Affirmative Defense

[trix]

OK, I have been reading and reading and reading, my brains gonna explode!!!

I have ONE question that I am curious about and it pertains to the doctors discussion prior to arrest part,

As of jan 11 2011, that a person must provide a doctor's recommendation PRIOR to the arrest in order to assert the affirmative defense of section 8. Although this ruling will likely be applealed to the supreme court, for now this law is the law.What this means, is that a person wishing to raise this defense must have disscussded medical marijuana with a doctor and received a positive recommendation BEFORE the unregistered use. The person does not nessasarily have to have a written recommendation or have filed with the state, but MUST have discussed it with a doctor and the doctor must have in effect said yes, I think you will benefit' BEFORE the unregistered arrest.

Now I'm confused on that cause I do in fact have a recommendation in fact I have two of them, but I'm confused on the fact of is the DR. that signed his name on the paper that I met with at the clinic that backed up this assertion with a lawyer before I walked out and, in turn sent to the State of Michigan, is that the recommendation they are referring to?

was that just a waste of a $100, and didn't really mean anything at all?

OR

Do they want a letter from my Doctor That I see all the time?

This is the only part of this defense that I'm getting hung up on the wording is clear, but I don't understand it?

Trix

[peanutbutter]

In the case that the COA just ruled on.

 

The defendant had a verbal OK before the law went into effect.

 

The defendant was arrested in April of 2009.

 

After being arrested the defendant got his written OK from his doctor.

 

The COA is saying that the verbal OK is invalid because that verbal OK happened before 12/4/2008.

 

At the time of arrest the defendant was a caregiver for two other people.

 

He had a total of 36 plants. They are saying that he could only have 24 when he was arrested.

 

The best thing about that COA ruling is that they said that he has the RIGHT to present his medical defense to a jury.

In turn the jury will be able to use their common sense.

[trix]

I saw the DOCTOR. and discussed this subject on 1/25/10, received the signed paper for the State of Michigan

 

Submitted approved application on 3/17/10

 

Says they sent me the approval letter on or around 6/29/10, which I never received btw

 

cops seized everything on 7/09/10

 

Was arrested on or around 8/1/10

 

I also had a discussion on 3/2/10 with my reg. DOCTOR about this

Trix

[trix]

AND AGAIN with my reg. DOCTOR, on 12/9/10, after the judge decided that I couldn't use due to the bond restriction

[Hempcheff]

So PB, It sounds like they are routing this case in particular through the courts as it seems meet the "perfect" test case criteria. as in let this one get through to a jury to see how they decide.

 

what do ya think?

 

anyone else?

 

In the case that the COA just ruled on.

 

The defendant had a verbal OK before the law went into effect.

 

The defendant was arrested in April of 2009.

 

After being arrested the defendant got his written OK from his doctor.

 

The COA is saying that the verbal OK is invalid because that verbal OK happened before 12/4/2008.

 

At the time of arrest the defendant was a caregiver for two other people.

 

He had a total of 36 plants. They are saying that he could only have 24 when he was arrested.

 

The best thing about that COA ruling is that they said that he has the RIGHT to present his medical defense to a jury.

In turn the jury will be able to use their common sense.

[thanks2]

You should be good. The one brief that was talking about "pot docs" was from a prosecutor that was attacking the doctor-patient relation ship. This is a tough one for them to go after and they are not likely to win. Most specialist are seen only once a year. Or even once in a life time depending on the disease.

 

That brief from the prosecutor was horrible. He was calling the doctors names, referencing scripture, not giving to references for his claims, attacking the sick, and was full of fluff. I do not see a judge giving that prosecutor much weight, but who knows.

[trix]

I'm asking only because of the part where you stated "should", this is killing me the not knowing part.

I'm up night and day, reading and searching for any and all info, figure by the time this is done I should take the bar exam =] LOL

Thanks for the input,

Trix

[peanutbutter]

I'm asking only because of the part where you stated "should", this is killing me the not knowing part.

I'm up night and day, reading and searching for any and all info, figure by the time this is done I should take the bar exam =] LOL

Thanks for the input,

Trix

 

Sorry Trix.

 

No one here has a perfect crystal ball. Wish we did.

 

"Should" and "likely" is the best anyone can do until the judge says one way or the other.

 

There may be other decisions soon that could well improve things for you.

[peanutbutter]

So PB, It sounds like they are routing this case in particular through the courts as it seems meet the "perfect" test case criteria. as in let this one get through to a jury to see how they decide.

 

what do ya think?

 

anyone else?

 

I think this case (not the case with trix) is likely to plead to some misdemeanor. Unless the defendant sticks it out. IN which case I thing the defendant should win on the AD. Actually the moment the defendant had their card, the case is supposed to be dropped.

 

In that situation, however, there seems to be a judge and PA that don't want this law to exist and are trying to wiggle their way around it.

 

Make no mistake about it, they are wiggling like worms.

[phaquetoo]

OK, I have been reading and reading and reading, my brains gonna explode!!!

I have ONE question that I am curious about and it pertains to the doctors discussion prior to arrest part,

As of jan 11 2011, that a person must provide a doctor's recommendation PRIOR to the arrest in order to assert the affirmative defense of section 8. Although this ruling will likely be applealed to the supreme court, for now this law is the law.What this means, is that a person wishing to raise this defense must have disscussded medical marijuana with a doctor and received a positive recommendation BEFORE the unregistered use. The person does not nessasarily have to have a written recommendation or have filed with the state, but MUST have discussed it with a doctor and the doctor must have in effect said yes, I think you will benefit' BEFORE the unregistered arrest.

Now I'm confused on that cause I do in fact have a recommendation in fact I have two of them, but I'm confused on the fact of is the DR. that signed his name on the paper that I met with at the clinic that backed up this assertion with a lawyer before I walked out and, in turn sent to the State of Michigan, is that the recommendation they are referring to?

was that just a waste of a $100, and didn't really mean anything at all?

OR

Do they want a letter from my Doctor That I see all the time?

This is the only part of this defense that I'm getting hung up on the wording is clear, but I don't understand it?

Trix

 

 

If you have in your medical records that mm would help with your qualifiying ailment, you dont need to register! You have the ad, if you get popped with some smoke and than go have your dr. put it in your records, your not covered(unless it is dated before your offense) has nothing to do with your recomendation!

 

but im quite sure you dont have dr. records that say you would benifit from it or that dr. would have wrote you the rec for the state, correct?

 

I also feel you would have a good a.d defense (imo) if your dr. at least put on your record every time that you have chronic pain, or ms or any qualifing ailment, I would think if all your records say that you would be ok with the a.d, im in no way a lawyer(maybe a jail house one becuase ive pushed the limit in everything i do) but jail house lawyers are in jail!

 

lets get back to shooting some one that wakes you up with a gun pointing at you! sounds like your new year isnt starting out to good!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[solabeirtan]

OK Trix, my opinion you are 100% covered.

 

Assuming that: Apparentley you never recieved your card ? Not to Worry, you have your paperwork, just sign another patient/caregiver get another card, $10

 

Yet you know you were covered / approved through MDCH as a Qualified Patient ? ( Right? ) 'as of 6/30/09'.

...You were covered anyway after the 20 days (from 3/17/09), provided you never recieved a disqualification letter.

 

And even though YES you were technically covered previous to your Registration with MDCH, as you had a Qualifiying Condition (Right ?)

 

....Dont consider it "a waste of $100" though, it will definitley be a deduction on your Inc Taxes, provided your itemizing, dont know if it would be a licensing fee or health care, hmmm... Best of Luck

 

also I would flat out ignore his advice on not using Cannabis too, just for spite, (if it was me ...) he isn't qualified to do that. I think that other case where they denied that poor guy is Wrongful Death case waiting in the Wings. Your case will be dismissed, Im sure. Did you recover any of your stuff yet?

