Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[peanutbutter]

And, FYI, a memorandum of law is, by design, a neutral piece of work. It's purpose is to lay out all possibilites and let the reader make a decision based on the facts and law presented by the researcher. I would guess Cooper read a legal memo on the issue and THEN decided to act. What does that mean? It means she was convinced.

 

Well good ..

 

She got bad advice from her staff or whoever handed her the memorandums.

 

This document was available on 12/4/2008 and would have been a good starting point:

 

Two Tracks of Legal Protections under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Explained and Compared.

 

This was our textbook from the very beginning. Prepared by an attorney with background in civil rights law and medical marijuana law.

 

This is the kind of thing that was offered to the office of the Prosecutor of Oakland county BEFORE they began their reign of terror.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Well good .. She got bad advice from her staff or whoever handed her the memorandums.This document was available on 12/4/2008 and would have been a good starting point:Two Tracks of Legal Protections under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Explained and Compared.This was our textbook from the very beginning. Prepared by an attorney with background in civil rights law and medical marijuana law.This is the kind of thing that was offered to the office of the Prosecutor of Oakland county BEFORE they began their reign of terror.

Way back in early 2009, if you would have asked the attorney who wrote that brief for advice he would have told you he thought that patient to patient transfers MIGHT be accepted in a few years. He said it might take more than 5 years to find out and it may never be legal. He would have told you that it was not safe to sell cannabis for a profit. He would have told you it was not safe to even trade cannabis among registered patients. How do I know that? Because he was at our cc meeting and we asked him the important questions. He gave us the important answers to keep us safe. Peanutbutter just happened to be there too. But he didn't want to listen. He tried to filibuster over what Greg Schmid was saying because he wouldn't except it even then from a respected and knowledgeable specialized attorney.

There is a difference between and advocate and a person warping information all around to serve his own purposes and putting others in danger with bad advice HE KNOWS is wrong and will cause test cases, pain, suffering, and even death.

[DenturesLost]

Well good ..

 

She got bad advice from her staff or whoever handed her the memorandums.

 

This document was available on 12/4/2008 and would have been a good starting point:

 

Two Tracks of Legal Protections under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Explained and Compared.

 

This was our textbook from the very beginning. Prepared by an attorney with background in civil rights law and medical marijuana law.

 

This is the kind of thing that was offered to the office of the Prosecutor of Oakland county BEFORE they began their reign of terror.

So, again, give us a flow chart with the law inserted where necessary that shows you are correct.

[peanutbutter]

Way back in early 2009, if you would have asked the attorney who wrote that brief for advice he would have told you he thought that patient to patient transfers MIGHT be accepted in a few years. He said it might take more than 5 years to find out and it may never be legal. He would have told you that it was not safe to sell cannabis for a profit. He would have told you it was not safe to even trade cannabis among registered patients. How do I know that? Because he was at our cc meeting and we asked him the important questions. He gave us the important answers to keep us safe. Peanutbutter just happened to be there too. But he didn't want to listen. He tried to filibuster over what Greg Schmid was saying because he wouldn't except it even then from a respected and knowledgeable specialized attorney.

There is a difference between and advocate and a person warping information all around to serve his own purposes and putting others in danger with bad advice HE KNOWS is wrong and will cause test cases, pain, suffering, and even death.

 

"MIGHT be accepted in a few years" is vastly different that "it is illegal."

 

Attorneys give out conservative advise. We seem to be ahead of his estimated time frame.

 

As for what I was thinking .. thanks for telling me what I think. Wouldn't have known without you valuable input.

 

FYI I sat down with Greg at the Hash Bash to try to understand what and why he was saying. Off to the side so as not to upset the meeting.

 

From what I understand, Greg was urging people to use more conservative views of the law until things could settle out in court.

 

This is different than "exactly what does the law say?"

 

New legal turf .. proceed with caution. I can understand why.

 

"There is a difference between and advocate and a person warping information all around to serve his own purposes and putting others in danger with bad advice HE KNOWS is wrong and will cause test cases, pain, suffering, and even death."

 

Is this what you are saying that I'm doing or have done? Again you are reading my mind. FYI you got your incoming signals crossed. Please tune your receiver better.

[peanutbutter]

So, again, give us a flow chart with the law inserted where necessary that shows you are correct.

 

The simple fact is that the Redden case would not happen today. Not even in Oakland county. The COA affirmed the AD section of the law.

 

There is risk to anyone, and everyone of being arrested for one single joint in their own home. That risk is growing lower as officials become aware that this law exists.

 

But that risk is still there.

