Jump to content

P2P Transfers Ruled Illegal Today In Circuit Court!

thatoneartist

By thatoneartist
in Legal Professionals

Recommended Posts

thatoneartist Advanced Member

thatoneartist

Posted
Posted

P2P transfers ruled illegal if the patient is not one of the cg's registered 5. My lawyer explained that a caregiver is allowed compensation and the judge shook her head and ruled against it.

 

my plants being in a tent, inside my house...my house being the locked enclosed facility..ruled against that too!

 

they ruled against a lot of things today. I'll write more about it when i remember. My head is spinning right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LansingAreaCaregiver Advanced Member

LansingAreaCaregiver

Posted
Posted

Wow. We definitely would like more info. Do you have a copy of the ruling you could post? I'm sure you've got a ton on your plate other than posting here, but when you get a chance...

 

Also, what was the jurisdiction of the court. Was it county, city, other? I'm hoping that you are planning on fighting it. Remember, the lower courts rulings are not the be all end all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
master.caregiver Advanced Member

master.caregiver

Posted
Posted

P2P transfers ruled illegal if the patient is not one of the cg's registered 5. My lawyer explained that a caregiver is allowed compensation and the judge shook her head and ruled against it.

 

my plants being in a tent, inside my house...my house being the locked enclosed facility..ruled against that too!

 

they ruled against a lot of things today. I'll write more about it when i remember. My head is spinning right now.

how can a judge rule against state laws i say she bias and APPEAL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

And this is exactly why I, and a few others on here, have been have been harping on people (PB comes to mind) that make these conclusory statements that p2p transfers and dispensaries, etc., are legal. They lead people to believe that they are and then people use advice from here to operate. I am not saying that a p2p transfer is illegal as I THINK it may be found to be legal if this is appealed BUT I AM saying that to make the conclusory statement that they are legal based on your interpretation of the law puts others, like the OP, in harms way when you don't qualify your statements.

 

Hopefully this sets an example for those who like to post here and assert that operating at the margins is perfectly fine. I advocate proceeding with caution and always have... Let those who think they are so sure about things be the ones to blaze the trail and lead the way but stop misleading people into believing that your interpretation is the WAY IT IS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GanjaWarrior Advanced Member

GanjaWarrior

Posted
Posted

And this is exactly why I, and a few others on here, have been have been harping on people (PB comes to mind) that make these conclusory statements that p2p transfers and dispensaries, etc., are legal. They lead people to believe that they are and then people use advice from here to operate. I am not saying that a p2p transfer is illegal as I THINK it may be found to be legal if this is appealed BUT I AM saying that to make the conclusory statement that they are legal based on your interpretation of the law puts others, like the OP, in harms way when you don't qualify your statements.

 

Hopefully this sets an example for those who like to post here and assert that operating at the margins is perfectly fine. I advocate proceeding with caution and always have... Let those who think they are so sure about things be the ones to blaze the trail and lead the way but stop misleading people into believing that your interpretation is the WAY IT IS!

 

 

i so agree with..... like what your doing. no where in the law does it object. yes this person says a judge ruled he couldnt, judges have already ruled he can,( see mnt p court case) judges are not perfect just like opinions.feel free to grow as you grow...me i count real good, and i know what the word transfer means. The law says i can transfer..... maybe you know a dif meaning of that word? the law makes it a penalty only to sell to a non-card carrying person.... think what you want, i speak English, i cant help that one or two judges cant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlander Advanced Member

Highlander

Posted
Posted

"all the advice I got from this site did not protect me in court"

 

People need to quit getting their legal advice off the internet.

 

 

 

We need to make lemonade. This is our big chance to push for a prescedent.

 

People - give 'til it hurts so that the community as a whole can push this forward. Let's get this patient good legal assistance, and we'll all benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drtarzanmd Advanced Member

drtarzanmd

Posted
Posted

Everyone has a Valid Point ....

 

First of All . Im very Sorry " thatoneartist "

to hear another Fallin' Brother ....

 

This is One of Many Reasons why it is SO IMPORTANT

to be apart of a WORKING Compassion Club ...

 

People need to understand that we are very small in numbers

especially those that are the Hearts and Souls of our Movement ...

 

People need to wake up and start Supporting US ,

The Patient and our Caregivers .....

