Thought Everyone Might Like To Read This

[Guest finallyfree09]

"Thank you for your message.

 

The ACLU has not said that patient-to-patient transfers are legal. At this time the ACLU takes no position on this matter. As to your particular situation, we cannot provide you with legal advice. The ACLU strongly supports the rights of patients and caregivers to use marijuana for medical purposes under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, but due to limited resources there are many issues and cases in which we are unable to become involved. We apologize that we cannot provide you with more assistance at this time.

 

Brenda Bove

Paralegal

ACLU Fund of Michigan

2966 Woodward Avenue

Detroit, MI 48201

313-578-6802 (direct)

313-578-6811 (fax)

bbove@aclumich.org (e-mail)"

 

it wasn't too long ago that someone posted something saying the aclu has stated that patient to patient transfers were legal. well.... this came straight from the horse's mouth.

 

i wonder, sometimes, when things are posted here wether leo is trying to get us comfortable so they can take advantage of our kindness.

 

p2p may in fact be legal but DON'T believe it is just because somebody said they heard a rep from the aclu say so. be careful everybody

[freemannabis]

Hmmm . . . I wonder too!

 

: /

 

Good post.

 

I have to say, in my personal experiences with the ACLU of Michigan, and especially when considering the painfully universal lack of help obtained by any others we have spoken with, after going through the frustrating process of finally getting in contact with a real voice from the ACLU of Michigan's only open on Mondays and Wednesdays from 1-4 in the afternoon offices, the ACLU of Michigan seems (to many of us) rather pointedly unwilling to get involved in just about ANYTHING important in any way to "We the [Oppressed] People" of this presently sorry State of Michigan today - whether hopefully seeking to receive helpful advice as a unified group of concerned [as we are cornered and scared as conditioned] victims of the relentlessly terrorizing paramilitary-minded-police-state-oppression, or as one or more of the mentally as physically distraught "discardees," or some otherwise tossed-to-the-side colony of "Unable-to-Payee" Lepers of the State's profit-minded "Health-Prevention" Institutions, such as we all know - all to painfully and sufferingly well.

 

Sad to say as it is to see, it would seem . . . it truly is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY - even to the ACLU of Michigan.

 

Or, so it certainly seems to be, eh?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl6NfQyNLto&feature=related

 

 

CANNABIS CURES - Without Fears.

 

FREE the CURE!

 

And, Share the Harvest

[peanutbutter]

What the ACLU had said, if I have it correct, is that 2p2 is defensible. Something that could be defended or argued in court.

 

I think you received a slightly more conservative communication.

 

As for "it's all about money." The same is true when you pull up to the gas pump. Tell the station owner that you need to be at a court date. I bet you don't get a free tank of gas.

 

You can't even get to the courthouse without money. But that doesn't make the gas station owner a evil person.

[hecticdad]

I would stay away from patient to patient transfers, I believe that p2p transfers are legal, but leo will arrest you, and use your arrest to obtain a warrant and then destroy your grow, and you will lose your rights to the medical marijuana program. What we need is a test case.

[peanutbutter]

What we need is a test case.

 

 

I strongly disagree. That kind of thing can be figured out without someone being arrested.

[bobandtorey]

I would stay away from patient to patient transfers, I believe that p2p transfers are legal, but leo will arrest you, and use your arrest to obtain a warrant and then destroy your grow, and you will lose your rights to the medical marijuana program. What we need is a test case.

 

no thanks

[Guest finallyfree09]

What the ACLU had said, if I have it correct, is that 2p2 is defensible. Something that could be defended or argued in court.

 

I think you received a slightly more conservative communication.

 

As for "it's all about money." The same is true when you pull up to the gas pump. Tell the station owner that you need to be at a court date. I bet you don't get a free tank of gas.

 

You can't even get to the courthouse without money. But that doesn't make the gas station owner a evil person.

 

they may have said tha it is defensible... guess i should've asked them that. what i asked is if they had actually said p2p was legal. someone on this site had posted that the aclu says p2p IS legal. the reply i got from the aclu would suggest otherwise. just wanted some clarity ya know.

 

 

something else that comes to mind was the one cc meeting that mary lindeman (spelling?) attended in clare... she said that "the aclu has stated that patient to pateint tranfers are legal." after reading the reply i got does it sound like mary was telling the truth? or... are there some pretty major communication failures occuring throughout our community due to, sigh, here's the conspiracy theory... a misinformation campaign by god-knows-who to fracture our community? or... maybe i am remembering incorrectly and mary actually said that cg2cg is legal. i don't know. everything has gotten so confusing.

 

i don't know... with all the strange little things going on my radar is pinging.... just a little bit though. i feel a disturbance in the force obi wan! sorry couldn't resist.

[Zombiefied]

I would stay away from patient to patient transfers, I believe that p2p transfers are legal, but leo will arrest you, and use your arrest to obtain a warrant and then destroy your grow, and you will lose your rights to the medical marijuana program. What we need is a test case.

 

 

I have a question, HOW can anybody tell you, beside your doctor, that you cant use a medicine? Cant I have a doc rec without having to register in the program? Isnt that what the AD is for?

