Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[peanutbutter]

No one is saying your idea is invalid. Stop getting so defensive. The WHY is because you cannot continue to argue whether a dispensary is legal or illegal if you aren't using the same definition as others. Is it illegal for me to smoke a blunt in the town square? We cannot answer that before first defining blunt now can we? The popular urban use of blunt would be a cigar filled with mj. The old use of blunt meant the brand Blunt, which is a brand of cigar. The answer as to whether it is legal to smoke a blunt in town square turns on which definition you are adopting.

 

You continue to apply your own mysterious definition to the word dispensary, flipping it when it benefits your point of view. Dispensary needs a static definition in order to debate it as we are.

 

Jessica Cooper says "dispensaries are illegal."

Jessica Cooper means "things take place within a dispensary that are illegal."

Dispensary says "What are those things, so we can avoid them?"

Jessica Cooper says "I'm not going to tell you. I know exactly what those things are. You will find out when we arrest you."

 

Secret crimes.

[DenturesLost]

Jessica Cooper says "dispensaries are illegal."

Jessica Cooper means "things take place within a dispensary that are illegal."

Dispensary says "What are those things, so we can avoid them?"

Jessica Cooper says "I'm not going to tell you. I know exactly what those things are. You will find out when we arrest you."

 

Secret crimes.

I guess you'll avoid defining dispensary.

[DenturesLost]

Jessica Cooper says "dispensaries are illegal."

Jessica Cooper means "things take place within a dispensary that are illegal."

Dispensary says "What are those things, so we can avoid them?"

Jessica Cooper says "I'm not going to tell you. I know exactly what those things are. You will find out when we arrest you."

 

Secret crimes.

Dispensary (which I suppose is now a living breathing entity) shouldn't be asking Jessica Cooper for legal advice. Here's the SECRET---they should RETAIN an attorney if they are wondering what is legal and what is illegal.

 

As far as secret crimes--did she charge them based on a secret volume of Michigan Compiled Laws? If not then where is the secret?

[peanutbutter]

Dispensary (which I suppose is now a living breathing entity) shouldn't be asking Jessica Cooper for legal advice. Here's the SECRET---they should RETAIN an attorney if they are wondering what is legal and what is illegal.

 

As far as secret crimes--did she charge them based on a secret volume of Michigan Compiled Laws? If not then where is the secret?

 

Here's the problem.

 

Jessica Cooper makes claim to have a perfect understanding of the law.

 

Some of the current defendants attempted to gain some of that perfect wisdom. While at the same time they ask, they have skepticism of the claims she attempts to make.

 

As time has evolved, some of those things that she believed about the law were in error. So their skepticism was well founded.

 

At that point, their arrest depended not on their actions but what she thought was illegal. She is the only expert on what she is thinking. Defendants made an honest effort to understand what her views were before any law enforcement action was taken.

 

And she refused to tell them.

 

Edit Perfect wisdom .. "I don't interpret the law. I enforce it."

[peanutbutter]

And may I add, I offered our understanding of the law and help with any questions.

 

I made the offer as a representative of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association.

 

I made the offer directly to Beth Hand in a Oakland county courtroom.

 

Three hours before Bob Reddens door was broken down.

[DenturesLost]

And may I add, I offered our understanding of the law and help with any questions.

 

I made the offer as a representative of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association.

 

I made the offer directly to Beth Hand in a Oakland county courtroom.

 

Three hours before Bob Reddens door was broken down.

So you're saying that people trained in the law should have asked you your opinion of it and asked you questions as to what the law meant?

[+RevThad]

So you're saying that people trained in the law should have asked you your opinion of it and asked you questions as to what the law meant?

Nope, I think the status quo of relying on prosecutors and sheriffs opinion of what medicine is, works much better than trying to hash these things out.

 

Then again after watching and listening to a few prosecutors around the state in various hearings involving medical marijuana, perhaps they should be retrained in the law, and specifically what the MMMAct means.

 

Wasn't it Beth Hand that remarked in court about a patient asking to be allowed to medicate something along the lines of "It's only ...cancer. There are other medications."

[DenturesLost]

Here's the problem.

 

Jessica Cooper makes claim to have a perfect understanding of the law.

 

Some of the current defendants attempted to gain some of that perfect wisdom. While at the same time they ask, they have skepticism of the claims she attempts to make.