 

Can you be arrested for such and such? Yes. You can be arrested for anything at all.

 

What does the law say? That's a very different question.

 

I believe the document by Greg Schmid has remained unchanged since 2008.

[DenturesLost]

The simple fact is that the Redden case would not happen today. Not even in Oakland county. The COA affirmed the AD section of the law.

 

There is risk to anyone, and everyone of being arrested for one single joint in their own home. That risk is growing lower as officials become aware that this law exists.

 

But that risk is still there.

 

Can you be arrested for such and such? Yes. You can be arrested for anything at all.

 

What does the law say? That's a very different question.

 

I believe the document by Greg Schmid has remained unchanged since 2008.

If you expect the AD to cover your @ss then you should EXPECT to be arrested. The AD is a tool to be used in court and puts the burden on the defendant. That's what you are missing here. Your actions are not legal until you prove they are. The actions are presumed illegal and it is your job to convince the judge otherwise. If you cannot convince the judge of that then you need to convince the trier of fact that you didn't commit the illegal acts. It isn't the job of the police to decide if the actions are legal. That is what the evidentiary hearing is for---it's above the cops' pay grade, so to speak. So if you operate a dispensary you need to understand that your sec. 8 defense WILL bring you into court. whether you prevail will depend on what you did and how the judge views it all.

[Guest Happy Guy]

And Greg's advice has stayed unchanged too. Only transfer between a caregiver and their registered patients. That is the only safe action. It's wrong on a lot of levels that you try to use his work to support your position. You have never agreed with his position but you want to act like you were on board from the start. Some of us know the difference. If you followed Greg's advice there wouldn't be dispensary 1 in the state and all the cc meetings would still be at libraries. He didn't even believe in making a profit with medical cannabis. It's ludicrous for you to use him in this debate about dispensaries. He would not be on your side of this debate.

[peanutbutter]

And Greg's advice has stayed unchanged too. Only transfer between a caregiver and their registered patients. That is the only safe action. It's wrong on a lot of levels that you try to use his work to support your position. You have never agreed with his position but you want to act like you were on board from the start. Some of us know the difference. If you followed Greg's advice there wouldn't be dispensary 1 in the state and all the cc meetings would still be at libraries. He didn't even believe in making a profit with medical cannabis. It's ludicrous for you to use him in this debate about dispensaries. He would not be on your side of this debate.

 

Good grief .. if two people disagree on one single point then one of them is morally required to remain silent about every topic they may agree on?

 

I beg to differ. There is no moral requirement for me to stay silent about this law.

 

Remember who he was addressing at that moment. If Greg were to be addressing law enforcement people on the same subject, he would probably give caution on any area that may shift with the passage of time. Greg would do the responsible thing and give advice that would help to avoid pitfalls for the people attending.

 

Gregs basic message was "Play it safe. Don't become the test case." Wise legal advice.

[peanutbutter]

If you expect the AD to cover your @ss then you should EXPECT to be arrested. The AD is a tool to be used in court and puts the burden on the defendant. That's what you are missing here. Your actions are not legal until you prove they are. The actions are presumed illegal and it is your job to convince the judge otherwise. If you cannot convince the judge of that then you need to convince the trier of fact that you didn't commit the illegal acts. It isn't the job of the police to decide if the actions are legal. That is what the evidentiary hearing is for---it's above the cops' pay grade, so to speak. So if you operate a dispensary you need to understand that your sec. 8 defense WILL bring you into court. whether you prevail will depend on what you did and how the judge views it all.

 

A major problem is that the procedures for the AD section are being required for ID cases.

[bobandtorey]

Keith returns to face charges on November 30, 2010 in Tuscola County after the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. Sucks!

 

 

he was one of the first ones to get his case dismissed and was busted year 1 day be for the Law was passed here in Mich

and hes still in court

 

am not sure whats going to happen to us some day soon we all we be FREE

[peanutbutter]

he was one of the first ones to get his case dismissed and was busted year 1 day be for the Law was passed here in Mich

and hes still in court

 

am not sure whats going to happen to us some day soon we all we be FREE

 

I'll be there.

 

Keith's case is of very special interest to me. His arrest date is within a few days of mine.

 

In my case, I had several other charges. All of which would have been dropped without the marijuana in my home.

 

Keith being successful in applying section eight to an event at that time might give me some sort of opportunity. Long shot .. but I believe in miracles.

 

His case almost entirely rests on weather or not this law can be applied retroactively.

 

When the case is dismissed, then it will confirm my PSA:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmrtVCohlaU