Hey lawyer types!!!

NurseNancy420

NurseNancy420

Well-Known Member
I was asked a question by sweet little old gal that seems simple. But with anything involving this law it isn't simple.
If I am in the LARA registry,CG or patient, am I not then connected through that registry to everyone else who is? If someone pisses in my pool we all got golden bath.

And if I hav a 'primary caregiver' does that not open the door for a secondary caregiver ??


Mr Greg? You made sis laugh so hard she squirted pee... Yeah she was in my damn pool at the time. Luckily no one else fits while she is in there ;)
 
GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
Making them squirt is doing what I do best. Glad to help out.

Patients are permitted only one caregiver under the registry per sec. 4. The permitted connection does not extend beyond that. BUT, this brings us to, again, the Affirmative Defense found in sec. 8 of the law. It has only a fraction of the limitations of sec. 4, but is potentially more costly because you can be arrested, booked, pay a bond, and go through some due process in court. Understand the cost can run, in my estimation, about $5k to bring the charges to the necessary pretrial hearing to dismiss, typically in circuit court. Under the AD it is necessary only that a defendant prove the three prongs of the defense. The evidence must be compelling, which is why I devised the contract you have seen. Using that, and as long as quantities in possession are not way over the top, the evidence should be adequate.Any worth a shit judge will dismiss, but some are jerks. Prosecutors are a vile bunch and may nonetheless take the case, once you have prevailed, and appeal it to a higher court. There has been precedent set laying out the authority of sec. 8, and the lower courts are obliged to follow. Those precedents tend to warn prosecutors that they will be spinning their wheels to continue, but some are not smart enough to know when to quit. Defendants with a firm understanding of the law can use pubic defenders and closely manage them, providing them with case law and other pertinent information, saving loads of money and giving them something amusing to do. I am presently doing just that to help a friend, and fully expect the case to be dismissed.

Sec. 8 has no prohibitions regarding the number of caregivers a pt can have, and likewise no restrictions on the number of patients a caregiver can serve. Medibles and extracts are permitted. Possession limits are more liberal. Agreements between patients who already have a registered caregiver and any number of non registered caregivers are not prohibited. As with all things cannabis, no one should be told anything they don't need to know. The contract I have put out there includes a non disclosure clause. See the most current version here: https://www.rollitup.org/michigan-patients/694887-new-activist-funding-plan-6.html#post9434635

All that said, I frequent a farmer's market that has yet to have any seller arrested since it opened three or four years ago. Peeps are happy as pigs in shit to be there yukking it up and enjoying good company. Let's face it. Before the law trade in cannabis was, shall we say, brisk?
 
GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
It should be said that I am not a lawyer. Pissed off often enough with legal maneuvers against me to delay or deny necessary support when I became disabled, I determined to learn about the law. Cannabis helps me immensely and I aim to see that full and complete access is not restricted to me or to anyone who finds relief with it. Legal classes were cut short by my disability but the determination remains. Google is my friend. I am happy in that some sharp lawyers have offered their friendship and have been helpful with case and statutory law and in helping with procedural information. I hope to be able to help people enjoy everything the law has to offer and to defend themselves if it comes to that.
 
buckaroo bonzai

buckaroo bonzai

Well-Known Member
NurseNancy420 said:
>>>"If" I am in the LARA registry,CG or patient, am I not then connected through that registry to everyone else who is?
;)
Click to expand...

i said that a long time ago-

...on that 'other' site and they attacked me for it.......

seems like it would be a logical conclusion but they want to keep everything fractured and splintered here by design
....to protect the lawyers $$ and the states interests would be my guess.

....nothing to do with pts or their ability to network--or safe access
the whole focus has been to 'limit' patients access rights and herd them into the box they want for their own profit by design

havent you ever wondered why there are no 'real time' >>working patient groups here that are for patients rights and protections...?
--just nuetered ballless CC that are only for networking ....not activism

or some other patients rights[fake] group that is really a cover for distribution rights....or lawyers interests $$$$$

most of the groups here have 'lawyers' leading the focus...
.(i always have a red flag when i see lawyers getting people to follow them and their designs instead of lawyers following and protecting people or groups of people and 'their' designs)

--think civil rights and all that encompasses....or constitutional rights-
....why has there been 'no' class action lawsuits to protect our rights we voted for...? -(too late now)

many people have had their basic civil and constitutional rights violated with the 'non' implementation of the law
now they have changed the law so we dont even have those basic rights anymore

you have to 'purchase' them from the lawyers
.....purchase protection at a huge co$t!

what is the card really good for---? 12plants and not a speck more...but really not even that...2.5oz and no more
(oh yeah soon yu will see ....it will be good for buying your meds from a dispensary....legally)

thats why i suggested patients unions in every co to protect and monitor the authorities abuses of the law....
--again the folks helping rep the state interests and their own distribution interests tore that apart

every 'group' is connected to a dispensary or somthing similar-
its backwards
....seems like evry dispensary FM should be backing patients not patients having to back the dispensary FM interest

notice too the 'group' that helped impliment and change the rules for the state ihas now mostly dropped off the radar and are not on that 'other' site too much now that they have accomplished what they were supposed to do-

everything here is backward by design to limit access and get it ready for the box they are building...
--which we shall see the outcome in this next legsilature session

notice how all the alleged patient advocacy[fake]groups helped the legislature 'narrowly' define the law instead of the more logical broader interpretations you would think would be a no brainer...

my first clue was when they tried (and still are) feeding everyone the 'unambiguous' compliance rhetoric-
they jumped the gun and it was obvious from jumpstreet they were only setting up state run model and access rules

they want to make sure they have the paramaters set up for distribution that will keep it in a small group they can tightly monotor and control....

most high profile patients here in michgan have been used by dispensing rights as justification for their existence...
they have been used as pawns in the big $ game

notice that every time you here about some poor dying patient in the news it is thru some dispensary interest trying to justify their model and existence.....

out west most high profile patients were heros and a rallying point for "more accesss for patients by patients" and not thru dispensary interests...
all the collectives were started with a high profile pt being the center arguing point and a way to rally around patient access...

here all the patients are being used by dispensing interests as the rallying point and argument for dispensing rights....

--argument--
---"we cant ""sell"" to these poor patients and now they are left out in the cold" ....i have heard that so much here-

remember how they told everyone 'NOT' to unify and protest and jumped all over mR c for his FM market that would have put more power in patients hands than lawyers or dispensaries.....

i was a little disapointed in his efforts when he wanted pts to rally behind the FM instead of the FM rallying and standing behind the pts-

but look now theres at least a half dozen FM all over dtroit-

now mR c has helped with the effort in Lansing to decrim anoz or less WITH 'transfer' rights....
--people should help get this passed then you wont 'have' to buy your meds from dispensaries in lansing
....you can transfer amongst yourself with minimum risk-

im no lawyer type but i am awake aware and concious of whats going on and soon coming
....after having been there from the start of patients right to access

in california the law states " to ENHANCE access of mmj by patients and cg" ...not limit it

i think the sec8could go far if it was implimented amongst large groups of pts all trying to help each others access...
--instead of dispensary interests limiting and narrowing it to just themselves and them having all the rights

come on now....no brownies?
--so they made a law where i can use mmjfor my condition but now they are going to 'dictate' my delivery system and who gets rights to that???

that sounds corporate-

someone should right an 'amicus brief' covering that-

heres one way we made the law better for pts in cali-mayb it can open some ideas for folks here w sec8protections.

--imagine if you were a cg here with 'only' "terminal" pts....all terminal and needing access
....how would that hold up in court w sec8??

this is what we did in cali to help that access....
one big collective of collectives-

--all connected
remeber this is cali stuff but it might apply here...i helped with this and was there when we drafted it allowing all the collectives to come online......

