Jump to content

People V Kolanek, 1-12-11 Coa Opinion: Affirmative Defense Denied

Eric L. VanDussen

By Eric L. VanDussen
in Legal Professionals

Recommended Posts

solabeirtan Advanced Member

solabeirtan

Posted
Posted

I believe this is a bad decision. His condition is documented by his physician for 9 years. He had his qualifying condition prior

to the law being passed even.

 

It's really unbelievable. This is NOT justice. Apalling gross ignorance is more accurate .

 

1.) The Law was made to protect the people esp /w qualifying conditions who derive therapuetic relief from cannabis

2.) to not be involved in this very BS.

 

3.) There were no cards available at the time, in fact the MDCH had only started accepting applications the previous week, or there would be absolutly no cause for this

incorrect decision. This should be appealed to the SC if you have the $$$$

a. He had previously discussed the possible theraputic relief / benefits of Cannabis with his Physician.

 

 

This is an unnecessarily Cold treatment of people with absolutley no intention of breaking any Laws but to possibly obtain some Harmless Relief from Natures cruel ways. With no other apparent detrimental effect than possibly stimulating a small amount of ecobomic activity that should by any yardstick be a good measure.

 

...gunner check out thet okeefe video now ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thanks2 Advanced Member

thanks2

Posted
Posted

Did we read the same opinion?

What did I miss or miss interpret?

 

They said a doctor's rec has to be after the law but before the arrest.

 

The last paragraph says that just because he did not meet the standard to have the case dismissed, that does not bar him from presenting a section 8 defense at trial.

 

Or did I just completely miss the point of the decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Dr. Bob Advanced Member

Dr. Bob

Posted
Posted

It is my read that there are two lessons in this opinion....

 

1. In order to use the AD, you must have started the formal certification process after the law went into effect and before arrest.

2. While the case is referred back to the court, the defendant still has the right to present an affirmative defense if he can provide additional evidence he complied with #1 above.

 

I am not happy with this ruling, but like any ruling we have to look at it like the FAA looks at a plane crash. It is a tragedy but what lessons can we learn, how can we change our behavior, what can we do to prevent it from happening to another patient. My opinion is that if you qualify, get certified- count on the AD in the 20 days the state has to make a decision, you are legal on day 21 after they cash your check anyhow. Follow the rules, keep things private and steadily increase our numbers.

 

On the UP Hemp and Cannabis site, where I spend alot of time, I suggested we start an on line resource titled 'So you want to be a Michigan MMJ patient, here's what you need to know....'. Make it open source, lead the patient through the forms, certification, caregiver selection, grow operations and use. Each court case (Redden, Kolanek, etc) that affects a particular aspect of the program should be provided as an attachment and explained, with recommendations as to how to avoid running afoul of the point made by the ruling.

 

Dr. Bob

 

What did I miss or miss interpret?

 

They said a doctor's rec has to be after the law but before the arrest.

 

The last paragraph says that just because he did not meet the standard to have the case dismissed, that does not bar him from presenting a section 8 defense at trial.

 

Or did I just completely miss the point of the decision?

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...