Jump to content

Affirmative Defense Argument Supported By The Prosecuting Attorneys Association Of Michigan Report


Eric L. VanDussen
 Share

Recommended Posts

This Power Point presentation ( http://www.mml.org/pdf/resources/med-marihuana-ppt.pdf ) was prepared by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Kenneth Stecker and the Michigan Department of Community Health's Celeste Clarkson. The medical marijuana affirmative defense is discussed on page eight and in pages 22-27.

 

Page eight says there are, "2 Options Under the Act - 1. Formal Registry Identification Card Program" and, "2. Statutory Affirmative Defense Pursuant to Section 8 of the Act."

 

Page 27, entitled, "Standard for the Affirmative Defense," says that: "The affirmative defense, by contrast to the Registry ID Card Program, requires no advance action or expense, no formalities, and its scope is quite broad."

 

In another report by the PAAM's Kenneth Stecker, ( http://www.mcrud.org/Stecker%20Michigan%20Medical%20Marihuana-2-23-09%20%5BCompatibility%20Mode%5D.pdf ) he details the following "Concerns About the Act" on page 12.

 

* Potential conflict with MCLA 257.625(8);

* Does not specify how patients and caregivers would acquire Marihuana for Michigan Medical Marihuana Act medical purposes;

* The affirmative defense section applies to “patients” rather than just to “qualifying patients.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome find this should be posted somewhere on the main page. I would like to question slides 4 and 5 Thc stays in the body up to 8 days, where in the heck do i get that. And on slide 5 the death toll for marijuana car related deaths went from 98 in 2007 to 140 in 2008. Not a very large number when you consider population size of Michigan. I would also like to see if any other substances where involved in the 140 deaths in 2008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Eric for your efforts!!

 

Did any one catch page 50, on the return of confiscated medical marijuana?

Return of Seized

Medical Marihuana

�� State law enforcement officers who

handle controlled substances in the

course of their official duties are

immune from liability under 21 U.S.C.

885(d). Once the marihuana is

returned, federal authorities are free to

exercise jurisdiction over it. 21 U.S.C.

 

This does not sound like a statement made in good faith to me. A prosecutor is suppose to work for the will of the people and the greater justice.

So,if I am interpreting this correctly, they are suggesting the police do not return the medical marijuana, there is no liability for keeping it, and if they do, feel free to have the feds arrest the patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome find this should be posted somewhere on the main page. I would like to question slides 4 and 5 Thc stays in the body up to 8 days, where in the heck do i get that. And on slide 5 the death toll for marijuana car related deaths went from 98 in 2007 to 140 in 2008. Not a very large number when you consider population size of Michigan. I would also like to see if any other substances where involved in the 140 deaths in 2008

 

It does not say Marijuana car related deaths. It says Traffic deaths involving DRUGS.

 

Traffic Deaths

Involving Drugs

In Michigan, traffic

deaths involving drugs

increased 43% from 98

in 2007 to 140 in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome find this should be posted somewhere on the main page. I would like to question slides 4 and 5 Thc stays in the body up to 8 days, where in the heck do i get that. And on slide 5 the death toll for marijuana car related deaths went from 98 in 2007 to 140 in 2008. Not a very large number when you consider population size of Michigan. I would also like to see if any other substances where involved in the 140 deaths in 2008

Considering all the alcohol related deaths, those numbers are in the thousands, prob'ly hundreds of thousands.

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering all the alcohol related deaths, those numbers are in the thousands, prob'ly hundreds of thousands.

 

Sb

 

There was 980 alcohol related deaths in 2008. The dishonesty on their part is of those 140 deaths, most include alcohol and include other drugs besides marijuana. Since they screen the driver for drugs, we would expect those involved in accidents to test positive for marijuana metabolites at least at the rate of the general population use. And since the heavy partying crowd has a higher percent of users, we would expect a higher percent to test positive for marijuana metabolites. This in no way could infer that marijuana was truly involved in the crash. The only thing it determines is if some one who was involved in a fatal crash has used marijuana in the last month.

 

But when has honesty ever had anything to do with politics and the money making machine of Marijuana prohibition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p.44 There is no language in the Act that protects anyone

from being terminated from their job for the medical

use of marihuana.

 

YES THERE IS

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome find this should be posted somewhere on the main page. I would like to question slides 4 and 5 Thc stays in the body up to 8 days, where in the heck do i get that. And on slide 5 the death toll for marijuana car related deaths went from 98 in 2007 to 140 in 2008. Not a very large number when you consider population size of Michigan. I would also like to see if any other substances where involved in the 140 deaths in 2008

 

Actually slide 5 is deliberately misleading.

 

"Traffic Deaths Involving Drugs In Michigan,

traffic deaths involving drugs increased 43% from 98 in 2007 to 140 in 2008."