[bobandtorey]

i too have gotten E-mail from her but not about p2p the ACLU wrote a letter on are behalf to the courts i think we should be hearing something by June 7

[mizerman]

Hmmm . . . I wonder too!

 

: /

 

Good post.

 

I have to say, in my personal experiences with the ACLU of Michigan, and especially when considering the painfully universal lack of help obtained by any others we have spoken with, after going through the frustrating process of finally getting in contact with a real voice from the ACLU of Michigan's only open on Mondays and Wednesdays from 1-4 in the afternoon offices, the ACLU of Michigan seems (to many of us) rather pointedly unwilling to get involved in just about ANYTHING important in any way to "We the [Oppressed] People" of this presently sorry State of Michigan today - whether hopefully seeking to receive helpful advice as a unified group of concerned [as we are cornered and scared as conditioned] victims of the relentlessly terrorizing paramilitary-minded-police-state-oppression, or as one or more of the mentally as physically distraught "discardees," or some otherwise tossed-to-the-side colony of "Unable-to-Payee" Lepers of the State's profit-minded "Health-Prevention" Institutions, such as we all know - all to painfully and sufferingly well.

 

Sad to say as it is to see, it would seem . . . it truly is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY - even to the ACLU of Michigan.

 

Or, so it certainly seems to be, eh?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl6NfQyNLto&feature=related

 

 

CANNABIS CURES - Without Fears.

 

FREE the CURE!

 

And, Share the Harvest

 

HEY FREEMANNABIS,

 

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID. EVERYTHING.

 

Mizerman

[freemannabis]

What the ACLU had said, if I have it correct, is that 2p2 is defensible. Something that could be defended or argued in court.

 

I think you received a slightly more conservative communication.

 

As for "it's all about money." The same is true when you pull up to the gas pump. Tell the station owner that you need to be at a court date. I bet you don't get a free tank of gas.

 

You can't even get to the courthouse without money. But that doesn't make the gas station owner a evil person.

 

Well THAT point is surely mute then, eh?

 

: /

 

Unless of course the gas station is a for-the-public advertized organization sworn to advocate for the good of the general public. Perhaps, a gas-for-less "Co Op" of sorts.

 

Check this out, if you will:

 

http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/pdfs/mrpc.pdf

 

And, please, tell me - if you know, how any of this might apply to the ACLU of Michigan.

 

(Pretty Please!) : \

 

 

********

 

PUBLIC SERVICE

 

Rule 6.1 Pro Bono Publico Service.

 

A lawyer should render public interest legal service.

 

A lawyer may discharge this responsibility by providing professional services at no fee or a reduced fee to persons of limited means, or to public service or charitable groups or organizations.

 

A lawyer may also discharge this responsibility by service in activities for improving the law, the legal system, or the legal profession, and by financial support for organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means.

 

COMMENT:

The ABA House of Delegates has formally acknowledged “the basic responsibility of each lawyer engaged in the practice of law to provide public interest legal services” without fee, or at a substantially reduced fee, in one or more of the following areas: poverty law, civil rights law, public rights law, charitable organization representation and the administration of justice.

 

This rule expresses that policy, but is not intended to be enforced through the disciplinary process.

 

The rights and responsibilities of individuals and organizations in the United States are increasingly defined in legal terms. As a consequence, legal assistance in coping with the web of statutes, rules and regulations is imperative for persons of modest and limited means, as well as for the relatively well-to-do.

 

The basic responsibility for providing legal services for those unable to pay ultimately rests upon the individual lawyer, and personal involvement in the problems of the disadvantaged can be one of the most rewarding experiences in the life of a lawyer.

 

Every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or professional workload, should find time to participate in or otherwise support the provision of legal services to the disadvantaged.

 

The provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer as well as the profession generally, but the efforts of individual lawyers are often not enough to meet the need. Thus, it has been necessary for the profession and government to institute additional programs to provide legal

services.

 

Accordingly, legal aid offices, lawyer referral services and other related programs have been developed, and others will be developed by the profession and government.

 

Every lawyer should support all proper efforts to meet this need for legal services.

 

Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments.

 

A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as:

 

(a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

 

(B) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or

 

© the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.

 

COMMENT:

A lawyer ordinarily is not obliged to accept a client whose character or cause the lawyer regards as repugnant. The lawyer’s freedom to select clients is, however, qualified.

 

All lawyers have a responsibility to assist in providing pro bono publico service.

 

See Rule 6.1. An individual lawyer fulfills this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular clients. A lawyer may also be subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or persons unable to afford legal services.

 

Appointed Counsel

For good cause, a lawyer may seek to decline an appointment to represent a person who cannot afford to retain counsel or whose cause is unpopular. Good cause exists if the lawyer could not handle the matter competently (see Rule 1.1) or if undertaking the representation would result in an improper conflict of interest. Good cause also exists if the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client. A lawyer may also seek to decline an appointment if acceptance would be unreasonably burdensome, for example, when it would impose a financial sacrifice so great as to be unjust.

