Some Stuff On Sec. 8 But Also Some Other Stuff And Some Bickering, Off Topic Stuff And Some Name Calling-sprinkled With A Pinch Of Tangential Opinions

[Dr. Bob]

The correct analysis from the legal opinions I've heard is that by not using the registry process, you are not getting additional protections over what you get if you do register. I actually think that was mentioned in the McQueen case (review the video) in a similar context. When there is no hard and fast regulation, the courts look for analogies. The OBVIOUS one here when dealing with the question of how long a doctor recommendation is good for in a section 8 defense is to look at how long that recommendation is good for if you go through the registry process.

 

The answer is 1 year currently.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

PB, just stop.

 

The question has been answered. Stop asking it again and again.

 

You are trying to cloud the issue to the point someone is going to do something stupid and spend some time in jail.

 

Get certified, go through the registry process, use your registry connected caregiver or grow it yourself (safe, level 1)

Get certified (or a doctor on record meeting both requirements of the certification condition/benifit), keep that certification on you, update it in whatever time period the registration is good for, and fight your case out against the unlimited legal resources of the state in court (the test case, level 2)

Do what you suggest yourself, and let us watch what happens to you. We'll write and send snacks/books. Jail is boring (you are going to the slam, level 3)

 

You want to keep promoting the idea that a registration is good for a lifetime, you do it. But don't ask others, especially those that don't keep up like some of us do, to put themselves at a level 3 risk.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 22, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

The correct analysis from the legal opinions I've heard is that by not using the registry process, you are not getting additional protections over what you get if you do register. I actually think that was mentioned in the McQueen case (review the video) in a similar context. When there is no hard and fast regulation, the courts look for analogies. The OBVIOUS one here when dealing with the question of how long a doctor recommendation is good for in a section 8 defense is to look at how long that recommendation is good for if you go through the registry process.

 

The answer is 1 year currently.

 

Dr. Bob

 

The case in the McQueen has been heard by a COA that legislates from the bench.

 

Something that this SC seems to frown upon.

 

So far, I see your opinion for the one year limit.

Edited July 23, 2012 by peanutbutter

[SFC]

Just keep in mind folks, PB has ALWAYS been level 3! Follow his words and advice with that in mind. I am not judging, just telling it like it is. For the record I was definitely level 3, or I guess 4 prior to this law too.

[peanutbutter]

Just keep in mind folks, PB has ALWAYS been level 3! Follow his words and advice with that in mind. I am not judging, just telling it like it is. For the record I was definitely level 3, or I guess 4 prior to this law too.

 

There are risks in being a patient or caregiver.

 

The lowest level of risk is for the patient that doesn't grow at all. Provided they only have a small amount. A carded patient with only a few grams has the least amount of risk within the context of the state still getting used to the law. Federal and state authorities seem content to leave such a patient alone.

 

There is STILL risk for that patient.

 

Higher risk is involved when you start to grow. Consider Bob and Torey. 21 unrooted cuttings .. That arrest would not take place today. Yet the courts are determined to trash them out.

 

Each level of activity carries its own amount of risk. The more you do the higher the risk.

 

And each person must determine the level of risk they will take upon themselves.

 

Informed decisions is what these kinds of discussions are about.

 

What is acceptable today, may be declared illegal tomorrow. And anything about cannabis is against federal law.

 

On the flip side, some things that seem illegal today, may be declared legal tomorrow.

Edited July 23, 2012 by peanutbutter

[SFC]

That is the most rational post I have seen from you in ages man lol, someone hack your account?

[MiDelServ]

Didnt the MSC state the Act should be understood in a non professional language set, so that Any man can easily interpret it?

Edited July 23, 2012 by MiDelServ

[MiDelServ]

yes pb, just stop making sense.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MiDelServ

[Restorium2]

Couldn't let us get along now could you?

[CaveatLector]

 

The Majority failure issue's are not the Intelligent ones like PB, who is making the Rational, Proper statements with a full unbiased understanding of our Law, much like the MSC. The Failure is in not being part of the good old boy crew.

