Ad And Practical Application

[Mykul]

I was recently convicted of possession (I didn't have my card (wasn't legal) when ticketed, but got it soon after (less than a month)

 

My lawyer, who I found via the NORML website, at first told me the AD was not applicable since I didn't have a card at the time. He then wrote in his brief that he would not be pursuing it and pled me guilty. I, not completely understanding, went with it.

Judge says "nothing unconstitutional here" and refuses to hear a motion introduced later. End of story for my AD plea.

 

this sucked and has caused me a lot of problems and I would like to see that this does not happen to someone else.

So this is what we need here:

 

An explanation of the ad, why it works, and how.

I have seen plenty of posts that say 'the AD is retro active, it will get you off of your charge'. but no one really seems to know why.

Sure, I meet the three conditions (I have a card, so obviously a physician will approve me, had a legal amount, and it was for me)but what makes the AD retroactive?

I have heard that this is because the law does not specifically say 'this is only good if you have your card', that 'it's open ended so it should work as a catch all, and (my favorite) 'your lawyer should know, ask him.'

Well, my lawyer didn't know, so who can explain this in a way that everyone can understand, or at least in a way we could print out and show our lawyers?

 

As I have said, I have already been railroaded into a guilty plea (Probation, substance abuse courses, fines, loss of license, etc... it's all elsewhere, look up my posts), but if I can in any way help the next guy so that he can actually use this effectively, then it will be a win.

 

thanks.

[______]

Paging Peanutbutter to this thread please. Mr. Peanutbutter please pick up the white courtesy phone.

[Zombiefied]

The law protects REGISTERED and UN-REGISTERED patients, that is why the AD is, well not retroactive, just active all the time.

[peanutbutter]

Here is the civil rights attorney on the subject.

 

Click here then print .. you asked, you received.

 

This is from Greg Schmid of Schmid and Schmid.

 

Here is a place where forms can be printed free of charge:

free forms for lawyers

[chi_guy]

Here is the breakdown on the A.D. it depends on the judge. Some judges are interpreting section 8(a)1 as saying that the physician's recommendation had to have been made prior to the arrest, although there is no indication written in the act as to when the physician's recommendation had to be made. However your attorney should have tried the AD anyway. Because the only thing the AD requires is that a person is a "patient" per section 8a. A "patient" isn't defined in the mmma act. The definition of patient is a person who is under Medical care or treatment. So as long as you were a "patient" at the time of arrest the affirmative defense should apply. Judges and prosecutors don't like this because they feel it just gives everybody a get out of jail free card. Because anyone can get arrested then go pay a doctor to give them a recommendation. But what they don't realize is that it doesn't give anybody a get out of jail free card. Because you have to be a "patient" in order to present this defense.

[Mykul]

Here is the civil rights attorney on the subject.

 

Click here then print .. you asked, you received.

 

This is from Greg Schmid of Schmid and Schmid.

 

Here is a place where forms can be printed free of charge:

free forms for lawyers

 

 

Thanks, that was informative and as I have stated before, from what I read, it seems like dismissing the case is a no brainier. But if that were the case, the Judge and prosecutor could not have denied my defense, and yet they did.

 

This is straight from the "Peoples objection to defendants affirmation defenses"

I did not write this, it is a public document from my case (which I will attach in full...sorry it's upside down, it was the only way it would feed into the scanner)

 

 

"The Defendant was not in possession of a valid registry identification card allowing him to possess marijuana nor was he issued a valid registry identification card. Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

Now what can we do? this is an actual document from an actual court and my motion for AD was denied.

 

UPDATE: THE FILE WAS TOO BIG TO ATTATCH, SO I'M GOING TO SPLIT IT IN TWO AND RE-UP IT SOON.

[Mykul]

Although my doc is too big, check this one out, seems to me that it's pretty clear

MichAffidavit MMA 2010.doc

[peanutbutter]

Thanks, that was informative and as I have stated before, from what I read, it seems like dismissing the case is a no brainier. But if that were the case, the Judge and prosecutor could not have denied my defense, and yet they did.

