What To Do When A Judge Misrepresents The Law

[peanutbutter]

One of the COA judges in the Redden case has misrepresented the law to the people.

 

This misrepresentation is now being used to arrest people in Michigan.

 

There are damages that have resulted from this misrepresentation.

 

The COA was presented with a couple of items within our law to review. Instead of just reviewing those items one of the judges went on to make a statement about nearly every aspect of the law.

 

These were political views he chose to express. And in doing so he chose to ignore several thing that plainly exist within the law.

 

Near the beginning of his unsolicited political rant, he ignored the word "therapeutic." several times he stated that patients in Michigan are allowed to use marihuana for palliative benefit.

 

he MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure

through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified

and protected from prosecution under state law.

 

If you assume that palliative purposes for patients to use marijuana are the only lawful uses, under the MMA, then using it to attempt to kill cancer, treat diabetes and Crohn's are excluded by the law.

 

That's not the case. By ignoring one word, therapeutic, the judge attempts to outlaw any use for medical marijuana except for pain killing.

 

The judge decided to pick and choose which words he will accept and those that he will not. In doing so he decided to repress a known cure for cancer. To make it illegal again.

 

IMHO this is a crime against humanity.

 

This part of his statement had nothing to do with the matters before the court. Nothing at all. Yet he attempted to ban a known cure for cancer by abusing his position of authority.

 

He goes on to say " In this opinion, I will attempt to cut through the haze surrounding this legislation. In so

doing, I note that neither my opinion, nor the majority’s opinion, constitute attempts to make the

law. We are simply interpreting an act passed by the people of this state."

 

What he is clearly attempting to do is eliminate protections that exist within the law. Which, in turn, forces the legal process to this next point:

 

"It is up to the Legislature to revise this act as it sees fit."

 

This is the political goal of this rouge judge. To bring the MMA back to Lansing to be re written. He is not satisfied with the law as it is written and is attempting to force Lansing to replace the law passed by the people of Michigan.

 

His ignoring of the single word "therapeutic" is not the most damaging action he has conducted. It is when he attempts to include subjects into the law that simply do not exist there. This judge did, in fact, attempt to write law.

 

"Section 4(b) specifies that a registered primary caregiver may assist only a qualifying patient, to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process with the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly, a primary

caregiver may not assist any qualifying patient in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana unless that caregiver is connected to that qualifying patient through registration with the Department of Community Health (DCH)."

 

Note that the judge omits one single word to come to his conclusion. In his first sentence he mentions "a registered primary caregiver." In the next sentence he omits the word "registered."

 

In doing so he ignores, and is causing to be ignored, the unregistered caregiver and the unregistered patient. This "unregistered" caregiver is someone that was approved directly by the voters on the ballot:

 

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

 

These unregistered people were approved by the voters directly.

 

Section 8, the affirmative defense section of the law, directly protects these unregistered persons:

 

"In this section, the act speaks for the first time in terms of a patient instead of a qualifying

patient. The purpose of § 8 is to establish an affirmative defense for those marijuana users and

growers who are not registered with the state."

 

There is no question that there are protections within the law that are intended to apply in situations where there is no existing ID card relationship at all between the parties.

 

On the one hand, the judge claims that the relationship, between the buyer and seller of marijuana, must be confirmed by the DCH. Then he says that protections exist without the DCH relationship.

 

Confusion has been increased by this judges attempt to force our law into Lansing.

[bobandtorey]

sounds like the judge is saying every body has to use the AD

[bobandtorey]

sounds like the judge is saying every body has to use the AD

 

 

That way the courts can still make money

[+Annnie]

what should we do?

[peanutbutter]

I believe, at a minimum, lawyers will be required.

[+Annnie]

Yes.. and i propose that the ppl who are really making all the money on MM such as Drs and Lawyers foot the bill for that.. Patients and caregivers can hardly afford thier meds and equiptment.. Dispensary owners should help as well.. just my two cents..