 

An appointed lawyer has the same obligations to the client as retained counsel, including the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality, and is subject to the same limitations on the client-lawyer relationship, such as the obligation to refrain from assisting the client in violation of the rules.

 

**************

 

Then there's this part (actually one of my favorite parts of the MRPC):

 

{and, please, bear with me, with my spasms and tremors, it's a real complain, to reformat and realign all the lines!] : ]

 

PREAMBLE: A LAWYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES

 

This preamble is part of the comment to Rule 1.0, and provides a general introduction to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

 

As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions.

 

As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications.

 

As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.

 

As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealing with others.

 

As intermediary between clients, a lawyer seeks to reconcile their divergent interests as an advisor and, to a limited extent, as a spokesperson for each client.

 

A lawyer acts as evaluator by examining a client’s legal affairs and reporting about them

to the client or to others.

 

In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent.

 

A lawyer should maintain communication with a client concerning the representation.

 

A lawyer should keep in confidence information relating to representation of a client except so far as disclosure is required or permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

 

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs.

 

A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.

 

A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve

it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.

 

While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action,

it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

 

As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.

 

As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education.

 

A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance, and should therefore devote professional time and civic influence in their behalf.

 

A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should

help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.

 

Many of a lawyer’s professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law.

 

However, a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation

of professional peers.

 

A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession’s ideals of public service.

 

A lawyer’s responsibilities as a representative of clients, an officer

of the legal system, and a public citizen are usually harmonious.

 

Thus, when an opposing party is well represented, a lawyer can be a zealous advocate on behalf of a client and at the same time assume that justice is being done. So also, a lawyer can be sure that preserving client confidences ordinarily serves the public interest because people are more likely to seek legal advice, and thereby heed their legal obligations, when they know their communications will be private.

 

In the nature of law practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are encountered.

 

Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer’s responsibilities to clients, to the legal system, and to the lawyer’s own interest in remaining an upright person while earning a satisfactory living.

 

The Rules of Professional Conduct prescribe terms for resolving such conflicts. Within the framework of these rules many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral

judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the rules.

 

The legal profession is largely self-governing.

 

Although other professions also have been granted powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique in this respect because of the close relationship between the profession and the processes of government and law enforcement.

 

This connection is manifested in the fact that ultimate authority over the legal profession is vested largely in the courts.

 

To the extent that lawyers meet the obligations of their professional calling, the occasion for government regulation is obviated.

 

Self-regulation also helps maintain the legal profession’s independence from government domination.

 

An independent legal profession is an important force in preserving government under law, for abuse of legal authority is more readily challenged by a profession whose members are

not dependent on government for the right to practice.

 

The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.

 

Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers.

 

Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.

 

Lawyers play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship to our legal system.

 

The Rules of Professional Conduct, when properly applied, serve to define that relationship.

 

Scope

 

The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason.

 

They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself.

 

 

Some of the rules are imperatives, cast in the terms “shall” or “shall not.” These define proper conduct for purposes of professional discipline.

 

Others, generally cast in the term “may,” are permissive and define areas under the rules in which the lawyer has professional discretion.

 

No disciplinary action should be taken when the lawyer acts or chooses not to act within the bounds of such discretion.

 

Other rules define the nature of relationships between the lawyer and others.

 

The rules are thus partly obligatory and disciplinary and partly constitutive and descriptive in that they define a lawyer’s professional role.

 

Many of the comments use the term “should.” Comments do not add obligations to the rules, but provide guidance for practicing in compliance with the rules.

 

The rules presuppose a larger legal context shaping the lawyer’s role. That context includes court rules and statutes relating to matters of licensure, laws defining specific obligations of lawyers, and substantive and procedural law in general.

 

Compliance with the rules, as with all law in an open society, depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon reinforcement by peer and public opinion, and finally, when necessary, upon enforcement through disciplinary proceedings.

 

The rules do not, however, exhaust the moral and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer, for no worthwhile human activity can be completely defined by legal rules.

 

The rules simply provide a framework for the ethical practice of law.

 

Furthermore, for purposes of determining the lawyer’s authority and responsibility, principles of substantive law external to these rules determine whether a client-lawyer relationship exists.

 

Most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client

has requested the lawyer to render legal services and the lawyer has agreed to do so.

 

But there are some duties, such as that of confidentiality under Rule 1.6, that may attach when the lawyer agrees to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established.

 

Whether a client-lawyer relationship exists for any specific purpose can depend on the circumstances and may be a question of fact.

 

Under various legal provisions, including constitutional, statutory and common-law, the responsibilities of government lawyers may include authority concerning legal matters that ordinarily reposes in the client in private client-lawyer relationships.

 

For example, a lawyer for a government agency may have authority on behalf of the government to decide upon settlement or whether to appeal from an adverse judgment.

 

Such authority in various respects is generally vested in the attorney general

and the prosecuting attorney in state government, and their federal counterparts, and the same may be true of other government law officers.

 

Also, lawyers under the supervision of these officers may be authorized to represent several government agencies in intragovernmental legal controversies in circumstances where a private lawyer could not represent multiple private clients.