 

As time has evolved, some of those things that she believed about the law were in error. So their skepticism was well founded.

 

At that point, their arrest depended not on their actions but what she thought was illegal. She is the only expert on what she is thinking. Defendants made an honest effort to understand what her views were before any law enforcement action was taken.

 

And she refused to tell them.

 

Edit Perfect wisdom .. "I don't interpret the law. I enforce it."

So let's get this straight. People were skeptical of what she was saying but decided to rely on it? Hmmm, okay. And, again, the prosecutor's job isn't to give individuals legal advice. Frankly Cooper could have had one opinion about the law one day and then her Chief Assistant could have turned around the next and pointed out something that changed her mind the next. That's why we retain attorneys'...to give legal advice.

 

So what precisely did Cooper approve and how do you know there was not activity going on at the dispensary that was different from that first approved?

[DenturesLost]

Nope, I think the status quo of relying on prosecutors and sheriffs opinion of what medicine is, works much better than trying to hash these things out.

Uh, doesn't the law tell us when it is considered medicine? Uh, qualifying condition...yeah. I don't think the question was whether we should ask the sheriff what medicine is...

[peanutbutter]

Wasn't it Beth Hand that remarked in court about a patient asking to be allowed to medicate something along the lines of "It's only ...cancer. There are other medications."

Yep .. she was talking about Torey of Bob and Torey.

[+RevThad]

Uh, doesn't the law tell us when it is considered medicine? Uh, qualifying condition...yeah. I don't think the question was whether we should ask the sheriff what medicine is...

Ah but they think it is their job to decide, especially the one in Oakland County. He is and I quote "on a crusade against medical marijuana."

 

I agree with you about quite a few things, especially the fact that many of these issues will be clarified in the courts, namely the Supreme Court.

 

As far as the dispensaries are concerned, if what they are doing is illegal, there is no need for any kind of sting operation, one knows exactly what their business entails. Their own fliers and advertisements should be more than enough to secure search and arrest warrants, however this is not occurring. IF these businesses are illegal and dangerous, why not shut them down as quickly as possible. If it is so clear that the law does not allow such conduct, then it should be a slam dunk for the LEO and PA involved. It is becoming more obvious by the week that these PAs realize there are some teeth in the law, and some protections provided, hence the forging of cards in an attempt to entrap the owners and employees of those businesses.

 

Some folks on the other side see no medicinal value to cannabis, they simply refuse to acknowledge the law and the benefits that patients are receiving from cannabis. They will fight tooth and nail to protect their war on drugs cash cow. They know that as somebody stated in another thread "if they let the camel's nose under the tent, soon the whole camel will be in." Are they opposed to medical marijuana for moral reasons, or could it be for a financial windfall they may see down the road?

[peanutbutter]

So let's get this straight. People were skeptical of what she was saying but decided to rely on it? Hmmm, okay. And, again, the prosecutor's job isn't to give individuals legal advice. Frankly Cooper could have had one opinion about the law one day and then her Chief Assistant could have turned around the next and pointed out something that changed her mind the next. That's why we retain attorneys'...to give legal advice.

 

So what precisely did Cooper approve and how do you know there was not activity going on at the dispensary that was different from that first approved?

 

We need transparency and dialog.

 

Anything else endangers the safety of the public and officers.

 

In this situation, one man has died. The majority of the defendants are elderly and disabled. It should be predictable that some may not survive this ordeal.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Ah but they think it is their job to decide, especially the one in Oakland County. He is and I quote "on a crusade against medical marijuana."I agree with you about quite a few things, especially the fact that many of these issues will be clarified in the courts, namely the Supreme Court.As far as the dispensaries are concerned, if what they are doing is illegal, there is no need for any kind of sting operation, one knows exactly what their business entails. Their own fliers and advertisements should be more than enough to secure search and arrest warrants, however this is not occurring. IF these businesses are illegal and dangerous, why not shut them down as quickly as possible. If it is so clear that the law does not allow such conduct, then it should be a slam dunk for the LEO and PA involved. It is becoming more obvious by the week that these PAs realize there are some teeth in the law, and some protections provided, hence the forging of cards in an attempt to entrap the owners and employees of those businesses.Some folks on the other side see no medicinal value to cannabis, they simply refuse to acknowledge the law and the benefits that patients are receiving from cannabis. They will fight tooth and nail to protect their war on drugs cash cow. They know that as somebody stated in another thread "if they let the camel's nose under the tent, soon the whole camel will be in." Are they opposed to medical marijuana for moral reasons, or could it be for a financial windfall they may see down the road?

