Jump to content

Mmma Is Cracking


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi Nemo, I believe that was addressed by Rep. Cushingberry last Thursday. He is demanding that a letter be sent with that info, while the individual waits for the card. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Joe

 

 

Wow, that would be awesome! Can anyone confirm? Did they listen? Better yet, are they going to do this? It would sure help a lot of people. Thank you Joe, :)

 

 

----Nemo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nemo, The letter was discussed as well as the following Taken from a post by John wells;

 

There is still discussion of privatizing the program. However MDCH has requested a statement from the Attorney General's Office regarding the legality of privatizing the approval/denial and confidentiality portions of the program.

 

MDCH has been hesitant to bring on any more staff while privatization is still on the table, however they have been instructed to bring on temporary staff to address the issue of lack of personnel.

 

The other half of the delay problem is the ID card printer. They are in the process of acquiring 2 more printers that will be able to produce more cards per day than the current equipment. The Chairman was very adamant that the requisition process be expedited asking the Department if they had the Governor holding their hand could they get it done in 30 days.

 

Further, the MDCH is finally reevaluating their method of processing cards and are going to adopt the program they use for licensing physicians, meaning, when the application is received notice is given. The committee then pounced on the issue of law enforcement not recognizing paperwork. The Department was squashy and unclear when asked if any one had made notice to the various law enforcement departments that the paperwork is legal.

 

The committee as a whole are behind patients and caregivers in this. They want law enforcement to stop arresting patients asap. It appears the the Department may have to finally make a broad sweep statement to all law enforcement. The chairman has recommended drafting boilerplate language in the Michigan State Police's budget to prevent further arrests of registered patients and caregivers.

 

 

Hope this helps. Thanks, Joe

 

i sure hope this is right we had are paper work so am hoping this happens then they the PA should drop all charges on us and we will be FREEbiggrin.gif i will be waiting for a letter from them maybe even a check for all the money it has cost us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob the sweet smell of freedom. Is it true they going to set us free. To carry out what the Law set forth . Light at the end of the Law Enforcement Tunnel OMG.Reenbusment for the pain and suffering they inficted on use . Your civil rights dashed to the dirt by the Jack Booted Thugs.MDCH i had my card when they did this all to me .And have endored the pain and suffering ever sence

 

Shiawassee County Test Case

Go tell Randy Colbry(P A) to lay down next to his dish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What is your opinion?

2) Many of the same members are on the new board as the old, right?...

So the old board members are subspect?

Why have a board of directors if they can not direct?

3) Who do you think controls the 3ma?

4) What is this vote thing about and who would decide on what to vote on?

 

Who came up with this Idea and when did it happen?

 

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who at the MDCH is saying they want the arrest to stop. I would like a word with them. Someone give me a name please

 

Hey Kingpinn,

 

You misread my post from this thread:

 

http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?/topic/18934-house-appropriations-committee-continued/page__p__164257entry164257

 

It is the members of the House Appropriations Committee who are outraged that patients are being arrested.

 

Their outrage started with the Free Press Article about patient arrests. That same day Peanut Butter introduced them to the MSP memo. Since then they have been working out ways to quickly (maybe not as quickly as the trenches wish, but quickly for the governmental machine) correct the problem.

 

At this last meeting, Chairman Cushingberry acknowledged not only that 83% of his district voted for this, but that we CAN NOT have police breaking down the doors of, or arresting, people following the law. He grilled MDCH about who and how the police have been advised (or not advised as the case seems to be).

 

Tune in next week when (hopefully) LE will get a financial spanking for their bad behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well im here to tell you Julie S .That Mr Cushenberry sould have heard about my case then. It wasnt a matter of my paperwork being in the mail.The first thing The MAGNET officers seen was my MMJ Card. They ransacked my home stole property from me took my medicine my grow op Violated my civil rights. Been to circuit court already was proven innocent by the 35th circuit judge . And the Shiawassee County PA is appealing it to the appeals court. Is someone going to go talk to Randy Colbry for me ?? Who's going to give him a stearn talking to ??