 

They also may have authority to represent the “public interest” in circumstances where a private lawyer would not be authorized to do so.

 

These rules do not abrogate any such authority.

 

As indicated earlier in this comment, a failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary

process.

 

The rules presuppose that disciplinary assessment of a lawyer’s conduct will be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances as they existed at the time of the conduct in question and in recognition of the fact that a lawyer often has to act upon uncertain or incomplete evidence of the situation.

 

Moreover, the rules presuppose that whether or not discipline should be imposed for a violation, and the severity of a sanction, depend on all the circumstances, such as the wilfulness and seriousness of the violation, extenuating factors and whether there have been previous violations.

 

As also indicated earlier in this comment, a violation of a rule does not give rise to a cause of action, nor does it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached.

 

The rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability.

 

Furthermore, the purposes of the rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons.

 

The fact that a rule is a just basis for a lawyer’s self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the rule.

 

Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extradisciplinary consequences of violating such a duty.

 

Moreover, these rules are not intended to govern or affect judicial application of either the client-lawyer or work-product privilege.

 

Those privileges were developed to promote compliance with law and fairness in litigation.

 

In reliance on the client-lawyer privilege, clients are entitled to expect that communications within the scope of the privilege will be protected against compelled disclosure.

 

The client-lawyer privilege is that of the client and not of the lawyer.

 

The fact that in exceptional situations the lawyer under the rules has a limited discretion to disclose a client confidence does not vitiate the proposition that, as a general matter, the client has a reasonable expectation that information relating to the client will not be voluntarily disclosed and that disclosure of such information may be judicially compelled only in accordance with recognized exceptions to the client-lawyer and work-product privileges.

 

The lawyer’s exercise of discretion not to disclose information under Rule 1.6 should not be subject to reexamination.

 

Permitting such reexamination would be incompatible with the general policy of promoting compliance with law through assurances that communications will be protected against disclosure.

 

{The comment accompanying each rule explains and illustrates the meaning and purpose of the rule. The Preamble and this note on scope provide general orientation. The comments are intended as guides to interpretation, but the text of each rule is authoritative.}

 

*****************

 

Again, the full text, with applicable comments, is available here:

 

http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/pdfs/mrpc.pdf

 

*******************

 

At any rate, can anyone - ANYone, ANYwhere - in 3MA Land, PLEASE, tell me how all this is applicable to the Governor, the Attorney General, the Courts, the ACLU and "WE the PEOPLE" of the State of Michigan?!

 

If so . . . well, then millions of thanks, from the millions of us!

 

Be FREE!

[old-hobo]

you know every time I read the law, I can interprit this angle as being a YES answer to zombiefryeds question, The law does not say in so many words say that you have to sign up for the program.I to think this is what the A/D was put in the law for.

[Zombiefied]

you know every time I read the law, I can interprit this angle as being a YES answer to zombiefryeds question, The law does not say in so many words say that you have to sign up for the program.I to think this is what the A/D was put in the law for.

 

I did register, but I fully believe that you should never have to REGISTER WITH THE STATE for a medicine. I did not have to register with the state when I was suggested and prescribed Morphine and Hydrocodone. I really think all you should need is a "recommendation" from your Dr. to use MM and NOTHING ELSE. And as long as you have that "recommendation" no Michigan LEO should be able to penalize you in any matter.

[peanutbutter]

Well THAT point is surely mute then, eh?

 

: /

 

Unless of course the gas station is a for-the-public advertized organization sworn to advocate for the good of the general public. Perhaps, a gas-for-less "Co Op" of sorts.

 

Check this out, if you will:

 

http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/pdfs/mrpc.pdf

 

And, please, tell me - if you know, how any of this might apply to the ACLU of Michigan.

 

-- whole lotta snip!! --

 

 

 

It's from the state bar. So it is possible it would apply to the ACLU.

 

I think you are hinting the ACLU is required to provide free services.

 

I was saying that it's more like a matter of something like physics .. like the speed of light or something. In this case "It takes money to purchase gasoline to drive to the court. If you have zero money, you ain't going."

 

It's called "limited resources." Which is a very real thing.

[Captain Obvious]

AD Protects YOU from Prosecution Only, you can be Arrested.

[tom purcell esq]

THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAWYERS, AND WHAT'S UP WITH THE ACLU?

 

Freemannibus posted the lawyer's Rules of Professional Responsibility and wonders how this affects us.

 

The section of the "Rules" referenced encourages lawyers to provide "pro bono" or free services to clients. This is where the lawyer donates time and advice to those who may not be able to purchase legal services. A one-person firm may be able to provide 20 hours a year, where a large firm may provide much more. This is the legal community donating time and advice as a public service. Lawyers see it as an honorable thing to do. So, for instance, a lawyer may contact the nursing home in town and discover that 3 residents need their wills done but do not have any funds. Here, the attorney may call at the nursing home, have 3 confidential interviews with these residents and return to his or her office. The lawyer will then draft the wills and return them to the respective residents at no charge. The attorney has provided "pro bono" services to these indigent clients.

 

So now how does the ACLU fit in with this scheme?

