Supremes Reverse Coa On King & Kolonek

[Dr. Bob]

I didn't. I simply responded to his request. He can do whatever he wants and endanger anyone he wishes to. Many of us have put out the correct information, so it is what it is.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

It is just one of those things Mike. Chad, CL and MANY others have made it clear his grasp of reality when it comes to making these statements is going to get folks in trouble as they are, for the most part, completely wrong and exceptionally bad advice. Yet they keep coming out here and elsewhere. So I'll just hit ignore next to his name, as I have with several others, and go on to concentrating on the serious issues on this board.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Right. Dr. Bob gets a little nasty, but I'm a big boy. I do not see at all enough name calling to justify shutting down this spirited discourse. I will make recommendations from time to time; for instance to suggest to boneheads that they feel free to soak their heads. Ya think that is against the forum rules?

Edited June 3, 2012 by GregS

[cristinew]

Back to the subject hey?

[Dr. Bob]

Exactly. Back to the subject and valid information.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

...As I was saying, sales are defensible under the AD. It may be a material fact for a jury to determine, but when that issue is finally heard and affirmed the doors blow off.

[cristinew]

doors blow off.?? what does that mean?

[GregS]

"doors blow off.?? what does that mean?"

 

Then the medical use of marijuana will be freely and unquestionably permitted among patients and caregivers. Before that prosecutors and judges will continue to be professionally embarrassed to the point that they will be marginalized and shown for the fools that they are, and with luck have their careers diminished. Juries have just a few material facts to determine. Medically necessary use will become so ubiquitous as to be a total waste for police to try to enforce against.

Edited June 3, 2012 by GregS

[thatoneartist]

WOW. CONGRATS TO THEM!!!! way to fight. I should have to. Plead guilty and did 2 months....and now I have 6 felonies on my record. I wish I can get them off my record now somehow. Every court date I had they mentioned theses cases as an example. I wish they could use this example now. My case was about how the grow room was not locked and enclosed other then the locked and enclosed house. and a roommate was in the house thats card had expired a few months prior.

Edited June 3, 2012 by thatoneartist

[GregS]

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

11 Sec. 8. (a) [Except as provided in section 7, EXCEPT IF HE OR SHE

VIOLATES SECTION 4(K), SECTION 7(B), OR SECTION 7(D),] a

 

Passed House bill 4851

 

what does this mean? does any one know i cannot find the sections they quote of r they the sections of the original law

 

What this means is that we must go to war to see that the passed bill, and every other, does not get signed by the governor. It is far from over.

 

Just kidding, sort of. While these diminish several of our protections under section 4, they are not enforceable under section 8. Perhaps the legislature will now see the futility in continuing to legislate away the will of the people. If not they will be shown for fools.

Edited June 3, 2012 by GregS

[+Malamute]

These bills do not need a signature of the governor when they pass.

 

Well likely. It is a hearty discussion to have when looking at the constitutional requirements.

 

 

edit: HB 4834 and 51

Edited June 3, 2012 by Malamute

[GregS]

Ta ta bbbbbbob

[+Annnie]

WOW. CONGRATS TO THEM!!!! way to fight. I should have to. Plead guilty and did 2 months....and now I have 6 felonies on my record. I wish I can get them off my record now somehow. Every court date I had they mentioned theses cases as an example. I wish they could use this example now. My case was about how the grow room was not locked and enclosed other then the locked and enclosed house. and a roommate was in the house thats card had expired a few months prior.

 

Please contact Peanut Butter he is compiling a list of ppl whose decisions may be able to be reversed because of this decision..

[peanutbutter]

 

 

Please contact Peanut Butter he is compiling a list of ppl whose decisions may be able to be reversed because of this decision..

 

Woah!! I suggested that would be a good idea.

[bobandtorey]

WOW. CONGRATS TO THEM!!!! way to fight. I should have to. Plead guilty and did 2 months....and now I have 6 felonies on my record. I wish I can get them off my record now somehow. Every court date I had they mentioned theses cases as an example. I wish they could use this example now. My case was about how the grow room was not locked and enclosed other then the locked and enclosed house. and a roommate was in the house thats card had expired a few months prior.

