Jump to content

People Vs King


thatoneartist

Recommended Posts

Oral arguments have been completed. It seemed to go well.

 

Eric is with us at Gone Wired right now. He got it all recorded. I'm sure that Eric will post the video shortly.

 

A LOT of very good ground was covered.

 

One of the judges asked where in the law it listed which elements from section 4 applied to section 8. Given that the AG agreed that you didn't need the ID card for section 8. The judges wanted to know if anything else in section 4 DIDN'T apply to a section 8 defense.

 

There were other very good hard questions asked by the judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting way to spend the AM. As PB said, based on the questions asked by the judges, it seemed to be very positive.

 

One sort of disappointing thing, I like many of the previous posters was looking forward to hearing a discussion on Closed, Locked Enclosure. It never happened. The attorney on the King case took the position that Closed, Locked only referred to patients covered by sec. 4. His position was that they were claiming the Affirmative Defense under 8 and none of the provision like "closed, locked' or 12 plants nor 2.5 oz applied to a sec. 8 defense and as such "closed, locked should not be a part of the discussion.

 

One aside that will not show up on the tapes is the AG lawyer lied during the arguments. In an effort to paint King as a criminal, the donkey't AG claimed that King was not even a real patient since he supposedly told the cops he was planning on selling the product. Matt Abel, who was the attorney on the first round of this case, was furious. He indicated that King in an effort to establish the value of what LEO was destroying told them the plants were each worth $1K. He never said he was planning to sell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oral arguments have been completed. It seemed to go well.

 

Eric is with us at Gone Wired right now. He got it all recorded. I'm sure that Eric will post the video shortly.

 

A LOT of very good ground was covered.

 

One of the judges asked where in the law it listed which elements from section 4 applied to section 8. Given that the AG agreed that you didn't need the ID card for section 8. The judges wanted to know if anything else in section 4 DIDN'T apply to a section 8 defense.

 

There were other very good hard questions asked by the judges.

 

section 4 applied to section 8.

well Sec 8 is diffeent then 4 we got that from are case

we all need Sec 8 that is the one that will protect all the sick people here in Mich card or no card

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting way to spend the AM. As PB said, based on the questions asked by the judges, it seemed to be very positive.

 

One sort of disappointing thing, I like many of the previous posters was looking forward to hearing a discussion on Closed, Locked Enclosure. It never happened. The attorney on the King case took the position that Closed, Locked only referred to patients covered by sec. 4. His position was that they were claiming the Affirmative Defense under 8 and none of the provision like "closed, locked' or 12 plants nor 2.5 oz applied to a sec. 8 defense and as such "closed, locked should not be a part of the discussion.

 

One aside that will not show up on the tapes is the AG lawyer lied during the arguments. In an effort to paint King as a criminal, the donkey't AG claimed that King was not even a real patient since he supposedly told the cops he was planning on selling the product. Matt Abel, who was the attorney on the first round of this case, was furious. He indicated that King in an effort to establish the value of what LEO was destroying told them the plants were each worth $1K. He never said he was planning to sell them.

 

closed, locked should not be a part of the discussion.

 

Yep like i said it's about being able to tell the jury IMO if we get to do that the State knows they will lose every case they have here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sick of hearing the lies from schuette and his people. It's all going to come back to make a fool of him (worse than now) These are desperate liars, all this crap is tiresome. I hope the result from this is good, it sounds promising. If they would tell the truth the innocent patients would be able to live in peace. Best wishes Mr King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Matt Abel originally ( Love the guy) and ended up with his partner Thomas Lavigne

now a friend and attorney, that whole office is full of outstanding people.

 

So am I to believe that the issue of the enclosure and how it is to be interpreted with

regards to legally growing outdoors, is now not even to be addressed in Larry's case ?

Edited by KindWave Hydro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe the pc of sht from the ag's office opened his mouth and said Mr King was growing his medication in order to sell it. Is not lying in court contempt? This proves that the attorney general has no interest in truth, justice and upholding the law. Having his representative lie in court in order to persecute a patient is appalling. The citizens of Michigan need to take notice, as this is the norm for the attorney general. Lies, corruption, manipulation and dishonor will be the legacy for mr schuttes time in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have also been to the supreme court and we withdrew ares and with us we only had are Rec and the 21 days had passed UNDER plant count and uder 2.5oz and the C.O.A said we were good we all knew that the Law say's after 21 days your Rec acts as your card but now we know it does per the C.O.A

 

but as you know we are still in court now almost 3 years

 

It is unbelievable that this has taken almost three years to resolve. Truly a sad state of affairs, certainly doesn't do anyone any benefit. Very unfortunate for all involved. Just to let you know I think we all share your frustration with this over the top type of disrespectful oppressive treatmen under the guise of law.

 

Just another detail about your situation Bob: I dont think there were any cards available when you got raided, back in March 2009?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I understanding you guys correctly ?

The section 4 and 8 references are particular to the Kolnek case not Kings

 

 

King's case is all about the definition of a closed and locked enclosure

 

did they not address King's case today ?

 

The defense attn'y for King took an interesting turn. Instead of addressing the closed locked issue, he claimed that under sec 8 you do not need to address any of the sec 4 issues, i.e. 12 plants, 2.5 oz, closed locked, etc. Kind of a huh, what just happened here moment. I believe he made arguments in the written documents re closed locked, but just did not get into it in the oral part. No idea here I am not a lawyer, just an observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe the pc of sht from the ag's office opened his mouth and said Mr King was growing his medication in order to sell it. Is not lying in court contempt? This proves that the attorney general has no interest in truth, justice and upholding the law. Having his representative lie in court in order to persecute a patient is appalling. The citizens of Michigan need to take notice, as this is the norm for the attorney general. Lies, corruption, manipulation and dishonor will be the legacy for mr schuttes time in office.