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization that receives no government funding, but is financed through member dues, and private and public contributions. The ACLU sees itself as protector of our nation's liberty. They are primarily involved in civil liberty cases.

 

There are about 200 staff attorneys nation-wide and thousands of volunteer attorneys. The staff attorneys are usually coordinating or consulting with their volunteer attorneys on the issues they are involved in throughout the nation. Basically, they are a just a bunch of good guys and gals who devote a BIG piece of their time to a cause they believe in. They have limited resources (as peanutbutter pointed out above). They are volunteers.

 

So where are they when we need them?

 

Since the resources of the ACLU are limited they must choose their battles carefully. The ACLU has volunteered its services to some patients in Michigan. But they also may be out in Arizona filing a lawsuit against that state's controversial immigration law. Or they may be trying to get that cross removed from the courthouse's lawn down the street.

 

Keep in mind that they are a private organization allowed to set their agenda as they see best. Hope this helps.

[rockinlespaul]

I did register, but I fully believe that you should never have to REGISTER WITH THE STATE for a medicine. I did not have to register with the state when I was suggested and prescribed Morphine and Hydrocodone. I really think all you should need is a "recommendation" from your Dr. to use MM and NOTHING ELSE. And as long as you have that "recommendation" no Michigan LEO should be able to penalize you in any matter.

 

 

I agree 100%.

[peanutbutter]

Keep in mind that they are a private organization allowed to set their agenda as they see best. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks Tom

 

I was under the impression that freemannabis was responding to money things. "All about the money" etc ..

 

Although he had bold face on this section:

 

"Also, lawyers under the supervision of these officers may be authorized to represent several government agencies in intragovernmental legal controversies in circumstances where a private lawyer could not represent multiple private clients. "

 

So I'm a little lost about what he is trying to say. I'm thinking that it was already bold face in the source he did the copy and paste from. If that's the case, then we are probably back on the money thing again.

 

With a finite set of money to work with, they wish to target those funds where they will have the most beneficial impact.

 

They collected my paycheck from the village of Clinton. The laws of that village changed in the process.

[cough80]

In the law they have tons of rules and punishments if you break those rules, but there is no punishment for supplying more than 5 people, and I still have not gotten a direct awnser on why the hell I wouldnt be able to provide meds for any legit patient. Let them come after me I dont care. Use me as a test case my lawyer will destroy them in court. I'm tired of sitting by and watching big pharm get away with killing thousnads a year with there drugs, but when marijuna doesnt harm anyone and then they want to try and regulate the bunny muffin out of it. Why dont they start targeting substances that are killing people.

[freemannabis]

First off . . .

 

Thanks, to Mizerman, Tom P, Peanutbutter, et al.

 

I really do appreciate your direct response to my personal (well, Our UNIVERSAL) concerns.

 

One of the things that compells me to direct (and re-channel) much of my energies to the goals of the MMMA (squared) is the personal interaction with other well-informed and passionate advocates that one can and often does become involved in "here".

 

So, thank you, for your valuable time and consideration of my legitimate concerns, however universal; Please know that your personal views (as with everyone's vital views and opinions here) are very relevant, and very important to me - and numerous others - in countlless ways.

 

One of the most prominently critical answers I am seeking is to a long-standing, blatantly ill-addressed question that many, many (if not millions) of Michigan citizens are wondering:

 

"How do "We the People" of Michigan, lawfully, as a united group of long-sufferingly victimized patient-residents of (ALL 83 COUNTIES in) Michigan get righteously 'Pro-Active' in Civil/Criminal Court matters with respects to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, (with or without paying someone MONEY) to help us ALL in our worthy cause?"

 

I can and do - fully - appreciate the ACLU, for the things that the ACLU does accomplish, on a daily / weekly / monthly / annual basis.

 

I can and do - often daily - fully appreciate the many benefits of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association; Especially the forums.

 

What I CANNOT appreciate is the TOTAL LACK of "PRO-ACTIVE" Civil and/or Criminal Court Action that has been provided for the hopeful, healthful, healing benefit of the PEOPLE of "Our Community" of Pro-CANNABIS Advocates of Michigan / America.

 

As far as the tired old phrase "We'd really LIKE to help you; But We're Broke" goes . . .

 

Well, let's just say the spouse and I can sure appreciate that as well.

 

Like many in Michigan / America, we do our best to survive, together, while sharing anything we can, on less than $680.00 per month - month to month (from SSI).

 

Like many who come here to seek and share, our bills FAR exceed our financial ability to "make ends meet"; So, we may pay the water bill next month, and the light bill - well, any way we can, however and whenever we can; And, I won't even get into how we juggle our auto insurance. (By the way we also get around, as best as we can, when we can, in a beat-up, "rusty-but-generally-trusty" [nearly 30 years old] vehicle that we actually traded for an old bottle [that's old EMPTY - 100 plus year old bottle] by the way).

 

So, in short: "we're Broke" as well.

 

But, like too many, however very much very UNlike many others who merely claim to be scraping by - some of us really ARE scraping by, day-by-day.