We all may know what is going on in/at the dispensaries but that wouldn't hold up in court.

The actions need to be documented to shut them down. That is why the sting occurs. It's part of the investigation(s). It's part of life when you are operating close to and over the line the prosecutor sees as legal. In the case of where this thread started, at that dispensary, the sheriff's department DID tell them to shut down first, then the sting. They made their choice to stay open after the warning so shouldn't they have expected something further? Logically? Shouldn't every dispensary that is open now expect a sting because we now know that ther are dozens of officers with fake cards making buys? This stuff gets predictable at some point.

[BudJones]

Peanutbutter:

 

When someone says "Dispensaries are illegal." they generally mean that "The transfer of marijuana between individuals who are not connected to each other through the MDCH MMMP is illegal." They don't mean that the building that the transfer takes place in is illegal.

 

Think of this:

Me: Drinking and driving is illegal.

PB: It isn't illegal to drink, is it? It isn't illegal to drive, is it? So drinking and driving is legal.

Me: Drinking is legal and driving is legal, but drinking before driving is illegal.

PB: Not true. I can drink one beer and then hop in my Ford Festiva and drive anywhere I wish.

Me: OK, then drinking and driving is illegal if you drink so much that your blood alcohol content is above .08%.

PB: I can drink a fifth of vodka and drive my grandpappy's old Ford 150 through the woods on private property to get the dear I shot.

Me: OK, drinking while operating a motor vehicle on public roads is illegal then.

PB: Still not true. I can drink a gallon of water while driving.

Me: Alright then, drinking alcoholic beverages and then driving is illegal if you are operating a motor vehicle on a public road with a blood alcohol level over .08%

PB: Agreed, that is illegal.

 

When people say “drinking and driving is against the law” they don’t mean that drinking kool-aid while driving is illegal or any other such nonsense. There is a generally-accepted idea of what “drinking and driving” means.

 

You are playing word games with this dispensary discussion, and I’m not sure where the value of this is.

 

When Jessica Cooper says “dispensaries are illegal” she means that it is illegal for anyone to transfer marijuana unless they are connected as pt and CG through the MDCH’s registry.

 

No one is suggesting a building becomes illegal because of what is on the sign. Noone is suggesting that a building where marijuana is transferred between pts and CGs connected through the MDCH registry is illegal.

 

That is why the Oakland county defendants have not been charged with a crime “operating a dispensary.” "Dispensary" is used as a term of convenience.

 

They are charged with CSA violations because they transferred marijuana to people who they were not connected to through the MMMP registry.

 

So, sure, dispensaries are LEGAL - or not ILLEGAL. Where did that get us?

 

If someone were to be charged with "operating a dispensary" then we'd have a real discussion. But that didn't happen. People got charged will selling marijuana to someone who isn't "their" patient, and the conversational/informal way to state this is "dispensaries are illegal."

 

 

However, many readers of the MDADA (Michigan Drink and Drive Association) forums read PB's posting, take them as fact, and end up in jail! His postion as moderator and 10 million posts lead some readers to the illusion that he knows what he is talking about and that he is quoting law and facts.

 

PB - you like to throw down that when someone disagrees with your fantasies "that they only want to put patients in jail"! I believe you are the one putting people at risk and getting them arrested by writing here about all the things they "can do" under this law. Stop it - be responsible not reckless.

 

When I read Dentures lost, I believe that he is one of us and is trying to keep unsuspecting patients out of jail - that's why he is always taking you on. Maybe you need to take a break for awhile?

[chi_guy]

However, many readers of the MDADA (Michigan Drink and Drive Association) forums read PB's posting, take them as fact, and end up in jail! His postion as moderator and 10 million posts lead some readers to the illusion that he knows what he is talking about and that he is quoting law and facts.

 

PB - you like to throw down that when someone disagrees with your fantasies "that they only want to put patients in jail"! I believe you are the one putting people at risk and getting them arrested by writing here about all the things they "can do" under this law. Stop it - be responsible not reckless.