--collectives 'arent' allowed here in michigan tho....unless....?
sec8??

i think you only need a dr rec for a sec8 defense now--
not a registry card from the state that gives you very very limited protections.....jmo




ONE BIG COLLECTIVE: A Collective of MediCannabis Collectives

Let's begin with the assumption that every road to elsewhere starts in Mendocino County--a marijuana-friendly county by history and tradition, where voters approved 25 plants for personal use in Nov 2000, years ahead of the curve, and medical cannabis regulation via land use designations is on the formal agenda in the 2009 County General Plan Update (the first in 27 years).

One example of the Mendo tradition is the Emerald Cup at Area 101, the annual medical cannabis growers' competition in the heart of the Emerald Triangle, where local farmers submit their best bud and hash for judging and prizes -- a gutsy expression of our resourceful community. The Cup is known as a unique gathering, a virtual ritual, of 500+ expert cannabis gardeners, organizing legally as qualified patient-growers over the past five years but largely unknown to the broader public. The community has learned how to survive by cultivating medical grade marijuana for ill people in need, despite conditions of borderline prohibition.

The Emerald Cup has flowered into a medical cannabis crossroads and safe haven for free speech and free association, sharing of sinsemilla tips, an irrepressible marketplace of ideas in tough times.

In order to stay safe and legal, we need to create medical cannabis models that work for us here and now--for individual patients, for small family caregivers, for larger collectives and cooperatives, and for the county as a whole.

COLLECTIVES & COOPERATIVES are California's protected legal model as stated in the text of Senate Bill 420: "to enhance access of patients & caregivers to medical marijuana through collective cooperative cultivation projects."

State law has evolved over 12 years--under Senate Bill 420 (2003), People v Urziceanu (2005), and California Attorney General Guidelines (2008) to grant additional legal protections to collectives and cooperatives of two or more people, as an organized alternative to the traditional individual profit-making approach to medical marijuana production. Collectives can be self-defined since there are no legal requirements, as there are with cooperatives, which have financial disclosure requirements.

Collectives are the universally accepted safest new model for the patient majority.

MMMAB is encouraging the formation of small collectives with written or oral agreements, i.e. formally adopt a collective agreement based on what you're already doing in your small family or group unit, that everyone can stand by and that will stand up in court (in compliance with guidelines).

MMMAB and Area 101 are urging that we join together and form One Big Collective: A Collective of MediCannabis Collectives. This would by necessity include a thorough email list of conscious qualified patient-growers and small gardens of family and friends. The only condition is willingness to work together collectively and grow organically for the betterment of the whole, as an alternative to traditional profit.

Please sign below and return to the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board (MMMAB) if you are interested in joining or getting more information about collectives for community advancement and self-protection. We support working within the legal framework under state and local law and challenging--in court & at the ballot--what we don't support.

There are 3 separate state authorities backing the formation of medical cannabis collectives & co-ops with none against:

1) Senate Bill 420 (Health & Safety Code 11362.7) has a special clause in the text that points to the future of medical cannabis production in California: "collective cooperative cultivation projects"..."to enhance access...to medical marijuana."

2) People v Urziceanu, 3rd District Appeals Court precedent, interprets that clause as granting five additional protections and outlines a pathway to the future, including the right to sell and distribute under collective or cooperative operations.

3) The Atty General Guidelines of 2008 specify that collectives & cooperatives are to be based on membership in private associations, without the same restrictions for collectives as there are for caregivers in relation to out-of-county patients. A collective in Mendo County could legally sell their medical cannabis to a Bay Area dispensing collective with whom they have a collective arrangement.

This is a drastic paradigm shift from unaccountable profit-driven head honcho to transparent collectives being run for the good of the whole with individuals being equal and accountable to one another--as fundamental a paradigm shift as it was in 1996 when marijuana for medical purposes became a right rather than a crime.

The ultimate issue is how the medical cannabis community, under fair and reasonable policies, will become fully legal & equal in society's eyes, integrated into the social and economic fabric of the county, without discrimination or criminal stigma attached to bona fide medical marijuana under state and local law. Now is the time to claim a stake in the future of cannabis medicines and the people who use them.

---------------------------------------
seems like this has some sec8 stuff in here.....
we started all this as the mmm patients union--

why is there nothing like this here?

gregs may be on to somthing with sec8 defenses our only recourse to our 'non' law-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top