Judge Dismisses Felony Delivery Charges P2p Transfer Legal?

[purple pimpernel]

litigated---

 

objection your honor--

 

my bad

[cristinew]

Money was not exchanged , sell to an undercover cop.. things will not be the same, better have big bucks to fight it, this is old but good news ,, now how many have been busted since this case?? many

[Herb Cannabis]

Many prosecutor offices have an appeals dept that works on appeals full time. Appeals are not expensive for the prosecutor.

 

It may not cost much in dollars and cents, but, prosecutors reputations do matter and that is a cost that must be calculated. I don't believe that it looks good on a prosecutors record and it won't win him any elections either. Common sense must begin somewhere, and the prosecutors are going to have to re-evaluate their positions on cannabis in general. Peace is coming to a town near you soon once these prosecutors no longer have free rein to do as they will with MMJ patients and caregivers.

 

A great debt of gratitude is owed to the Michigan Supreme Court for setting all of this in motion with the King case. Thank you Mr. King for your sacrifices and your sticktuitiveness in your case.

 

I could be wrong, this is only my opinion and in no way represents fact, just how I'm thinking is all.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Herb Cannabis

[JohnnyC]

here is another from isabella county also

 

http://www.knowmarijuana.com/2011/01/10/michigan-medical-marijuana-patient-to-patient-transfers-legal-according-to-judge/

[JohnnyC]

and every one keeps saying "money exchange" what if your situation is you never discussed a price on phone or in person and they just left some money sitting on the council of a car and you took it- does that mean the money was exchanged or you stole some money?

[JohnnyC]

Another issue of mine is everyone keeps referring p2p transfer the the Mcqueen case- i beg to differ- i understand why they could be pissed about a situation where all there doing is taxing 20 percent of everyone else money that is being exchanged that doesn't really mean a p2p transfer. McQueen case is probably a big deal because of the fact of them strictly saying 20 percent off sales" not really doing any exchanges for p2p. so im lost

[GanjaWarrior]

This is a circuit court case. It doesn't make it "obvious" that it's legal.

 

 

ya cause your take on the law would be so much more relevant than the judges....now lets add her take on the law with that of the supreme court....makes it plain as fn day dont it....oh ya your stuck on some agenda you cant see plain as day sorry.

[CaveatLector]

ya cause your take on the law would be so much more relevant than the judges....now lets add her take on the law with that of the supreme court....makes it plain as fn day dont it....oh ya your stuck on some agenda you cant see plain as day sorry.

I like how you use a ruling from a single circuit court judge and somehow come to the conclusion that something is "obvious." I could plug in "COA judge" to your argument, instead of circuit court, and make the same argument that YOUR "take on the law" is flawed. This is a perfect example of the flawed logic you are using. We'll call that "logic" cainesque for shorthand, okay?

 

Your agenda is glaring. It is similar to the cainesque agenda. Come up with a model of distribution that creates a free-for-all so that you can tranfer to as many people as possible in order to maximize profit.

 

Now, back to MY agenda. My agenda is to keep people safe. I fully understand that this isn't good for you or your desired profit level. Cry me a river.

 

Do I desire a liberal interpretation of the law? Yes. Why? Because that will keep more people safe. However, I live in the here and now and have to deal with the law the way it is currently being applied. In that context, and in an effort to keep people safe, I will push for people to operate under what we know for sure. Not what YOU wish for or HOPE is the case. HOPE won't protect people.

 

So, now your agenda and mine are both out in the open. Go sell your wares in a cainesque way and when, and if, you are prosecuted you can cry to the presiding judge that, "some judge in Barry county agrees with me and therefore the state of the law is obvious."

[SFC]

Perfect example of someone not understanding how the courts work yet believing what someone completely disconnected from reality wants them to believe... I think Bob penned that.. Faith based logic...

[jamieuke]

Of course the next question is: will this be appealed? Because the COA has not been kind.

 

But one more good decision, and lots of credit goes to Matt Newburg.

 

Yes it is being appealed, and the AG's office is directly involved. And, I agree, Newburg has done a great job on this case and many others.

 

On the last Planet Green Trees episode, Newburg was the guest. Michael Komorn and Matt Newburg get into a very interesting discussion on Nicholson, Koon and McQueen.

[cristinew]

At one point ganja said i was a dispensary, comes up with the strangest things

[jamieuke]

 

 

 

ya cause your take on the law would be so much more relevant than the judges....now lets add her take on the law with that of the supreme court....makes it plain as fn day dont it....oh ya your stuck on some agenda you cant see plain as day sorry.

