Jump to content

Gray Area Explained We All Need To Read This


_abbenormal

Recommended Posts

I'm seeing this:

 

Like the statute in Conyer, MCL 333.26428 creates a new right in that it provides an

affirmative defense to a criminal defendant facing prosecution for crimes related to the use of

marijuana that did not exist prior to the enactment of the MMA. Because the MMA creates a

new right, it cannot be considered a remedial statute. Link, 225 Mich App at 214-215.

Consequently, the general presumption for prospective application is controlling.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwinbackyourlife.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FPeople-v-Campbell-No-291345-7-13-10.pdf&rct=j&q=Keith%20Campbell%20court%20ruling&ei=yqLJTLuRAoj2nAef3JHFDw&usg=AFQjCNHbprdPwt0A-SvpRmBi7WtOgU3DLA&sig2=SKE4qvuE8TdTnasXEcrIhg&cad=rja

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cool .. you found it. Got a link for me?

 

tia

Here's a link.

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20100713_C291345_51_291345.OPN.PDF

Read the opinion and you will see that the court did not rule as you suggest.

Furthermore, it is an unpublished opinion which means it generally has no precedential authority. It doesn't set precedent except in a limited way, which doesn't apply here and isn't worth getting into.

 

So, it's got 2 strikes against it in regard to its application in this context. And, in this matter, either of the strikes means it's "out." It's no good in interpreting the law in a broad sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link.

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20100713_C291345_51_291345.OPN.PDF

Read the opinion and you will see that the court did not rule as you suggest.

Furthermore, it is an unpublished opinion which means it generally has no precedential authority. It doesn't set precedent except in a limited way, which doesn't apply here and isn't worth getting into.

 

So, it's got 2 strikes against it in regard to its application in this context. And, in this matter, either of the strikes means it's "out." It's no good in interpreting the law in a broad sense.

 

Well .. it used to be unpubished. But it's on the internet as a public record now. One of those times when legalize is different than English, I guess.

 

It says that the new law created a new right. Strictly looking at the right to present the medical defense to any marijuana charge, the court called it a right.

 

Is this the same COA as in the Redden case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing this:

 

Like the statute in Conyer, MCL 333.26428 creates a new right in that it provides an

affirmative defense to a criminal defendant facing prosecution for crimes related to the use of

marijuana that did not exist prior to the enactment of the MMA. Because the MMA creates a

new right, it cannot be considered a remedial statute. Link, 225 Mich App at 214-215.

Consequently, the general presumption for prospective application is controlling.

 

 

Wow. Where to begin?

 

First, as previously pointed out, the case, as an unpublished case, does not have value as precedent.

 

Second, the language you are quoting is using the term "right" in its general dictionary sense and not in the sense of "civil" rights. You are making the leap between right and civil right which are not at all the same thing. You cannot define "right" in one way--being broadly used, and then disregard that definition of right and substitute "right" in for civil right, or vice versa. You tend to do that a lot such as your defining the word confidential to have a meaning you claim the act defines it as but then, when it's convenient, also add the dictionary definition. You are equivocating. So to sum it up, the word "right," as used above, does not mean civil right.

 

Lastly, the language you quoted above is NOT a ruling. It is dictum. Even if it were in a published opinion it would not be controlling. In other words, it has no value as precedent or stare decisis. It doesn't have the authority you think it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well .. it used to be unpubished. But it's on the internet as a public record now. One of those times when legalize is different than English, I guess.

 

It says that the new law created a new right. Strictly looking at the right to present the medical defense to any marijuana charge, the court called it a right.

 

Is this the same COA as in the Redden case?

Published doesn't mean published in your local news or on someone's blog or even on the COA website. Published means published in the offical reporter for the Michigan Court of Appeals. The so-called MichApp volumes you will see at any law library in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Where to begin?

 

First, as previously pointed out, the case, as an unpublished case, does not have value as precedent.

 

Second, the language you are quoting is using the term "right" in its general dictionary sense and not in the sense of "civil" rights. You are making the leap between right and civil right which are not at all the same thing. You cannot define "right" in one way--being broadly used, and then disregard that definition of right and substitute "right" in for civil right, or vice versa. You tend to do that a lot such as your defining the word confidential to have a meaning you claim the act defines it as but then, when it's convenient, also add the dictionary definition. You are equivocating. So to sum it up, the word "right," as used above, does not mean civil right.

 

Lastly, the language you quoted above is NOT a ruling. It is dictum. Even if it were in a published opinion it would not be controlling. In other words, it has no value as precedent or stare decisis. It doesn't have the authority you think it has.

 

I think I'm beginning to understand what you are talking about when you say "published." I'm guessing that you are talking about a document being added to a collection of specific documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm beginning to understand what you are talking about when you say "published." I'm guessing that you are talking about a document being added to a collection of specific documents.

An unpublished case is a case with no value as precedent. That is why it is unpublished--because it is of so little value that attys don't need to find it when doing legal research because it generally does not bolster a particular position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm beginning to understand what you are talking about when you say "published." I'm guessing that you are talking about a document being added to a collection of specific documents.

Yes, even though they can be found online, not all cases are considered to be published. Usually only cases that set precedent are published. Cases in Michigan that have been to the Court of Appeals are considered to be published when the are added to the collection called Mich App. When they are cited the Mich App will be in the cite. For instance in the Redden case the COA cited Welch Foods, Inc v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461 to show why citizen initiated law should be read the way a layman would read it. The 213 is the volume number of the book. The 459 is the page where the decision begins and the 461 is the page where the quote appears. (By the way the quote is, " “The words of an initiative law are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by the voters.")

 

When a case is published by Michigan's Supreme Court it will have the word Mich in the cite like, People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 250. In volume 475 the decision starts at page 245 and the quote is from page 250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, even though they can be found online, not all cases are considered to be published. Usually only cases that set precedent are published. Cases in Michigan that have been to the Court of Appeals are considered to be published when the are added to the collection called Mich App. When they are cited the Mich App will be in the cite. For instance in the Redden case the COA cited Welch Foods, Inc v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461 to show why citizen initiated law should be read the way a layman would read it. The 213 is the volume number of the book. The 459 is the page where the decision begins and the 461 is the page where the quote appears. (By the way the quote is, " “The words of an initiative law are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by the voters.")

 

When a case is published by Michigan's Supreme Court it will have the word Mich in the cite like, People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 250. In volume 475 the decision starts at page 245 and the quote is from page 250.

 

Just like frikin' doctors .. invent their own meanings to words, take a class to make it so you can't even read what they write and then say "what's wrong with you? Can't you read plain English?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like frikin' doctors .. invent their own meanings to words, take a class to make it so you can't even read what they write and then say "what's wrong with you? Can't you read plain English?"

It became obvious to me long ago that they have their own meanings for words... just look at the first amendment... They have translated the words "congress shall make no law" into "separation of church and state". All from the comments of one justice back in 1947 (ish)..

 

BTW, I love the article brother, it has a real nice feel to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It became obvious to me long ago that they have their own meanings for words... just look at the first amendment... They have translated the words "congress shall make no law" into "separation of church and state". All from the comments of one justice back in 1947 (ish)..

 

BTW, I love the article brother, it has a real nice feel to it.

 

thanks .. was targeting that "when in the course of human events" feeling.

 

church and state stuff .. now you're talking about case law. Where black turns into white with only one stop mid way .. gray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It became obvious to me long ago that they have their own meanings for words... just look at the first amendment... They have translated the words "congress shall make no law" into "separation of church and state". All from the comments of one justice back in 1947 (ish)..

 

BTW, I love the article brother, it has a real nice feel to it.

Is there a profession that does not utilize operational definitons? Not really. The reason is simple, to encapsulate an idea without having to get into a lengthy description. Which is easier, to say the opinion was unpublished or to say the opinion wasn't included in the official reporter so doesn't set precedent? Saying it is unpublished encapsualtes the idea.

 

If you're a physicist what does acceleration mean to you? Not the same thing it means to Joe Blow driving down the road.

 

If you're a chemist what does catalyst mean to you? Not the same thing it means to a reporter who states the accident was the catalyst for installing the stop sign.

 

Separation of church and state is kind of the layman's term for the establishment clause.

 

Jargon or operational definitions are meant to simplify and encapsulate ideas for people in a particular profession. To suggest that every profession should write everything in plain english so that the rest of us can better understand it is to disregard the reason for developing jargon in the first place. Yes, I know, the reason is just to confuse the masses, right?

 

Why stop with language? Maybe we should simplify surgical procedures while we're at it. If the darn dr would just explain to me in plain english exactly how to take out my gall bladder I could do it myself!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not arguing for or against the use of legalese or industry specific jargon. My favorite phrase from that field is "Nunc pro tunc", I just like the sound of it...

 

I read someplace "A physics professor, who was teaching a graduate course on superstring theory, decided to add an essay question to this year's final exam. The instructions read, "Describe the universe in 400 words or less and give three examples." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a profession that does not utilize operational definitons? Not really. The reason is simple, to encapsulate an idea without having to get into a lengthy description. Which is easier, to say the opinion was unpublished or to say the opinion wasn't included in the official reporter so doesn't set precedent? Saying it is unpublished encapsualtes the idea.