 

This is straight from the "Peoples objection to defendants affirmation defenses"

I did not write this, it is a public document from my case (which I will attach in full...sorry it's upside down, it was the only way it would feed into the scanner)

 

 

"The Defendant was not in possession of a valid registry identification card allowing him to possess marijuana nor was he issued a valid registry identification card. Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

Now what can we do? this is an actual document from an actual court and my motion for AD was denied.

 

UPDATE: THE FILE WAS TOO BIG TO ATTATCH, SO I'M GOING TO SPLIT IT IN TWO AND RE-UP IT SOON.

 

This is a complex issue that you have raised here. And it is one that I've raised before myself.

 

You and I both believe this to be in error.

 

One main item to raise in favor of the way that we believe is the question that was asked of the voters on 11/4/2008.

 

Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

 

That was what voters said "yes" to. While not in the law directly, this reflects the intent of the voters very clearly. The voters intended to allow unregistered users of marijuana for medical purposes.

 

I had raised this exact issue more than a year ago. In the end, I came to this question that the voters had been directly asked.

 

Here is the PDF file that has the exact wording that the voters were presented with:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/ED-20_11-08_Props_Poster2_251561_7.pdf

[peanutbutter]

Although my doc is too big, check this one out, seems to me that it's pretty clear

 

I called Karen and yelled at her directly.

 

Her intent is not acceptable as "legislative intent." There is no record of what was being debated at the time. No public record of the debate.

 

There is no "legislative intent" recorded on the part of the legislature as this didn't involve the legislature. It was all about the people. And there is no record of debate among the people.

 

The ballot wording is the only extra light on the law at the time of the vote.

 

The ballot wording directly asked the voters if unregistered was OK. And the voters said "yes" to that very question. No "gray area" on the ballot at all.

[Mykul]

I called Karen and yelled at her directly.

 

Her intent is not acceptable as "legislative intent." There is no record of what was being debated at the time. No public record of the debate.

 

There is no "legislative intent" recorded on the part of the legislature as this didn't involve the legislature. It was all about the people. And there is no record of debate among the people.

 

The ballot wording is the only extra light on the law at the time of the vote.

 

The ballot wording directly asked the voters if unregistered was OK. And the voters said "yes" to that very question. No "gray area" on the ballot at all.

 

Yelled at her directly? darn! I keep getting people I don't know pissed off at me.

 

I agree with everything you say. What can we do about it though.

I don't mean 'for my case', that ship has sailed. What can we do to ensure this doesn't happen to anyone else?

 

What we need to do is to draft a clear and concise document addressing both sides of the issue, explain why the law is as it is, refute the arguments that the man has, and send it to every judge, da, and important person in the state.

 

I am completely willing to help on this, but am not informed enough to do it alone.

[peanutbutter]

Yelled at her directly? darn! I keep getting people I don't know pissed off at me.

 

I agree with everything you say. What can we do about it though.

I don't mean 'for my case', that ship has sailed. What can we do to ensure this doesn't happen to anyone else?

 

What we need to do is to draft a clear and concise document addressing both sides of the issue, explain why the law is as it is, refute the arguments that the man has, and send it to every judge, da, and important person in the state.

 

I am completely willing to help on this, but am not informed enough to do it alone.

 

LOL .. I called her in December of '08 on the topic.

 

The tip about what the voters said "yes" to came from a PA that didn't like it.

Same as I didn't like that 8 rests on 7 rests on the whole law.

 

Oh .. BTW the thing about the ballot language, that came from the briefing that the PA was giving to the Michigan Supreme Court judges in a secrete review for them.

 

If I can find the PDF, I'll post a link to it for you.

 

So the stage is set for that argument to go in front of that court.

 

The ID card is not required.

[+Green Cross]

Hi folks. Green Cross from Lansing here. Interesting discussion over Mykul's situation. Sorry to hear of your hassles bro.

