Jump to content

Mi Supreme Court -- Will It Accept Dispensary Appeal?


Recommended Posts

Folks, just finished a business meeting with Matt Newburg Esq. in Lansing. Asked whether he feels the MI Supreme Court will accept the appeal regarding the case of Compassionate Apothecary that resulted in most dispos closing. Mr. Newburg is lead counsel for the defendants; says he believes the MI Supreme Court -will- take the appeal on the basis it's the biggest, furthest-reaching legal case in Michigan in a long time. I am mildly encouraged but my enthusiasm is tempered. Accepting hearing the case is one thing. It is far from certain how the Supreme Court Justices will rule. The Feds, cops, Courts, and wider public are not favorable toward cannabis, even medical use of marijuana. Keep safe and legal out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why appeal this case? I'm going with 'cuz citizens of Michigan in 2008 voted in a law but qualifying medical patients are unjustly denied access to legal medicine due to police, prosecutors, and Courts' united efforts to deny said Michigan citizens their due process. Evidently the ACLU agrees. Anybody got an Amen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this this case even being appealed?

 

makes no sense this case shouldnt be appealed and neither should the ACLU's case.

 

There is a simple reason to appeal the McQueen case, it is about dispensaries. It put them out of business and if they can overturn it on appeal they are back in business.

 

The ACLU case is different and not up to the appeal stage. This is the case where the ACLU sued Livonia, Birmingham and Bloomfield because they created zoning ordinances that basically outlaw the MMMA by stating that property in their towns can not be used for anything that violates Fed law. This sort of action by the city pretty much required a challenge. If left to stand, cities all over the state could one by one gut the act. In Wayne, the ACLU lost w/ the Judge saying Fed law trumps State. In Birmingham, the judge refused to rule claiming the plaintiffs, the Lott family, had not been charged with a crime and therefore did not have standing. Next up is Birmingham. The filings of the city's lawyers challenge the entire validity of the MMMA given Fed law. If the city wins, remember this Oakland Cty, then there is a real problem. If the ACLU loses on Bloomfield and then loses on appeal, the MMMA is gone.

 

I have questioned the attorneys as to what sort of precedent exists re other states. Well it seems they have gone down this road in CA, but the local and state courts supported the MMJ advocates. The losing anti's even went into Fed Court and lost on appeal in the 9th Circuit Court. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the anti's appeal. The result is the 9th Circuit Court's decision applies only to their area, i.e. California. Michigan is under the 6th Fed. Circuit Court

Edited by semicaregiver
Link to post
Share on other sites
Next up is Birmingham. The filings of the city's lawyers challenge the entire validity of the MMMA given Fed law. If the city wins, remember this Oakland Cty, then there is a real problem. If the ACLU loses on Bloomfield and then loses on appeal, the MMMA is gone.

 

You meant Bloomfield, right? And didn't the judge rule saying since no one was arrested, no ruling could be given, therefore the ordinance was allowed to stand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a simple reason to appeal the McQueen case, it is about dispensaries. It put them out of business and if they can overturn it on appeal they are back in business.

 

The ACLU case is different and not up to the appeal stage. This is the case where the ACLU sued Livonia, Birmingham and Bloomfield because they created zoning ordinances that basically outlaw the MMMA by stating that property in their towns can not be used for anything that violates Fed law. This sort of action by the city pretty much required a challenge. If left to stand, cities all over the state could one by one gut the act. In Wayne, the ACLU lost w/ the Judge saying Fed law trumps State. In Birmingham, the judge refused to rule claiming the plaintiffs, the Lott family, had not been charged with a crime and therefore did not have standing. Next up is Birmingham. The filings of the city's lawyers challenge the entire validity of the MMMA given Fed law. If the city wins, remember this Oakland Cty, then there is a real problem. If the ACLU loses on Bloomfield and then loses on appeal, the MMMA is gone.

 

I have questioned the attorneys as to what sort of precedent exists re other states. Well it seems they have gone down this road in CA, but the local and state courts supported the MMJ advocates. The losing anti's even went into Fed Court and lost on appeal in the 9th Circuit Court. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the anti's appeal. The result is the 9th Circuit Court's decision applies only to their area, i.e. California. Michigan is under the 6th Fed. Circuit Court

 

 

i think this is why we pulled are case out of the suprem court because the whole MMMA was at stake

Link to post
Share on other sites

You meant Bloomfield, right? And didn't the judge rule saying since no one was arrested, no ruling could be given, therefore the ordinance was allowed to stand?

 

 

Yes, Bloomfield, sorry about that, too many B's. And yes, no arrest therefore no standing to challenge the zoning law, therefore no ruling and the zoning law stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a simple reason to appeal the McQueen case, it is about dispensaries. It put them out of business and if they can overturn it on appeal they are back in business.

 

The ACLU case is different and not up to the appeal stage. This is the case where the ACLU sued Livonia, Birmingham and Bloomfield because they created zoning ordinances that basically outlaw the MMMA by stating that property in their towns can not be used for anything that violates Fed law. This sort of action by the city pretty much required a challenge. If left to stand, cities all over the state could one by one gut the act. In Wayne, the ACLU lost w/ the Judge saying Fed law trumps State. In Birmingham, the judge refused to rule claiming the plaintiffs, the Lott family, had not been charged with a crime and therefore did not have standing. Next up is Birmingham. The filings of the city's lawyers challenge the entire validity of the MMMA given Fed law. If the city wins, remember this Oakland Cty, then there is a real problem. If the ACLU loses on Bloomfield and then loses on appeal, the MMMA is gone.

 

I have questioned the attorneys as to what sort of precedent exists re other states. Well it seems they have gone down this road in CA, but the local and state courts supported the MMJ advocates. The losing anti's even went into Fed Court and lost on appeal in the 9th Circuit Court. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the anti's appeal. The result is the 9th Circuit Court's decision applies only to their area, i.e. California. Michigan is under the 6th Fed. Circuit Court

 

 

Appealing the Mcqueen case will not help this business or any "dispensaries" because we all know the court of appeals and the Supreme Court have been bought buy Schuette and his thuggery. Just look at the nonsensical coa opinions that have been issued. And if the ACLU appeals their case and loses they just screwed us all. Thanks ACLU

Its best to wait for other cases to come thru pipeline and make their way through the courts by then hopefully we'll have Schuette out of office and different judges on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Link to post
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...