[trix]

I have my card I got the plastic card shortly after the seized everything the week they wanted me to turn myself in which i protested I didn't have a lawyer or money so I wasn't about to walk in there and bend over, and put my azz in the air!!! they had just finished helping the robber, take everything from me.

And nope currently in court now, hope its goes POOF and yuh I get everything back, I'm darn worried after all this stuff they are doing to screw us MM patients

thank you for the input, hope it turns out well too, its gonna help a lot of people with a lot question's either way it gets decided. should close another page in the so called grey area.

I just hope I'm reading the AD statue the way it's written, if so I think I'm covered on all aspects of it?? 4 &8

Trix

[trix]

 

but im quite sure you dont have dr. records that say you would benifit from it or that dr. would have wrote you the rec for the state, correct?

 

 

 

I do have the supporting doc's from the Dr that cert. or recommend to the state, as well as 29 yrs of medical records stating I have a Life threating illness that will NEVER go away from 2 life time DR.'s also showing they want me to smoke instead abusing pain meds, before the arrest and after the arrest!!

 

Has been a crappy year, but hey what can I do beside's hope and pray it gets better???

 

Trix

[bobandtorey]

Sorry Trix.

 

No one here has a perfect crystal ball. Wish we did.

 

"Should" and "likely" is the best anyone can do until the judge says one way or the other.

 

There may be other decisions soon that could well improve things for you.

 

There may be other decisions soon that could well improve things for you.

 

 

who us?

[phaquetoo]

Trix if you got records prior to it, you are covered,,,,And I do thank you for what your about to go thru!

I wish you were not going thru this! ( i dont know you from adam) but I feel for ya and i will have you in my prayers!

It is very easy for me to say Dont cop a plea! So I wont! Please do what you Feel is Best for You and Yours!

 

solaberitan omg i had a hard time writing your name lol, Your Awsome! Your correct but yet I still had to giggle a lil while i read it

 

Trix Peace! I Hope Things Turn around for you real soon!

FTW

Jim

[bobandtorey]

I have my card I got the plastic card shortly after the seized everything the week they wanted me to turn myself in which i protested I didn't have a lawyer or money so I wasn't about to walk in there and bend over, and put my azz in the air!!! they had just finished helping the robber, take everything from me.

And nope currently in court now, hope its goes POOF and yuh I get everything back, I'm darn worried after all this stuff they are doing to screw us MM patients

thank you for the input, hope it turns out well too, its gonna help a lot of people with a lot question's either way it gets decided. should close another page in the so called Grey area.

I just hope I'm reading the AD statue the way it's written, if so I think I'm covered on all aspects of it?? 4 &8

Trix

 

The way it is going for us anyway is you cant not use sec; 4 with sec; 8 and in court last week the PA and the Judge seams to say the same Marihuana is illegal inn Mich it only allows for the AD

i think the AD is even better but as you konw am not a Lawyer i only play one on here

[trix]

Feels like you could be a lawyer huh , all the studying and case laws, and time you spend in court.

minus the income of one though!!

best luck to you Bob really...its great what you do for everyone, glad to have known a guy like you in my short life, your wife included!!

Trix

[bobandtorey]

Feels like you could be a lawyer huh , all the studying and case laws, and time you spend in court.

minus the income of one though!!

best of luck to you Bob really...its great what you do for everyone, glad to have known a guy like you in my short life, your wife included!!

Trix

 

Thank you for your kind words i stand up for what i feel is are rights this fight we are all inn is not about MMJ that fight ended 12/4/08 we won now it's about are rights

i was in another Raid who would think that me in another Raid i was cool and clam as i could be because i know to not say any thing to Leo thats the first thing people should No the people at big daddy's handle it great by asking for the warrant witch Leo would not give up at first

[ozzrokk]

Trix I think you are reading it right and I think you come through fine

in the long run. Let's hope so cause it is a shame to see them put sick people

through EVEN MORE. Sad Sad Sad. Hang in there my friend.