WOW! am so sorry i was wondering what happen to you i would call your Lawyer right away i hope he can help you more now to get them to reviser your plea

[+Annnie]

Woah!! I suggested that would be a good idea.

 

sorry.. from what i hear i have gone over the edge.. LOL

[bobandtorey]

Please contact Peanut Butter he is compiling a list of ppl whose decisions may be able to be reversed because of this decision..

do people really think that? i sure hope so

[Kevin McAllister]

I don'twant to beat a dead horse, but the Supreme Court's decision actually reflects the same animosity towards the MMMA, as the Court of Appeals exhibits. Having appeared before, and having studied the Michigan Supreme Court, I see the ruling as additional evidence that the higher courts will not allow full implementation of the MMMA, and now this is abundantly clear, because unless the Supreme Court changes its mind on the structure of and procedure for raising the affirmative defense, then the MMMA will never be fully implemented. The structure and method set-forth by the Supreme Court is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the MMMA as set-forth in section 2, and it is contrary to the plain languge of section 8.

[Dr. Bob]

These bills do not need a signature of the governor when they pass.

 

Well likely. It is a hearty discussion to have when looking at the constitutional requirements.

 

 

edit: HB 4834 and 51

 

Really, no signature? I thought all bills required a signature (and potential veto). I know that if more than 65% there is that nasty immediate effect issue.

 

Dr. Bob

[Petyr]

I was thinking about this and the thing is how would they override a veto. They already had to get 3/4, if the governor was allowed to veto, would they then have to get 7/8th to override? Probably a separation of power thing.

[+Malamute]

Really, no signature? I thought all bills required a signature (and potential veto). I know that if more than 65% there is that nasty immediate effect issue.

 

Dr. Bob

 

It's a weird legal glitch in the law.

 

Mostly just theoretical stuff.

 

A governor cannot veto an initiative.

[Dr. Bob]

It's a weird legal glitch in the law.

 

Mostly just theoretical stuff.

 

A governor cannot veto an initiative.

 

Even an amendment to an initiative? Seems like there is a deficiency of the checks and balances we were all taught in civics class.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

Even an amendment to an initiative? Seems like there is a deficiency of the checks and balances we were all taught in civics class.

 

Dr. Bob

Haha, that isn't true Mal. The proposed bills aren't an initiative. They can be vetoed. If I'm wrong I'll eat my shoe.

 

Imagine this scenario. The people pass an initiative. A democratically controlled house and senate want to pass issue x into law. They know that a repub. governor won't sign issue x into law. They further know they don't have the votes to override a veto. So, they underhandedly pass issue x as an amendment to an unrelated initiative in order to pass a law not subject to veto. See the problem?

[Fat Freddy]

Could be time to make some legal money

 

Quality dog kennel prices are about to soar

 

I have had mine up for some time now, was just waiting for this ruling to be handed down... YAY

Here are the links to PDFs of the Supreme Court decisions overturning the Court of Appeals in People v King and People v Kolanek: http://courts.michig...ions/142695.pdf

 

The court held, in part, that:

 

We granted leave in these cases to consider substantive and procedural aspects of

the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8, MCL 333.26428, of the

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).1 Given the plain language of the statute,

we hold that a defendant asserting the § 8 affirmative defense is not required to establish

the requirements of § 4, MCL 333.26424, which pertains to broader immunity granted by

the act. The Court of Appeals erred by reaching the opposite conclusion in People v

King,2 and we therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment in King.

Further, to establish the affirmative defense under § 8, we hold that a defendant

must show under § 8(a)(1) that the physician’s statement was made after enactment of the

MMMA but before commission of the offense. The Court of Appeals reached this

conclusion in People v Kolanek,3 and we affirm the Court of Appeals in this regard.

However, the Court of Appeals also held that defendant could reassert the affirmative

defense at trial, despite his failure at the evidentiary hearing to establish the existence of a

timely physician’s statement under § 8(a)(1). This was error, and we reverse that portion

of the Court of Appeals’ holding.

Thank you so very much for the link.

[peanutbutter]

 

 

Even an amendment to an initiative? Seems like there is a deficiency of the checks and balances we were all taught in civics class.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Well .. they need a 2/3 vote to over ride a veto. They already have a 3/4 vote. Way more than needed.