Jump to content

Larry Kings People Poll


Kingpinn
 Share

Recommended Posts

The bad part is that "locked enclosed" is not part of the AD.

 

This is not one of the required elements that trigger "case shall be

dismissed."

 

That requirement is in section four of the law.

 

So these judges are applying additional requirements that do not exist

within the law.

 

Many courts are using all the requirements of section four to satisfy

section eight, which should be stand alone.

 

The way they get to that point is because of an error in the formulation of

the language of the law.

 

First sentence in section 8 says something about "except as provided in

section 7."

First sentence in section 7 says something about "the entire law."

 

What this does, when applied as this court has done, is nullify the entire

section eight of the law.

 

It doesn't exist any longer if that first sentence is applied the way it is

being done.

 

Applied that way also nullifies the question that was asked of the voters on

the ballot. That question asked if both registered and unregistered persons

should be allowed to use medical purpose as a defense in court.

 

IF section eight no longer applies, then every defendant is required to be

registered before being allowed to use medical purpose as a defense.

 

We need to get this hole plugged somehow ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bad part is that "locked enclosed" is not part of the AD.

 

This is not one of the required elements that trigger "case shall be

dismissed."

 

That requirement is in section four of the law.

 

So these judges are applying additional requirements that do not exist

within the law.

 

Many courts are using all the requirements of section four to satisfy

section eight, which should be stand alone.

 

The way they get to that point is because of an error in the formulation of

the language of the law.

 

First sentence in section 8 says something about "except as provided in

section 7."

First sentence in section 7 says something about "the entire law."

 

What this does, when applied as this court has done, is nullify the entire

section eight of the law.

 

It doesn't exist any longer if that first sentence is applied the way it is

being done.

 

Applied that way also nullifies the question that was asked of the voters on

the ballot. That question asked if both registered and unregistered persons

should be allowed to use medical purpose as a defense in court.

 

IF section eight no longer applies, then every defendant is required to be

registered before being allowed to use medical purpose as a defense.

 

We need to get this hole plugged somehow ..

 

i thought we already won this with are C.O.A opinion

That question asked if both registered and unregistered persons

should be allowed to use medical purpose as a defense in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still wondering why it is that these news media people are using my address over the TV newspapers INTERNET. It was my impression that in this matter this is doctor patient confidentiality info that isn't suppose to be leaked out. When these news agencies

use my name they are breaking the law. Endangering my well being

 

 

 

 

Acting on a tip, Owosso police went to King’s house in May 2009, less than a month after he received a medical-marijuana card from the state.

 

According to the appellate decision, Michigan State Police officers received an anonymous tip that someone was growing marijuana in the backyard of a home at 710 Grace St. in Owosso.

 

On May 13, 2009, Det. Sgt. Brian Fox and deputy Jed Eisengerber went to the home and saw a chain-link dog kennel in the backyard. Although the kennel was covered in black plastic, the file states, the officers were able to see marijuana plants within the kennel through binoculars

 

 

 

 

 

Larry this was why for the most part moved we did not feel safe but it did not help Leo came over and saw us moving inn are new house LOL

and when i was at the raid at Big Daddy's one of the Leo's said we know you Bob you live inn Ferndale

i did not have much time to talk to you at the last case we were inn last week at that time your C.O.A had not came down

i still think about what happen to Archie and the wrong doing he got good luck with your Supreme Court day Matt has always wanting to go i guess he got what he ask for he is a great Lawyer

if you don't mind how much would something like that cost i know the case's i have been too the people are telling me it's $5,000 for court if they go to trial it's another $5,000

anyways good luck with your case we are not going to the Supreme Court we are going to trial instead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KP,

 

That is one of the reasons I'm so reluctant to speak w/ the press, I don't want my personal info splashed all over the net, papers, TV. and if the press changes my words around like they do a lot, to stories then it has defeated the entire purpose.

 

Good luck, you have my vote

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...