Jump to content

Logic And Common Sense?


Recommended Posts

oh, an in a way a dumbmucker like myself can understand. Afterall, im just a HS graduate that worked until I no longer could, I mean, I am so Dumb, you're lucky i can read and write. so be sure to put it in silly billy terms for a common citizen der furher.

 

When I first got involved in the medical marijuana arena I had my * take * on a lot of things. Some of which I will not voice now in order to avoid clouding the issues at hand in the capital. Lets just say it was a stretch from what is going on at the present time. Imho no one is dumb on this site or for that matter any other site I have visited.

No matter what our station in life is we have a common calling. That being the welfare of our fellow patients, Caregivers and our neighbors.

This is a foundation stone of our nation.

Edited by Fat Freddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the law in a vacuum isn't going to help you. You cannot parse the law. It needs to be read in context.

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The requirement of an enclosed, locked facility is clearly intended to only give access to plants to the cg or pt. That is the idea behind it. So, while I agree that they need not be KEPT in there 24/7 I do not agree that you can skirt the intent of the law. So if you bring your plants out to spray them, fine. That is all well and good as long as you are providing security that is equivalent to an enclosed, locked facility. The minute you fail to provide that level of security is when your argument falters.

 

 

 

You've pretty much said it all there. Just so happens that the plants were out there for me to spray them. As far as security, I was sitting right outside the deck in full view of the plants until the police rang my doorbell and I got up to answer it. I think the fifteen seconds I lost view of the plants was not the reason they took the plants. They took them because they were outside.

 

Nothing in my argument implied that I felt it was not necessary to lock the plants up when people or any person was around (other than a patient or the CG), I said use common sense, and gave a few examples, not all of them. I definitely agree on what an "enclosed locked facility" is.

 

I resist the implication that I am trying to "skirt the law". Just trying to make sense of it. By your agreeing that "they need not be KEPT in there 24/7" is all I will be asking of a jury. That they agree that there was no criminal intent, and there is reasonable doubt that I broke the law.

 

So, it appears we are in agreement after all. You agree I may take the plants out to spray them If I am out there with them, or at least "keeping an eye on them", and you seem to agree that the same applies if I am running water through the root system (flushing) with a water hose, so with that, I am satisfied that, if you were a member of my jury, you would not convict me of the felonies I am charged with. I cannot ask for more. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.

Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

© Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.

 

 

History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008

Then check with the DNR too. Im certain your wrong. Mm

Still certain? Edited by CaveatLector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CL, Which part of:

"or Other Security Device" do we not understand.

 

Please, in your divine wisdom, legally explain to us mere mortals, with your infinite knowledge and supreme being, what "Or Other Security Device" means.

Go read my post #74 in this thread you f-ing genius. You're a mod here and you think you can talk down to me like this without even bothering to take the time to READ THE F-ING THREAD? "Other security" received treatment by me in this thread but you go off half-cocked without bothering to read and run your mouth. Isn't this quoted post of yours a violation of posting rules? AND YOU'RE A MOD???? I see you haven't changed a lick since you were last a mod and talked down to those you were in disagreement with. What a major loser.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go read my post #74 in this thread you f-ing genius. You're a mod here and you think you can talk down to me like this without even bothering to take the time to READ THE F-ING THREAD? "Other security" received treatment by me in this thread but you go off half-cocked without bothering to read and run your mouth. Isn't this quoted post of yours a violation of posting rules? AND YOU'RE A MOD???? I see you haven't changed a lick since you were last a mod and talked down to those you were in disagreement with. What a major loser.

 

 

I believe i am talking UP to you, your excellence.

 

 

Reading the law in a vacuum isn't going to help you. You cannot parse the law. It needs to be read in context.

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The requirement of an enclosed, locked facility is clearly intended to only give access to plants to the cg or pt. That is the idea behind it. So, while I agree that they need not be KEPT in there 24/7 I do not agree that you can skirt the intent of the law. So if you bring your plants out to spray them, fine. That is all well and good as long as you are providing security that is equivalent to an enclosed, locked facility. The minute you fail to provide that level of security is when your argument falters.

 

Yes, you so Legally and fully describe "or Other Security Device" so foolish of me to not see it there in plane black and white invisible letters a blind person could read....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the law in a vacuum isn't going to help you. You cannot parse the law. It needs to be read in context.

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The requirement of an enclosed, locked facility is clearly intended to only give access to plants to the cg or pt. That is the idea behind it. So, while I agree that they need not be KEPT in there 24/7 I do not agree that you can skirt the intent of the law. So if you bring your plants out to spray them, fine. That is all well and good as long as you are providing security that is equivalent to an enclosed, locked facility. The minute you fail to provide that level of security is when your argument falters.

I believe i am talking UP to you, your excellence.

 

 

 

 

Yes, you so Legally and fully describe "or Other Security Device" so foolish of me to not see it there in plane black and white invisible letters a blind person could read....

There, I put it in red. Can you read it now???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I did get to the bottom of it. Infact, it is the reason I am still here, Joe is not, and Michael still has this forum. two short comments from you in a row, you do realize, your going to pissoff the height challenged people here don't you son?

 

you should watch your step, i may toss a Blueberry in your path. lmao.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im 5.8 145 lbs. I have a home full of protection, including myself. Does that Qualify as "Other Security Devices"

This thread isn't about YOU. Not everything is about you. This thread is about the OP and posts are made to discuss his situation. So I care not that you're a wee man because you don't matter in this context. How about you stop spouting personal insults and just beat it if you don't want to contribute to the discussion. And by the way, contributing means getting yourself up to speed by actually reading through the thread before running your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple Question CL. Would I, or the OP, or you qualify as "or Other Security Device"?

you can either answer that simple question with your best opinion, or not.

 

It is a Fair question, and one presented by the MSC itself when hearing arguments in the King Case.

 

So, with all your insight and espoused wisdom, what is your Opine CL?

 

Would a person qualify as "or Other Security Device".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple Question CL. Would I, or the OP, or you qualify as "or Other Security Device"?

you can either answer that simple question with your best opinion, or not.

 

It is a Fair question, and one presented by the MSC itself when hearing arguments in the King Case.

 

So, with all your insight and espoused wisdom, what is your Opine CL?

 

Would a person qualify as "or Other Security Device".

I gave my opinion regarding the OP's situation in regard to "other security." To you, the explanation was clear as mud (your words). I think to someone with average reading comprehension it was straightforward. Whether YOU qualify as "other security" isn't relevant here. A defense is fact driven, and given the fact that you weren't present makes you immaterial. If you want to discuss whether you are "other security" then start your own thread and ask the question. I'm not giving it treatment here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my opinion regarding the OP's situation in regard to "other security." To you, the explanation was clear as mud (your words). I think to someone with average reading comprehension it was straightforward. Whether YOU qualify as "other security" isn't relevant here. A defense is fact driven, and given the fact that you weren't present makes you immaterial. If you want to discuss whether you are "other security" then start your own thread and ask the question. I'm not giving it treatment here.

 

I just finished reading the Michigan Supreme Court ruling filed May 31, 2012 from beginning to end and I couldn't find any reference to King being the security. Can you point me in the right direction? I have heard this before and pray that it is true as it would be of help to me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading the Michigan Supreme Court ruling filed May 31, 2012 from beginning to end and I couldn't find any reference to King being the security. Can you point me in the right direction? I have heard this before and pray that it is true as it would be of help to me as well.

Because it isn't in there. This is my opinion. The circuit court, in the King case, did rule that King, himself, was the security. I personally think that is a reasonable position if the facts of the case are right. However, we don't have any current precedential authority (aside from the great and powerful timmy) interpreting the statute in that manner. So someone may be the test case. Unless you want to be that case I would suggest adopting a conservative approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it isn't in there. This is my opinion. The circuit court, in the King case, did rule that King, himself, was the security. I personally think that is a reasonable position if the facts of the case are right. However, we don't have any current precedential authority (aside from the great and powerful timmy) interpreting the statute in that manner. So someone may be the test case. Unless you want to be that case I would suggest adopting a conservative approach.

 

To late, but, I doubt they will charge me. I could be wrong, but I broke no current laws (I was within the numbers as well). I was working in my facilities therefore, they were not locked. At least I still have the Sec 8 def, thank you Mr. King and the MSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was back in court today, and it was very upsetting.

 

While waiting for my court appointed attorney, I listened to the judge chastise a youg man over his smoking marijuana.

 

It was like listening to Ronald Reagan. Adicting, kills brain cells, causes lung cancer, etc. I couldn't help shaking my head. I was going in front of that judge?

 

Then my attorney arrived. He was treating me like a child. A very bad child. One who dared use marijuana. This guy was suppose to represent me?

 

I asked him whose side he was on. Oh, "I'm on your side.". He got very mad when I told him I thought the prosecutor was misinterpreting the law. "It means whatever they say it means."

 

When I asked him when we are going to get together to discuss strategy, he said we weren't. He was the lawyer, not me.

 

I think I am going to prison.

 

He asked me for the names of my patients and got very upset when I told him I had to keep that information confidential.

Edited by Joel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...