 

At a seminar last weekend, MM advocate and defense attorney John Targowski from Kalamazoo told the crowd that yes you can invoke the Affirmative Defense (AD), -BUT- to be aware that the AD should be your -last choice- of legal defenses. Mr. Targowski described better legal strategies providing more protection to defendants. Perhaps Mykul could contact Mr. Targowski to learn whether anything further can be done for him.

 

Green Cross Compassion Club of Lansing is forming a referral service for patients to contact skilled cannabis advocate attorneys. We invited Attorneys John Targowski, Mattew Abel, and Michael Komorn to receive our referrals and also to send us their flyers and brochures which we will provide to interested patients, caregivers, compassion clubs, and dispensaries.

 

Michigan residents have medical needs and legal rights. Let's serve the patients and protect the rights we fought so long and hard to win.

[Guest Wayne]

If YOU have plead the case unless you can show you were not of right mind, or the attorney or courts proceeded improperly in accepting your plea you now live with the consequences of YOUR decision. Don't mean to sound so harsh but only you can protect your rights in the end, an experienced attorney can only guide you on your way through the system. Another hard life lesson learned. Hope it all turns out best as possible.

[bobandtorey]

Hi folks. Green Cross from Lansing here. Interesting discussion over Mykul's situation. Sorry to hear of your hassles bro.

 

At a seminar last weekend, MM advocate and defense attorney John Targowski from Kalamazoo told the crowd that yes you can invoke the Affirmative Defense (AD), -BUT- to be aware that the AD should be your -last choice- of legal defenses. Mr. Targowski described better legal strategies providing more protection to defendants. Perhaps Mykul could contact Mr. Targowski to learn whether anything further can be done for him.

 

Green Cross Compassion Club of Lansing is forming a referral service for patients to contact skilled cannabis advocate attorneys. We invited Attorneys John Targowski, Mattew Abel, and Michael Komorn to receive our referrals and also to send us their flyers and brochures which we will provide to interested patients, caregivers, compassion clubs, and dispensaries.

 

Michigan residents have medical needs and legal rights. Let's serve the patients and protect the rights we fought so long and hard to win.

 

thank you but your last choice for most that i know of even us it's the only choice the AD is solid

[peanutbutter]

If YOU have plead the case unless you can show you were not of right mind, or the attorney or courts proceeded improperly in accepting your plea you now live with the consequences of YOUR decision. Don't mean to sound so harsh but only you can protect your rights in the end, an experienced attorney can only guide you on your way through the system. Another hard life lesson learned. Hope it all turns out best as possible.

 

IF .. IF .. IF

 

The judge ignored the elements of the AD then it might be improper actions by the judge.

 

I listed the location that a complaint could be filed.

 

That judge could have their hands slapped. It might call in question the guilty plea.

 

I tried to say it before.

 

Here is the link again.

 

http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/

 

These are the folks that you can file a complaint with about crackerjack judges.

[chi_guy]

Thanks, that was informative and as I have stated before, from what I read, it seems like dismissing the case is a no brainier. But if that were the case, the Judge and prosecutor could not have denied my defense, and yet they did.

 

This is straight from the "Peoples objection to defendants affirmation defenses"

I did not write this, it is a public document from my case (which I will attach in full...sorry it's upside down, it was the only way it would feed into the scanner)

 

 

"The Defendant was not in possession of a valid registry identification card allowing him to possess marijuana nor was he issued a valid registry identification card. Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

Now what can we do? this is an actual document from an actual court and my motion for AD was denied.

 

UPDATE: THE FILE WAS TOO BIG TO ATTATCH, SO I'M GOING TO SPLIT IT IN TWO AND RE-UP IT SOON.

 

 

What the judge did is bogus. I have heard of a few judges who are trying to use this tactic to deny the AD. They believe they have found their loophole in denying the AD. It is obviously bogus. They try to say that section 7a somehow is saying that you have to be registered. But obviously the ballot wording that the voters saw states you don't have to be registered. Official ballot wording reads exactly as follows:

 

The following is the official ballot wording:

PROPOSAL 08-1

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF

MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

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

 

7a reads:

 

Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the

extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

First of all the provisions of the act mean the act as a "whole" which includes the Affirmative defense.