 

 

 

0 Report

Back to top of the page up there ^

MultiQuote

Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#39 Kingpinn

 

Advanced Member

 

Group:

Members Posts:

74 Joined:

05-February 09 Posted 07 January 2010 - 10:20 AM

 

Randy Colbry getting pretty slick i see.He should have of had TV 12 news follow him the day he hit and run in Shiawassee Co. He should have learned something from the 13 page circuit court hearing dismissal but no he is taking my case to appeals court wasting taxpayers money. A guy thats being recalled for breaking the law himself and still wants to prosecute people. This is where they found a meth lab right across the street from the court house . Things are not right here in Shiawassee Co. And have been corrupt for years Test Case Shiawasse County 35th Circuit Court ( Part one ) View What links here Edit Submitted by Kingpinn on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 08:14 Test Case Shiawasse County 35th Circuit Court ( Part one ) People of the State of Michigan vs Larry King At a session of said Court held in the Courthouse City of Corunna, Shiawasse County.Onthe 21st day of September 2009 Present: Honorable Gerald D Losstracco 35th Circuit Judge The Defendant Filed a motion to dismiss based on the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and a motion to quash the search warrant and bind over.This Court heard oral arguements on September 21 2009 and took the matter under advisement. FACTS The facts of the case are not disputed: the police had recieved an anonymous tip that the Defendant was growing marijuana in his back yard. The police then drove to the Defendant's neighbor's driveway. The police using binoculars, were able to observe marijuana plants growing in a dog kennel in the Defendant's backyard. the dog kennel was made of chain link fence covered with black shink wrap. The police were able to see into the kennel where a section of shink wrap had been detached. The police then apporoached the Defendant'shome,knocked on the door,and asked if the Defendant had a medical marijuana card. Defendant produced bhis card.The police then asked if he would allow them to see the plants. Defendantwent back inside to obtain the key to the kennel. he then went with officers around the house and opened the dog kennel. (All this part is bull bunny muffin i never opened the kennel for them they had to ask for a key when they went to kill my plants) After Defendant opened the kennel, the officers asked if he had more marijuana in the home. Defendant stated he did,but that the officers would need a search warrant.The police then obtained a search warrant and marijuana plants and processed marijuana was found in the home. ANALYSIS (1) IS THE SEARCH WARRANT VALID ?? Defendant first argues that the search warrant is invalid because it is based on impermissible hearsay upon hearsay. Acting on an anonymous tip,police drove past the Defendant's property and were able to observe through binoculars that the Defendant hed marijuana growing in his backyard. They approached the defendant and he produced a registry card issued under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act ( MMMA ).Defendant also allowed the police to view the marijuana plants. Defendant's argument is without merit. The police acted on the anonymous tip and were able to independently verify the exsitence or marijuana plants on Defendant's property.The Michigan Supreme Court has decided that an anonymous tip may supply probable cause if it sufficently corroborated the information provided by the anonymous tip. (2) The Defendant argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant provided a legal conclusion and therefore cannot be the basis for probable cause that a crime was commited.The affidavit in question consist of two pages with three paragraphs.Paragraph three contains several subparts and is the basis of the Defendant's objection. Specifically (3d) contains the statement that the kennel is approximately six feet in height and has no cover/top ,and is in violation of the MMMA.(citation to statute omitted ). Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Consitution requires that a search warrant provide specifcity with regards to the places to be searched and objects to be seized. Each warrant shall designte and describe the house or building or other location or place to be searched and property or thing to seized. MCL 780654.Warrant must also contain particularized proable cause for the place and property to be searched. Probable cause determinations must be made from the facts and circumstances contained within the affidavit,and not from any conclusory statements. The magistrate decision(must be) based on actual facts-- not merely the conclusions of the affidavit.People vs Sloan 450 Mich 160 168-169(1995),overruled on the grounds 460 Mich 118 (1999). The Michigan Supreme Court held that affording deference to the magistrate's determination, a reviewing court simply must ensure that the magistrate had a substansial basis for concluding that proable cause exsisted at the time of the search warrant was issued.People vs Russo 439 Mich 584 604 (1992).The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical,common sence decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him,including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinios vs Gates 462 U S 213 238(1983). The facts in the affidavit are as follows (1) police responded to an anonymous tip (2) police observed marijuana growing in the kennel (3)Defendant presented a medical marijuana card (4) a key was necessary to open the kennel's gate (5) the