 

The fact that this was a good ruling should be recognized and celebrated a little bit, but it has no binding effect anywhere else, unlike the COA ruling in McQueen- as many are trying to point out.

 

However, while it is true that the COA ruling is binding law across the state, there are some things not being discussed about McQueen, which was a significantly more narrow ruling than the AG and many prosecutors are treating it. Several prosecutors never saw it as something that should affect all dispensaries in one broad stroke.

 

It created, in essence, a defacto local option. In some areas, the hint of any questionable activity has led to aggression by some law enforcement and prosecutors, whereas in some areas, McQueen has very little effect.

 

On the last Planet Green Trees, during the discussion with Komorn and Newburg, Newburg explains some of the legal strategy and expectations of McQueen in tbe Supreme Court. I think most people will find that interview, in which Michael Komorn did a great job, not only very interesting, but very inspiring as well. In fact, one of the angles taken is nothing short of brilliant, in my opinion.

[JohnnyC]

OK lets get straight to it.. everyone knows if you get busted selling its delivery of marijuana felony charge. So when you see a registered patient is free from prosecution for medical use from transfers and delivery charges can't be pressed. Then all of a sudden its a "sales" charge last I checked the sale of marijuana isn't a charge unless its called delivery so the clear law states no prosecution for delivery or transfers. So clearly people are reading and following that. Too bad the cops and AG can rename the sale but not the charge. Lara is a fraud.

[cristinew]

Jonny c read the law understand it,, then you would not be in trouble like you are .. you are lost in the kush

 

cannabis is still illegal in michigan the act gives limited protections from arrest that's it NIOTHING MADE IT LEGAL

[JohnnyC]

Read law understand it..... What is there to understand. Apparently when anyaverage person reads that you can't be prosecuted for delivery if it's medical use then anyone is bound to transfer between cardholders or whatever. I know when people voted they initiated delivery and transfers free from prosecution that's why it's in there.

 

Your right I read this law as it states and I google patient to patient transfers and I see the 1st to pages are courts saying there legal. The only transfers I see being pushed as not legal are dispensarys. So I'm in trouble for interpreting a law that says medical use is free from prosecution including delivery.

 

Another bunch of bullchit is it says if you transfer to a non registered cardholder you can do 2years max and a fine. Even though it's a 4 year felony charge Named delivery so it doesn't state anything between card holders. Because commen sense says if your a cardholder and it's valid that is medical use.

 

L.A.R.A. Laws.are.really.adjustable

[jamieuke]

Jonny c read the law understand it,, then you would not be in trouble like you are .. you are lost in the kush

 

cannabis is still illegal in michigan the act gives limited protections from arrest that's it NIOTHING MADE IT LEGAL

 

 

I think what he is saying is that while delivery is illegal, sales never were before the COA ruling, with the exception of where sales is addressed in the MMMA.

 

There was never a reason for 'sales' to be included in the definition of 'medical use' because the exemption was not needed.

 

The Supreme Court is being asked, in part, to consider if the COA created a crime where one did not previously exist. Many people believe that the COA ruling lacked foundation and that they created legislation from the bench instead of properly interpreting the law.

 

 

 

 

[Hayduke]

and we shall see what we shall see.

 

but no crystal balls exist.... right, jamieuke?

[cristinew]

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest,

for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act

 

2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient,

 

Easy things to follow clearly stated in the act..

[cristinew]

delivery includes sales under Michigan csa has been that way for years

[Celliach]

Apparently when any average person reads that you can't be prosecuted for delivery if it's medical use then anyone is bound to transfer between cardholders or whatever. I know when people voted they initiated delivery and transfers free from prosecution that's why it's in there.

 

I'm wondering where in the law you read that.

[JohnnyC]

michigan.gov/mmp

 

(10) "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

 

Rule 333.127 Management of medical marihuana.

Rule 27. (1) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with the act

[JohnnyC]

I'm wondering where in the law you read that.

 

where i always read the law since 2009 there has been no changes on the michigan.gov/mmp website as far as im concerned there it is stated clearly.

[cristinew]

cultivation, how many plants any amount ?

 

possession how much any amount ,,?

 

delivery, transfer how much any amount again?

[cristinew]

accordance with the act ahhhhh yessssssss

[cristinew]

12 plants