 

When I read Dentures lost, I believe that he is one of us and is trying to keep unsuspecting patients out of jail - that's why he is always taking you on. Maybe you need to take a break for awhile?

 

Maybe you should take a break for a while. PB has done enough for this community for people to be questioning him. As for as dentures is concerned he never responds when valid points are brought up. The issues here are whether or not the transfer of cannabis between cardholders is legal or not. We assert the broad definition of "medical use" expressly allows the transfer of cannabis. They assert that it does not or that only certain parts of the definition of "medical use" apply when the act uses the term. Again, Highlander himself admitted that pt to pt transfers were legal in previous arguments so I don't know why he is even involved in these debates.

 

Again I challenge any person on this site to prove that the transfer of cannabis is illegal under the MMA Act.

[Wayne'sWorld]

"Again I challenge any person on this site to prove that the transfer of cannabis is illegal under the MMA Act."

 

Again I challenge any person on this site to prove that the transfer of cannabis, to patients (of any age?)in exchange for personal services, is illegal under the MMA act.

 

Pitfalls to every argument.

 

By the way. Just engaged in a transfer last weekend, not my designated caregiver, don't have one. When will LEO come arrest me? Who tells them, or how do they find out? That is if I hadn't posted this.

[peanutbutter]

However, many readers of the MDADA (Michigan Drink and Drive Association) forums read PB's posting, take them as fact, and end up in jail! His postion as moderator and 10 million posts lead some readers to the illusion that he knows what he is talking about and that he is quoting law and facts.

 

PB - you like to throw down that when someone disagrees with your fantasies "that they only want to put patients in jail"! I believe you are the one putting people at risk and getting them arrested by writing here about all the things they "can do" under this law. Stop it - be responsible not reckless.

 

When I read Dentures lost, I believe that he is one of us and is trying to keep unsuspecting patients out of jail - that's why he is always taking you on. Maybe you need to take a break for awhile?

 

Well .. in case you haven't noticed, I spend a lot of time telling members of the legal system that they could go to jail for violating our rights. I'm sure that Bouchard, Cooper and co. have been presented with my warnings. In writing.

 

If I am teaching something wrong, then I need to fix it. My primary obligation is to be honest. Many times I try to seek out attorneys posting on this site to double check how far into my own little world I've gone this time.

 

FYI I had asked DL to be hard on me here. So I could find out where the holes in my understanding were. He did that well in defending judges as being immune from criminal penalties under the MMMA. My paper, on the front page of this web site, reflects his effort. If "we the people" view something within our system as being abusive, we have the right to change it. That change could modify various levels of immunity. Some, but not all.

 

For the time being, I've modified my stand about the confidentiality section of the law. The judge would be the person most likely to be protected from the MMMA by immunity. The further removed you get from the judge setting on the bench, the less likely you are going to be protected by immunities based on laws from the past.

 

Most, if not all, of the charges in the Oakland county dispensary raids can be defended by patient to patient transfers. The majority of people on this site agree that p2p is allowed under the law. These cases are a test of that concept.

 

The proper application of the AD section of the law was able to be determined here by close examination and debate of the law by people here. That proper application and understanding was determined here well before Bob Redden was raided. The PA office of Oakland seems to have had a background of studying this law for only a few minuets when I offered our insight to their office.

 

The AD issue is understood well enough for many cases to have been dropped now. It does serve to protect some people from being pulled into the court system. As far as I know, the first time this worked was in December of '08 in Livingston county.

[bobandtorey]

in December of '08 in Livingston county.

Kieth Camble's case?

[phaquetoo]

Hello everyone. Wow what a read that was... I know I'm new here, and i'm just a normal guy, definitely no legal scholar. After reading 10 pages of a lot of good and valid opinions I have a few comments to make.

 

There are obviously differences of opinions about what is legal and what is not. For good reason, when you read the law there are parts that contradict other parts. I see a part that clearly says you can only give/sell your services to your specific patient... I mean why would they even have a system that links specific people to one another if the system were meant for every caregiver or patient to be able to give to any card holder. The confusion comes when you read further and find that there are protections against prosecution for helping patients.

 

Personally, I wouldn't risk it... I know that some cases are more severe then others, in my case I would die before jeopardizing the life of my family and daughter.

