27 arrested in five county marijuana bust

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Don't remember if this was mentioned in the thread previously, but according to this article, the investigation began when someone who was busted with several pounds in Ohio told authorities the weed originated in western Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/10/police_say_marijuana_trafficke.html

If that's the truth, crossing state lines with drugs would definitely get the feds involved.
If that were true than that individual would have been rightfully extradited to Ohio and prosecuted there where the crime actually took place. Frederick clearly is invested in this "ruse" or "cover" story line here as he slanders these doctors, caregivers and patients as if he knows for a fact that each and every one of them lack any legitimacy. It is just simply absurd my friend. I cannot imagine that a network of 27 caregivers with a possible pool of 135 patients could exist without at least 1 glaucoma, chemo or terminal cancer patient. I'd like to know exactly what qualifies Frederick to determine the medical needs of these patients and/or interpret this states laws?
 

kountdown

Well-Known Member
He was busted in Ohio. If he was an Ohio resident buying weed in Michigan and travelling back to and selling it in Ohio, then he was breaking federal laws on interstate trafficking of schedule 1 narcotics. The fact he wasn't prosecuted is because he snitched. Probably became a confidential informant in the investigation.

As far as my views; no one should go to jail or prison for any drugs, whatsoever. That's not the reality here, though.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Regardless Ohio has a federal court, a DEA office and NO medical marijuana laws. In Ohio Schedule I narcotic charges and it's lawfare is a game with a bit more legitimacy than we have here. Here we have a DEA agent making unintelligible and wrongful sworn statements to a federal judge whom negligently swallowed to allow local LEO the unjustified use of force they clearly schemed to obtain IMO. This obvious conspiracy is NOT a victim-less nor non-violent crime IMO. The fact that this DEA agent (Patrick Frederick) in particular has a penchant for interpreting Michigan marijuana law and determining legitimate patients needs is well beyond reason. I have yet to find such actionable facts in this game that has been used to threatened MJ patients, caregivers and doctors in the state for years now. I truly believe that the string of warrants leading up to this absurdity will paint quite an indefensible picture which has a chance to finally stop this game.
 

ProdigalSun

Well-Known Member
It's all good. After going back to the beginning of the thread (probably should have done that to begin with) I see TheMans point and actually agree with him. The feds willingness to stick their noses in to medical states is one of my biggest rubs with this administration. At this point it's pretty clear that all politicians are self-serving crooks regardless of the letter beside their name. We all want weed legalized in some fashion, but I guess we can have different ideas about how to get there and bicker about it now and then. No hard feelings on my end.

I need to smoke a bowl
I love when people do this.

Everyone, can you see the instant change in direction that this thread took when one stood tall enough to bow his head. See what can happen? Im proud of you St0w, and the rest who were big enough to accept it.
 

Stompromper

Well-Known Member
Your going to compare stow to that uncle buck prick? Thats beyond fucking low man, stow is cool..

I think if you are all encouraging people overgrowing and getting popped by being stupid just to support our cause, you should pop a few thousand beans and get yourself busted, take one for the team..
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Yeah, UB is living in a dream world and prefers to verbally lash out against those who would dare shatter his world view. St0w is nothing like him.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Surely someone here has the intellectual ability to actually address my fundamental argument and/or critique it, rather than others or I personally. That was my goal here, of which I believe is in the best interest of anyone involved with either medicinal or recreational use of marijuana.

Can anyone here that has such an ability please reword my argument for others to understand? Someone of the left (see UncleBuck) would actually be very helpful, be it in support or not.

[video=youtube;y9tNsXgNC-8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9tNsXgNC-8[/video]
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Section 4 of our Medicinal Marijuana Law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(f2gtmn45jjdl0ouvmwy2li55))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-333-26424.pdf

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008
333.26424 Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited;
conditions; privilege from arrests; presumption; compensation; physician subject to
arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or
vicinity of medical use of marihuana; registry identification issued outside of department;
sale of marihuana as felony; penalty.


4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.
Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be
subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not
limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or
bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient
possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying
patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for
the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of
seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this
amount. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the qualifying patient presents both his
or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears
a photographic image of the qualifying patient.
(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be
subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not
limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or
bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration
process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. The privilege from arrest under this
subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid
driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary
caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does
not exceed:
(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the
department's registration process; and
(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed
under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed,
locked facility; and
(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.
(c) A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act,
unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly
articulated and substantiated.
(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical
use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:
(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and
(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The
presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of
alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating
medical condition, in accordance with this act.
(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a
registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the
sale of controlled substances.
(f) A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or
privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Michigan board of medicine,
the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or
professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide
physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying
patient's medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a patient is
likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the
patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating
medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a
physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of
Rendered Thursday, October 24, 2013 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 139 of 2013
 Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.govcare for evaluating medical conditions.
(g) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or
privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or
professional licensing board or bureau, for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary
caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana.
(h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in
connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall
not be seized or forfeited.
(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or
privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or
professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of
marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or
administering marihuana.
(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district,
territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana
by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of
marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.
(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who
is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification
card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not
more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.
History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008;Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013.
Compiler's note: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:
10. Severability.
Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Section 8 of our Medicinal marijuana Law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(f2gtmn45jjdl0ouvmwy2li55))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-333-26428.pdf