 

Secondly, section 7a states "The medical use of marihuana". Someone asserting the Affirmative defense is not arguing medical use. As a matter of fact section 4(d)1 requires someone to be in possession of a registry identification to be engaged in the medical use of marihuana. However a patient or primary cg can assert that they were engaged in

the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or

transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to

treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms

of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

[peanutbutter]

What the judge did is bogus. I have heard of a few judges who are trying to use this tactic to deny the AD. They believe they have found their loophole in denying the AD. It is obviously bogus. They try to say that section 7a somehow is saying that you have to be registered. But obviously the ballot wording that the voters saw states you don't have to be registered. Official ballot wording reads exactly as follows:

 

The following is the official ballot wording:

PROPOSAL 08-1

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF

MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

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

 

7a reads:

 

Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the

extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

First of all the provisions of the act mean the act as a "whole" which includes the Affirmative defense.

 

Secondly, section 7a states "The medical use of marihuana". Someone asserting the Affirmative defense is not arguing medical use. As a matter of fact section 4(d)1 requires someone to be in possession of a registry identification to be engaged in the medical use of marihuana. However a patient or primary cg can assert that they were engaged in

the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or

transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to

treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms

of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

Oh yes .. I forgot.

 

The difference between "medical use" and "medical purpose" is what is protected by which section of the law.

 

"Medical use" is protected by the ID card. "Medical purpose" is protected by the AD.

[Mykul]

I am glad that we're keeping this discussion open. As Wayne mentioned above, I am the one who pleaded guilty. However, as PB mentioned, if there was a misinterpretation or something not done correctly, then there may be something I can do.

In any case, I have hired another lawyer to help with my appeal and this time I made sure he knew what he was talking about.

I will, of course, keep everyone posted, but I am also going to keep asking questions and suggesting answers until I completely understand the issue and its defenses.

[chi_guy]

I am glad that we're keeping this discussion open. As Wayne mentioned above, I am the one who pleaded guilty. However, as PB mentioned, if there was a misinterpretation or something not done correctly, then there may be something I can do.

In any case, I have hired another lawyer to help with my appeal and this time I made sure he knew what he was talking about.

I will, of course, keep everyone posted, but I am also going to keep asking questions and suggesting answers until I completely understand the issue and its defenses.

 

Hey Mykul,

 

This may help you. It is a powerpoint presentation made by the Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association. This presentation reportedly has been seen by all the prosecuting attorneys. Also I heard the judges and LEO have been trained with it. Pgs 6,8,23,27 all address the Affirmative Defense. Pg 6 shows them the official ballot wording that permits registered and unregistered patients and primary cgs for asserting medical purposes for using marihuana. If they saw this presentation prior to your case then they definitely broke the law by not allowing you to assert the AD.

 

State of Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association PowerPoint (

 

http://www.mml.org/pdf/resources/med-marihuana-ppt.pdf

[Mykul]

Hey Mykul,

 

This may help you. It is a powerpoint presentation made by the Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association. This presentation reportedly has been seen by all the prosecuting attorneys. Also I heard the judges and LEO have been trained with it. Pgs 6,8,23,27 all address the Affirmative Defense. Pg 6 shows them the official ballot wording that permits registered and unregistered patients and primary cgs for asserting medical purposes for using marihauna. If they saw this presentation prior to your case then they definitely broke the law by not allowing you to assert the AD.