 

The fact that (again, like TOO Many) we're well beneath the "acceptable" (at least 185% or more below the National Average) "Poverty Level" has never stopped us (any of us) from giving our precious time, services or even a thing called "Mammon" (when pertinent) to help people in need. The same goes for our family, friends and communities; We always help each other, however and whenever we are able to.

 

Though I am not an attorney, like many who compassionately advocate for Pro-Cannabis legislation and relative worthy causes, I also have devoted countless hours (far, far more than only 20 HOURS in a year!) to researching applicable laws, and employing what is learned to help FREE other victimized people of Michigan / America from the oppressive, harmful clutches of a "legal-system" gone wrong.

 

When someone comes to our (tiny 16' x 20') home, hoping - needing - to find help, of any kind, we don't say: "Sorry; We'd really LIKE to help you; BUT we're a little strapped for resources right now; Come back some other time."

 

Regardless of the very unfortunate fact that my honey is constantly battling for her health and life; All while we daily are struggling to battle Commercial health-Prevention Institutions (you know, those scalpal-happy "Chop-Shops) such as Portage Health Systems and Marquette General Hospital, the United States Government, and Michigan State bureaucrats, we still spend our energies on Advocation for the Worthy Cause.

 

And, we don't ASK for, much less REQUIRE, any MONEY before - much less after - we consider to help; We Share whatever it is The Spirit (always) Leads, and (always) provides, us ALL to share.

 

Like our friends in Iron Country always say: "It's a KIND Universe!"

 

YHWH always provides whatever we all need, whether a morsel to survive ourselves, or to share with other victims of State Government Malfeasance, Misfeasance, and total and willful Non-Feasance of Public Office.

 

I am sure that others who visit and contribute any time and energy here will agree that we ALL (each and every compassionate one of us) do what we can, when we have occasion to - regardless of our presently limited "resources".

 

Along with many others, I have been asking (pleading for, actually) ANY ATTORNEY WHO HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE and/or EXERIENCE that is PERTINENT IN ANY WAY . . . to "THE ACT," why it is that we can't, as a UNIFIED GROUP of CONCERNED [VICTIMS] CITIZENS, get "PRO-ACTIVE," instead of cowering in the corners and back-alleyways of our own homes and towns, just shivering in fear and frightfully waiting for UPSET, FANG, SWET, DISGUST (okay, so I might've made that one up . . . but one wouldn't be surprised) or any other army of terrorist GANGs of THUGS to toss a shock-grenade into the privacy of one's family home, two seconds before home-invading and victimizing yet another harmless, VICTIM of faux-egalitarian police-state abuse and oppression?

 

I will GLADLY and FREELY devote (as in VOLUNTEER) my time and energies to any Civil/Criminal Court Action that will - ONCE and FOR ALL - put a stop to the monsters who kick in harmless People's doors, shoot the family pets, then even the CHILDREN, ransack, rob and plunder the home, and lock-up and fine, tax and further exthort Blood-profits off their all-but-lifeless victims, then collect a paycheck from the Government for terrorizing it's own citizens.

 

For ALL of OUR Sakes, All we need to know NOW is . . . WHO WILL HELP US to file the LEGAL MOTIONS?

 

And, WHO - FROM the LEGAL PROFESSION - WILL lend a helping hand?

 

I've asked these questions (and so have many others) many dozens of times on these forums - yet, as of this post, have never recieved any progressive answers - at ALL - from any attorney that has posted or otherwise participated (or not) in these forums.

 

(The only progessive "Motion" I've seen in this respects was something called the "420 Plan," or something to that effect; But, as far as I'm aware, nothing ever evolved from that movement - ??)

 

We ALL NEED to HELP EACH OTHER, PEOPLE! (Regardless of what else is going on in our individual and collective lives.)

 

Let's GET BUSY FILING SOME MOTIONS - Without ANY MORE - HARMFUL and DEADLY - DELAYS!

 

And, without ANY MORE "I'm Sorry - But there's NOTHING we can do to HELP" EXCUSES!

 

Well, maybe it's just possible we're ALL waiting on the proverbial "Valant Night on a White Horse Attorney" for NOTHING;

 

And, maybe (it just might be lookin' like) we really don't need any attorneys at all - to HELP US FILE a CLASS-ACTION CIVIL/CRIMINAL LAWSUIT/INJUNCTION against the REAL CRIMINALS.

 

Or, at least, maybe the ACLU of Michigan isn't the Valant Savior many of us have long hoped and believed would someday come to rescue us all from the Evil Beastly System of World Government.

 

If that's true, then . . . well, shouldn't we ALL get to working on a "Plan B"?

 

In other words: When the long-awaited Valant White Night starts to look less and less like a promised savior, and more and more like an ever-to-be-feared, blood-thirsty conqueror . . . (the Legal Profession, that is)

 

. . . Maybe it's time for a CHANGE; A REAL CHANGE?

 

Wouldn't you say?

 

CANNABIS CURES - Without Fears.

 

FREE the CURE!

 

BE FREE!

