People Vs King

[bobandtorey]

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.

 

i also think it will be dismissed he has to hang in their like we have been

but as i have said be for it's not about a lock at all it's about being able to let a jury here the facts that is the only thing that we all want

to be able to tell the jury that we are a patient thats it because we know that the State will lose every case thats why they are fighting so hard

 

in are case we can't even say that Torey has cancer or any thing about my medical conditions

i heard the show last night and IMO when nick said why the state is spending so much money on people that would only get probation

thats not the reason

they are after this Law and a win thats the reason

[revsmoke]

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.

 

Is there video or audio of this posted online anywhere? Thanks!!!

[wingnut]

Is there video or audio of this posted online anywhere? Thanks!!!

 

Here is video shot by

 

Eric L. VanDussen My link

 

[KindWave Hydro]

i also think it will be dismissed he has to hang in their like we have been

but as i have said be for it's not about a lock at all it's about being able to let a jury here the facts that is the only thing that we all want

to be able to tell the jury that we are a patient thats it because we know that the State will lose every case thats why they are fighting so hard

 

in are case we can't even say that Torey has cancer or any thing about my medical conditions

i heard the show last night and IMO when nick said why the state is spending so much money on people that would only get probation

thats not the reason

they are after this Law and a win thats the reason

 

 

 

Trust me friends there will be no plea accepted in my case

I was fully legal and in compliance .

I refuse to be a felon for taking care of patients and being a '

patient myself.

 

My counsel and myself have already stood out ground and flat

out denied any attempt at a plea ..this will go before a

jury ,where they may see how corrupt this enforcement team is.

 

 

Still awaiting on a word from this King Case however..

 

any idea as to how long it takes for the decisions to be rendered ?

[bobandtorey]

Trust me friends there will be no plea accepted in my case

I was fully legal and in compliance .

I refuse to be a felon for taking care of patients and being a '

patient myself.

 

My counsel and myself have already stood out ground and flat

out denied any attempt at a plea ..this will go before a

jury ,where they may see how corrupt this enforcement team is.

 

 

Still awaiting on a word from this King Case however..

 

any idea as to how long it takes for the decisions to be rendered ?

 

i/we are sorry about what has happen to you maybe you are not understanding my post you will not be able to let a jury here that you are a card holder or any thing about you being a patient

thats the real deal

am sorry

[Iceman081]

Trust me friends there will be no plea accepted in my case

I was fully legal and in compliance .

I refuse to be a felon for taking care of patients and being a '

patient myself.

 

My counsel and myself have already stood out ground and flat

out denied any attempt at a plea ..this will go before a

jury ,where they may see how corrupt this enforcement team is.

 

 

Still awaiting on a word from this King Case however..

 

any idea as to how long it takes for the decisions to be rendered ?

 

Supreme Court decisions are not very fast, they work on their own timeline. Could be a couple of weeks or a couple of months.

[bobandtorey]

Supreme Court decisions are not very fast, they work on their own timeline. Could be a couple of weeks or a couple of months.

 

I agree they will take their time

and we will couture being raided

[Eric L. VanDussen]

You can watch the People v King oral arguments in the Supreme Court at: http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=3823 &

 

The Michigan Supreme Court hears oral arguments in this case regarding whether growing medical marijuana in a dog kennel, without a top, satisfies the “enclosed, locked facility” requirements of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

Here is a link to additional background information on this case and the appeal briefs that are provided on the MI Supreme Court's website: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/01-12/142850/Index.html

[bobandtorey]

You can watch the People v King oral arguments in the Supreme Court at: http://www.upnorthme...asp?SDBFid=3823 & http://vimeo.com/35060651

 

The Michigan Supreme Court hears oral arguments in this case regarding whether growing medical marijuana in a dog kennel, without a top, satisfies the “enclosed, locked facility” requirements of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

Here is a link to additional background information on this case and the appeal briefs that are provided on the MI Supreme Court's website: http://courts.michig...2850/Index.html

 

Thanks Eric

i don't think it looks good for us or any of the MMA IMHO

[Timmahh]

these are actaully pretty good so far Bob... in most instances, the Justices, appear to be taking the Act for its Black and White Language, which isnt all that grey imo. It would appear to be pretty easily understood so far by 3 or 4 of the setting justices in the Kolanek proceedings, as well as the King one.

 

one justice made the remark "If i put a Dog in the Dog Kennel, is it not considered 'Enclosed and Locked?' to which the AG rep said, Yes, BUT>.... In the Kolanek trial, the main Justice (name escapes me atm) made the comment to the AGs Rep, 'Look, we are dealing with the Law here' referring to what the AG and his Rep would Wish the law would say, and what they (Justices) read it to actaully say.

 

At this point, I would say things look better than anticipated. I could foresee an outcome (to early to say prediction but...) where 3rd party transfers are not allowed, upholding the CoA ruling on disp type businesses holding meds and making the transfers, but will up hold the law as it is enacted, and replace the assurance that Pt to Pt, Pt to CG, CG to CG, CG to Pt transfers with remuneration are certainly allowed via the Act as passed.'

