Jump to content

Cased Dismissed..great News..

mayorherb
 Share

Recommended Posts

mayorherb Advanced Member

+mayorherb

Posted
Posted

Just recieved a call from Annie (clare County Compassion Club) her case was dismissed..We will hear more latter from her..Just like we been saying all along..Follow the law as written..She was /did and explained it to the courts same way..And the judge seen it the same way..So i guess we are not so wrong after all.The law is pretty clearly wrtten... Congrats Annie..We all new you wasnt wrong..Congrats to you..Love ya like a sister..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayorherb Advanced Member

+mayorherb

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just like we been saying..Follow the law as it is written. This proves what we been saying all along..Dont go by what the Cops tell ya, or anyone else tells ya what the law is..Read it, reread it..All of it..And go by that..If you happen to be arrested..NOT GUILTY...Fight the fight instead of bowing down to them..Just because you are arrested, doesnt mean you are/was guilty..Just means the cops most likely didnt rread the law them selfs..Or just ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Bob Advanced Member

Dr. Bob

Posted
Posted

Actually, the case dismissal didn't really have anything to do with the MMMA issues, it had to do with the quality of the evidence. A good tool for patients charged with being 'over', but those that claim this showed their particular interpretation of the act is the correct one, or that it is a 'plain wording' issue really didn't understand the reasons for why it was dismissed or the issues involved.

 

Either way, it was a good win for Annie, and a good win for patients. I'm happy for both. Keep your head up Annie, and we should all learn from the scare you had.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlander Advanced Member

Highlander

Posted
Posted

Actually, the case dismissal didn't really have anything to do with the MMMA issues, it had to do with the quality of the evidence. A good tool for patients charged with being 'over', but those that claim this showed their particular interpretation of the act is the correct one, or that it is a 'plain wording' issue really didn't understand the reasons for why it was dismissed or the issues involved.

 

Either way, it was a good win for Annie, and a good win for patients. I'm happy for both. Keep your head up Annie, and we should all learn from the scare you had.

 

Dr. Bob

 

It's funny. We could look at a case where the cops conducted an illegal search and found 200 plants (Mike and Shy ring a bell?) but the warrant got tossed on constitutional issues, and we'd have people claiming the prescedent has been set that it's OK to have 200 plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Bob Advanced Member

Dr. Bob

Posted
Posted

The central issue of the case dismissal, from what I've heard, was this. When someone is charged with a crime and their freedom depends on a dried, usable weight of marijuana, you don't 'estimate' that which can be 'measured'. For example, you don't have a bag full of trimmings, root balls, dirt, stalks, wet flowers, oil, etc that weighs x pounds and say 'there must be more than 2.5 oz (or whatever the limit is) there, your honor'. You dry it, trim it and WEIGHT the actual dry, usable product and show there was more than 2.5 oz. THEN and only then, do the other issues more central to the act come in to play.

 

The implication here is that the prosecution must not only actually weight the dry, usable product, they have to prove what is dry, what is usable, how properly it was trimmed, etc. I don't think that was a fight the prosecutors were prepared to make, and Annie is not the 'criminal' they wanted to devote that kind of reasources to. Win for Annie. Win for patients. Win for justice.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Bob Advanced Member

Dr. Bob

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's funny. We could look at a case where the cops conducted an illegal search and found 200 plants (Mike and Shy ring a bell?) but the warrant got tossed on constitutional issues, and we'd have people claiming the prescedent has been set that it's OK to have 200 plants.

 

Yes, exactly. You have to actually understand the issue the dismissal was based on. THIS IS HOW PEOPLE ARE HURT BY LISTENING TO OPIONS about something. Folks will get in trouble if they think, based on something they read in a forum, that 200 plants are ok. Or that 'everything we said was right' and 'Annie's dismissal proves it'.

 

Either KNOW what you are talking about, or be mature and smart enough to listen to those that do.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited by Dr. Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

The central issue of the case dismissal, from what I've heard, was this. When someone is charged with a crime and their freedom depends on a dried, usable weight of marijuana, you don't 'estimate' that which can be 'measured'. For example, you don't have a bag full of trimmings, root balls, dirt, stalks, wet flowers, oil, etc that weighs x pounds and say 'there must be more than 2.5 oz (or whatever the limit is) there, your honor'. You dry it, trim it and WEIGHT the actual dry, usable product and show there was more than 2.5 oz. THEN and only then, do the other issues more central to the act come in to play.

 

The implication here is that the prosecution must not only actually weight the dry, usable product, they have to prove what is dry, what is usable, how properly it was trimmed, etc. I don't think that was a fight the prosecutors were prepared to make, and Annie is not the 'criminal' they wanted to devote that kind of reasources to. Win for Annie. Win for patients. Win for justice.

 

Dr. Bob

 

They also ignored more than a gallon of topical oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlander Advanced Member

Highlander

Posted
Posted (edited)

The central issue of the case dismissal, from what I've heard, was this. When someone is charged with a crime and their freedom depends on a dried, usable weight of marijuana, you don't 'estimate' that which can be 'measured'. For example, you don't have a bag full of trimmings, root balls, dirt, stalks, wet flowers, oil, etc that weighs x pounds and say 'there must be more than 2.5 oz (or whatever the limit is) there, your honor'. You dry it, trim it and WEIGHT the actual dry, usable product and show there was more than 2.5 oz. THEN and only then, do the other issues more central to the act come in to play.

 

The implication here is that the prosecution must not only actually weight the dry, usable product, they have to prove what is dry, what is usable, how properly it was trimmed, etc. I don't think that was a fight the prosecutors were prepared to make, and Annie is not the 'criminal' they wanted to devote that kind of reasources to. Win for Annie. Win for patients. Win for justice.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I have actually had dreams about sitting on the witness stand and sifting through a pile of hacked-down plants….”this is an incidental seed….this is another incidental seed….(toss them in the ‘don’t count’ pile)……this is a flower (goes into the ‘counts’ pile)…..here is a STALK (goes in the ‘stalks don’t count pile’); “here are a few stems….errr..I mean STALKS…STALKS go in the ‘don’t count pile.’”

 

When it comes down to brass tacks, the courts must be able to recognize a witness as a qualified “cannabis sorter,” or else it will be hard to prosecute people for limits violations.

 

“If you grew up with your hoes and your zappatos, you’d be celebratin' the minute, you was havin’ dough…”

 

Seemed a fitting environment to celebrate Dr. Bob’s 666th post ( on Mal's site - but posted here for traffic/attention. Roll and Rock on Dr. Bob!!)

 

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregS Advanced Member

GregS

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nice work Annie.

 

Highlander. Please take some time to read up on the exclusionary rule. There is a lot about it on line. It determines how evidence must be obtained in order to be presented. You will find that evidence discovered during an illegal search, e.g., without a required warrant, is sometimes not permitted to be used in court. It is a constutional principle. In no way does an incidence where it is enforced do the crimes that were committed become legal going forward.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

I have actually had dreams about sitting on the witness stand and sifting through a pile of hacked-down plants….”this is an incidental seed….this is another incidental seed….(toss them in the ‘don’t count’ pile)……this is a flower (goes into the ‘counts’ pile)…..here is a STALK (goes in the ‘stalks don’t count pile’); “here are a few stems….errr..I mean STALKS…STALKS go in the ‘don’t count pile.’”

 

Exactly why the lab tech said "That isn't my job." The lab tech could not say how much weight was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

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