 

And, Share the HARVEST of HEALING

[freemannabis]

In the law they have tons of rules and punishments if you break those rules, but there is no punishment for supplying more than 5 people, and I still have not gotten a direct awnser on why the hell I wouldnt be able to provide meds for any legit patient. Let them come after me I dont care. Use me as a test case my lawyer will destroy them in court. I'm tired of sitting by and watching big pharm get away with killing thousnads a year with there drugs, but when marijuna doesnt harm anyone and then they want to try and regulate the bunny muffin out of it. Why dont they start targeting substances that are killing people.

 

Ditto all that you said!

 

I whole-heartedly believe that "We the People" of Michigan need to immediately file a lawsuit against the Malfeasant "Public Officers" of "The State" of Michigan.

 

Be FREE (from Tyranny)

[bobandtorey]

First off . . .

 

Thanks, to Mizerman, Tom P, Peanutbutter, et al.

 

I really do appreciate your direct response to my personal (well, Our UNIVERSAL) concerns.

 

One of the things that compells me to direct (and re-channel) much of my energies to the goals of the MMMA (squared) is the personal interaction with other well-informed and passionate advocates that one can and often does become involved in "here".

 

So, thank you, for your valuable time and consideration of my legitimate concerns, however universal; Please know that your personal views (as with everyone's vital views and opinions here) are very relevant, and very important to me - and numerous others - in countlless ways.

 

One of the most prominently critical answers I am seeking is to a long-standing, blatantly ill-addressed question that many, many (if not millions) of Michigan citizens are wondering:

 

"How do "We the People" of Michigan, lawfully, as a united group of long-sufferingly victimized patient-residents of (ALL 83 COUNTIES in) Michigan get righteously 'Pro-Active' in Civil/Criminal Court matters with respects to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, (with or without paying someone MONEY) to help us ALL in our worthy cause?"

 

I can and do - fully - appreciate the ACLU, for the things that the ACLU does accomplish, on a daily / weekly / monthly / annual basis.

 

I can and do - often daily - fully appreciate the many benefits of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association; Especially the forums.

 

What I CANNOT appreciate is the TOTAL LACK of "PRO-ACTIVE" Civil and/or Criminal Court Action that has been provided for the hopeful, healthful, healing benefit of the PEOPLE of "Our Community" of Pro-CANNABIS Advocates of Michigan / America.

 

As far as the tired old phrase "We'd really LIKE to help you; But We're Broke" goes . . .

 

Well, let's just say the spouse and I can sure appreciate that as well.

 

Like many in Michigan / America, we do our best to survive, together, while sharing anything we can, on less than $680.00 per month - month to month (from SSI).

 

Like many who come here to seek and share, our bills FAR exceed our financial ability to "make ends meet"; So, we may pay the water bill next month, and the light bill - well, any way we can, however and whenever we can; And, I won't even get into how we juggle our auto insurance. (By the way we also get around, as best as we can, when we can, in a beat-up, "rusty-but-generally-trusty" [nearly 30 years old] vehicle that we actually traded for an old bottle [that's old EMPTY - 100 plus year old bottle] by the way).

 

So, in short: "we're Broke" as well.

 

But, like too many, however very much very UNlike many others who merely claim to be scraping by - some of us really ARE scraping by, day-by-day.

 

The fact that (again, like TOO Many) we're well beneath the "acceptable" (at least 185% or more below the National Average) "Poverty Level" has never stopped us (any of us) from giving our precious time, services or even a thing called "Mammon" (when pertinent) to help people in need. The same goes for our family, friends and communities; We always help each other, however and whenever we are able to.

 

Though I am not an attorney, like many who compassionately advocate for Pro-Cannabis legislation and relative worthy causes, I also have devoted countless hours (far, far more than only 20 HOURS in a year!) to researching applicable laws, and employing what is learned to help FREE other victimized people of Michigan / America from the oppressive, harmful clutches of a "legal-system" gone wrong.

 

When someone comes to our (tiny 16' x 20') home, hoping - needing - to find help, of any kind, we don't say: "Sorry; We'd really LIKE to help you; BUT we're a little strapped for resources right now; Come back some other time."

 

Regardless of the very unfortunate fact that my honey is constantly battling for her health and life; All while we daily are struggling to battle Commercial health-Prevention Institutions (you know, those scalpal-happy "Chop-Shops) such as Portage Health Systems and Marquette General Hospital, the United States Government, and Michigan State bureaucrats, we still spend our energies on Advocation for the Worthy Cause.

 

And, we don't ASK for, much less REQUIRE, any MONEY before - much less after - we consider to help; We Share whatever it is The Spirit (always) Leads, and (always) provides, us ALL to share.

 

Like our friends in Iron Country always say: "It's a KIND Universe!"

 

YHWH always provides whatever we all need, whether a morsel to survive ourselves, or to share with other victims of State Government Malfeasance, Misfeasance, and total and willful Non-Feasance of Public Office.

 

I am sure that others who visit and contribute any time and energy here will agree that we ALL (each and every compassionate one of us) do what we can, when we have occasion to - regardless of our presently limited "resources".

