Good News.. I swear!!
- Thread starter tomcatjones
- Start date
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
You may be almost as well off not renewing. Just know that you would then give up your right to not be arrested and not be prosecuted and even have a shift in certain burden of proof to you. Not that that has meant dick up to this point but I do suspect that will be changing soon..... Somehow I got a feeling........
What a great weekkkkkkkkkkkk................. for alot of people......
What a great weekkkkkkkkkkkk................. for alot of people......
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
Bob's rabbit doesn't poop. Look at it, it's cute as hell. It just rolls joints and plays music for him.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Timmah and I have never really dis agreed on what we would like to happen...just about how to go about making it happen. He's been more of a stop the laws from beiong amended guy, and I'm a help them amend them favorably guy.
In the long run, we'd all like to see the same thing. It's the most effective way to do it that causes debate.
tomcatjones
Active Member
soooo who needs renewals soon? or knows people who want to sign up but can't afford it?
a good group of 100 would be a good start and i'm sure we could find a doctor to give us a discount for such a large group
10 dollar renewal with the state - unless we find a free notary service
a good group of 100 would be a good start and i'm sure we could find a doctor to give us a discount for such a large group
10 dollar renewal with the state - unless we find a free notary service
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Kind of..kind of not. They were simply people that did stuff that stretched the law to test it's limits. What they did was going to get them arrested, and in my mind was foolish. They brought the situations upon themselves. Some of them won't even benifit from the new rulings....The ruling for section 4 and 8 defenses beiing available to anyone with a doctors recomendation, dosen't apply to the case that caused the ruling.
I'd have to look up who it was, but he got the Dr recommendations after the arrest.So although it spurred the ruling that is beneficial to many, he doesn't benefit.
It's inevitable that people would get busted when the law first came out...someone was going to push the limits and create the test cases. Call them martyrs if you wish...I call them foolish. Don't know what causes some people to do the things they do...but it's generally not that they knew they were right all along.
You don't win wars by dying for your country or your cause. You win wars by letting your enemy die for their country or cause. Some of the early cases, King included, were suicides, not martyrdom...
bob harris
Well-Known Member
That's true...but it also discourages the cops from busting you if you are in compliance with count, weight, and secure facility,,,cause now they know that if you do have the valid Dr recommendation, it's probably gonna get thrown out of court. Getting arrested isn't the end of the world..if the charges get dropped. so long as the charges get dropped it's just an inconvenience.
Cops and prosecutors only want to try cases they can win...this ruling will result in fewer arrests. But the guys who push limits on count and weight, or who are sloppy with 'locked and secure' will still get busted...card or no card.
tomcatjones
Active Member
this is where i think you are incorrect.
the MSC said that it doesn't matter the plants count or other minor violations. this law's INTENT is to protect medical marijuana users from arrest.
you show a valid dr's cert. with a notary on it.
the case SHALL be dismissed and you were wrongfully arrested if they did so.
“Across the state, patients have not been able to assert their rights under the Medical Marihuana Act because the Court of Appeals in this case misinterpreted the law," said Dean KOROBKIN, ACLU staff attorney. "This decision makes it very clear: A patient who uses marijuana to treat their medical conditions with the approval by their doctor should not be punished for mere technical errors regarding the number of plants or how they were secured.”
bob harris
Well-Known Member
I hope you are right...
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
I don't want to be the first one to find out.
I religiously lock my stuff up.
That one COA ruling made it pretty clear we have to I thought.
I don't think this ruling changes any of that.
The Court didn't decide King except to say he had a Right to an evidentary hearing.
I still think King is going down.
I religiously lock my stuff up.
That one COA ruling made it pretty clear we have to I thought.
I don't think this ruling changes any of that.
The Court didn't decide King except to say he had a Right to an evidentary hearing.
I still think King is going down.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Yup..I thought that it was pretty clear that you had to be in compliance with count weight and "secure', or you forfiet your protection.I don't want to be the first one to find out.
I religiously lock my stuff up.
That one COA ruling made it pretty clear we have to I thought.
I don't think this ruling changes any of that.
The Court didn't decide King except to say he had a Right to an evidentary hearing.
I still think King is going down.
At least it's the safest way to play it...
tomcatjones
Active Member
we taking bets? 
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Locked close facility is his only remaining concern. It will all come down to whether the dog kennel is judged as meeting the locked and secure definition....the biggest down fall being that it was not anchored to the ground, and could be lifted for access....time will tell.
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
Must not have read the supreme court ruling huh?
For section 8 defense you do not need to meet any requirements of 4.....
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
7. A defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 if, at the
evidentiary hearing, the defendant establishes all the elements of the § 8 affirmative
defense, which are (1) “[a] physician has stated that, in the physician’s professional
opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and
current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient
relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the
medical use of marihuana,” (2) the defendant did not possess an amount of marijuana that
was more than “reasonably necessary for this purpose,” and (3) the defendant’s use was
“to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms . . . .” As long as a defendant can establish these elements, no question of fact
exists regarding these elements, and none of the circumstances in § 7(b), MCL
333.26427(b), exists, then the defendant is entitled to dismissal of the criminal charges.
evidentiary hearing, the defendant establishes all the elements of the § 8 affirmative
defense, which are (1) “[a] physician has stated that, in the physician’s professional
opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and
current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient
relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the
medical use of marihuana,” (2) the defendant did not possess an amount of marijuana that
was more than “reasonably necessary for this purpose,” and (3) the defendant’s use was
“to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms . . . .” As long as a defendant can establish these elements, no question of fact
exists regarding these elements, and none of the circumstances in § 7(b), MCL
333.26427(b), exists, then the defendant is entitled to dismissal of the criminal charges.
tomcatjones
Active Member
you could have 150 plants.
all in a field unlocked.
as long as could can show you had the medical necessity..
and with all that Japanese radiation.. we all need some rso!
all in a field unlocked.
as long as could can show you had the medical necessity..
and with all that Japanese radiation.. we all need some rso!
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
He had a card or application in at the time.
Therefore he is beholden to the rules of the program and has to argue that his plants were secure under the Act.
He did not even try man.
His house had no lock and the indoor plants were in a hallway closet and the dog kennel was a joke.
Then he picked a fight with his neighbor over it.
Finally he picked a fight with the PA.
He's going down.
I don't think he should be punished; I just that he will be because he can't meet the COA defs and the PA wants his ass.
Therefore he is beholden to the rules of the program and has to argue that his plants were secure under the Act.
He did not even try man.
His house had no lock and the indoor plants were in a hallway closet and the dog kennel was a joke.
Then he picked a fight with his neighbor over it.
Finally he picked a fight with the PA.
He's going down.
I don't think he should be punished; I just that he will be because he can't meet the COA defs and the PA wants his ass.