tomcatjones
Active Member
YOU DO NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE PROTECTIONS IN SECTION 4.
is that better ozz? lol
is that better ozz? lol
or that... Lolyou do not need to follow the protections in section 4.
Is that better ozz? Lol
He sure can..right up until the Judge says that he violated the enclosed and locked part of the deal.Some of you need to read the actual supreme court ruling and stop listening to what someone said it said......
He can use the section 8
bob.. you are spewing misinformation now.He sure can..right up until the Judge says that he violated the enclosed and locked part of the deal.
Being allowed to use and argue the defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is going to be accepted..just like you can argue self defense at a murder trial...for the section 4 or 8 defense to work, the act must be complied with.
He sure can..right up until the Judge says that he violated the enclosed and locked part of the deal.
Being allowed to use and argue the defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is going to be accepted..just like you can argue self defense at a murder trial...for the section 4 or 8 defense to work, the act must be complied with.
It's not that simple...section 8 is a trial defense...section 4 would avoid a trial. Section 8 allows the defendant to argue medical necessity to a jury. Section 4 allows a pre trial motion to dismiss entirely.bob.. you are spewing misinformation now.
there are no specifications to be complied with in section 8.
Good to see you are still ignorant.Bob learn what the fuck you are talking about before you go calling people criminals. You have spewed so much bullshit about how people are breaking the law and hurting our law and you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about. You never do.................. You dont even know what the law says much less what the recent rulings say. What a tool........................................
Murph you are almost completely correct except for there is a situation where if you do not get a dimissal outright on section 8 at the hearing that you can then present it to the jury.
no bob.Good to see you are still ignorant.
Section 8 IS a trial defense...section 4 allows a dismissal. You agreed with Murph, then corrected him, just to argue with me.
My opinions are to try and keep people from getting in trouble..yours is to tell them to do whatever they want, with an overly broad interpretation of the law.
I stand corrected on the technical aspects of section 8.no bob.
if you can meet the 3 requirements of section 8 and not fail in 7(b).
THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN SAID IN 2008: we do not want to waste our time and money even having a trial!
CASE DISMISSED!
King had a Recommendation at the time of arrest...Kolanda did not..two seperate cases.i am-
he did NOT have the rec at the time of the violation, therefore, while he will be granted the exploration, he will not pass it.
the decision was to clarify the section 8 interpretation. the MMMA is not retroactive. we all new that.
Ok guys...ozz says we can grow 300 plants, outdoors, with no fence...so long as we have a recommendation.....ozz, you are an idiot if you think that section 8 will provide that kind of broad defense coverage.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 physicians professional
opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patients 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 defendants use was
to treat or alleviate the patients 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.
No - I know - I'm not a lawyer - but I don't think any of you guys are either.
Please PM me your info if you could. I would like to sit down with an attorney at some point.i am