Not A Press Release, But Important. Mcqueen Case (Compassionate Apothecary) To Be Heard Early Oct.

[Timmahh]

I seen a post on Facebook from Brandon saying the State Supreme Court has said it will be hearing his Case the 1st week of October, 3-4 weeks from now.

 

So this is the 2nd case to make the Supreme Court. Like the 1st it, it has Plenty of Implications.

 

So, until the MSC hears the case in about a month, I think a Much larger understanding would be garnered in understanding the Reasoning as to WHY the Supreme Court gave the Ruling it did in the combined King/Kolanek case. We all Know what the Ruling was, and have had more than a couple 'discussions' on its implications, which at this point, we can see were Very well suited to keeping the MMM Act as it stands.

 

 

So lets discuss this.

Answer this question and provide as much solid support for your position.

 

Which did the Michigan Supreme Court Uphold?

 

1. The MMM Act as it was passed by 63% of the Voters?

 

OR

 

2. The Michigan Constitution that Outlines the Rules of Engagement when the State's- Governmental, Judicial, Legislative, and Legal Branches Have to Follow a Law Passed by the People's Initiative?

 

 

This is a VERY Important question to Understand and Answer, and the Answer ofcourse, has Much more value to understanding the Laws in the State of Michigan, thus how to best Protect ourselves as Citizens of the State, and Participators in the MMM Act.

[Timmahh]

I guess no one want to try to tackle the Real Questions? Should I be surprised?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I believe that I heard that the Republicans are so hopping mad at the MM initiative that they were considering changing the rules for any future initiatives - i.e. make it harder to put initiatives on the ballot. They apparently don't like democracy all that much.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

In response to your questions:

 

I think the SC upheld the MM act and in so doing they also upheld the constitutional right of the citizens to enact laws through the ballot initiative process. They appear to have chastised the Appeals Court for reading more into the Act than was really there. Posting a list of dos and don'ts at the end of their opinion makes it appear that they were taking the Appeals Court back to school for some remedial education.

Edited September 10, 2012 by amish4ganja

[t-pain]

obviously the 2nd, because the MSC didnt allow kolanek retroactive immunity.

[phaquetoo]

I say #1

 

Peace

Jim

[Celliach]

#2 Remember Kolanek was still found guilty.

[Highlander]

obviously the 2nd, because the MSC didnt allow kolanek retroactive immunity.

 

Well the attorney really flubbed that up. The justices were walking down that path, and he didn't close the deal.

 

In order to a law to be retroactive, one of three things MUST happen:

 

1. The law itself says it shall be applied retroactively. (MMMA does not do this unfortunately);

2. The law codies a new right; or

3. The law provide a legal remedy/corrects a bad law.

 

So when the attorney was given the big chance to explain to the court why the law should be applied retroactively, did he say "The MMMA codifies a new right. When the people take the initiative to pass a new law, any benefit in the new could could not be construed as anything BUT a new right. Free people exert their rights." Nope he didn't say anything like that. Did he say "The MMMA does provide a legal remedy. We had a MM law in Michigan for two years and the legislature could have passed it for good. They didn't take any action. Instead, the people initiated the legal remedy" (This was actually the basis for a District Court Judge ruling in favor of someone in this same position but very early on in the program). But no, the attorney didn't say any of that.

 

He said that because marijuana provides a "remedy" to patients, it meets #3. The court tried to point out to him that there needed to be a legal remedy - not a medical one. Courts need good arguments put in front of them in order to make good rulings. The court can't make the argument for the parties involved.

 

Poorly-tried cases = bad case law.

 

This could have been bigger than MM. We could have gotten a ruling that a public initiative provides new rights. Rights can't be taken away.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Highlander

[t-pain]

actually, msc said he had right to appeal that.

 

the law doesnt state the doctor has to make an application first. only that a doctor reviewed his history.

so if he appeals, he should win.

 

kind of stupid they didnt rule on it while it was in front of them. thats how it works?

[Timmahh]

With a bit more than a week until the MSC hears the Compassionate Apothecary case, the McQueen/Taylor case, I though we should get this discussion going. If we can figure out Which is the most probably Law the Michigan Supreme Court is Upholding, then is it not reasonable to assume, a winning strategy for a case, is a stratagy that aligns itself to the MSC methods of Ruling on the MMM Prosecutions and Persecutions?

