Guest CaveatLector Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 I see a lot of comments from you regarding your case and it going to the supreme court. However, I have no clue what the issue on appeal is here. What is it going to the supreme court to decide? Last I knew your case was sent back down to district court by the circuit court for the district court's failure to allow certain testimony or crossexamination or something. Is that correct? If so what issue is going upstairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 bump am not much of a poster here i will PM you my # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solabeirtan Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Bob, I feel for you, my man. It is a horrible situation to be in. It is Your life, only you can make the calls. We are very concerned about this case. Best of Luck, bro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 I see a lot of comments from you regarding your case and it going to the supreme court. However, I have no clue what the issue on appeal is here. What is it going to the supreme court to decide? Last I knew your case was sent back down to district court by the circuit court for the district court's failure to allow certain testimony or crossexamination or something. Is that correct? If so what issue is going upstairs? Hi CaveatLector . I got this from Bob before: http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=295809&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0 What are the issues? In March of '09 their home was raided. Bob is a disabled vet with degenerative hip problems and his girlfriend is a cancer patient. Both are clearly qualified to be using marijuana in Michigan. Both of these patients had their doctors letter at the time they were raided. In April of '09 both of them were on the bus, in Lansing, to submit their applications the very first moment it was available to do so. Their case is a pure Affirmative Defense case. It was impossible to have an ID card at that time. There were a total of twenty one plants. Seedlings that were only about a week old. The plants were in a bedroom closet. The bedroom would normally have been locked. Bob was watering the plants when the police kicked in his door. They also had some smoking ready bud. Less than an ounce between them. To add insult, the officer pulled a couple of buds out of the bag, set them on the table and told Bob "There's your medicine for the morning." Their case was dismissed. Yet most of their property was not returned to them. The PA in the case filed an appeal. Claimed that judge erred by dismissing the case. Higher court agreed with the PA. Next stop : the Supreme Court. This case is important in that it goes to prove that it is not necessary to have the state issued ID card to receive protections of our new law. I believe that could impact thousands of cases in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26760993917 this was are judge lets vote her out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlovas Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Hi CaveatLector . I got this from Bob before: http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=295809&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0 What are the issues? In March of '09 their home was raided. Bob is a disabled vet with degenerative hip problems and his girlfriend is a cancer patient. Both are clearly qualified to be using marijuana in Michigan. Both of these patients had their doctors letter at the time they were raided. In April of '09 both of them were on the bus, in Lansing, to submit their applications the very first moment it was available to do so. Their case is a pure Affirmative Defense case. It was impossible to have an ID card at that time. There were a total of twenty one plants. Seedlings that were only about a week old. The plants were in a bedroom closet. The bedroom would normally have been locked. Bob was watering the plants when the police kicked in his door. They also had some smoking ready bud. Less than an ounce between them. To add insult, the officer pulled a couple of buds out of the bag, set them on the table and told Bob "There's your medicine for the morning." Their case was dismissed. Yet most of their property was not returned to them. The PA in the case filed an appeal. Claimed that judge erred by dismissing the case. Higher court agreed with the PA. Next stop : the Supreme Court. This case is important in that it goes to prove that it is not necessary to have the state issued ID card to receive protections of our new law. I believe that could impact thousands of cases in the future. The cop mocked them by taking buds out and setting it on the table..see that is the shiet I am talking about. I would find it very hard to contain myself if someone violated by home and made it a mockery. Clearly this case has to be thrown out by the Supreme court. Again so much time and money is being wasted on MJ whenthey can be fighting real crime or finding this Grand ole decrepid state some dang JOBS..!!!!!! These LWo just will not give up having their Overtime messed with. They do not get tht they are fighting a WAR they will never e ver , everrrrr ever WIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 The cop mocked them by taking buds out and setting it on the table..see that is the shiet I am talking about. I would find it very hard to contain myself if someone violated by home and made it a mockery. Clearly this case has to be thrown out by the Supreme court. Again so much time and money is being wasted on MJ whenthey can be fighting real crime or finding this Grand ole decrepid state some dang JOBS..!!!!!! These LWo just will not give up having their Overtime messed with. They do not get tht they are fighting a WAR they will never e ver , everrrrr ever WIN. thats about right the ACLU is helping us out so it should be by the end of next year