kennel is approximately six feet tall (6) the kennel has no cover /top (7) Defendant advised he had six more plants in the house and he would not allow a search without a search warrant. In reviewing the search warrant, this Court must be satisfied that the Distric Court Judge had a substantial basis for believeing that proable cause existed at the time the warrant was issued.For the following reasons,this Court concludes that the District Court Judge Lacked a substantial basis for believing that proable cause existed. The Defendant was in possession of a medical marijuana card.MCL 333.26424(d) sets forth the statutory presumtion that the Defendant,if in possession of a registry card ,and an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under the act,is acting in accordance with the MMMA.the statutory presumption can be rebutted with proof that a defendant's conduct is not in compliance with the MMMA.There are ne allegations that this presumption could be rebutted by Defendant's conduct. Second,MCL 333.26426(g) provides: Possession of,or application for,a regisrty identification card shall not constitute proable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card,or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local or state governmental agency MCL 333.26426(g) specifically prohibits inspections by any local or state governmental agency. Applying the statutory presumption that the Defendant possessed marijuana for a medicinal purpose in accordance with the Act, This Court must now determine if there was a substantial basis to believe that proable cause existed at the time of the issuance of the warrant. Assuming compliance by defendant with the MMMA he may possess or manufacture marijuana. The Defendant may also use an affirmative defence to avoid prosecution.When evaluating a request for a search warrant , the magistrate must determine if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been commiitted.The defendant was in possession of a valid registry card and is qualifying patient.The possession of the regisrty card shall not be used to support the search of the property.However, the magistrate must be told if the defendant is a qualifying patient because it affects his analysis of the situation.Therefor ,this Court must review the affidavit in conjunction with the MMMA. Defendant was in possession of a legal quantity of marijuana.The fact that he refused to allow officers to conduct an inspection search of his home is irrelevant.The law specifically prohibits said inspections. Further, Defendant's statement that he was in possession of an additional six plants does not constitute proable cause---the Defendant is entitled to possess cultivate,etc. marijuana. The only remaining issue is whether the fact that the marijuana was in a outside kennel with no top or cover amounts to probable cause to believe that the defendant's cultivation of marijuana is illegal.The statute defines an enclosed locked facility to mean a closet room or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devises that permit acess only by primary care giver or patient. MCL 333.26423©.The statute does not provide a definition of enclosed area. Where(statutory)terms are undefinded(courts) may consult the dictionary to discern thier meaning. people vs Caban 275 Mich App 419 422 (2007) .Blacks Law Dictionary defines enclose as (1) to surround or encompass;to fence or hem inon all sides. Therefore , there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed as the Defendant was complying with the statute. The good faith exception ( to the exclusionary rule) renders evidence seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant admissible as substantive evidence in criminal processdings where the police acted in reasonable reliance on a presumptively valid search warrant that was later declared invalid( internal citation ommitted) People vs Hellstrom. 264 Mich app 187 193 (2204). Accordingly ,suppression of the siezed evdence is not a valid remedy for Defendant.It is so ordered Pointman.In The War On MMJ # 238 Kingpinn's blog Comment viewing options Flat list - collapsedFlat list - expandedThreaded list - collapsedThreaded list - expanded Date - newest firstDate - oldest first 10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per page Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes. Test Case Shiawasse County 35th Circuit Court ( Part two ) Submitted by Kingpinn on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 08:19. Test Case Shiawasse County 35th Circuit Court ( Part two ) Assuming that the search warrant is valid,does MCL 333.26421 ET SEQ prohibit siezure of the marijuana?? Statutory interpretation is a question of law.Smeets vs Gennesse County Clerk,193 Mich App 628 633(1992). In Nicholas vs Retirement Bd 144 Mich App 70 74(1985),the Court of Appeals summarized the principles of statutory interpretation: Briefly stated the rules are (1) when a statute is unambiguous, further construction is to be avoided (2) if an ambiguity exists the intent of the Legislature must be given effect (3) a construction which best accomplishes the statute's purpose is favored (4) statutes are to be interpreted as a whole and construed so as to give effect to each provision (5) Specfic words in a statute are given thier ordinary meaning unless a different interpretation is indicated (6) respectful cosideration is to be given to the construction of a statute used by those charged with its application. The police executed a search warrant for Defendant's home. Upon entry to Defendant's home, the police found six marijuana plants,processed marijuana and plants