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

333.26428 Defenses.
8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert
the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this
defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:
(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 to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the
patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;
(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of
marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of
marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and
(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession,
cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to
the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.
(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges
shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection
(a).
(c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using
marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the
following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:
(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or
(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.
History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008;Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013.
Compiler's note: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:
10. Severability.
Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other
section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Patrick Frederick's wrongful assertion in Section 4 Paragraph C:

"C. The MMMA provides an affirmative defense to persons supposedly involved in the provision and use of marijuana for serious medical conditions. A “patient” is allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of “medical marijuana” or maintain up to 12 marijuana plants. A “caregiver” is allowed to possess that same amount of marijuana for each of up to five “patients.” A “caregiver” who is also a “patient” can therefore possess up to 15 ounces of marijuana OR up to 72 plants and still maintain a defense to prosecution under Michigan, not federal, law. MMT manufacturing operations typically include 72 or fewer marijuana plants, but intercepted cellphone calls include discussions of having 300 “clone plants” at a time in some locations."

He quotes MMMA civil law (section 4) yet refers to the affirmative defense provided under Michigan's criminal law (section 8 ). He does so while excluding and ignoring the uninterrupted supply of Section 8 that clearly contradicts his stated licensing requirements of Section 4 that he wrongfully sites as Michigan criminal law.
What right does Patrick Frederick (DEA) have to ask Federal Magistrate Judge Joesph G. Scoville for warrants in this state at the request and based on Kent Area Narcotics Enforcement Team's (KANET) "Operation High Mileage"? And to opine on Michigan Medical Marijuana law to boot?
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
My argument here (in this thread) is specifically about the construct and use of federal warrants (based simply on federal schedule I classification) in this state by local law enforcement to obtain federal authorization for use of force that is in clear contradiction to this states laws that they are sworn to up hold. They have absolutely no right to act in this manner, regardless of the huge federal funding they receive, as they lack both the legal authority and jurisdiction to do so. I'd actually argue that it is their sworn duty to protect this states citizenry against these raids as they are in clear violation of our medicinal marijuana law. The fed's claims to federalism have no bearing in our states civil courts, just as our laws somehow have no bearing in their criminal courts. Same game different story?

My thoughts here are that small civil awards in number will negate/exceed the current revenue obtained from the federal government. We know the $ is at the true heart of the issue here. At that point even the PD's and local government's bean counters conscience will find ethics and integrity in this matter and their laws. It could even have a chance to trigger a blanket state court ordered cease and desist to PDs and governments running games just like "Operation High Mileage".
 

NurseNancy420

Well-Known Member
Sir? You are asking for intelligent conversation from the kidde table. You say "duty", they hear "dooty" and giggle. Virgins?? They are so cute. Like a basket of puppies.
 

ProdigalSun

Well-Known Member
Section 8 of our Medicinal marijuana Law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(f2gtmn45jjdl0ouvmwy2li55))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-333-26428.pdf

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

333.26428 Defenses.
8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert
the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this
defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:
(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 to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the
patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;
(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of
marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of
marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and
(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession,
cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to
the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of
the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.
(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges
shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection
(a).
(c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using
marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the
following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:
(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or
(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.
History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008;Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013.
Compiler's note: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:
10. Severability.
Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other
section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
I didn't think that defending this position was necessary, seemed redundant to me. The law that limits to 2.5 oz, does in another part, say that you can have an uninterrupted supply. It is a contradiction written directly into the law. I see no reason that a section 8 defense would not be applicable here.
 

ProdigalSun

Well-Known Member
My argument here (in this thread) is specifically about the construct and use of federal warrants (based simply on federal schedule I classification) in this state by local law enforcement to obtain federal authorization for use of force that is in clear contradiction to this states laws that they are sworn to up hold. They have absolutely no right to act in this manner, regardless of the huge federal funding they receive, as they lack both the legal authority and jurisdiction to do so. I'd actually argue that it is their sworn duty to protect this states citizenry against these raids as they are in clear violation of our medicinal marijuana law. The fed's claims to federalism have no bearing in our states civil courts, just as our laws somehow have no bearing in their criminal courts. Same game different story?

My thoughts here are that small civil awards in number will negate/exceed the current revenue obtained from the federal government. We know the $ is at the true heart of the issue here. At that point even the PD's and local government's bean counters conscience will find ethics and integrity in this matter and their laws. It could even have a chance to trigger a blanket state court ordered cease and desist to PDs and governments running games just like "Operation High Mileage".

This, entirely.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
How does a network of 27 caregivers raided, destroyed and charged with conspiracy to distribute 100KG of a Schedule I Narcotic, days later freed of those wrongful charges, resume providing medicine to 135 patients under the law? If section 4 of our law was written to civilly ensure unimpeded access, how is this fact of the matter and clear violation of the law not actionable by those who had their rights violated?
 
Top