People V Ryan Bylsma - Mi Court

[bobandtorey]

In this case, the Court of Appeals will decide whether Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act permits multiple caregivers and/or patients to collectively maintain a cooperative grow operation in an enclosed, locked facility. These oral arguments were heard in Grand Rapids, MI on September 7, 2011. Defense attorney Bruce A. Block represented Mr. Bylsma in this appeal and Kent County Prosecutor Gary A. Moore represented the People.

http://www.vimeo.com/28921863

 

 

by Eric L. VanDussen

Edited September 17, 2011 by bobandtorey

[bobandtorey]

PEOPLE v RYAN BYLSMA - MI Court of Appeals - 09/07/11 from Eric L. VanDussen on Vimeo.

[bobandtorey]

PEOPLE v RYAN BYLSMA - MI Court of Appeals - 09/07/11 from Eric L. VanDussen on Vimeo.

 

 

 

sorry

[Morhawk]

sorry

 

 

[Morhawk]

Something I noted: 13:50 timestamp in Video.

 

Summarized: "It makes no sense for a caregiver of 5 patients to have 5 separate locked facilities."

 

Not the premise of this case, but take that Schuette.

[bobandtorey]

Something I noted: 13:50 timestamp in Video.

 

Summarized: "It makes no sense for a caregiver of 5 patients to have 5 separate locked facilities."

 

Not the premise of this case, but take that Schuette.

 

I agree i think the table is turning for the good inn this case

thanks for fixing the post

[Timmahh]

i am currently watching the videos, thank you for posting them.

 

i have some comments to make on the statements of the Judges. *Disclaimer* some will be liked some may not, but these are intregal issues, and have very dramatic involvments to the act. Please remember, we all have our views, opinions, and interpritations. keep the dialog relavent so we can move forward positively.

 

 

at 18:56 Judge Cynthia D Stephens asks, "Is this similar to abailment (could not clearly hear the word she used)?" She continues and asks, " If I have a garage, and people park cars in my garage, I certainly have control over them while they are in my garge, but they are not mine. Am I held in, in a, is this more similar to that, than typical possession, ownership, and control?"

and the attorney responds "I would suggest that it is. And I think we, I think, We make a mistake, again, I think we make a mistake, if we use the "Possesstion", in the way it's been broadened, in the context of controlled substances, I think the Medical act, and specifically medical use, as far as medical marihuana, subplanted that perticular definition. I think we got to go back to what did the voters mean by possession when they voted this into effect."

 

 

 

In my view, a proper example following Judge Stephens outline, If I own a Garage, and people have their cars parked in my garage. While in my garage, one car is found to have a dead women in the trunk, presuming the dead woman in the truck was obviously murdered, and it is clearly proven the owner of the car which has the womens body with in it, Does that also mean the other car owners, or the garage owner is then guilty of murder, if their is no knowledge of the body until its original discovery? And if it is, then would not an owner of a building, then also be guilty of murder, when ever a murdered person is found in a building?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Timmahh

[Timmahh]

i too heard that statment, I clapped when i Did. Its my personal opinion, they are actaully truely looking at all sides, atleast with appearently open, un jaded opinions. for now.

[onthefly]

Thanks for sharing. I watched the State vs Compassionate Apothecary which I found interesting. Judge in the center definitely had an attitude.