 

State of Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association PowerPoint (

 

http://www.mml.org/pdf/resources/med-marihuana-ppt.pdf

 

 

Hang on a sec here.....I think a little light bulb just went off. Let me quote from "Peoples objection to defendants affirmative defense"

 

(my bold)

 

"The defendant has filed a motion, pursuant to MCL 333.26428, asserting the affirmative defense listed therein. However, the first sentence of that section provides an exception to the affirmative defense, which is, compliance with "section 7" of the act"(Da's quotes around section 7, not mine)

"Section 7 of the act, requires the medical use of marihauna to be carried out in accordance with the act. The act provides in MCL (a) that a qualifying patient who is in possession of a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution. The act, in MCL 333.26424 (d), also provides for the presumption of legal use and possession of marihauna if a person possesses a registry identification card. Therefore, the Act establishes that to be incompliance(sic)with the act, one must be in possession of a valid registry identification card, and arguable cannot assert the affirmative defense without being in compliance with the act.

"The Defendant was not in possession of a valid registry identification card allowing him to possess marijuana nor was he issued a valid registry identification card. Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

Now let's look at that all important first sentence:

MCL 333.26428 Sec 8 (a)"Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patients primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihauna and this defense shall be presumed valid where evidence shows that:"

 

 

Now I looked this up, just to make sure, and look at this:

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

(From Dictionary.com)

ex·cept

1    /ɪkˈsɛpt/ Show Spelled[ik-sept] Show IPA

–preposition

1.

with the exclusion of; excluding; save; but: "They were all there except me."

–conjunction

2.

only; with the exception (usually fol. by that ): EX "parallel cases except that one is younger than the other."

3.

otherwise than; but (fol. by an adv., phrase, or clause): EX. (well fortified except here.)

4.

Archaic . unless.

—Idiom

5.

except for, if it were not for: EX. "She would travel more except for lack of money."

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

 

So please point it out if I am wrong, but

"Except as provided in section 7", by definition, would mean that section 8 is NOT AT ALL dependent on section 7, as the DA has stated.

AND

"However, the first sentence of that section provides an exception to the affirmative defense, which is, compliance with "section 7" of the act"

have two completely different meanings.

 

or to paraphrase section 8 (a), "if you do not have a card but do meet the requirements, then your case must be dismissed."

 

I am sending this to my lawyer for confirmation, but this seems pretty cut and dry to me. If the AD is not, in fact, contingent on section 7, then my case should have never made it to trial. It seems to me that my after the fact compliance with section 7 should only server to re-enforce my grounds for the AD (because it's a given then that I have a doctor willing to sign, I only had 1.6 g, and it was without a doubt for me.)

If my case is invalidated, then the sentence would be invalidated, which means that my driving privileges have been suspended in a manner that is decidedly unconstitutional and I should be able to drive.

 

Am I really reading this right?

If I am, then why didn't my (Old) lawyer read that right?

 

 

Chi_Guy, you're my new hero! This is what everyone has been trying to help me realize all along. I get it now!

[chi_guy]

Hang on a sec here.....I think a little light bulb just went off. Let me quote from "Peoples objection to defendants affirmative defense"

 

(my bold)

 

"The defendant has filed a motion, pursuant to MCL 333.26428, asserting the affirmative defense listed therein. However, the first sentence of that section provides an exception to the affirmative defense, which is, compliance with "section 7" of the act"(Da's quotes around section 7, not mine)

"Section 7 of the act, requires the medical use of marihauna to be carried out in accordance with the act. The act provides in MCL (a) that a qualifying patient who is in possession of a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution. The act, in MCL 333.26424 (d), also provides for the presumption of legal use and possession of marihauna if a person possesses a registry identification card. Therefore, the Act establishes that to be incompliance(sic)with the act, one must be in possession of a valid registry identification card, and arguable cannot assert the affirmative defense without being in compliance with the act.

"The Defendant was not in possession of a valid registry identification card allowing him to possess marijuana nor was he issued a valid registry identification card. Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

Now let's look at that all important first sentence:

MCL 333.26428 Sec 8 (a)"Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patients primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihauna and this defense shall be presumed valid where evidence shows that:"

 

 

Now I looked this up, just to make sure, and look at this:

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

(From Dictionary.com)

ex·cept

1    /ɪkˈsɛpt/ Show Spelled[ik-sept] Show IPA

–preposition

1.

with the exclusion of; excluding; save; but: "They were all there except me."