in various stages of processing.MCL 333.26424(a) allows a qualifying patient to possess 2.5 oz's of marijuana and 12 plants and not be subject to arrest for said possession.MCL 333.26424(h) provides that any marijuana marijuana paraphernalia or licit property that is possessed owned or used in the connection with use of marijuana as allowed under this act or acts incidental to such use shall not be siezed or forfeited. The partys agree that the Defendant is a qualifying patient in possession of a valid regisrty card. Therefore he is entitled to possess 2.5 oz's of marijuana. the prosecution does not argue that he violated this section Next, Defendant is entitled to have 12 plants in an enclosed locked facility. An enclosed locked facility means A closet room or other area equipped with locks or other security devises that permit acess only by a care giver or qualified patient. MCL 333.26423© The marijuana found in the home was in a closet located in the living room, the bedrooms, laundry room and hallway. The prosecution argues that the marijuana needed to be in an enclosed locked facility within the home. The statute requires that the marijuana be located in an enclosed locked facility.The only argument that the home itself would not qualify as an enclosed locked facility is that the backdoor to the home may have lacked locks. Locks are not the only mechanism or security devise that qualify under MCL 333.26422©.The statute allows others security devises to secure the home.The Defendant was present at the time of the arrival of the police and was home at the time police searched the property.Infact, Defendant asserted his right not to allow the officers into his home without the legal authority of a search warrant.Therfore the Defendant was acting as the security device by limiting access to the marijuana. As the Defendant was complying with the Act, he is therfore entitled to the protection of the MMMA and MCL 333.26424(h) which specifically prohibits the seizure of marijuana used in compliance with this Act. Further ,the Defendant is entitled to the presumption that he is engaged in the use of medical marijuana in accordance with this Act.MCL 333.26424(d).Defendant was in possession of a registy identification card and he was in possession of an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the amount allowed.Therefore , there is a presumption that he is acting in accordance with the MMMA. No evidence has been presented that would rebut this presumption. Therfore the marijuana in the home should not have been seized pursuant to MCL 333.26242(h) IS THE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE MMMA'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ? The Defendant is entitled to the protection of the affirmative defense set forth in MCL 333.26428 which provides: (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a caregiver, if any assert the medical purpose for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that: (1)A physician has stated that in the doctors 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 doctor- patient relationship, the patient is likely torecieve therapeutic or alleviate the patients serious or debilitating medical condition; (2) The patient and the caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marijuana that was not more than was reasonable necessary to ensure the uninterupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patients serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition and (3)The patient and the patient's caregiver if anywere engaged in the acquisition possession cultivation manufacture use delivery transfer or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patients serious or debilitating conditon or symptoms of the patient's condition (B) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana in a motion to dimiss and the charges shall be dimissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a) © If a patient or caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marijuana pursuant to this section, the patient and caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patients's use of marijuana: (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. Subsection 7 provides: (a) The medical use of marijuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act. (B) This act shall not permit any person to do the following: (1) Undertake any task under the influence of marijuana,When doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice. (2) Possess marijuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marijuana: (A) in a school bus (B) on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school: © in any correctional facility (3) Smoke marijuana (A) on any form of public transportation; (B) in any public place (4) Opertate navigate or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle aircraft motorboat while under the influence of marijuana (5) Use marijuana if that person does not have a serious medical condition © Nothing in this act shall be construed to require: (1) A government medical assistance program or commercial or non profit health insurer to reimburse a person for cost associated with the medical use of marijuana. (2) an employer to accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working under the influence of marijuana. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of the affirmative defense under the MMMA is GRANTED and therefore ,this matter is DISMISSED. this is a final order and closes the case. Dated September 30 2009 HON. GERALD D LOSTRACCO ( P16808) Circuit Judge Pointman.In The War on MMJ edit reply