 

I may not be a Lawyer, or a "Professional", but if one can not see the link between What the MSC is upholding, and how that equates to winning cases in all the lower courts, including the MSC, if it even gets there, Then we have no real desire or hope to make this Law that We and the Voters of Michigan intended for it, and have said it is, as a New State Law.

 

Is the MSC upholding the MMM Act, or are they Upholding the MMM Act because it is a People's Initiative? Or perhaps is it maybe a bit of both?

It's not a light duty question, and the correct answer has heavy duty consequences. What do you all think about what I believe is a monumental question, and please share your reasoning to why you were lead to that beleif.

[t-pain]

your question is kind of confusing. could you rephrase it?

 

the MMMA is law. its in the books.

is your question relating to how peoples initiatives are understood and interpereted legally?

 

is your question : are they following the INTENT of the PI, or are they comparing this law to all other laws within the books?

 

to which the answer is they are comparing it to all other laws. the intent of the MMMA was to completely give patients and cgs a full legal defense as long as they met those requirements. what the MSC ruled was that that a) everyone has a right to that defense but B) that defense can be cheated around if its not done in a prelim hearing , or if the AG/PA and the judge are being muffin makers.

[Timmahh]

I would say I'm am asking which law holds more weight with the MSC, when making rulings on the MMJ cases the accept to hear?

[t-pain]

its up to them what cases they hear.

 

is your question reguarding to how many cases got prosecuted before KING was decided?

if so, i think if people appealed their cases (if they can, post conviction??), that they would indeed hear those.

 

i guess i still dont get the question.

[Celliach]

Timmah, what is the job of the supreme court? I think if you answer that question correctly, you'll have the answer to your question.

[Timmahh]

I Know my answer, Its not My asnwer I am wishing people to Consider.

 

 

What Laws are they Using to uphold the Act?

[GregS]

It is not either/or. The suggested answers are redudant.

[Timmahh]

so i guess we do nothing. atleast we have a plan.

[JohnnyC]

So I'm pretty sure this was ruled on today....any news?

[Timmahh]

no info yet on the case, will be a bit...

 

The only logical reason the MSC upheld the Act on the words it is given, which is exactly what they did in the Kolanek/King ruling, is by following the manner in which the Law as Passed and the Body that Ratified it to Law. Fighting the State on the Grounds of the People's Initiative is the bigger fight. If we don't focus on the correct fight, we'll continue spending well needed time on the little battles hoping to one day win one or two and make a change.

People, We already Made that Change in '08, and THEY (house repubs and some dems) DON'T LIKE IT.

 

If We Citizens in the State of Michigan, did not Have the Ability to bring this type of redress to the our State, we would not be here discussing how to defend it now that we already passed it...

By focusing on the Fact a People's Initiative passed this law, we will be fighting on and defending the very principle that gave us this Law. I present the point, any other fight not designed with this intent in mind means we can expect 20 yrs of little battles hoping for the money to run out from those that oppose legalization on any level, including medical reasons.

[knucklehead bob]

Can "The People" , via another initiative , Amend this new Law ? You know , beef it up , add conditions and such . Since the State obviously insists on dragging their feet .

Edited October 4, 2012 by knucklehead bob

[Timmahh]

yes siree we Can. Michigan has a Unique Law on a P.I. The work is getting the proper wording, and enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

Things like Term Limits, and Personal Accountability are sure bipartisan pieces of legislature that can reach across the masses, regardless of party.

[SFC]

You can count on us facing challenge after challenge for the next ten years if not twenty regardless how the supremes rule on McQueen. Unless of course the feds fall in line (see doubtful). It sucks, I know but it is the truth.

[knucklehead bob]

Can "The People" , via another initiative , Amend this new Law ? You know , beef it up , add conditions and such . Since the State obviously insists on dragging their feet .

yes siree we Can. Michigan has a Unique Law on a P.I. The work is getting the proper wording, and enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

Things like Term Limits, and Personal Accountability are sure bipartisan pieces of legislature that can reach across the masses, regardless of party.

How many people are on the committee writing and proposing these Amendments ? I mean except Jones & Schuette . Edited October 4, 2012 by knucklehead bob

[SFC]

There is no committee per se Bob. There was a "workgroup" in the house for a very short while, but other than that it is just basically separate factions throwing bombs.