 

One thing that we can all agree on is that there are some definite uncertainties right now. I know that people have a lot invested in this, really they put their heart and soul into this... Sometimes when people get so emotionally attached to a subject their view points might get distorted to what they believe should be the case. I also see a lot of people not willing to listen to the other opinions and really try to understand where they are coming from... We won't have a successful movement until we start thinking in these ways.

 

 

Hello Broken!

 

Im hoping these guys are not legal scholars!(no offense guys) but if this is how politicians debate, We are all in trouble! we all need to agree to disagree and make sure we are all on the same side when sheet hits the fan!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[peanutbutter]

in December of '08 in Livingston county.

Kieth Camble's case?

 

The situation was nipped in the bud. There was no case that resulted.

 

Someone handed officers a breakdown of the new law, by Greg Schmid. They looked at the AD section and decided not to take action.

[DenturesLost]

Maybe you should take a break for a while. PB has done enough for this community for people to be questioning him.

 

You revealed your hand with that comment.

Are you serious? That's your position? We should all bow to someone who has "done enough for the community?" We shouldn''t question someone's opinion because they are held in high esteem by some? Wow.

Let me make a note of that..PB has done enough and earned his stripes so I ought just accept/buy his opinions on the law. Gotcha!

[DenturesLost]

However, many readers of the MDADA (Michigan Drink and Drive Association) forums read PB's posting, take them as fact, and end up in jail! His postion as moderator and 10 million posts lead some readers to the illusion that he knows what he is talking about and that he is quoting law and facts.

 

PB - you like to throw down that when someone disagrees with your fantasies "that they only want to put patients in jail"! I believe you are the one putting people at risk and getting them arrested by writing here about all the things they "can do" under this law. Stop it - be responsible not reckless.

 

When I read Dentures lost, I believe that he is one of us and is trying to keep unsuspecting patients out of jail - that's why he is always taking you on. Maybe you need to take a break for awhile?

 

You hit the nail on the head. For PB to assert that people are safe because of HIS interpretation of the law does nothing but put others at risk. Especially in light of his mod status and number of postings. It's one ting to be an activist but it's another thing altogether to put others at risk. What PB does is akin to a gay activist FORCING others "out" in an effort to further his cause.

 

Further, I would suggest that Cooper, et al, are not the singular people taking on the issue the way some think. PB argues that Cooper believes this or that and Bouchard believes the same, etc. Newsflash--It's highly unlikely that Cooper was sitting home sipping tea and just decided to go against the MMA. It is, on the other hand, highly LIKELY that she had her underlings research the law and present her with a legal memorandum before she took any action. I would guess that she put significant thought into it before she acted. Who's right? We don't know for sure. It will be up to the robed ones to tell us. The real "great and powerful oz." The men and women with the power will ultimately decide.

 

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.

[DenturesLost]

We all may know what is going on in/at the dispensaries but that wouldn't hold up in court.

The actions need to be documented to shut them down. That is why the sting occurs. It's part of the investigation(s). It's part of life when you are operating close to and over the line the prosecutor sees as legal. In the case of where this thread started, at that dispensary, the sheriff's department DID tell them to shut down first, then the sting. They made their choice to stay open after the warning so shouldn't they have expected something further? Logically? Shouldn't every dispensary that is open now expect a sting because we now know that ther are dozens of officers with fake cards making buys? This stuff gets predictable at some point.

 

Exactly! You really think the police were going to rely on a flyer to prosecute people? You think that a search warrant was going to provide enough evidence to point to who exactly was doing the buying/selling, etc? Come on RevThad, I know YOU know better than that. The police needed to be able to identify the exact warm bodies doing the deals, etc. So, you get a search warrant and find people with mj on them. So what? How does that help? Or maybe, if you are lucky, you find a record of transactions. So you decide to rely on the fact that there may be a record that ANYONE could've written in? Uh, no. You do the sting to gather the evidence.

[Wayne'sWorld]

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

[chi_guy]

You revealed your hand with that comment.

Are you serious? That's your position? We should all bow to someone who has "done enough for the community?" We shouldn''t question someone's opinion because they are held in high esteem by some? Wow.

Let me make a note of that..PB has done enough and earned his stripes so I ought just accept/buy his opinions on the law. Gotcha!

 

 

I didn't mean question his opinion, I meant question his integrity and his motives. Maybe I should've been been more clear on that. What everybody is offering is their own opinion including you. But have yet to hear your opinion on why so-called dispensaries are illegal?