 

 

Give this to Mr Cushingberry to read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so the dog kennel idea is solid, and it was just the plants inside a SECURED HOUSE, so secure that in fact the police couldn't even enter the premises without a signed search warrant, that lead the LEO's to seize and trample on Kingpinn's rights? Any excuse they can find, I guess...

 

It will never cease to amaze me how judges and police will tell someone that ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet they do the same thing and expect to get away with it. Good for you Kingpinn, I have no doubts that you will be vindicated once more at the appellate level! :)

 

edit: Although I am truly sorry you are having to go this all this BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So thats how you shut people up on this site . Just ask for a call for ACTION the site falls quite. There are no balls here. If there are they are very tiny balls

 

No not testicular, more like a honey/vinegar thing. For me anyway.

 

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let them run you threw the grinder once blue buddy see how you feel then.Have lost patients with the system. And as far as not putting my cards on the table Mezz. Its there for you to read above what you talking about hiding something. Its just you need to do your research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let them run you threw the grinder once blue buddy see how you feel then.Have lost patients with the system. And as far as not putting my cards on the table Mess. Its there for you to read above what you talking about hiding something. Its just you need to do your research

 

I'm not going out of my way to try to piece together your story. Just say what it is and cut the crypto-crap. I'm not on either side of this. I would like to know what all these inside references on both sides are about, but if no one wants to be frank I guess I'll just forget about it until I get some better information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be rude... But with a statement like the one the OP made... shouldn't the thread be under conspiracies? Bad kettle of fish alert without proof of claims or a reason why the kettle is supposed to be bad. Not being negative per se, just making dry humor.

 

I came onto the MMMA site shortly before the big switchover. It was a great site, had solid information of all types, promoted the legal advancement of mj, supported patient and caregiver rights, and had a forum full of good people with good information. If there was a problem with the MMMA leadership or of the unity of the members at that time, I was unaware of it.

But then, I was new and just absorbing the informational gold mine I struck here.

Then one day, I logged in, and the site was even better than before! There seemed to be a tightening of resolve, more people speaking out about rights, even more good information than ever before. Every question that I have, someone has been able to answer, point me in the right direction, or give me many perspectives that I had never thought of. If I play devil's advocate (which I am often guilty of), there is someone there to banter back. I have randomly PMd several members about things they seemed able to help me with based off what they say in forums. Every single time that person has been kind, informative, and helped me how they could.

MMMA for me so far has been a community that has made me want to be a contributive member, and I take that as a healthy direct reflection of the people running it.

I hang out on some debate forums where a mild argument makes the worst slams I see here look like a sweet smile. And it's rare to see a downright slam here- people are just generally mellower, more thoughtful of their words, and better read on the subjects they are talking about. And far more tolerant of the ignorance of others, giving knowledge instead of slinging it like a weapon.

Thank you for being so good to me, everyone of MMMA!

 

Amusingly, people who use mj are often cast as having wandering minds, yet threads stay on topic to the OP more here than on most other forums I go to. Go figure :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...