 

We need to continue to help others get Certified ...

 

I gave my Word that No Member would go w/out Meds...

 

If any Valid Card-holder comes to ME and tells me they need Meds ,

I CANNOT be Prosecuted for helping them or sharing my Meds w/ them ....

Along w/ getting Compensated for what i have invested in

getting those Meds .....

 

Thats Why it is So Important that people need to Bond Together

and Support those like " thatoneartist "

 

I don't have ALL the Answers ...

 

But , I really think " thatoneartist " is in some deep Chit Trouble

and he probly could use a Friend ....

 

We All need each other , or at least i do ...

 

Please People :

 

Don't Allow them to take away what we have ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlander Advanced Member

Highlander

Posted
Posted

"all the advice I got from this site did not protect me in court"

 

People need to quit getting their legal advice off the internet.

 

 

 

We need to make lemonade. This is our big chance to push for a prescedent.

 

People - give 'til it hurts so that the community as a whole can push this forward. Let's get this patient good legal assistance, and we'll all benefit.

 

On second thought, maybe we don't want the p2p transfer appeal to come through the same COA that ruled in the Redden case (recalling O'Connell's opinion/bench legislation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverblue Advanced Member

+Silverblue

Posted
Posted

Please don't blame the ones who expressed their opinions on p2p. They didn't force you to do anything. Many of them also said to still be careful, many did say it was their belief but they still might not transfer to anyone who wasn't connected with them. Some time ago I recall someone writing to one of the authors of our law, who wrote back about p2p, saying it was not clearly stated and advised legal counsel. It does seem to depend on the judge. This is very sad. I'm sorry to see someone got hurt just for believing what others said. You've been a member here for awhile and prob'ly read enough messages to know that although many feel the law does state p2p IS legal, even among those not directly connected, that it seems it's NOT written in stone, so we should proceed with caution. It is riskier between those who are not connected with each other. I want to believe it's legal for all pt's, but until I'm sure, I won't advise anyone to do it. This is a very sad situation. It seems wrong that a law can apply in one way in a particular area, and a different way in another. That judge in is biased to begin with. I hope you can appeal. The lawyer will know what to do. What a sad world. This is MEDICINE, I wish people would leave us alone. We are an army of the sick, BB says, and he's so right. We all wish it weren't so.. There's been so much debate about this here- some say the law is very clear, while some say it's vague. It's not just our opponents who say it's vague. I wish it had been written a little clearer so anyone could understand it, including leo's, but what's done is done, so we'll try once again to figure this out as it's written. This is getting so old, it's stale and rotten to the core. Enough is ENOUGH. One county says it's legal, another says no. This is a STATE LAW, or have they forgotten? Those who wrote it are not pt's or cg's, they view things from a different perspective. If they were, we might not be having these debates, and you wouldn't be in this position, because there'd be no doubt, and no one could argue it. People complicate things that are too simple for them to believe can work.

 

So let's try this again. I hope my memory serves me well here. This is what I remember, without looking it up, having read it here so many times, and hearing Michael K talk about it a few times.We have simple words like 'a' and 'the' and 'anyone' that WE must all agree on. We have this law, written by people who supposedly understand our needs, who wanted to make sure we could use MM legally because 63% voted in favor of MM being legal. So, IF the law says anyone connected through the registry may transfer to anyone else connected through the registry, that seems plain enough, doesn't it, or does it not? If someone's connected through the registry, they're either a pt, cg, or both. There are many more pt's than cg's. The law also allows for out of state visitors who are registered with their state, to acquire MM here, right? Doesn't that tell us right there that someone needen't be directly connected with a cg in order to get meds?

 

Does this make sense?

 

Sincerely, Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne'sWorld Advanced Member

Wayne'sWorld

Posted
Posted

Living a relatively conservative part of Michigan I can state with some neighborhood authority that my neighbors never imagined more than providing me allowance from prosecution for consuming cannabis medically. None, absolutely none, of my conservative neighbors imagined a marijuana leafed dispensary sign in downtown Caro. These stupid tea partiers fell for the limit crap and believe it. Strangely so do I. Do they see 12 plants and 2.5 ozs as hard and fast? To some small degree possibly but most grow tomatos and understand you can't have 12 tomato plants ripening only 10 tomatos on a given day, and you may share with close family and friends (with cards?).