 

It would appear that the author is attempting to do a number of things with this statement. This statement makes it appear that marijuana is responsible for all traffic deaths involving drugs. Second, it is attempting to give more argument to the repeal of the MMMAct. Lastly, the inclusion of the statement clearly defines the authors position on the subject of the MMMAct.The topic of the presentation is medical marijuana, not deaths where drugs were being used. The writer is off topic and is using emotional innuendo to gain credibility

The author deliberately sets up the reader. When statements are off topic we need to bring them to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A prosecutor is suppose to work for the will of the people and the greater justice.

.

 

If this were true, which on several posts I've made from the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office interaction and cover-ups for numerous criminal activities within the OCSD, from the lips of Undersherrif Mike McCabe himself, the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office could care less about that part of their job description. It is proven, unless Mike McCabe committed numerous counts of perjury. How is it that there is no policing of the Prosecutor's Office? If there is, how is that handled? Who do people submit justifiable complaints to specifically about prosecutors working in the Oakland County, or any County Prosecutor's Office? Is that agency a joke of conflicting interests like many law enforcement agencies INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNITS ARE?

 

Do any of you expect "greater justice" or "the will of the people" when the will of those running and hired in at the Oakland County Prosecutor's office, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, and the OCSD are those against people choosing marijuana for medication? Those bunch of FAKE justice figures and FAKE examples of upstanding morality pretend to be bent out of shape that someone with anything BUT cancer or HIV would use it as a pain medication, but you know what, SO WHAT if a person who has anxiety, arthritis, a bad knee, a bad back, and nothing necessarily terminal CHOOSES to use a safer, faster working, and healthier form of medication. It's no skin off of another person's hide, UNLESS THERE IS ULTERIOR MOTIVES FOR SOME WITH MONEY TO LOSE IN DOING SO.

 

In many cases it is cheaper then going to yet another clinic visit and having to purchase yet more pharmaceuticals with no health care because so many have lost their jobs, lost their health care and have lost their homes. MM is often cheaper then purchasing a prescription that can be hundreds of dollars a month, and heaven help you if you need another medication to counter the effects of the prior medication. Without health care, it's a nightmare. In many cases, the solution of medical marijuana is often more cost effective then prescription drugs that are proven highly addictive and with unwanted side effects.

 

At least when people grow their own MM or have a respected and trusted caregiver grow it for them, everyone knows what is NOT included in their medication. I wouldn't trust any government entity or any government approved business to grow lots of marijuana for sick people to use. NO WAY!! GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT THOSE PEOPLE WOULD DO TO IT OR SPRAY IT WITH, REGARDLESS OF THEM BEING TOLD NOT TO! Those numerous government contracts have a track record that speaks for itself. Intentionally purchasing body armor for the military PROVEN to shatter if a bullet hits it, government APPROVED pesticides that have long been proven to cause horrible birth defects and cancer. Then they say it is illegal to use it in the United States but still allow their government buddies ($$$) to manufacture it and sell it to third world countries, killing and poisoning poor and lowly educated people, INTENTIONALLY. I could go on and on and on about that type of GREEDY government issue.

 

How do we, the people, be a watch dog for prosecutors who are not looking out for "justice" for "the will of the people" many prosecutor's and a Sheriff believe should not have an existing law for anyway, but instead for their own political conflicting agenda? They say the law must be interpreted this way while others say it should be interpreted as that way, and when it is "others" that are clearly the ones looking out for "the will of the people"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the PDF of the PowerPoint, and it made it very clear on the PDF page 22, the last paragraph it says:

 

"A patient is protected from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau” for medicinal use or possession of marihuana."

 

So, as long as it is not a federal employment job, there can be no form of negative consequences? Even if it is a person who is employed by the Michigan Supreme Court, a state employed law enforcement official, a kindergarten teacher, an assistant prosecuting attorney, any judge for the state of Michigan, a security guard, a nurse, a school employee, any under age 18 school students, a store clerk, a librarian, etc.

 

That same PDF file, page 34, says this about CAREGIVERS:

 

"These primary caregivers shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of Marihuana." It seems that for a caregiver, it would be just as appropriate to include the words "OR POSSESSION" just like with a patient, because the caregiver is obviously going to possess it.

 

On that same PDF link, pdf page 44 it states this:

"There is no language in the Act that protects anyone from being terminated from their job for the medical use of marihuana." Doesn't that go against the above pasted quotes?

 

Regarding the above pasted part about the caregiver, it says, "for the medical USE of Marihuana". What is that clearly stating, "USE"?

 

In that powerpoint it also says:

Verifications are now available through LEIN. (There goes ANYONE'S "protected" PRIVACY BECAUSE POLICE ARE NOT THE ONLY AGENCIES THAT HAVE ACCESS TO LEIN. LEIN is abused even by LEO, but not limited to abuse solely by LEO agencies. There is documented PROOF that even the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office does NOT prosecute those who have proven multiple criminal violations of LEIN within the Oakland County Sheriff's Department as just one example.) Query can be made for registration number. Verifications can ONLY be given to law enforcement personnel. Passing on information violates HIPAA (So does that mean that ONLY LEO agencies will have LEIN access to SOLELY the MMMA registration number database? That is is only a part of LEIN open to LEO AGENCIES and no others?