 

 

Yes the donkey't AG lied! From what I heard afterwards outside court, During the raid King had stated to LEO as they were destroying his grow that the plants were worth 1K each. They twisted this to say he planned to sell them.

 

Don't know if it will happen, but at least one attorney stated he plans to file a grievance against the donkey't AG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe the pc of sht from the ag's office opened his mouth and said Mr King was growing his medication in order to sell it. Is not lying in court contempt? This proves that the attorney general has no interest in truth, justice and upholding the law. Having his representative lie in court in order to persecute a patient is appalling. The citizens of Michigan need to take notice, as this is the norm for the attorney general. Lies, corruption, manipulation and dishonor will be the legacy for mr schuttes time in office.

 

 

 

Mike

That's nothing ...you should hear about the blatant lies, fabricated evidence and fabricated statements the local Narc unit

has constructed in my case.. It would make your head spin..

These thugs in uniforms are as dirty as a baby diaper in my county

and the last thing the msp trooper in charge said was " And don't be posting any of this on the internet"

as they departed my property having destroyed everything...

 

 

 

They stole 7 G worth of top notch new hardware that I had yet to even get paid off

and I have yet to be able to provide any meds for any of my patients since July.

Edited by KindWave Hydro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense attn'y for King took an interesting turn. Instead of addressing the closed locked issue, he claimed that under sec 8 you do not need to address any of the sec 4 issues, i.e. 12 plants, 2.5 oz, closed locked, etc. Kind of a huh, what just happened here moment. I believe he made arguments in the written documents re closed locked, but just did not get into it in the oral part. No idea here I am not a lawyer, just an observer.

 

 

darn ! well this has me on the edge of my seat

 

I'm going to have to wait to see if My case will be

allowed to do the same then

 

????

 

so maybe I can go for a section 8 representation ...

I have some research to do as this will certainly set a major precedent for cases yet to be heard

at a local level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply and answers semicaregiver it's very much appreciated.

 

 

we understand how you feel like i said it's not about the lock at all if i was you i would try and put your case on hold until we get some ruling from the supreme court ask your Lawyer if he can get the judge to put a stay on your case

don't take the plea

like so many others

we have been at it for almost 3 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unbelievable that this has taken almost three years to resolve. Truly a sad state of affairs, certainly doesn't do anyone any benefit. Very unfortunate for all involved. Just to let you know I think we all share your frustration with this over the top type of disrespectful oppressive treatmen under the guise of law.

 

Just another detail about your situation Bob: I don't think there were any cards available when you got raided, back in March 2009?

 

thats right i think thats why we withdrew are case from the supreme Court wasn't important enough because their can not ever be a case like ares

so they picked Larry

IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I understanding you guys correctly ?

The section 4 and 8 references are particular to the Kolnek case not Kings

 

 

King's case is all about the definition of a closed and locked enclosure

 

did they not address King's case today ?

 

"Locked enclosed " isn't in section 8. It isn't a requirement of section 8.

 

It is a requirement of section 4.

 

So that 8->7->4 stuff was looked at real close in both cases.

 

The language from the ballot was brought in. The AG side agreed that 8/7/4 doesn't apply about the ID card. Just everything else except the card. 12/2.5 etc.

 

The judges asked how that worked .. Where in the law did it say how to pick out those parts of 4 that apply and those parts that don't to be able to apply 8.

 

"Please tell us where that exists in the law?" the judge asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Locked enclosed " isn't in section 8. It isn't a requirement of section 8.

 

It is a requirement of section 4.

 

So that 8->7->4 stuff was looked at real close in both cases.

 

The language from the ballot was brought in. The AG side agreed that 8/7/4 doesn't apply about the ID card. Just everything else except the card. 12/2.5 etc.

 

The judges asked how that worked .. Where in the law did it say how to pick out those parts of 4 that apply and those parts that don't to be able to apply 8.

 

"Please tell us where that exists in the law?" the judge asked.

 

 

 

TY Peanutbutter...

 

So do we know when a decision will be rendered with regards to this ?

and what does this mean in particular to a similar case where the tyrants

came onto the property because of no top on an outside grow ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TY Peanutbutter...

 

So do we know when a decision will be rendered with regards to this ?

and what does this mean in particular to a similar case where the tyrants

came onto the property because of no top on an outside grow ??

 

Well .. one judge mentioned her dog kennel was enclosed .. it keeps the dogs in, so ..

 

Yeah .. there's two or three different ways the case can twist yours. Mostly in the direction of "case dismissed."

 

Seriously, I figure your case will be dropped if that is the only issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Mr Bill seems you cant make up lie's to the big court and not get questioned on your methods. Thank God their are reasonable people still left on this Earth. I'm calling out your Police Officer that said I was planning to sell MMJ to produce proof.The mans a lair and not a very good one at that

Edited by Kingpinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Mr Bill seems you cant make up and lie to the big court and not get questioned on your methods. Thank God their are reasonable people still left on this Earth. I'm calling your Police Officer that said I was planning to sell MMJ to produce proof.The mans a lair and not a very good one at that

 

I would certainly like to see it plastered all over the news that BS & staff feel it is appropriate to perjure themselves in front of the Supreme Court, in order to persecute a law abiding medical marijuana patient. Unfruckin'believable. This is certainly a good thing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on while children, who are supposedly so precious to mr schuette go hungry in our state.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...