment of the MMMA, but before
the commission of the offense.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking the same thing..
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
no, Bob is correct. the Drs Recommendation must be after the passing of the 08 act (dec 4, 2008 is the day the Act took effect) and prior to arrest. This is the only part of the SC Ruling I had wrong. I honestly figured they would see it as prior to trial. IE. after arrest. Just because someone is arrested, does not infer guilt of the charge. I was hoping the MSC would say, Innocent until Proven Guilty, so as long as the Charged can get a Dr to Testify in the Prelim, then the Charged could ask for the charges to be dropped under a sec 8 ) or atleast let a jury decide it. But they held it to the standard of Before Arrest.
So a Non Registered Patient Can apply for and get a Section 8 ) defense so long as they have a Drs recommendation for the Medical Use of Cannabis Prior to arrest. I think a Well worded Appeal to only this part of their ruling may compel compassion for the Innocent Until Proven Guilty aspect of it.. but until then....
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
Just as of few of us have been saying for over a yrs now Stow, Yes, that is correct.
Keep in mind, under a section
defense, you Will be arrested, you will have to go to prelim, and you have to PROVE you were within the 3 main charters of 7, to qualify being able to use section . Now as a registered Pt/Cg. you have 12 plants or less for each pt. 2.5 oz or less for each pt. you are not even arrested. if you are, say due to 14 plants, you can assert a Sect 8 defense, if you need to, say for being over plant or weight count ect. further more, this ruling states the lower courts MUST allow this info to go to JURY if it even makes it that far. If you have a Valid Registry Card, and are at or under weights, they have to say "GOOD DAY" to you and be on their way.... without the registry card, its up to the officer/PA at that point, but chances are you will be arrested.
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
No Not at all - I was just telling a friend today that politicians are so fucked up that they will drop hardcore ingrained beliefs in favor of power at the drop of a dime from a Party Boss.
We already know that Court is Republican controlled by the Party: they would not have ruled on the Broader issues if they were not taking orders from the Party to lighten up so they can steal the dispensary business.
I had assumed they would rule that because Alex had no prior rec or card to his arrest he had no standing and therefore they would choose not to address the broader issue of protection from arrest under the Act. They did and I am happy to be wrong in my assumption. The King case was not portrayed correct in the newspaper article I read; but he always had a good case onthe part they ruled on. I think he still loses at lower Court because he didn't try to comply to the best of his ability and was in your face with his neighbors who summoned the cops. He then made the comical mistake of calling out the PA when the PA was caught drunk driving. They want his ass on a skewer and they most likely will get it in my opinion.
Far more important than either of those cases is the protection they spelled out with the statement of voter intent.
Oakland County can no longer prevent you from mentioning your medical status or card status in front of a jury; nor can they deny you the right to a defense under the Act anymore.
They have to accept the intent of the voters according to the Court now. It will take more cases in lower courts to flesh out policy for them; but they have effectively been denutted for the time being.
So now L Brooks and friends can claim they were forced by the Court to comply; so the County might as well make the taxes off the Dispensaries so they can 'police' it for us.
L Brooks and friends can write whatever they want to run these things, and you can bet your sweet ass they will asap.
It's up to us now to make them fail.
I'm never paying the Motherfuckers who spent their carreers trying to jail me for using to turn around now and provide it to me.
And I'm never going to give the likes of the Jamies and Becks of this State ten cents under any circumstances.
I would rather watch Hoekstras family make millions than watch either of those two sellouts or their buddies.