–conjunction

2.

only; with the exception (usually fol. by that ): EX "parallel cases except that one is younger than the other."

3.

otherwise than; but (fol. by an adv., phrase, or clause): EX. (well fortified except here.)

4.

Archaic . unless.

—Idiom

5.

except for, if it were not for: EX. "She would travel more except for lack of money."

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

 

So please point it out if I am wrong, but

"Except as provided in section 7", by definition, would mean that section 8 is NOT AT ALL dependent on section 7, as the DA has stated.

AND

"However, the first sentence of that section provides an exception to the affirmative defense, which is, compliance with "section 7" of the act"

have two completely different meanings.

 

or to paraphrase section 8 (a), "if you do not have a card but do meet the requirements, then your case must be dismissed."

 

I am sending this to my lawyer for confirmation, but this seems pretty cut and dry to me. If the AD is not, in fact, contingent on section 7, then my case should have never made it to trial. It seems to me that my after the fact compliance with section 7 should only server to re-enforce my grounds for the AD (because it's a given then that I have a doctor willing to sign, I only had 1.6 g, and it was without a doubt for me.)

If my case is invalidated, then the sentence would be invalidated, which means that my driving privileges have been suspended in a manner that is decidedly unconstitutional and I should be able to drive.

 

Am I really reading this right?

If I am, then why didn't my (Old) lawyer read that right?

 

 

Chi_Guy, you're my new hero! This is what everyone has been trying to help me realize all along. I get it now!

 

The DA wrote:

Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

The DA is right, not having the registry card does subject you to arrest and prosecution. However, the affirmative defense a patient and a patients primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to ANY PROSECUTION involving marihauna and this defense shall be presumed valid where evidence shows that:"

[bobandtorey]

The DA wrote:

Because the Affirmative Defense requires compliance with section 7, and section 7 requires compliance with the provisions of the act, and because the provisions of act (sic)require a valid registry identification card to avoid prosecution, the Defendant is subject to prosecution."

 

The DA is right, not having the registry card does subject you to arrest and prosecution. However, the affirmative defense a patient and a patients primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to ANY PROSECUTION involving marihauna and this defense shall be presumed valid where evidence shows that:"

 

you are right the AD is solid people will see the judge will see and the PA we need a little more time in court

[Mykul]

So I forwarded our discussion (and one from another thread here.)to my new lawyer Shawn Smith (shawnthelaw.com).

He went over it and agreed that it was correct. He then gave me two prices.

The first one would be to get it classed as 7411 (like my old lawyer SHOULD have)

the second price was to get it completely dismissed.

I picked the first one, as it was mainly the not being able to drive that was the big problem...everything else was just inconvenient.

Took him three (yes three) days to get my probation bumped down to 7411, which means no license suspension.

 

I firmly believe that had Shawn been my lawyer from the start, I would be telling a very different story.

 

So, not the happiest ending possible, but certainly one I can live with.

[peanutbutter]

Interesting .. what did he think about bringing in the ballot wording?

 

What did he say about reporting the judge to the tenure people?

[Mykul]

Regarding the ballot wording, he was the one who sent me the pdf I posted. He feels that the ballot was worded to sufficiently (legally) cover non card holding patients.

 

regarding reporting the judge to the tenure people, I honestly just didn't ask. First and foremost, I am still not entirely convinced that the judge was not acting on what she believed. I believe that the DA report was worded in such a way that it looked, from a quick perusal, to be accurate. I can accept that she made a mistake. Once my probation is all over and I'm not afraid she's going to violate me for being impudent (or some other such thing), then I will send her a detailed and outlined summary of where she was misinformed. Until then I'll be laying low and trying to keep out of the 48th district's radar.

I will, however, be going to the Hazel Park meeting this eve to kind of test the waters. I sincerely believe that i can help through activism, but I want to align myself with the right group, not just the first to come along.

 

(so anyone who may want to suggest something would be appreciated; I may not follow the recommendation, but I will definitely consider any serious group.)