Jump to content

Things May Be Turning.

ozzrokk

Recommended Posts

ozzrokk Advanced Member

ozzrokk

Posted
Posted

Well it may appear that some judges are coming around. Although it was not dismissed yet it is moving forward.

 

News article

 

A Livingston County Circuit Court judge denied the prosecutor's motion to preclude four people from mentioning medical marijuana at their upcoming trial.

 

Judge Michael P. Hatty also denied the defense's motion Monday to dismiss the felony charges lodged against four people in connection with raids on the now-defunct Marshall Alternatives medical marijuana dispensary in Handy Township.

 

Hatty said the four defendants are not entitled to immunity under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. However, the judge did grant the defense's request for hearings on whether entrapment was used by police and the government as well as whether the defendants can use the affirmative defense.

 

Those hearings are scheduled for May 18 and May 23, respectively.

 

Marshall Alternatives owners Christi Marshall, 39, and Alan Dale Marshall, 39, along with employee Stephanie Lynn Baxter, 30, were charged with delivering marijuana for allegedly selling the drug to an undercover narcotics officer who posed as a card-carrying medical marijuana patient in February and May 2011.

 

April Sundie Smith, 44, also is charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver in connection to the Marshall Alternatives raids.

 

Assistant Prosecutor William Vailliencourt argued none of the four defendants are connected through the state's caregiver registry to provide marijuana for medicinal purposes to the person receiving the marijuana. The person receiving it was an undercover officer.

 

Vailliencourt also argued state law does not permit patient-to-patient sales of marijuana. Therefore, he said, the defendants "cannot assert a medical marijuana" defense.

 

Allowing that defense at trial, Vailliencourt argued, would "convert it to a show trial where it's about medical marijuana and not about guilt or innocence."

 

"It's undisputed we're talking about the sale of marijuana," he added.

 

Defense attorney Matt Newburg countered that there is "no statute for the sale of marijuana." The state's health code, he said, addresses "delivery," not sales, which the defense did not concede occurred in the Marshall Alternatives case.

Vailliencourt said the "sale of marijuana has never been legal" in Michigan because it requires delivery, which is illegal.

 

Newburg argued the undercover officer entrapped the defendants by using a fraudulent driver's license and medical marijuana patient identification card to make the purchase of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

 

Newburg said the defendants had no way — other than the medical marijuana card presented to them — to determine if the person holding the card had it legitimately because current law "prohibits anyone from checking except law enforcement." The defendants, he argued, would have assumed the presumed patient presenting the registry card "must, by definition, be really sick."

 

Newburg also argued that the state contributed to that entrapment when it included with the defendants' approved medical marijuana patient or caregiver cards a sheet of paper that outlines the state law.

 

"The card for these defendants

 

is bulletproof," defense attorney Mary Chartier said. "... They have blanket immunity from arrest and prosecution as long as it's for medical marijuana."

 

Chartier said Marshall Alternates was a "legal business" that took "every step" necessary to run a legal business, including consulting with a labor attorney and expert in medical marijuana law. Chartier noted that the state's attorney general has held seminars to help law enforcement understand the MMMA, but no one is teaching the patients or caregivers on how to comply with the law.

 

"If the government doesn't understand, how are we supposed to hold the defendants responsible for understanding it?" she asked.

 

Vailliencourt countered: "The fact someone is brazen about their conduct is not a defense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

Well it may appear that some judges are coming around. Although it was not dismissed yet it is moving forward.

 

News article

 

A Livingston County Circuit Court judge denied the prosecutor's motion to preclude four people from mentioning medical marijuana at their upcoming trial.

 

Judge Michael P. Hatty also denied the defense's motion Monday to dismiss the felony charges lodged against four people in connection with raids on the now-defunct Marshall Alternatives medical marijuana dispensary in Handy Township.

 

Hatty said the four defendants are not entitled to immunity under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. However, the judge did grant the defense's request for hearings on whether entrapment was used by police and the government as well as whether the defendants can use the affirmative defense.

 

Those hearings are scheduled for May 18 and May 23, respectively.

 

Marshall Alternatives owners Christi Marshall, 39, and Alan Dale Marshall, 39, along with employee Stephanie Lynn Baxter, 30, were charged with delivering marijuana for allegedly selling the drug to an undercover narcotics officer who posed as a card-carrying medical marijuana patient in February and May 2011.

 

April Sundie Smith, 44, also is charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver in connection to the Marshall Alternatives raids.

 

Assistant Prosecutor William Vailliencourt argued none of the four defendants are connected through the state's caregiver registry to provide marijuana for medicinal purposes to the person receiving the marijuana. The person receiving it was an undercover officer.

 

Vailliencourt also argued state law does not permit patient-to-patient sales of marijuana. Therefore, he said, the defendants "cannot assert a medical marijuana" defense.

 

Allowing that defense at trial, Vailliencourt argued, would "convert it to a show trial where it's about medical marijuana and not about guilt or innocence."

 

"It's undisputed we're talking about the sale of marijuana," he added.

 

Defense attorney Matt Newburg countered that there is "no statute for the sale of marijuana." The state's health code, he said, addresses "delivery," not sales, which the defense did not concede occurred in the Marshall Alternatives case.

Vailliencourt said the "sale of marijuana has never been legal" in Michigan because it requires delivery, which is illegal.

 

Newburg argued the undercover officer entrapped the defendants by using a fraudulent driver's license and medical marijuana patient identification card to make the purchase of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

 

Newburg said the defendants had no way — other than the medical marijuana card presented to them — to determine if the person holding the card had it legitimately because current law "prohibits anyone from checking except law enforcement." The defendants, he argued, would have assumed the presumed patient presenting the registry card "must, by definition, be really sick."

 

Newburg also argued that the state contributed to that entrapment when it included with the defendants' approved medical marijuana patient or caregiver cards a sheet of paper that outlines the state law.

 

"The card for these defendants

 

is bulletproof," defense attorney Mary Chartier said. "... They have blanket immunity from arrest and prosecution as long as it's for medical marijuana."

 

Chartier said Marshall Alternates was a "legal business" that took "every step" necessary to run a legal business, including consulting with a labor attorney and expert in medical marijuana law. Chartier noted that the state's attorney general has held seminars to help law enforcement understand the MMMA, but no one is teaching the patients or caregivers on how to comply with the law.

 

"If the government doesn't understand, how are we supposed to hold the defendants responsible for understanding it?" she asked.

 

Vailliencourt countered: "The fact someone is brazen about their conduct is not a defense."

 

i think they have a long and hard road ahead of them we should all be their in support of them at the court house if you can

Link to comment
Share on other sites
purklize Advanced Member

purklize

Posted
Posted

Marshall Alternatives owners Christi Marshall, 39, and Alan Dale Marshall, 39, along with employee Stephanie Lynn Baxter, 30, were charged with delivering marijuana for allegedly selling the drug to an undercover narcotics officer who posed as a card-carrying medical marijuana patient in February and May 2011.

 

THE MMMA LEGALIZED DELIVERY!!!

 

Vailliencourt said the "sale of marijuana has never been legal" in Michigan because it requires delivery, which is illegal.

 

NO IT'S NOT!

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Defense attorney Matt Newburg countered that there is "no statute for the sale of marijuana." The state's health code, he said, addresses "delivery," not sales, which the defense did not concede occurred in the Marshall Alternatives case.

 

THANK YOU!

 

I am really sick of this bs, it is in the plain language of the law. The McQueen Court of Appeals ruling is the single worst court ruling I've seen in my life. Never before have I seen judges deliberately break the law. This is why all the judges need to be removed from office, and all decisions on the meaning of the law decided by juries. This is just insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Croppled1 Advanced Member

Croppled1

Posted
Posted

Livingston Is pretty conservative so this is hopeful . They are receiving treatment many before them have not found in other Judges Courts within the County where the mention of medical marihuana was denied .

