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

[Eric L. VanDussen]

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

[kruztydj]

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.

[bobandtorey]

sorry wrong post

 

 

[Timmahh]

I agree Kruzty. The Justices (3 of them atleast, perhaps 4) are reading it as a black and white law, as it should be. They certainly seem to be on the side of what the Act actually says, and that is alot at this point in the game... I too will be re watching them.

[LongHairBri]

"camera" judges are WAY different than "behind closed doors" judges. Sorry, but watch and see

[FLOWERING ANNUALS]

Does anyone know when the supreme court will rule on these cases?

[peanutbutter]

Does anyone know when the supreme court will rule on these cases?

 

No one does. Whenever they are ready, they will release their decision.

 

One estimate was toward the end of summer.

[FLOWERING ANNUALS]

No one does. Whenever they are ready, they will release their decision.

 

One estimate was toward the end of summer.

aren't they given a time frame for when their decision is due?

[bobandtorey]

"camera" judges are WAY different than "behind closed doors" judges. Sorry, but watch and see

 

Yup or Yep

[solabeirtan]

"camera" judges are WAY different than "behind closed doors" judges. Sorry, but watch and see

kinda like BS ?

[peanutbutter]

aren't they given a time frame for when their decision is due?

 

Ummm .. who would enforce the rule?

 

I mean, would they rule themselves in contempt?

[FLOWERING ANNUALS]

Ummm .. who would enforce the rule?

 

I mean, would they rule themselves in contempt?

I hear ya! just thought maybe there were rules for that.thx Pb!

[peanutbutter]

See .. in this whole case they are talking about 8-7-4 ..

 

Then they go right into the King case where they continue to discuss 8-7-4.

[kruztydj]

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.

[BirdHunter]

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.