 

If you're a physicist what does acceleration mean to you? Not the same thing it means to Joe Blow driving down the road.

 

If you're a chemist what does catalyst mean to you? Not the same thing it means to a reporter who states the accident was the catalyst for installing the stop sign.

 

Separation of church and state is kind of the layman's term for the establishment clause.

 

Jargon or operational definitions are meant to simplify and encapsulate ideas for people in a particular profession. To suggest that every profession should write everything in plain english so that the rest of us can better understand it is to disregard the reason for developing jargon in the first place. Yes, I know, the reason is just to confuse the masses, right?

 

Why stop with language? Maybe we should simplify surgical procedures while we're at it. If the darn dr would just explain to me in plain english exactly how to take out my gall bladder I could do it myself!!!

 

This isn't a courtroom. It may have taken a couple of extra words to say "published to the registry" instead of "published." But look how many posts have been wasted now.

 

There are some attorneys here. But most folks are not.

 

I think it is far more productive to use plain meaning rather than words that are likely to confuse people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a courtroom. It may have taken a couple of extra words to say "published to the registry" instead of "published." But look how many posts have been wasted now.

 

There are some attorneys here. But most folks are not.

 

I think it is far more productive to use plain meaning rather than words that are likely to confuse people.

My initial reference to unpublished was as follows:

 

"Furthermore, it is an unpublished opinion which means it generally has no precedential authority. It doesn't set precedent except in a limited way, which doesn't apply here and isn't worth getting into."

 

I clearly explained the affect of being unpublished. I don't know anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that would assume that because some geek posts the opinion to a blog page that that all of a sudden would make the opinion precedent. So when I said unpublished you assumed that because the Free Press didn't pick it up that's why it wasn't precedent? Who knew our papers had so much control over the law?

 

I said it was unpublished so it doesn't set precedent. Now I envision your gears turning after reading that sentence, fingers drumming against one-another, staring straight ahead, "AH HA! I know what I'll do! Post that fothermucker of an opinion on my blog. Yeah, that's what I'll do. Publish it! Precedent here we come...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I clearly explained the affect of being unpublished. I don't know anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that would assume that because some geek posts the opinion to a blog page that that all of a sudden would make the opinion precedent. So when I said unpublished you assumed that because the Free Press didn't pick it up that's why it wasn't precedent? Who knew our papers had so much control over the law?

 

I went for months waiting to see what the COA said about the Campbell case. When folks said it was unpublished I thought it was being kept under wraps.

 

Then I saw it linked to as a document on line and thought "cool .. I can read it now."

 

What you explained was one of the results of being unpublished. Not what "unpublished" meant.

 

When you would say "it's unpublished" I'd think "that's the way it used to be .. now it's been published."

 

Must have been a "gray area" stuck in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went for months waiting to see what the COA said about the Campbell case. When folks said it was unpublished I thought it was being kept under wraps.

 

Then I saw it linked to as a document on line and thought "cool .. I can read it now."

 

What you explained was one of the results of being unpublished. Not what "unpublished" meant.

 

When you would say "it's unpublished" I'd think "that's the way it used to be .. now it's been published."

 

Must have been a "gray area" stuck in my head.

You're right. I didn't explain what unpublished meant but I figured that reading, in context, what I wrote would be enough for anyone to understand. Like I said, after stating that it wasn't precedent because it was unpublished then I would think that anyone with reasonable intelligence would know that published didn't mean if the free press put it out there. But you know what, fine, my bad. I will say, though, that I'm not one to coddle someone's feelings so if you're overly emotional you probably shouldn't read my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. I didn't explain what unpublished meant but I figured that reading, in context, what I wrote would be enough for anyone to understand. Like I said, after stating that it wasn't precedent because it was unpublished then I would think that anyone with reasonable intelligence would know that published didn't mean if the free press put it out there. But you know what, fine, my bad. I will say, though, that I'm not one to coddle someone's feelings so if you're overly emotional you probably shouldn't read my posts.

 

I can deal with that.

 

Just reduce the amount of personal insult mixed in. It just wastes post space here.

 

I figure we all need to understand this law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nov 4th 9:00 am 600 something Ottawa St Lansing MI. Corner of Michigan And Logan St.Time to start pushing back people.Names Larry King and i have had my civil rights violated. And want to see justice done by punishing violators of this law. And robbing me at gunpoint. Something is going to be said about this very subject. Its the LAW

 

Lets see isnt it 6 months 1000 dollar fine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...