 

Further, there is no way for a person who has been wrongfully violated against, by LEIN queries, to know their PRIVACY has been illegally invaded. There MUST be a way for the general public to KNOW if a LEIN query has been made on them as to make sure LEIN violations are not occurring. If those responsible for the creation and manning of LEIN have nothing to hide, which is the Michigan State Police if not mistaken, then there is no reason to consider that unreasonable and a requirement, UNLESS THERE IS SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS and LAW SUITS TO HIDE AND COVER-UP.

 

On that same pdf link, pdf page 57, all I will say is it is my opinion State Senator Wayne Kuipers should be voted OUT of office. He smells of kickback and conflicted interests, especially with what one can only imagine who HIS "designated 10 growers" ONLY allowed to grow marijuana in the state of Michigan would end up being. http://www.senate.mi...asp?District=30

 

Correct anything wrong or explain something further I have misinterpreted or not understood. Know that your time in doing so is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do any of you expect "greater justice" or "the will of the people"

 

 

How do we, the people, be a watch dog for prosecutors who are not looking out for "justice" for "the will of the people" many prosecutor's and a Sheriff believe should not have an existing law for anyway, but instead for their own political conflicting agenda? They say the law must be interpreted this way while others say it should be interpreted as that way, and when it is "others" that are clearly the ones looking out for "the will of the people"?

A judge can sanction a prosecutor. Or we can vote them out. Being a minister of justice is not only part of the prosecutor's job, he/she is conducting ethical misconduct if they are not seeking the greater justice. Here are the rules to support this:

 

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct

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

 

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is

not supported by probable cause;

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised

of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has

been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

© not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of

important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information

known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused

or mitigates the degree of the offense, and, in connection with sentencing,

disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating

information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is

relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement

personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with

the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement

that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6.

 

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply

that of an advocate[for the people]. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations

to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that

guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the

prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate. Cf. Rule

3.3(d), governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand jury proceedings

are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor,

and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of

prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.

 

Rule 8.4 Misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct,

knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts

of another;

(b) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation,

or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely

on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer;

© engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(d) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government

agency or official; or

(e) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a

violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually slide 5 is deliberately misleading.

 

"Traffic Deaths Involving Drugs In Michigan,

traffic deaths involving drugs increased 43% from 98 in 2007 to 140 in 2008."

 

It would appear that the author is attempting to do a number of things with this statement. This statement makes it appear that marijuana is responsible for all traffic deaths involving drugs. Second, it is attempting to give more argument to the repeal of the MMMAct. Lastly, the inclusion of the statement clearly defines the authors position on the subject of the MMMAct.The topic of the presentation is medical marijuana, not deaths where drugs were being used. The writer is off topic and is using emotional innuendo to gain credibility

The author deliberately sets up the reader. When statements are off topic we need to bring them to light.

Lucky that author didn't post that stuff here, there'd be a lot of neg reps flying around. So I shall throw some in that direction, a MILLION negative rep points to infinity for that very biased author. HAHAHA! Someone needs to get their facts straight and keep their opinion out of it. If those writings are to be taken as facts especially. If it's this person's opinion, any statements should be presented as such. Is this what passes for journalism now?

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky that author didn't post that stuff here, there'd be a lot of neg reps flying around. So I shall throw some in that direction, a MILLION negative rep points to infinity for that very biased author. HAHAHA! Someone needs to get their facts straight and keep their opinion out of it. If those writings are to be taken as facts especially. If it's this person's opinion, any statements should be presented as such. Is this what passes for journalism now?

 

Sb

 

That kind of crap has been passed along as journalism and news reporting ever since Clinton went into to office the news is nothing but propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An updated PAAM Power-Point presentation on the MMMA can be found at: http://www.zshare.net/download/804666952691cff0/

 

Prosecuting Attorney Association of Michigan's Ken Stecker says that when he gives "the presentation, [he does not] advocate a particular position or argument. My purpose is to note the area of controversy, note the argument and court decisions on each side, and allow the listeners to make their own judgment on what position to take on the issue."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"These primary CAREGIVERS shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of Marihuana."

 

Does anyone not see the problem with the above sentence? This sentence is written exactly as it was in the power point presentation.

 

CAREGIVERS AREN'T TO BE MEDICINALLY LICENSED (per-say) TO SMOKE MARIJUANA UNLESS THEY ARE ALSO A PATIENT!!!! That sentence doesn't say anything about POSSESSION which is what the caregiver would actually be doing!!

 

What a joke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"These primary CAREGIVERS shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of Marihuana."

 

Does anyone not see the problem with the above sentence? This sentence is written exactly as it was in the power point presentation.

 

CAREGIVERS AREN'T TO BE MEDICINALLY LICENSED (per-say) TO SMOKE MARIJUANA UNLESS THEY ARE ALSO A PATIENT!!!! That sentence doesn't say anything about POSSESSION which is what the caregiver would actually be doing!!

 

What a joke!

 

that is right the caregiver can not use unless he/she is a QP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...