Michael Komorn Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 @KomornLawMI This case will have huge implications on the rest of the 14 medical marijuana states. This decision will most likely be used in all 14 states, by attorney’s prosecutors and defense attorneys for patients and caregivers, as precedent to argue that either Federal Law does in fact trump state law, or that both can coexist together, and all the medical marijuana acts in all states are not illegal federally. The decision could affect not only criminal cases, but have impact on those 28-29 cities that have enacted moratoriums or ordinances based upon the premise that the MMMA is illegal under federal law, and therefore can be legislated as prohibited. A ruling by this Court that Mr. Rice can argue the Medical Marijuana Defense in Federal Court suggest that those 28-29 cites are wrong and the legislation would need to be reexamined. A very important case the medical marijuana community should keep on its radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray123420 Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 @KomornLawMI This case will have huge implications on the rest of the 14 medical marijuana states. This decision will most likely be used in all 14 states, by attorney’s prosecutors and defense attorneys for patients and caregivers, as precedent to argue that either Federal Law does in fact trump state law, or that both can coexist together, and all the medical marijuana acts in all states are not illegal federally. The decision could affect not only criminal cases, but have impact on those 28-29 cities that have enacted moratoriums or ordinances based upon the premise that the MMMA is illegal under federal law, and therefore can be legislated as prohibited. A ruling by this Court that Mr. Rice can argue the Medical Marijuana Defense in Federal Court suggest that those 28-29 cites are wrong and the legislation would need to be reexamined. A very important case the medical marijuana community should keep on its radar. great post michael glad we got you with the movement keeping us informed on issues 2 thumbs up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted June 16, 2010 Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 great post Michael glad we got you with the movement keeping us informed on issues 2 thumbs up Me too i wounder if it will effect us with are case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welj31 Posted June 16, 2010 Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 Great post Thanks for the info. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gruber Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 Michael, How do you think this case will go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaveatLector Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 @KomornLawMI This case will have huge implications on the rest of the 14 medical marijuana states. This decision will most likely be used in all 14 states, by attorney’s prosecutors and defense attorneys for patients and caregivers, as precedent to argue that either Federal Law does in fact trump state law, or that both can coexist together, and all the medical marijuana acts in all states are not illegal federally. The decision could affect not only criminal cases, but have impact on those 28-29 cities that have enacted moratoriums or ordinances based upon the premise that the MMMA is illegal under federal law, and therefore can be legislated as prohibited. A ruling by this Court that Mr. Rice can argue the Medical Marijuana Defense in Federal Court suggest that those 28-29 cites are wrong and the legislation would need to be reexamined. A very important case the medical marijuana community should keep on its radar. A case out of federal circuit court in CA. doesn't set binding precedent here in the 6th circuit. It doesn't matter how that judge decides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinnermi Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 These busy bodies better lay off. We have a nation of 300 million geniuses, every one with a bright idea for a new law of his own. The natural course of government is to grow, and for more laws restricting our liberties to be passed. I haven't smoked much marijuana but would draw the line a little higher when it comes to what I permit the government to involve themselves concerning what goes on in the privacy of our homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 These busy bodies better lay off. We have a nation of 300 million geniuses, every one with a bright idea for a new law of his own. The natural course of government is to grow, and for more laws restricting our liberties to be passed. I haven't smoked much marijuana but would draw the line a little higher when it comes to what I permit the government to involve themselves concerning what goes on in the privacy of our homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mremre Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 Don't want to rain on the parade, and anything can happen, but relying on the AG memo hasn't worked in the past: http://volokh.com/2010/03/11/as-predicted-new-justice-department-policy-didnt-stop-federal-medical-marijuana-raids/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herb green Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 Being able to argue that to a jury would be huge...They will be deciding what the outcome is And it makes sense in federal court since its a federal memo Its disqualifing all the MMJ evidence that sinks people in federal court...The jury doesnt even know or cant use it...which is crazy This would be a great advancement in defense in federal court Hopefully it would discourge DEA from seeing through these bust which are obviously in compliance with state laws And keep communities from inacting these "follow all laws including federal" baloney ordinaces created to try and scare MMJ patients and caregivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLD420 Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 A case out of federal circuit court in CA. doesn't set binding precedent here in the 6th circuit. It doesn't matter how that judge decides. Just curious where you received your law degree.Just wondering because almost everytime a lawyer says something you argue about it. Could we know your record to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemosity Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 Notice in the article that Stacy had sold MM to an undercover San Diego Officer who was pretending to be a patient. So I wonder if he, the undercover, had fake paperwork to suggest that he was legal. If so, isn't that in itself entrapment? Using illegal falsified documents for the sole purpose of deceiving someone so they could bust him? And bust him for what if he did sell to what he perceived to be a qualified patient? So much BS, cops who are once again claiming to be ABOVE THE LAW. Couldn't Stacy sue the police agency that provided the falsified documents in civil court? Or something? Anything? It's just not right that they can break the law, forging documents, in order to entrap someone, BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaveatLector Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 Just curious where you received your law degree.Just wondering because almost everytime a lawyer says something you argue about it. Could we know your record to? I'm just a caveman and I got my law degree from a box of crunch berries one night when I had the munchies. Funny thing is that was all it took to know that I am correct. I'm not arguing anything I'm stating facts. I never said I have a law degree. But I did say that I am correct! And I am. Why are you jumping my (I can't convey a point without vulgarities) for making something clear? The OP was unclear and somewhat misleading. I staighten that out and I'm the bad guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaveatLector Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 (I can't convey a point without vulgarities) Really? REALLY? You have GOT to be kidding me! A mod censors my word and replaces it with the parenthetical "(I can't convey a point without vulgarities)" ----and it was a self-censored word to begin with! I didn't even write out the word! I used NON-letter characters!!! And you censor that??? Why? To make it LOOK as though I wrote a vulgar word? Are you trying to use your mod power in a veiled attempt at denigrating me??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
______ Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 I don't know what word or group of symbols you posted but our admin has put in some dang funny filters. Perhaps whatever you wrote tripped one of his filters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLD420 Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 I'm just a caveman and I got my law degree from a box of crunch berries one night when I had the munchies. Funny thing is that was all it took to know that I am correct. I'm not arguing anything I'm stating facts. I never said I have a law degree. But I did say that I am correct! And I am. Why are you jumping my (I can't convey a point without vulgarities) for making something clear? The OP was unclear and somewhat misleading. I staighten that out and I'm the bad guy? First off I didn't jump your azz I asked because I wanted to know if I should pay attention to what a layman says or what a licensed Lawyer says. At this point the lawyer is out front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaveatLector Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 First off I didn't jump your azz I asked because I wanted to know if I should pay attention to what a layman says or what a licensed Lawyer says. At this point the lawyer is out front. Edumacate yourself. http://judgepedia.org/index.php/United_States_court_of_appeals Then ask your lawyer friend to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLD420 Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 Edumacate yourself. http://judgepedia.org/index.php/United_States_court_of_appeals Then ask your lawyer friend to do the same. Gotta love arrogant people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT61 Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 I find it more than disingenuous that any Federal Prosecutor or even employee for that matter can legally argue anywhere - in any court in this nation that cannabis has no medical benefit since the Federal Government grows and distributes cannabis to patients with a prescription rate of 10 pre-rolled cannabis joints per day. OK - I am not a lawyer - but good sense dictates that this is an injustice - anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.