Jump to content

P V Kolanek - Supreme Ct. Oral Arguments - Jan. 12, 2012


Eric L. VanDussen
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can watch the People v Kolanek oral arguments in the Supreme Court at: http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=3824 &

 

The Michigan Supreme Court hears oral arguments in this case regarding whether a legitimate medical marijuana patient can assert the affirmative defense provisions of Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act when he did not obtain a written recommendation from his doctor prior to his arrest for possession of marijuana.

 

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/01-12/142695-142712/Index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes thanks for the video and post. I watched both today and it seemed to me they are more on our side then we may think. I'll be rewatching it here shortly in case I may have missed something but from the questions they where asking it seemed to me they do not stand behind Mr. Bills insane thinking on how the act protects us. They seemed to be understanding the act as we do and the folks that voted for the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed they want 4 timed to 8 BY section 7 which it can not be tied as it's 2 separate laws. You can not CHEERY pick 3 part of 4 to apply to 8 and just leave one out like the ag wants to and a couple of those judges key'd on that rather bluntly. We voted in 2 laws and yes there is a huge wall between the 2 and i hope they rule that way. 4 has limits and gets ya the free pass. 8 gets ya to jail THEN ya get the free pass but this section HAS NO LIMITS. I can grow more then 4 allows as I can claim section 8 protection as long as i can prove medical use up to what needs to treat. The Ag wants 7 to tie them together which can not be done. If tied and you cherry pick 4 and just leave out the haveing card part then you destroy section 8 completely as you have to have a rec FIRST to fall under 8. EXCEPT section 8 is clear on being separate. It say very clearly a patient not a registered patient BUT PATIENT. huge differences there.

This is BLACK AND WHITE PERIOD.............

And this did not slip past those judges. They are bound to rule on law only period. Black and white and whats on that paper and they see it as clearly as we do. Oh I think Mr.Bill will not be happy in the least bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched this....who picked Ambrose to argue this? My god the poor guy appeared "scared shitless" he couldn't even speak without stumbling over his words in what appeared to be nervousness.

 

He did not seem to have thought over any possible questions beforehand...really had no lucid response to the questioning.

 

I wished they could have found someone a bit more "quick on his feet" than Ambrose.

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...