[DenturesLost]

What the judge says that you are referring to is dictum and not the ruling. Police can't rely on dictum to make arrests because dictum isn't a ruling. It is very common for judges to inject personal opinion and political leanings into their opinions. That's nothing new and it's neither here nor there because by definiton it is not law. You can't read a judge's opinion in an appeal and just assume everything s/he says in it is now law, that's not how it works. The only thing the judges can rule on is whatever the issue is before them. The "unsolicited" opinion doesn't matter. That's what you need to undestand. The people who disseminate the opinions in higher court cases will condense it and break it into pieces for reporting to police agencies, etc., and it will be reported based on the ruling and the dictum in the case won't even come into play.

 

The ruling in this case and the inaacurate reporting of its substance is basically putting the scare on everyone in the MM community because they don't understand what the case meant. Basically all the case meant was that since a bonafide dr/pt relationship is a requirement of the act then the prosecutor should have had the opportunity to question the dr back during the preliminary exam. The judge in tat case didn't let the prosecutor question the dr and that is ALL this appeal was about--whether the pros. should have been able to question the dr. It sounds to me like bonandtorey had a bonafide dr/pt relationship so even if the pros. decides to go back an refile on this case the outcome will be the same--dismissal. People need to calm down and take a deep breath and then when it comes time to vote make sure you vote out all of these conservative judges. A judge runs on a non-partisan ballot so you can't rely on party association to decide which one to vote for but pay attention to who pays for the judge's advertising. Is it conservative or republican organizations? If so then don't vote for them.

 

On a different note, it would be nice if the MMMA board would put out political endorsements for the upcoming election. Is that in the works?

[+RevThad]

If it is true that LEO and PAs around the state are now ignoring the majority opinion and relying on the non-binding minority concurrence opinion, something needs to be done to educate them on what the COA actually did rule on.

 

As you suggest the couple of issues the COA actually did review and rule on are quite profound and very important to our movement. They found that there are 2 levels of protection and that yes there are even 2 classes of patients and caregivers (registered and unregistered).

 

They not only affirmed that the Sec. 4 protections exist for registered patients and caregivers, they emphasized the words "shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner..." a few times.

 

They then went on to codify and reaffirm the protections allowed under Sec. 8 for unregistered patients and caregivers, and stated that the only exception to these protections were violating the limits set in Sec. 7.

 

It is a travesty of justice that so much fear, anxiety and trauma has been caused by the writings of a single justice on the COA, and that those writings are in complete contrast to the majority opinion. Too many folks are giving that single Justice power over the state and patient well being, not out of a sense of following the law, but out of nothing but fear. I am doing my best not to propagate his words, as I see quoting his opinion may give some the idea that his words actually matter as the law stands today. Simply put, his words have no more power than we give them, and only goes to show his contempt for the people of this state.

 

I will write more later, as I have a few appointments to get out to. I look forward to your responses and opinions.

[Wayne'sWorld]

The odds of reinstituting charges diminishes if the prosecutor determines the ruling signifcantly impacts his chance of maintaining a winning percentage acceptable to attaining that prosecutor's future goals. Somebody's gonna think about this one long and hard, then hopefully move on. Unfortunately possibly not in the right direction. Either way I believe freedom is at hand for Bob & Torey. Just a matter of knowing when the journey has ended. This is the number one goal, freedom. Anything else is just bullsh*t!

[Hempcheff]

2. Findings. Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

 

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

 

(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.

 

© Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

 

 

 

 

doesnt this make the arrests invalid before they even happen? im assuming the spelling of marihuana denotes the reference to the law to clarify what medicinal use and cultivations, but if MICHIGAN joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

 

 

 

 

with the "effort" being not to penalize for medical use, and we are not subject to arrest, prosecution, etc... and we dont even have to be registered for a legal defense, then why is leo still attacking patients and caregivers?

 

 

i dont know the chain of command or how long it is, but shouldnt everyone have gotten the memo already?