What I been doin' in the privacy of my home for 40 yrs is now ok with them, as long as I'm relatively quiet about it. If we all sit out by the road downtown with our bongs it's not.

What is there not to get? Except greed because according to many I qualify as a dispensary and am not limited in any way if the other party has a card.

We may lose this yet! Just gotta keep rubbing their noses in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jtgeme Advanced Member

jtgeme

Posted
Posted

P2P transfers ruled illegal if the patient is not one of the cg's registered 5. My lawyer explained that a caregiver is allowed compensation and the judge shook her head and ruled against it.

 

my plants being in a tent, inside my house...my house being the locked enclosed facility..ruled against that too!

 

they ruled against a lot of things today. I'll write more about it when i remember. My head is spinning right now.

 

Wow. I'm really sorry that this happened to you. I, like everybody else, would love more details. City or County? Was this a motion to dismiss, quash, etc.? The judge's ruling is bad regardless. Do you plan on appealing?

 

If you are willing I would love to discuss your case specifically - confidentially of course.

 

To the rest of the community:

 

I don't entirely agree with Dentureslost position, but his position isn't wrong by any means. Everybody has to know that given the current state of the medical marijuana law in Michigan, nothing is certain, and one lawyer's (or person's) interpretation may be wrong; but it might be right too. Its up to the individual to determine what is best for him/herself.

 

The law is in a state of flux right now and its difficult to advise people what is and is not acceptable under the law. We can argue whether the law is clear or unclear on P2P. But the real issue that results in situations like this is that the law has not yet been interpreted by a precedent setting court on major provisions. We all may love the way the law is written, but whats determinative is how the court interprets the law.

 

Its important to remember that questions, answers, and advice found on the internet needs to be taken cautiously. You [the general you] may read something and say "Well, that's just like my case, so this must be true." When in reality, there is a subtle factual or legal difference that changes the way the court will rule. So it is very important not to take legal advice from these general audience posts. Legal advice should tailored to fit your case, your facts, your circumstances.

 

If you have a legal question - TALK TO A LAWYER! I and many other lawyers I know offer free confidential consultations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne'sWorld Advanced Member

Wayne'sWorld

Posted
Posted

This would come to no one's attention if we we're going about our business without drawing attention. If you agree the law does not address dispensaries, then where does it say banning, regulating, licensing, or a state marijuana tax stamp, of medical cannabis and/or dispensaries is prohibited? Worked in the 30's for the feds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlander Advanced Member

Highlander

Posted
Posted

The law is in a state of flux right now and its difficult to advise people what is and is not acceptable under the law. We can argue whether the law is clear or unclear on P2P. But the real issue that results in situations like this is that the law has not yet been interpreted by a precedent setting court on major provisions.

 

 

The problem has been that people with clout have been stating as fact, the likes of "p2p transfers are written into the law." and "Patient to patient transfers are 100% legal." Some of us have long-argued that, to the regular poster, it is obvious the matter of p2p transfers is a subject of debate, but it is the occasional or one-time visitor who reads one of these statements and acts based on it who is in real danger.

 

Some of the folks who have stated "p2p trasnfers are legal" were admin/staff. This, combined with the new p2p transfer forum, would lead one to believe that it is the MMMA's official position that p2p transfers are OK. Several of us have felt that more caution has been needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wild Bill Advanced Member

Wild Bill

Posted
Posted

Taken together these two clauses would seem to make p2p transfers legal. My opinion would be that the judge is attempting to legislate from the bench.

 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA

 

 

(By authority conferred on the director of the department of community health

by section 5 of initiated law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26421 and executive

reorganization order numbers 1996-1, 1996-2 and 2003-1, MCL 330.3101, MCL

445.2001 and MCL 445.2011)

 

 

R 333.101 Definitions.

(10) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation,

manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation

of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to

treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical

condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Rule 333.127 Management of medical marihuana.

Rule 27. (1) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a

registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or

penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not

limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational

or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana

in accordance with the act, if the qualifying patient possesses an amount of

marihuana that does not exceed the following:

(a) Two and one-half (2.5) ounces of usable marihuana.

(b) If the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver

will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying

patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

© Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and roots.

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...