 

Along with many others, I have been asking (pleading for, actually) ANY ATTORNEY WHO HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE and/or EXERIENCE that is PERTINENT IN ANY WAY . . . to "THE ACT," why it is that we can't, as a UNIFIED GROUP of CONCERNED [VICTIMS] CITIZENS, get "PRO-ACTIVE," instead of cowering in the corners and back-alleyways of our own homes and towns, just shivering in fear and frightfully waiting for UPSET, FANG, SWET, DISGUST (okay, so I might've made that one up . . . but one wouldn't be surprised) or any other army of terrorist GANGs of THUGS to toss a shock-grenade into the privacy of one's family home, two seconds before home-invading and victimizing yet another harmless, VICTIM of faux-egalitarian police-state abuse and oppression?

 

I will GLADLY and FREELY devote (as in VOLUNTEER) my time and energies to any Civil/Criminal Court Action that will - ONCE and FOR ALL - put a stop to the monsters who kick in harmless People's doors, shoot the family pets, then even the CHILDREN, ransack, rob and plunder the home, and lock-up and fine, tax and further exthort Blood-profits off their all-but-lifeless victims, then collect a paycheck from the Government for terrorizing it's own citizens.

 

For ALL of OUR Sakes, All we need to know NOW is . . . WHO WILL HELP US to file the LEGAL MOTIONS?

 

And, WHO - FROM the LEGAL PROFESSION - WILL lend a helping hand?

 

I've asked these questions (and so have many others) many dozens of times on these forums - yet, as of this post, have never recieved any progressive answers - at ALL - from any attorney that has posted or otherwise participated (or not) in these forums.

 

(The only progessive "Motion" I've seen in this respects was something called the "420 Plan," or something to that effect; But, as far as I'm aware, nothing ever evolved from that movement - ??)

 

We ALL NEED to HELP EACH OTHER, PEOPLE! (Regardless of what else is going on in our individual and collective lives.)

 

Let's GET BUSY FILING SOME MOTIONS - Without ANY MORE - HARMFUL and DEADLY - DELAYS!

 

And, without ANY MORE "I'm Sorry - But there's NOTHING we can do to HELP" EXCUSES!

 

Well, maybe it's just possible we're ALL waiting on the proverbial "Valant Night on a White Horse Attorney" for NOTHING;

 

And, maybe (it just might be lookin' like) we really don't need any attorneys at all - to HELP US FILE a CLASS-ACTION CIVIL/CRIMINAL LAWSUIT/INJUNCTION against the REAL CRIMINALS.

 

Or, at least, maybe the ACLU of Michigan isn't the Valant Savior many of us have long hoped and believed would someday come to rescue us all from the Evil Beastly System of World Government.

 

If that's true, then . . . well, shouldn't we ALL get to working on a "Plan B"?

 

In other words: When the long-awaited Valant White Night starts to look less and less like a promised savior, and more and more like an ever-to-be-feared, blood-thirsty conqueror . . . (the Legal Profession, that is)

 

. . . Maybe it's time for a CHANGE; A REAL CHANGE?

 

Wouldn't you say?

 

CANNABIS CURES - Without Fears.

 

FREE the CURE!

 

BE FREE!

 

And, Share the HARVEST of HEALING

 

 

thank you for the post plan B sounds good to me

[+JuztBudz]

Zombiefryd...sure, no one other than a physician can recommend the use of cannabis as a therapy, and no, it is not necessary for you to register with the state and recieve a card. And the AD is available to those who have a rec. without the card, but (read this as one big BUT) you had better have a heck of a lot of cash reserved for your defense. I would estimate that it will take anywhere from $5 - 10 thousand to properly make such a defense. Plus any appeals (the state likes to act like it has nothing better to do with taxpayer cash, than to make life miserable for sick and dying folks)...so, in my estimation, it is much cheaper to spend the $100 dollars for the state I.D., than to possibly spend thousands upon thousands to defend a non-carded affirmative defense...Peace...j.b.

 

I have a question, HOW can anybody tell you, beside your doctor, that you cant use a medicine? Cant I have a doc rec without having to register in the program? Isnt that what the AD is for?

[Zombiefied]

Zombiefryd...sure, no one other than a physician can recommend the use of cannabis as a therapy, and no, it is not necessary for you to register with the state and recieve a card. And the AD is available to those who have a rec. without the card, but (read this as one big BUT) you had better have a heck of a lot of cash reserved for your defense. I would estimate that it will take anywhere from $5 - 10 thousand to properly make such a defense. Plus any appeals (the state likes to act like it has nothing better to do with taxpayer cash, than to make life miserable for sick and dying folks)...so, in my estimation, it is much cheaper to spend the $100 dollars for the state I.D., than to possibly spend thousands upon thousands to defend a non-carded affirmative defense...Peace...j.b.

 

I do agree with you, and I did pay the 100$ to register with the state. Its just absurd that we have to register like a making whoopee sex offender, just to be safe from arrest and all that, and try to live a happier healthy life...

[jbvcalis]

as far as i'm concerned--

if you have the paperwork your legal.

i'm allow to get my meds anyway i can and be legal.

why? because i have legal docs,saying so.

your at day 20 your legal.

like the police told us,be more discrete.