If things continue as they have and Defense posts logical, well thought out statements, and answer the points of the Justices questions clearly, per the Act, things will start to look quite different again, after these two rulings are handed down.

 

Its important that the correct arguments be made, and the proper supporting information be presented during Statments, and questionings...

 

I seen a few missed points of oppertunity. it almost seemed as if the Justices were enticing defense council to answer the question with the statements outlined with in the Act itself, affirming their understanding of what the Act says, per the Peoples interpretation.

[peanutbutter]

these are actaully pretty good so far Bob... in most instances, the Justices, appear to be taking the Act for its Black and White Language, which isnt all that grey imo. It would appear to be pretty easily understood so far by 3 or 4 of the setting justices in the Kolanek proceedings, as well as the King one.

 

one justice made the remark "If i put a Dog in the Dog Kennel, is it not considered 'Enclosed and Locked?' to which the AG rep said, Yes, BUT>.... In the Kolanek trial, the main Justice (name escapes me atm) made the comment to the AGs Rep, 'Look, we are dealing with the Law here' referring to what the AG and his Rep would Wish the law would say, and what they (Justices) read it to actaully say.

 

At this point, I would say things look better than anticipated. I could foresee an outcome (to early to say prediction but...) where 3rd party transfers are not allowed, upholding the CoA ruling on disp type businesses holding meds and making the transfers, but will up hold the law as it is enacted, and replace the assurance that Pt to Pt, Pt to CG, CG to CG, CG to Pt transfers with remuneration are certainly allowed via the Act as passed.'

If things continue as they have and Defense posts logical, well thought out statements, and answer the points of the Justices questions clearly, per the Act, things will start to look quite different again, after these two rulings are handed down.

 

Its important that the correct arguments be made, and the proper supporting information be presented during Statments, and questionings...

 

I seen a few missed points of oppertunity. it almost seemed as if the Justices were enticing defense council to answer the question with the statements outlined with in the Act itself, affirming their understanding of what the Act says, per the Peoples interpretation.

 

I learned a new word that day .. nugatory

 

The one judge said following the logic of the AG would result in the entire section eight being nugatory.

 

That would be about 120 useless words in the law. Presumably not the desire of the authors of the act. I suppose some authors like to waste words, I suspect that isn't the case with authors of laws.

 

Cool word.

[Bisharoo]

Jeff Feiger says he will stand up for us when no one else will. Ha Ha Ha!

Sorry to hijack this thread but I know this is all related to how our judges respond to us and our courts and elected and non-elected officials treat us!

 

Don't count on your democrats and republicans saving us, they are the ones leading the charge of this police state, ever watching and menacing, always moving their control of the masses forward, ever forward, to what end? Is there any question any more by anyone what the goal of the 2 parties is? Total and complete subjugation of all individuals, whether they have harmed any others or not! People are still debating which brand of tyranny should be unleashed next upon us by debating over the Romneys and Obamas and Bushs and Clintons who are all the same but have convinced most people that they are so different. Same philosophy among all of them. Philosophy is what drives a persons actions, and they all have he same philosophy. The end justifies the means. It is quite OK and even desirable to sacrifice some, or many, individuals who you disagree with for the betterment, in your mind, of the group. (Darn those pesky individuals with their so-called individual human rights!)

The constitution has been thrown on the trash heep of history. The only document we had spelling out to the government that they were limited to a few things has been perverted, ignored, and twisted to mean anything, so it means nothing at all any more to those that hate your individual human rights. And that is 100% of your democrats and 99.9% of your republicans with the one notable exception of Mr. Ron Paul from Texas. And the other republicans hate him even more than the democrats! That should tell you something, right there!

If everyone in your own party and the other guys as well are all of another philosophy, that is to say that individual rights matter not, that the group is the only thing that matters, and that individual human beings don't matter at all and can/must be sacrificed for the good off the many, but you have 1 guy who wants individual human rights to be the supreme law of the land (as long as you have harmed no others) and who wants freedom to choose your own medicine, food, instead of a giant monster governmental agency that must dispense your food and drugs, well, those other democrats and republicans are going to do everything in their power to eliminate his threat to their power base.

 

You guys even hear a word of this or understand or care? I have been listening and talking and pleading and asking to get folks to wake up but I see from most of you that you are going to vote for tyranny again this year. Obama or Romney? Which brand do we like best? Good luck with that, and may my family, and yours as well, be protected somehow from your decisions to vote for tyranny again this election.

 

Good luck King and may justice come back to our land, if it ever was here.

May we all find the path to love and peace...

Edited January 17, 2012 by Bisharoo

[peanutbutter]

People should watch the Kolonic case first.

 

That was the order they were heard in front of the court. Both cases discussed this 8-7-4 stuff.

 

Some of the very good questions were asked in that first case. Then even more very good questions were asked n King.

 

The judges were already thinking about all the BS before King even started.

[bobandtorey]

Jeff Feiger says he will stand up for us when no one else will. Ha Ha Ha!

