lawyer

Does anyone remember the lawyer that was posting here maybe last spring? I don't recall their handle.

Found it thanks

post it, everyone could always use that info in a worst case

doc weed law
I put a link to that conversation here a couple of days ago..for someone...

Not_just_a_pretty_face was their username....doesn't look like they've been here in a while...

oh yes that one.....

cannadan said:

oh yes that one.....

Click to expand...

Hey guys and gals - have been observing but not signed in. Anything I can do to help?

Ok heres a question.
If certain lawyers have advised certain LP's regarding the mmpr.
Or if certain lawyers are invested in LP's or mmpr signup clinics
Does that put them in a conflict of interest in the upcoming court cases?

yes good one....bc

bcbreeder said:

Ok heres a question.
If certain lawyers have advised certain LP's regarding the mmpr.
Or if certain lawyers are invested in LP's or mmpr signup clinics
Does that put them in a conflict of interest in the upcoming court cases?

Click to expand...

My first impulse is to answer no. However, I'd have to know what role you're assuming they'd play in the Allard trial. For example, if a lawyer has advised a LP or invested in one, and then wants to make submissions before the court at the Allard trial - not a conflict of interest. It is a lawyer's job to make submissions - on behalf of either side. There is a conflict of interest where, for example, a lawyer is trading in securities of an LP (buying or selling) and advising the LP at the same time (so the lawyer has access to private information that would not otherwise be available to the capital markets). There is a conflict of interest where a lawyer is giving legal advice to one client but stands to earn success fees or a commission from another party if the client acts a certain way (ie sells an asset at a reduced price, etc). These are not analogous, in my view, to advising a LP and then making submissions that are either consistent or inconsistent with that advice in court on behalf of another client.

Anyone get anything back from Conroy about his intentions ?

Not_just_a_pretty_face said:

Hey guys and gals - have been observing but not signed in. Anything I can do to help?

Click to expand...

Would you mind if I send you a pm?

Thanks for your answer, ok heres another question.
Is it the intention of the Allard case to entrench Mmar growing rights
And not fight for MMprs patient right to grow ?

IMO if the the injunction wins then it sets the stage for everyone to have a choice to grow. At the end of the day it shouldn't matter when the diagnoses of your illness was. It only matters that you have medical proof of your illness and a doctor that's willing to prescribe you MMJ. If your access is blocked due to specific strain not available, can't afford your script, therapy from growing is part of your healing process, or you choose to produce organic. (Already won access at Supreme Court level)Any of the above reasons will cover just about any patient that wants to grow. Thus by growing being there only access! Then anyone should be allowed to legally because if it violates an mmar persons rights then it violates new patients rights! We are all Canadian citizens covered by the charter. The injunction is a charter challenge.

Peace

leaffan said:

Would you mind if I send you a pm?

Click to expand...

By all means!

bcbreeder said:

Thanks for your answer, ok heres another question.
Is it the intention of the Allard case to entrench Mmar growing rights
And not fight for MMprs patient right to grow ?

Click to expand...

Correct. The suit requests that the MMPR be struck down entirely, or else that a permanent exception be made for authorized MMAR growers under the MMPR regime. So far, there has been little discussion in the pleadings of modifying the MMPR to allow MMPR patients to grow. However - the court is not limited to making a decision that has been suggested by the pleadings. It is completely open to the court to find a middle ground somewhere which, in its opinion, makes the MMPR constitutionally sound - and that could include allowing certain MMPR patients to grow their own. It's totally up to the court.

GrowRock said:

IMO if the the injunction wins then it sets the stage for everyone to have a choice to grow. At the end of the day it shouldn't matter when the diagnoses of your illness was. It only matters that you have medical proof of your illness and a doctor that's willing to prescribe you MMJ. If your access is blocked due to specific strain not available, can't afford your script, therapy from growing is part of your healing process, or you choose to produce organic. (Already won access at Supreme Court level)Any of the above reasons will cover just about any patient that wants to grow. Thus by growing being there only access! Then anyone should be allowed to legally because if it violates an mmar persons rights then it violates new patients rights! We are all Canadian citizens covered by the charter. The injunction is a charter challenge.

Peace

Click to expand...

And that may well be an argument that is eventually used. But to my knowledge it has not been brought forward yet.

Not_just_a_pretty_face said:

And that may well be an argument that is eventually used. But to my knowledge it has not been brought forward yet.

Click to expand...

Thank you for shedding some light on this. Please keep us informed of any other issue's on this case you may find out. Your legal perspective is very valuable around here.

The Hippy said:

Thank you for shedding some light on this. Please keep us informed of any other issue's on this case you may find out. Your legal perspective is very valuable around here.

Click to expand...

Not_just_a_pretty_face said:

And that may well be an argument that is eventually used. But to my knowledge it has not been brought forward yet.

Click to expand...

i would like to like those a few times