 

CAVEAT, your a Wanter. YOU WANT To be part of the good old boy crew, but your still a pup pissing on the porch. But you get an A for Effort, Keep it up Sport, you'll make it never.

 

 

sometimes the Masters need to come down so the ameba can catch up to the higher level of thought.

 

You are = you're, not your. But I'll give you an A for effort.

 

You're a cainette bootlicker. You think that isn't obvious? You with your fewer than 10 posts and supposed grasp on all of the issues here...everything you've posted here has been in an effort to push a commerical agenda. Even your (notice the proper use of the word "your") name is designed to seek business.

 

From what I hear you're the one that jojo calls "stumpy" as a nickname. From what I know about you you're not a gimp so to what is the "stump" part making reference? I would suggest you take your stump back to jojo's porch.

[peanutbutter]

Hummm .. while the insults may be fun, they don't seem to function well.

 

If folks talk long enough they will prove you right or wrong ..

[MiDelServ]

Again, the entire "DEAL" if you will with the Michigan MMM Act that sets it apart from pretty much all other Acts in the Other States, are as follows:

 

1. Michigan, in its early Wisdom, Made it's constitution as such, as to always allow the Citizens a Direct Path to the Law Books, by the initiation of a People's Initititive. And while that on it's own is not unique, what is unique is the Way the Michigan Peoples Initiative is held in the constitution. An issue that has been poked at a few times in our State's history, and every time, the State Supreme Court has upheld the Initiative as put forth by the People of the State, to be one of the most powerful doctrines of this States Law.

 

2. The MMM Act is a People's Initiative.

 

pretty much sums it up.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MiDelServ

[MiDelServ]

So why is that so Hard for People to understand?

 

The MSC in the Combined ruling of Kolanak and King, went well beyond the normal in its appendix to clearly say, This is a Peoples Initiative, and It WILL Be respected.

 

The matter of the intiative is not in question here.

 

The fight is that it is a PEOPLE INITIATIVE, and they KNOW they can not mess with it, unless YOU THE PEOPLE allow them to.

 

While Fed law, Legislative, and Judicial Law all have their place, in the State of Michigan, As per our State Constitution, No law shall garner more reverance than the Law of it's Peoples.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MiDelServ

[Restorium2]

So why is that so Hard for People to understand?

 

The MSC in the Combined ruling of Kolanak and King, went well beyond the normal in its appendix to clearly say, This is a Peoples Initiative, and It WILL Be respected.

 

The matter of the intiative is not in question here.

 

The fight is that it is a PEOPLE INITIATIVE, and they KNOW they can not mess with it, unless YOU THE PEOPLE allow them to.

We don't have any trouble understanding that we have to wait and see what the courts say. In the mean time, we have Schuette running the show. Allow them to? We did that when we voted.

[MiDelServ]

There is much more to the ruling by the MSC, than just upholding a "Dirty Pot Law" as seen by those that dont like it.

The MSC has time and time again, upheld the will of the voters, When they Speak Out by Initiative.

 

And if one truely believes a Citizens duty stops at their vote, then yes, you would be correct in saying you must wait to be given what was already gave.

 

If this state as a People wants to make things work, it can. But the People should NOT trust it's Government, (especialy this one currently inplace, with excpetion to a handfull) to Preside over something as precious as the Vote of the Common Man, when it does not much care for the Vote nor the Common Man, to take care in providing proper and dutiful respect to the Law given to them by the very People they are conspiring over.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MiDelServ

[Restorium2]

There is much more to the ruling by the MSC, than just upholding a "Dirty Pot Law" as seen by those that dont like it.

The MSC has time and time again, upheld the will of the voters, When they Speak Out by Initiative.

 

And if one truely believes a Citizens duty stops at their vote, then yes, you would be correct in saying you must wait to be given what was already gave.

 

If this state as a People wants to make things work, it can. But the People should NOT trust it's Government, (especialy this one currently inplace, with excpetion to a handfull) to Preside over something as precious as the Vote of the Common Man, when it does not much care for the Will of the People, nor the People for that matter, to take care in providing proper and dutiful respect to the Law given to them by the very people they are conspiring over.