Sorry to hijack this thread but I know this is all related to how our judges respond to us and our courts and elected and non-elected officials treat us!

 

Don't count on your democrats and republicans saving us, they are the ones leading the charge of this police state, ever watching and menacing, always moving their control of the masses forward, ever forward, to what end?

Is there any question any more by anyone what the goal of the 2 parties is? Total and complete subjugation of all individuals, whether they have harmed any others or not!

 

People are still debating which brand of tyranny should be unleashed next upon us by debating over the Romneys and Obamas and Bushs and Clintons who are all the same but have convinced most people that they are so different. Same philosophy among all of them.

 

Philosophy is what drives a persons actions, and they all have he same philosophy. The end justifies the means. It is quite OK and even desirable to sacrifice some, or many, individuals who you disagree with for the betterment, in your mind, of the group. (Darn those pesky individuals with their so-called individual human rights!)

 

The constitution has been thrown on the trash heep of history. The only document we had spelling out to the government that they were limited to a few things has been perverted, ignored, and twisted to mean anything,

 

so it means nothing at all any more to those that hate your individual human rights. And that is 100% of your democrats and 99.9% of your republicans with the one notable exception of Mr. Ron Paul from Texas. And the other republicans hate him even more than the democrats! That should tell you something, right there!

 

If everyone in your own party and the other guys as well are all of another philosophy, that is to say that individual rights matter not, that the group is the only thing that matters, and that individual human beings don't matter at all and can/must be sacrificed for the good off the many, but you have

 

1 guy who wants individual human rights to be the supreme law of the land (as long as you have harmed no others) and who wants freedom to choose your own medicine, food, instead of a giant monster governmental agency that must dispense your food and drugs, well, those other democrats and republicans are going to do everything in their power to eliminate his threat to their power base.

 

You guys even hear a word of this or understand or care? I have been listening and talking and pleading and asking to get folks to wake up but I see from most of you that you are going to vote for tyranny again this year. Obama or Romney? Which brand do we like best? Good luck with that, and may my family, and yours as well, be protected somehow from your decisions to vote for tyranny again this election.

 

Good luck King and may justice come back to our land, if it ever was here.

May we all find the path to love and peace...

 

i agree

and good luck to the both of you we all know what the Act say's even the A.G knows thats why he is fighting so hard to get the Law changed

[ozzrokk]

It does appear that the supreme court justices are looking in the right direction BUT it also appeared that the appeals court justices were looking in the right direction on the CA case and then ruled otherwise. Just so you know Tim these supreme court cases will probably have zero impact on transfers at all.

[Kingpinn]

http://argus-press.com/news/news_local/article_63d26112-4376-11e1-8d32-0019bb2963f4.html

[Timmahh]

i seen nothing in the appeals court cases that show they truely cared about what the law actually said. I would think only 2 of the CoA justices even read the ACT to an understanding level. the Supreme Court on the other had, Appears to have a Firm Grasp of the Act, and what it states, and how the Citizens of Mi have it understood.

[Medcare]

So we are waiting on a decision from the Supreme Court which could come any day now (for these two cases) correct?

[Medcare]

Do you think that the Supreme Court would clarify the law much more then just for these two cases? If they have ever practiced it before then this would be a good time to get it done for as others on this thread have said, "The judges sound like they understand the law very well".

[bobandtorey]

So we are waiting on a decision from the Supreme Court which could come any day now (for these two cases) correct?

 

 

i would not count on that

good luck Larry

Edited January 26, 2012 by bobandtorey

[thanks2]

So we are waiting on a decision from the Supreme Court which could come any day now (for these two cases) correct?

They usually take 6-8 months. Could be longer, might be shorter. The do what ever they wish.

[thanks2]

Do you think that the Supreme Court would clarify the law much more then just for these two cases? If they have ever practiced it before then this would be a good time to get it done for as others on this thread have said, "The judges sound like they understand the law very well".

There could be a lot that comes from these two cases. The biggest thing will be do you have to follow section 4 to use section 8.

[peanutbutter]

There could be a lot that comes from these two cases. The biggest thing will be do you have to follow section 4 to use section 8.

 

I believe the question, that was asked on the ballot, has saved section 8.

 

Because the voters were directly asked about unlicensed patients, it is shown that at least one element of section four is not required to be in compliance with section 8.

 

Without the wording on the ballot, it would have much harder to argue in our favor.

 

As it is, the judges asked how to determine which parts of four apply and which do not. Where is the method of this procedure in any law? Or in the MMMA itself?

 

Obviously some parts of four don't apply .. now to determine the extent of which parts of four are not required for a section eight defense.

 

An interesting point is that "locked enclosed facility" only applies to section four. IF it's locked up, no arrest or prosecution. That requirement disappears when it's time for section 8. It is not required for "case SHALL be dismissed."

[Timmahh]

i fully believe the SC will uphold the act, keeping 8 as a seperate Imunity or protection then 4. as it was written, proposed on the ballot, and passed by the People.

[TajMahal]

Sure hope yer right T!!!

 

Mornin