Section 8 And Forfiture

[peanutbutter]

( 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.

 

This new law protects the property of the medical marijuana patient. This new law causes any existing law to not apply to medical marijuana patients. It over rides any existing law that it conflicts with.

 

There are protections in this new law. It protects patient themselves and the patients property.

 

Any law that permitted officers to take property from a marijuana user does not apply to a person that is sick and can find a doctor willing to write a letter. This new law does away with the old laws that permitted officers to take property.

 

When officers illegally take property from someone at the point of a gun, it's called "armed robbery." Even if they have a badge and gun.

[Marijuana Ranch]

The Gangsters of America

Police for Profit...

We stop them when we vote out,recall our sue their politicial masters!

[peanutbutter]

"Yes sir, Mr Sheriff, that's your wife on the back of my horse."

 

 

The Gangsters of America

Police for Profit...

We stop them when we vote out,recall our sue their politicial masters!

[welj31]

[welj31]

http://www.fear.org/

[Guest Wayne]

Someone should call the American Civil Leave Us out of this!

[welj31]

In 1776, the founding fathers of America waged the Revolutionary War to gain independence from the British monarchy. Indeed, founding father Ben Franklin said something to the effect that we need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years.

[peanutbutter]

In 1776, the founding fathers of America waged the Revolutionary War to gain independence from the British monarchy. Indeed, founding father Ben Franklin said something to the effect that we need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years.

 

Ummmm .. that was 20 years .. not 200

[DT61]

Democracy will always fail as long as those in charge can vote themselves a raise.

[Highlander]

Any law that permitted officers to take property from a marijuana user does not apply to a person that is sick and can find a doctor willing to write a letter. This new law does away with the old laws that permitted officers to take property.

 

But the law doesn't say that LEO can't seize property still. It says that once a patient proves medical use, then their property can't be forfeited. Police can't forfeit the patient's property; only the person who the property was seized from can forfeit it.

 

So Section 8 will not protect a non-cardholder from having his stuff seized by the police..but will will allow him to get it back once he proves the elements (in court) of medical use.

[peanutbutter]

But the law doesn't say that LEO can't seize property still. It says that once a patient proves medical use, then their property can't be forfeited. Police can't forfeit the patient's property; only the person who the property was seized from can forfeit it.

 

So Section 8 will not protect a non-cardholder from having his stuff seized by the police..but will will allow him to get it back once he proves the elements (in court) of medical use.

 

Point is that there are new legal protections for the property of law abiding citizens of Michigan.

 

It is no longer lawful in every case to simply grab anything of value.

 

This is new. This negates that "property doesn't have rights" crap. It's bad that it only covers the property of a patient and/or caregiver. It should hold true for everyone.

 

Whatever laws allowed them to just grab your stuff and sell it off DO NOT APPLY to us. The old laws were modified when our new law passed.

 

It used to be legal armed robbery. Now just drop the word "legal" from that. Because it isn't any more .. Legal, that is.

[Kevin]

Our politicos have failed us because we have not held them accountable for their actions. When you don't hold elected official's feet to the fire, you will get bad government.

[Highlander]

Point is that there are new legal protections for the property of law abiding citizens of Michigan.

 

It is no longer lawful in every case to simply grab anything of value.

 

This is new. This negates that "property doesn't have rights" crap. It's bad that it only covers the property of a patient and/or caregiver. It should hold true for everyone.

 

Whatever laws allowed them to just grab your stuff and sell it off DO NOT APPLY to us. The old laws were modified when our new law passed.

 

It used to be legal armed robbery. Now just drop the word "legal" from that. Because it isn't any more .. Legal, that is.

 

I agree completely. I just want unregistered folks to know that if they are planning on using the AD then LEO can still take their stuff. There is no reason for LEO to sieze and/or destroy a registered patient's property.