and we will be FREE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christinax4 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 if the supreme court rules in their favor, any patient with a drug conviction, who didnt have their card at the time but meets the qualified patient status, can go back in front of their judge and ask for their conviction to be thrown out. my lawyer is ready for this, and if it happens, i will be filing a motion the day i hear of it to have my felony erased. GO BOB & TOREY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 if are Doc: Rec: is no good then theirs a lot of people getting their cards from the MDCH witch would be no good if i am reading all of this right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 if the supreme court rules in their favor, any patient with a drug conviction, who didn't have their card at the time but meets the qualified patient status, can go back in front of their judge and ask for their conviction to be thrown out. my lawyer is ready for this, and if it happens, i will be filing a motion the day i hear of it to have my felony erased. GO BOB & TOREY! i think you are talking about CAMPBELL KEITH JAMES he was busted 1 year and 1 day be for the Law was passed and got it dismissed the PA is taking it to the higher court and it is still their is what Matt told me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 i think you are talking about CAMPBELL KEITH JAMES he was busted 1 year and 1 day be for the Law was passed and got it dismissed the PA is taking it to the higher court and it is still their is what Matt told me His case has another important slant to it. That is "Can this law be applied retroactively?" Your "crime" took place after the new law went into effect. For him, the question is does it apply to him for acts before the law went into effect. So it would be possible that they would rule against him and for you. If the supreme court rules in favor of either of you, that will set the AD in stone. And if only one of you gets covered, I figure it will be you folks. It seems to me that you have a very very clear and clean case. You have nothing like a couple of plants over or anything else like that. Some slight argument about locked doors. And I figure they'll blow past that in about thirty seconds. If they look at Keith's case before yours and they find in his favor, your case is a lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 His case has another important slant to it. That is "Can this law be applied retroactively?" Your "crime" took place after the new law went into effect. For him, the question is does it apply to him for acts before the law went into effect. So it would be possible that they would rule against him and for you. If the supreme court rules in favor of either of you, that will set the AD in stone. And if only one of you gets covered, I figure it will be you folks. It seems to me that you have a very very clear and clean case. You have nothing like a couple of plants over or anything else like that. Some slight argument about locked doors. And I figure they'll blow past that in about thirty seconds. If they look at Keith's case before yours and they find in his favor, your case is a lock. thanks PB i was trying to put that in for the other post when she said she could get her case drop that she had a long time ago that would be GREAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 His case has another important slant to it. That is "Can this law be applied retroactively?" Your "crime" took place after the new law went into effect. For him, the question is does it apply to him for acts before the law went into effect. So it would be possible that they would rule against him and for you. If the supreme court rules in favor of either of you, that will set the AD in stone. And if only one of you gets covered, I figure it will be you folks. It seems to me that you have a very very clear and clean case. You have nothing like a couple of plants over or anything else like that. Some slight argument about locked doors. And I figure they'll blow past that in about thirty seconds. If they look at Keith's case before yours and they find in his favor, your case is a lock. how could they say the plants were not locked up the front door was locked the bed room door was locked had a lock on that door are we to work on are grow and lock are self's up inside the grow room lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombiefied Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 how could they say the plants were not locked up the front door was locked the bed room door was locked had a lock on that door are we to work on are grow and lock are self's up inside the grow room lol So are they (LEO) trying to say that every time you access your grow room that you are breaking the law? Because when you open your grow room its not an enclosed locked facility? If that is it than man are they just plain dumb or just FLAT OUT NEGLIGENT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Yep one judge said we had to many plants one judge said we did not have a bone-fide doc: relationship one judge said they were not locked up and one judge even said their would be no medical marihuana in my town so i guess they just want to lock us up for 14 years for any thing they can does not seam right to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombiefied Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Yep one judge said we had to many plants one judge said we did not have a bone-fide doc: relationship one judge said they were not locked up and one judge even said their would be no medical marihuana in my town so i guess they just want to lock us up for 14 years for any thing they can does not seam right to me WOW! No, that is not right. It sounds like the LAW does not matter to them, just MONEY, and how much they can get! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Yep one judge said we had to many plants one judge said we did not have a bone-fide doc: relationship one judge said they were not locked up and one judge even said their would be no medical marihuana in my town so i guess they just want to lock us up for 14 years for any thing they can does not seam right to me PS. and a 1,000,000,$ fine a million dollars were am i going to get that much money am on SSD i guees they will have to take it out of my check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chi_guy Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Below is exactly what the Michigan Medical Marihuana Ballot Proposal stated. The proposed law would: » Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health. » Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility. » Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana. » Permit REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana. Should this proposal be adopted? Yes ¨ No ¨ This is exactly what the voters read when they voted for this law. Notice the fourth bullet point where it says "permit registered and UNREGISTERED patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana. An unregistered patient is one who doesn't possess a registry identification card. I don't understand how some judges are stating that people are required to possess registry cards when the ballot proposal that everybody voted on cleary states unregistered patients and primary caregivers can assert a medical defense in prosecution involving marijuana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombiefied Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 PS. and a 1,000,000,$ fine a million dollars were am i going to get that much money am on SSD i guees they will have to take it out of my check That is an OUTRAGE. Sorry you have been going thru all this Bob, our family love goes out to you and yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutbutter Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 how could they say the plants were not locked up the front door was locked the bed room door was locked had a lock on that door are we to work on are grow and lock are self's up inside the grow room lol Like I said .. I think the argument would last about thirty seconds then get blown out of the water. A second year law student should be able to knock it out of the ball park for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Yep one judge said we had to many plants one judge said we did not have a bone-fide doc: relationship one judge said they were not locked up and one judge even said their would be no medical marihuana in my town so i guess they just want to lock us up for 14 years for any thing they can does not seam right to me the prosecutors had asked to subpeona the Doctor, the judge did that. Now that the Doctor is there, the assistant prosecutor wants the Judge to say he does not have jurisdiction to decide on the affirmative defense. Judge says the Doctor is here, I want to hear what he has to say. We heard what the Doctor had to say. donkey prosecutor wants to bring rebuttal witnesses, delay the trial, Judge does not agree. donkey prosecutor says 1/2 hour exam is not enough, Judge says I would like to see my Doctor for a half hour, sounds thorough to me.He also said it was the worst piece of legislation he has ever seen. Dismissed the case, he had no other choice, the law is the law. I guess it must have been written to protect patients and care givers, not to please a Judge.The real problem for them here is that we do have case law. A bona-fide Doctor patient relationship exist as soon as a Doctor and a Patient say it does, has to be that way for emergency situations. A doctor can't wait and establish some history, he has to act. We win this scrimmage. There is not any Doctor that is going to want to attack this idea that a bona-fide Doctor patient relationship did not exist in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaveatLector Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 But what is the issue on appeal? The issue is not whether they can use the AD from what I can tell. Isn't the issue procedural? I seems as though people are rallying around this case as if, when decided, it could tell us whether the AD can be used. It seems as though the PA is arguing some sort of procedural error in the lower court. I guess the point is that even if the Supreme Court ultimately decides for the PA it does not mean that the defendant will end up convicted. It just means the procedural error needs to be fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 i thought you said your judge was smart enough to dismiss the case and the PA is the one that escalated things? why vote out the judge if she knew the law? the Judge let me see he's OK in my book at first he was the one that said their will be no Medical Marihuana in my town and then he Read the Law that Matt gave him and changed his mind lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solabeirtan Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Procedural Error, when a judge can let a PA appeal his decision? After the Fact they were both qualified patients, with State issued Registration Cards and they allow an appeal on a hunch that the law is not Clear on a previous possible misinterpretation? Haven't they done enough damage to these people? What about being tried twice for the same crime? What about cruel and unusual punishment? What happened to Truth, Justice and the American Dream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 i think right their is why the ACLU is on this case they ACLU wants them to leave us along i have raid the letters that the ACLU sent to the high court i think are Lawyer's want to sue the state or Oakland county but their is something going on here as to why we have two ACLU Lawyer's for a total of 4 Lawyer just on this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.