[+Silverblue]

Yes.. and i propose that the ppl who are really making all the money on MM such as Drs and Lawyers foot the bill for that.. Patients and caregivers can hardly afford thier meds and equiptment.. Dispensary owners should help as well.. just my two cents..

 

 

Sb

[+Silverblue]

I think Michael K said on his radio show last week, something like, when they say they don't wanna legislate from the bench, they're really legislating from the bench. I was agreeing with that one.

 

It sure seems strange to me that people are being told what medicines they can and cannot use. This whole thing is so ridiculous. There's a bill to extend the drug war, it was just posted on this site, that message should've come out sooner. what a waste. gotta bump that post up.

 

Sb

[jason j]

one word comes to mind huckery

[+mayorherb]

Yes.. and i propose that the ppl who are really making all the money on MM such as Drs and Lawyers foot the bill for that.. Patients and caregivers can hardly afford thier meds and equiptment.. Dispensary owners should help as well.. just my two cents..

I agree Annie, the ones making the money should be helping.Put some of the money in to help the cause other than just there pockets...Dispenararies,Dr.s Clinics, ect..If you are making money off US patients...THEN HELP US>>>

[+EdwardGlen]

what should we do?

We start a letter writing campaign to The Judicial Tenure Commission and our state senators, this sheet is getting out of freaking control!

 

We the people own them mother freakers in Lansing and DC and we have to remind them of that now, in November, and in 2012.

 

http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/faq.htm#FAQ3'>http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/faq.htm#FAQ3

 

MAY I FILE A REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY FAX OR E-MAIL?

No. The Michigan Court Rules require an original, notarized signature with a request for an investigation, so the Commission is prohibited from accepting complaints submitted electronically

 

The Judicial Tenure Commission

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

 

 

3. WHAT ARE POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR ACTION AGAINST A JUDGE?

A judge is subject to censure, suspension with or without pay, retirement, or removal for conduct including, but not limited to:

 

a) Conviction of a felony;

 

b) Physical or mental disability that prevents the performance of judicial duties;

 

c) Misconduct in office;

 

d) Persistent failure to perform judicial duties;

 

e) Habitual intemperance (i.e., abuse of alcohol);

 

f) Conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice; or

 

g) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Conduct, whether it occurred before or after the individual became a judge or was related to judicial office.

 

 

 

REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION

SHOULD BE SENT TO:

 

JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

3034 WEST GRAND BOULEVARD,

SUITE 8-450

DETROIT, MI 48202

[bobandtorey]

What the judge says that you are referring to is dictum and not the ruling. Police can't rely on dictum to make arrests because dictum isn't a ruling. It is very common for judges to inject personal opinion and political leanings into their opinions. That's nothing new and it's neither here nor there because by definition it is not law. You can't read a judge's opinion in an appeal and just assume everything s/he says in it is now law, that's not how it works. The only thing the judges can rule on is whatever the issue is before them. The "unsolicited" opinion doesn't matter. That's what you need to understand. The people who disseminate the opinions in higher court cases will condense it and break it into pieces for reporting to police agencies, etc., and it will be reported based on the ruling and the dictum in the case won't even come into play.

 

The ruling in this case and the inaccurate reporting of its substance is basically putting the scare on everyone in the MM community because they don't understand what the case meant. Basically all the case meant was that since a bona fide Dr/pt relationship is a requirement of the act then the prosecutor should have had the opportunity to question the Dr back during the preliminary exam. The judge in tat case didn't let the prosecutor question the Dr and that is ALL this appeal was about--whether the pros. should have been able to question the Dr. It sounds to me like bonandtorey had a bona fide Dr/pt relationship so even if the pros. decides to go back an refile on this case the outcome will be the same--dismissal. People need to calm down and take a deep breath and then when it comes time to vote make sure you vote out all of these conservative judges. A judge runs on a non-partisan ballot so you can't rely on party association to decide which one to vote for but pay attention to who pays for the judge's advertising. Is it conservative or republican organizations? If so then don't vote for them.