[+Silverblue]

It seems to me the laws are poorly written from the start, THEN have to be fixed. It's like putting a product on the market, like software, we keep adding patches to them. As soon as a law gets in place, it's sure to be tested. It should be well written and well thought out. The law seems to be working more like software- they throw something out, then have to put on the patches. WHY couldn't they write the law more clearly? No need to answer that. If they're not specific, it becomes open to interpretation, so they have to word it EXACTLY, so the dumb-dumb leo's can't make ASSumptions. (Sigh). Until those officers are held accountable for their actions, this will continue. It seems certain people in certain positions are allowed to slip under the laws, that's the real problem. The laws seem only to apply to some, but not to others.

As soon as a law gets in place, EVERY LEO should be given a copy of it, there should be a meeting in EVERY department, where they go over the law and MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND IT. If we're supposed to know the law, SO SHOULD THEY. Some example they set....

 

Sb

[Guest CaveatLector]

I agree completely. I just want unregistered folks to know that if they are planning on using the AD then LEO can still take their stuff. There is no reason for LEO to sieze and/or destroy a registered patient's property.

 

Yes there is because being a registered patient doesn't mean you are conforming with the law. If you are a patient and growing 13 plants for yourself then you're going to lose your stuff.

 

And the law hasn't changed as far as seizure and forfeiture go. If you are engaging in illegal growing, selling, etc., then you are subject to seizure and forfeiture.

[Guest Wayne]

Having attended many court hearings one thing has become crystal clear. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to everyday citizen's, not governmental authority. So don't believe everything you hear. I also now view any oath, requested by the courts and government, with the same ethical standards as LEO, prosecutors, judges, politician's etc. I don't particularly care for it but I don't make the rules. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help my dog. Or something like that I suppose. Your not in Kansas anymore.

[peanutbutter]

And the law hasn't changed as far as seizure and forfeiture go.

 

(Sect 8 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.

 

The new law provides new protections intended to protect the property of the patient/caregiver.

 

I submit that the new law modifies the impact of the old laws.

 

Our new law states plainly that any existing law that is in conflict does not apply.

 

Whatever laws that allowed forfeiture to take place do not apply in these cases.

 

When forfeiture is applied against a lawful medical marijuana patient, it is pure armed robbery.

 

Note that the section quoted is from the AD section of the law.

[Guest CaveatLector]

The new law provides new protections intended to protect the property of the patient/caregiver.

 

I submit that the new law modifies the impact of the old laws.

 

Our new law states plainly that any existing law that is in conflict does not apply.

 

Whatever laws that allowed forfeiture to take place do not apply in these cases.

 

When forfeiture is applied against a lawful medical marijuana patient, it is pure armed robbery.

 

Note that the section quoted is from the AD section of the law.

 

 

But it doesn't change forfeiture laws. If you're legal to use or possess then forfeiture doesn't apply because you are legal.

[Zombiefied]

But it doesn't change forfeiture laws. If you're legal to use or possess then forfeiture doesn't apply because you are legal.

 

Forfeiture is messed up, your property doesnt have to be innocent until proven guilty, it can be guilty until you prove it innocent.

[peanutbutter]

But it doesn't change forfeiture laws. If you're legal to use or possess then forfeiture doesn't apply because you are legal.

 

Thank you for showing up here.

 

OK .. at the end of section 7. There's that thing about any conflicting law do not apply.

 

In section 8 c 2 ..

c the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

- snip -

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

 

The new law gives specific protections to the property of patients and caregivers.

 

Isn't it obvious that the properties of patients and caregivers have been given protections that didn't exist before?

 

Protections from what? Abuse of patients and caregivers by way of asset forfeiture.

 

I hold that any laws that have allowed asset forfeiture, in the past, do not apply to the our community.

[peanutbutter]

Look .. the same methods are being used to enter our homes here as are used in Iraq.

 

We are the insurgents here.

 

We are the population that needs to be controlled .. even within our own homes.

 

No one believed the word "war" at first. Then more and more became comfortable with the word.

 

Nearly anything at all has been allowed to be used against us. It is expected that we will be repressed. And that would include any method of repression that could be dreamed up.

 

That includes stripping us of anything of value and turned out into the streets. Insuring that we have a restricted access to employment by way of restricted education and other methods.

 

We are supposed to live in poverty while we are between stays in jail or prison. We are supposed to be homeless.

 

But that was supposed to end on 12/4/2008 ..