 

I heard one Judge went into a fit and cleared her Court from the mere mention of medical marihauna from a question a witness was told they must answer . I am sure some on this site were there and remember the event more clearly and can explain more precisely what occurred .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenbuddha Advanced Member

greenbuddha

Posted
Posted

isent it a feloney to manufacture or provide false info to obtain a card....that really scares me... they made a card and paperwork.....sounds really funky

 

 

And what other government agency HELPED the narcotics officer GET the illegal card????

 

Did they really obtain it all on their own???

 

Those charged should let it go to trial. Once the jury hears that an ILLEGAL card was used to obtain the MMJ, they will more than likely be found innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fat Freddy Advanced Member

Fat Freddy

Posted
Posted

I order a pizza and it is delivered, If i go to a dispensary it is a transfer, simple enough?

Forgery is a crime ask the cia about counterfeit currency, ss cards. etc And if the state assisted in creating the cards wouldn't that become a criminal conspiracy?

Seems to me the will of the people takes a back seat to government and politics. I thought law enforcement was there to enforce the law not break it at will.

 

 

Just some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozzrokk Advanced Member

ozzrokk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Bad news:

 

This online version was INCORRECT. The actual print version subheadline of this story says something like: "Judge bars defendants from using the term "medical marijuana" in trial."

 

 

But does it say that in the story that is what I want to know. The simple facts of what happened is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozzrokk Advanced Member

ozzrokk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Same story in print, so the headline and content were in direct contradiction.

 

 

As in many articles. The media likes to put their own little spin on a story. Biased and totally unbalanced. The media is worthless and lost all of its credibility a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Murph Advanced Member

Murph

Posted
Posted

Ozzrokk is right --

 

unless you were in Court, and then have the actual Court decision in your hand (and know how to properly read "legalese" make sure you know what is being said as sometimes it is hard to decipher) --- commenting on mis-quotes, lies, and deception accomplishes nothing -- do not let the media mis-lead you.

 

If its in the newspaper it is probably falsely "spinned" the way the Author wants to, so get it from good people like MK or BB or others who are on YOUR side.

 

 

The News papers are generally NOT on your side--- do not act on what is in the newspaper .

 

 

If you want to get involved you must be critical. Your must not believe because someone said something. Ask questions --- educate yourself and most important DO YOUR RESEARCH !

 

 

 

This is a marathon..... not a sprint.

 

It will be an ongoing battle where vigilance is the name of the game. We will be fighting a long time and every time they try to trick us We need to oppose them every inch and then vote those who violate or amend the act OUT at election time.

 

Listen to your people, not those they lied about Marijuana from the start.

 

Tell them (LEO): .....FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU, FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME....do not let them fool you more (as they will keep trying to say the sky is falling -- you know better).

 

It is best to simply ignore their nonsense. LEO has lied from jump-street and so has some Judges..... come armed with FACTS and EVIDENCE and correct their misrepresentations every time you have a chance (but be polite and agreeable -- just make it clear they are wrong).

 

M10

As in many articles. The media likes to put their own little spin on a story. Biased and totally unbalanced. The media is worthless and lost all of its credibility a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CleanD Advanced Member

CleanD

Posted
Posted

As in many articles. The media likes to put their own little spin on a story. Biased and totally unbalanced. The media is worthless and lost all of its credibility a long time ago.

 

 

question for y'all... are there any 'real' cases where the popo actually used 'real' cards... that they forged or got from the state? i'd just like to know for my own safety...?

 

seen fake cards at the dips before... like people just trying to get in & buy... but do the narcs actually carry fake cards too??? or is it them just saying that they are legal patients, fake paperwork, no cert mail/mo... and then people just assume they are legit?

 

 

 

badges? we don't need no stinking badges... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozzrokk Advanced Member

ozzrokk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

question for y'all... are there any 'real' cases where the popo actually used 'real' cards... that they forged or got from the state? i'd just like to know for my own safety...?

 

seen fake cards at the dips before... like people just trying to get in & buy... but do the narcs actually carry fake cards too??? or is it them just saying that they are legal patients, fake paperwork, no cert mail/mo... and then people just assume they are legit?

 

 

 

badges? we don't need no stinking badges... ;-)

 

 

Leo HAS used full on fake cards before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...