That's just what an excellent attorney told me. And he has been right since 12-08.

[SFC]

Never fails does it? We start finding common ground and in comes a bomb thrower. Sounds just like Jojo himself.

[CaveatLector]

Never fails does it? We start finding common ground and in comes a bomb thrower. Sounds just like Jojo himself.

I'm fairly certain it is jojo. It smells the same anyway...

[Restorium2]

Sounds like he's winding up for..wait for it... a protest. Because we are allowing them to mess with our law, and, specifically, his farm market/dispensary.

[Dr. Bob]

It is pretty clear this delivery service guy has his own spin on the law. And how folks should see it. The courts are deciding the issue for us, and right now I would rather understand what their interpretation of the act is than understand what a delivery service want it to be. We still have some rather loose cannons popping in here to disrupt discussions, but the ignore button is easy to use and make the conversation better.

 

Dr. Bob

[MiDelServ]

Well Jo Jo must speak much Truth many dont like to understand.

 

 

Ignorace is only as out of reach as your willingness to be Educated.

 

If you choose to dwell in ignorance, that is your choice, but don't expect the humans to swine with the pigs while the Revell in their ignorance.

[CaveatLector]

Pigs now instead of sheep, Tim?

[Highlander]

Highlander my point was that the appeals court have gotten nearly if not all MMJ situations in the past and the SC had to set them straight.

 

Look at my earlier post. We've had those two SC decisions. (1. Don't need to satisfy Sec 4 to use Sec 8) (2. Dr. Rec after MMMA passed but before "medical use") And there was a third. It was in Koleneck (sp?) and I don't feel like looking it up, but it was along the lines of "(3)used and lost Sec 8 defense in pre-trial and can't use section 8 again at trial"

 

That's it. Three rulings.

 

1 was a reversal of the COA

2. Affirmed COA

3. Affirmed COA

 

So far COA was right 2/3 of the time.

 

So what math did you use to come up with "SC said COA got it wrong more than right?"

[ozzrokk]

Look at my earlier post. We've had those two SC decisions. (1. Don't need to satisfy Sec 4 to use Sec 8) (2. Dr. Rec after MMMA passed but before "medical use") And there was a third. It was in Koleneck (sp?) and I don't feel like looking it up, but it was along the lines of "(3)used and lost Sec 8 defense in pre-trial and can't use section 8 again at trial"

 

That's it. Three rulings.

 

1 was a reversal of the COA

2. Affirmed COA

3. Affirmed COA

 

So far COA was right 2/3 of the time.

 

So what math did you use to come up with "SC said COA got it wrong more than right?"

 

Well you are wrong on 3. You only lose it at trial to a jury if there is no question of fact. You do not automatically loose a chance to use sec. 8 in front of a jury if you present it to judge. The COA said once you try with judge it is over and that is incorrect and the SC told them so. In fact the SC said first you must present it to the judge and if the judge does not dismiss then you can take to jury if there is a question of fact.

 

My math is fine thank you,

[Highlander]

Well you are wrong on 3. You only lose it at trial to a jury if there is no question of fact. You do not automatically loose a chance to use sec. 8 in front of a jury if you present it to judge. The COA said once you try with judge it is over and that is incorrect and the SC told them so. In fact the SC said first you must present it to the judge and if the judge does not dismiss then you can take to jury if there is a question of fact.

 

My math is fine thank you,

 

 

Ok my smug donkey stands corrected:

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.

 

We have three SC decisions:

 

1. Don’t need to satisfy Section 4 to assert Section 8. Reversal of COA opinion we hated. YAY!

2. Must have Dr. rec. after MMMA effective but before “medical use” Reaffirmed COA ruling we didn’t like BOOO!

3. Can be denied Section 8 defense at trial if failed to establish Dr. cert at pre-trial. Reaffirmed COA ruling we hated. BOOO!

 

Ok the SC ruled twice against the COA and once with. And in those three rulings, we got one positive ruling and two bad.

Point is, the folks on the bench aren’t tripping over their robes trying to make life easier for cannabis patients.