 

On a different note, it would be nice if the MMMA board would put out political endorsements for the upcoming election. Is that in the works?

 

 

The judge in tat case didn't let the prosecutor question the Dr and that is ALL this appeal was about--whether the pros. should have been able to question the Dr.

 

the Doc: was on the stand for over 3 hours But what the PA wanted was to bring another Doc in to go against are Doc

and the judge said no because it will never stop one Doc against another Doc and so on

[bobandtorey]

I agree Annie, the ones making the money should be helping.Put some of the money in to help the cause other than just there pockets...Dispenararies,Dr.s Clinics, ect..If you are making money off US patients...THEN HELP US>>>

 

 

are Lawyers have been asking for help from them but has not got 1 penny as of yet

[garden counselor]

are Lawyers have been asking for help from them but has not got 1 penny as of yet

 

Bob and all ---

 

From statements Paul Stanford directly posted on an international list serve of reformers, and statements he made which were reported in other very credible sources, Paul either directly stated that his clinic/foundation has been and will continue "supporting" your and Torey's defense financially, or he strongly intimated the same -- depending on how one interprets the word "support." This made sense to me since the THC-F Clinic obviously has a direct philosophical AND FINANCIAL interest in how the issue of whether you and the doctor enjoyed "a bona fide" relationship is resolved. Further, many of us are or have been patients of Dr. E's and must decide whether to see him for renewal paperwork and would like to know with as much certainty as possible that we are legitimate (both for the card and in the sense of a Sec. 8 affirmative defense) for the money we have spent or will spend there. We would thus be greatly reassured to discover that Paul/THC-F/Dr. Eisenbud are "putting their money where their mouth is" so to speak and are, in fact, supporting your defense not just with testimony and "moral support", but with money.

 

Yet, your post seems to indicate that no clinics or the like have contributed to your defense costs, leaving me and others unclear on this.

 

So, I am asking -- for understandable reasons, I think, and not to voyeuristically pry into your attorney-client relationship -- whether or not these folks have "put their money where their mouth is" in terms of helping you and Torey with legal expenses, which must be getting very oppressive by now?

 

I understand, too, if you decline to answer this as this is your private business.

 

Thanks,

 

GC

[freemannabis]

 

the Doc: was on the stand for over 3 hours But what the PA wanted was to bring another Doc in to go against are Doc and the judge said no because it will never stop one Doc against another Doc and so on

 

wow!

 

I mean ...

 

Holy WHAH!

 

That's really messed-up ... when it's said so ... well, plainly.

 

So, in short, the truth - as you so plainly and pointedly have said - is, simply as painfully, that the malfeasant [alleged] "public servants" who are so viciously and vehemently prosecuting the two of you - against the voted/voiced compassionate wishes (not to mention an historical, long over-due "PEOPLE's VOTER-INITIATIVE" that was successfully called, rallied and upheld by an overwhelming 63% MAJORITY VOTE - in ALL 83 counties - of "WE The People of Michigan"?

 

And, to put it another equally pointed way, the biased and bigotted persons who unlawfully claim to be persecuting and prosecuting you ...[allegedly] "in the name of" ... We the "PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-" are blatantly lying and committing malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, not to mention numerous other willful, harmful and deliberately violent hate-crimes against the resident/citizen people of Michigan, when they - clearly as wrongfully - claim that "we the people" are behind their unjustly unlawful prosecutions via their deliberate abuse of public office?

 

Well, then, Yes! I certainly agree!

 

And, it's also a safe bet to say that more of us agree with the truthfulness of that plain and simple statement than there are crooked politicians and home-invading thugs with guns and badges who are at least as biased and unversed in the People's Initiative as the malfeasant prosecutor certainly is.

 

Perhaps the malfeasant prosecution and it's lawless anti-freedom fellow misfeasants "gainfully" employed by "the Law" should brush up on the lawyer's preamble, and other things found here:

 

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

 

And these relevant findings:

 

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Resources/Administrative/2002-29-Allen.pdf

 

Be Informed.

 

Be FREE!