Jump to content

Emmet Trial Of Petoskeystoned420, March 1-4Th

The Mota's

By The Mota's
in The Michigan Justice System

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 2 weeks later...
The Mota's Newbie

The Mota's

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The trial was postponed to separate the trials, and to determine "what to do" in light of the Redding Decision and mopst of the "grey areas". All the Patients, their doctors, botanists and other experts will be in attendance. Your attendance, support and alliance is appreciated! March 1st-4th, Petoskey, 9am..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

The trial was postponed to separate the trials, and to determine "what to do" in light of the Redding Decision and mopst of the "grey areas". All the Patients, their doctors, botanists and other experts will be in attendance. Your attendance, support and alliance is appreciated! March 1st-4th, Petoskey, 9am..

 

 

do you know what the redding case has to do with his case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
petoskeystoned Advanced Member

petoskeystoned

Posted
Posted

Hey everyone! JimD, thanks for your support dude!

Court update: Feb 18th is a hearing just filed by the prosecutor to prevent me from using the MMJ defense, OR the AD defense. This is based on NO CARD in possesion during the time of the raid..(I had a certification from 10 days earlier), and unsecured location, (they hopped the fence, stood on a chair outside, and BROKE IN!), 1000 feet of a SCHOOl ZONE, (300 feet from elementary school, and OVERAGES..( 2 lbs approx of leaf, stalks, seeds etc. In a paper-bag). I see the arguments on my side, but am having trouble writing a response. Anyone that has any ideas... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trix Advanced Member

trix

Posted
Posted

Hey everyone! JimD, thanks for your support dude!

Court update: Feb 18th is a hearing just filed by the prosecutor to prevent me from using the MMJ defense, OR the AD defense. This is based on NO CARD in possesion during the time of the raid..(I had a certification from 10 days earlier), and unsecured location, (they hopped the fence, stood on a chair outside, and BROKE IN!), 1000 feet of a SCHOOl ZONE, (300 feet from elementary school, and OVERAGES..( 2 lbs approx of leaf, stalks, seeds etc. In a paper-bag). I see the arguments on my side, but am having trouble writing a response. Anyone that has any ideas... :)

 

Ouch that school zone is the tuff one, that's a 20 yr charge ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!, dude I would check your city laws right away, when my boy called and asked if it was illegal they said it was up to the city...nothing written in the law. That was in Macomb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

I told ya i wanted your autograph brotha!

 

your case (name ) is going to be coming up in every trial, and hopefully getting most people off of charges!

 

Peace Bob and Torey

FTW

Jim

 

thanks Jim for your support

i think the only thing that may save us is that sticker on the back of are card's that they put on it says Defendant's Exhibit C so i don't know how they would go about not having it put inn are case it's already their i think at the time of are raid the PA did not know as much as they do now

another words the cat is out of the bag with are case i/we hope anyway

 

P.S maybe some one will name a plant after us LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trix Advanced Member

trix

Posted
Posted

The school zone thing only applies to illegal activities.

 

I was understanding his statement as they were charging him w/ that "1000 feet of a SCHOOl ZONE, (300 feet from elementary school, and OVERAGES." so LEO is trying to say that he was illegal..

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

I was understanding his statement as they were charging him w/ that "1000 feet of a School ZONE, (300 feet from elementary school, and OVERAGES." so LEO is trying to say that he was illegal..

 

Trix

 

 

Yep it is all illegal inn their eye's it only allows foe the AD and then when you say i want to use it they say you cant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trix Advanced Member

trix

Posted
Posted

Bob, I been seeing this in what seems like every case huh... not being able to say medical...

I'm gonna have to ask michael what he thinks they will do w/ me I can't find anything from Macomb county cases, just the few that were provided in a thread a few days ago..

 

Trix

 

Edit: this trial is far from me huh, few hours

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

Bob, I been seeing this in what seems like every case huh... not being able to say medical...we may be the only ones

I'm gonna have to ask Michael what he thinks they will do w/ me I can't find anything from Macomb county cases, just the few that were provided in a thread a few days ago..

 

Trix

 

Edit: this trial is far from me huh, few hours yes it is

 

only because th PA made a mistake in are case because we were the first IMO we will see soon if we are able too

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Annnie Advanced Member

+Annnie

Posted
Posted

all i could find is this from the mmmp site under questions and answers... 7e dont address it.

 

Question: I live within 1000 feet of a school, AKA a "drug free zone". Can I still grow and/or possess my medical marihuana there?

Answer: The MMMA does not address this issue. You may wish to contact an attorney about this issue.

7e certainly does address this.. (e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

I think the 1000 ft rule is inconsistent with the act.. so it does not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...